KTM-2014 proceedings v2 - monash.edu scarcity are accentuated with climate change where changes to...

Proceedings

Wednesday 21 and Thursday 22 May, 2014

Kathmandu, Nepal Monash University, with support from the Australian government, and in partnership with ICIMOD (International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development), is midway through a two‐year program aimed at encouraging a collaborative response to river basin management, given changes to climate, land use, energy demand, and demography influencing Himalayan‐sourced rivers. An emphasis of the Monash/ICIMOD program is the identification of mutual benefits (economic, social, and environmental) which would encourage collaboration across state and national boundaries in response to a coordinated approach to river basin management. This interdisciplinary approach focuses on knowledge management which is the systematic collection and transfer of information (including traditional wisdom) to inform policy and to develop a collaborative response among stakeholders. Following two workshops involving participants from most riparian states (Pakistan, Nepal, India, China, Bhutan and Bangladesh), three case study river basins were chosen for detailed evaluation: the Indus, the Teesta and the Koshi. The Koshi is also the subject of projects involving ICIMOD, Tribhuvan University/Peking University, and ANU/MAIRS. An objective of this current workshop is to align the activities of the Monash/ICIMOD project to complement those activities currently being undertaken by other agencies. This is seen as an opportunity to draw on a much wider interdisciplinary capability than would usually be available to a single project team. Participants were drawn from government and non‐government agencies from Nepal and India. They addressed the link between research and policy responsive to collaborative management of the Koshi River Basin.

Identification of mutal benefits for collaborative management of the Koshi River Basin

Summary of Presentations

Dr Paul McShane Monash University, Australia Introduction Our aim is to promote regional collaboration in South Asia river management based on identification of mutual benefits among riparian states responsive to impacts of climate change and human development on Himalayan‐sourced rivers. South Asian countries face challenges given the intersection of food production, energy, and demography influencing water availability. Issues of water scarcity are accentuated with climate change where changes to snow/ice melts and regional rainfall patterns will influence water availability. We use two main approaches to link research and policy responsive to sustainable water resource management. We develop user‐friendly integrated models to explore the consequences of alternative policy actions and of likely climate change scenarios on river basin systems. We apply knowledge management for co‐ordinating information exchange among agencies and stakeholders. The Koshi River Basin originates in Tibet and flows through Nepal to India. It is an important resource for Nepalese people supporting agriculture and community wellbeing. The Koshi basin is vulnerable to flooding including Glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs). These floods can have catastrophic impacts on local communities. The Koshi has also been identified as a source of hydropower with estimated capacity about half the total exploitable power for Nepal. Hydropower provides economic opportunities for Nepal particularly given rising demand for electricity from India. However, India also has a growing need for water and a current lack of water storage capacity in Nepal affects both water supply (particularly in the dry season) and power generation/economic development for Nepal. Dams can help with water storage and electricity generation, but they also have adverse impacts including adverse affects on ecosystem services, inundation of land used for agriculture and/or communities, and loss of water to downstream riparian states. Previous workshops had identified the following issues: valuing ecosystem services is not simple. Downstream effects are cumulative compared with upstream

effects.

payment for ecosystem services is inflexible and requires the establishment of markets with consistent

valuation and trading mechanisms.

looming water shortages (in South Asia) can be addressed through efficiency gains (in water distribution

systems).

Trans‐boundary management is affected by politics, culture and related trust issues.

Dr Arun Shrestha ICIMOD, Nepal River Basin Programme of ICIMOD: in support of reducing physical vulnerabilities and improving food and energy security. ICIMOD’s river basin program addresses the emerging challenge in South Asia of too much water in the wet season and too little water in the dry season. This has consequences for water‐related hazards and food, energy, and environmental security. ICIMOD’s goal is to improve integrated river basin management to reduce physical vulnerabilities and to improve food and energy security for mountain and downstream communities in the Hindu Kush Himalayan region while recognising upstream interests. Included among the ICIMOD program are studies on the Indus river basin (building resilience to climate impacts by improving understanding of climate change, glaciers, and water resources) and on the Koshi river basin. ICIMOD’s Koshi basin initiative: supports evidence‐based policy interventions through the development of knowledge on impact of

climatic and socioeconomic drivers

develop and test actionable and appropriate adaptation pilots and livelihood strategies

contribute to developing an enabling environment for policy and decision makers to create integrated,

innovative, equitable, inclusive, and effective responses.

The Koshi Basin program has five components: 1. Basin‐wide knowledge base of institutional, socio‐economic and biophysical context

2. climate and hydrological impacts of water availability and agriculture

3. water related hazards

4. gender inclusive and equitable adaptation

5. integrated responses through improved basin‐wide co‐operation and capacity building.

Modelling of climate change impacts on rainfall and temperature has commenced with regional forecasts presented. These models have been incorporated in hydrological models including predicted changes in stream flow (Dudh Koshi, Tama Koshi) 2041‐2050. The models suggest little change in total flow (2050) but decreased glacier melts and increased rainfall‐runoff. However, there is high uncertainty in the precipitation forcing for high altitudes and general uncertainty in climate projections.

Dr Shahriar Wahid ICIMOD, Nepal The Koshi Basin Program The Koshi Basin program aims to provide viable options for water resources management, given usage and climate change. This is a long‐term project continuing until 2024 in three phases. The first phase brings riparian states together to agree on management plans, the second phase develops the plan and the third phase implements the plan. Emerging hydropower development and continuing demand for water for agriculture intersect with changes to regional rainfall patterns and temperatures associated with climate change. Knowledge of climate change effects will also inform approaches to cope with, adapt to, or mitigate water related hazards, particularly floods (including glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs)). However, downscaling climate models for regional forecasting remains problematic because of the obvious influence of the Himalayas (including orographic effects). Climate change adaptation strategies will be influenced by the socio‐economic status of vulnerable communities. Responses (to climate change) will also be influenced by planning and policy including governance frameworks which oversee: water use and charges; early warning and risk management, infrastructure development; livelihood strategies, and gender issues. Women are disproportionately involved in water and firewood collection. Improving water governance in the Koshi river basin must address the following issues: no trilateral mechanism between the three countries (China, India, Nepal)

different priorities

different issues in the basin/different uses of water

different capacities (financial/human)

unclear how the costs of regional co‐operation will lead to mutual benefits.

There is very little information available for the headwaters of the Koshi or of groundwater more generally. There are 31 licences for hydropower in the Koshi Basin. Ten dams are in design stage including 3 or 4 reservoir design and 6 run of the river. Dr Udayan Mishra ICIMOD, Nepal Knowledge management and communication: creating and communicating knowledge for Koshi Basin program Effective and timely communication is the key to utilisation of research and effective communication and is pre‐requisite for policy impact (i.e. decision support). Knowledge management includes: 1. guidelines, lessons learned, and good practice documents

2. networks and communities of practice

3. knowledge flows in complex living systems.

Mechanisms for distributing knowledge include web‐based strategies, events, and media (including social media). Managing disasters (e.g. GLOFs) requires effective collaboration among agencies. District water plans don’t necessarily account for downstream or upstream issues. Who are the actors and how are they related? Some mapping has been done but much more information needed to evaluate information flow related to management and policy development. How do agencies cooperate? More is needed to encourage a collaborative approach to management of the Koshi. Dr Lance Heath ANU Climate Change Institute, Australia Working towards improving resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change in the Hindu Kush‐Himalayan (HKH) region (Nepal, China, Bangladesh, India and Australia) This work aims to use participatory approaches to identify the risks, vulnerabilities and opportunities arising from climate change impacts on small upstream communities in Nepal and India and downstream communities in Bangladesh. Here, activities relevant to Nepal and the Koshi river basin are summarised. Rural communities in Nepal are vulnerable to climate change impacts including floods and drought. Cost‐effective adaptive responses require a synthesis of available information including regional climate projections and aligning traditional wisdom with appropriate community actions. Studies in the Jhikhu Khola water shed, part of the Koshi river basin, combine biophysical and socioeconomic information to assess community vulnerability and capacity for effective adaptive responses. Engagement with local communities in Panchkhal through the Village Development Committees has focused on the development of a climate change adaptation toolkit. Importantly, the toolkit aligns to national and local adaptation plans. Professor Narendra Khanal Department of Geography, Tribhuvan University, Nepal and Research Centre for Integrated River Basin Management, Peking University, China Climate change adaptation through water resource management: comparative study between Yellow and Koshi River Basins The Yellow river basin in China and the Koshi River Basin in Nepal share challenges in: changes to hydrology through climate change

changes in water supply/demand given economic

development

a need for improved hydrological assessment given

extreme events (floods) and hydropower

development

a need for appropriate adaptation strategies

including integrated water resource management.

There are large differences in population density (Koshi low, Yellow high) and sediment low (Koshi moderate, Yellow extreme). Regional climate modelling is affected by the orographic influence of the Himalayas and uncertainty in Monsoonal circulation models. In general, changes in the duration of wet and dry seasons will influence vulnerability of communities including livelihoods traditionally dependent on agriculture. Climate change impacts in the Koshi basin also include the increased likelihood of glacial lake outburst floods that can have a catastrophic impact on exposed rural communities. Proposed infrastructure development in the Koshi basin including dams and irrigation schemes will also influence water availability to communities particularly during the dry season. Dr Jeremy Aarons Monash Sustainability Institute, and Caulfield School of Information Technology, Monash University, Australia Towards a knowledge management framework for the Koshi River Basin Knowledge management (KM) is a systematic approach to collecting, sharing and integrating knowledge to inform policy and support decision making. As such, 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. 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. 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. For the Koshi River Basin establishing a KM framework for benefit sharing involves three key components: Firstly, it incorporates Governance arrangements, including high‐level leadership and co‐ordination, regional co‐operation and an improved overarching legal and regulatory environment. Developing this involves undertaking an analysis of current governance arrangements, exploring the possibility of a basin‐wide governance system, and developing means for strengthening diplomatic relations between riparian states. Secondly, it includes data/information infrastructure, including a unified data system (knowledgebase), data sharing arrangements, targeted decision‐support and new integrated tools and technologies. Building this into the KM framework requires undertaking a data/information audit, establishing a basin‐wide data governance system and co‐ordination process between key stakeholders, and data integration into an accessible knowledgebase

Finally it includes a framework for stakeholder participation for developing integrated solutions. This will include involvement by primary decision‐makers (e.g. governments), key stakeholders (e.g. industry, NGOs, water user groups), multi‐disciplinary experts (social & physical science, engineering, economics, law) as well as local, traditional & community‐based participation. This requires: the establishment of formal co‐ordinating bodies and forums; informal networks and communities of practice; communication, education and capacity building; developing bottom‐up participatory processes for community involvement in policy and program development. Group discussion session: knowledge management for the Koshi River Basin. Facilitated by Dr Jeremy Aarons, Monash Sustainability Institute, and Caulfield School of Information Technology, Monash University, Australia This discussion session broadly explored a range of issues concerning the development of a Knowledge Management (KM) framework for the Koshi River Basin. The session began by recognising that attempting to develop a KM framework for integrated water resource management (IWRM) across the entire Koshi River Basin is too large and complex as an initial focus, and that we should begin at a smaller scale. The group discussed focusing on an example at a more manageable scale, which could also contribute to complementary programs such as the ICIMOD Koshi Basin Program (KBP) by adding value to current work and/or by addressing a specific gap or need. Building a KM framework based on a specific example results in a more targeted and tangible model that can be used to identify potential tools or interventions to support task improvement (i.e. more coordinated water resource management at the local scale). This approach can also be scaled up to cover wider aspects of the river basin, and could also serve as a template to be applied in the other case study contexts (Teesta & Indus) for comparative analysis. The initial suggestion was to focus on an example of dam construction or hydropower development, either real or hypothetical. A KM framework at that scale provides a conceptual model of the decision‐making space within which key decisions relating to infrastructure development and river basin management are made. This model provides a systemic approach to facilitating information exchange and cooperation amongst key players involved in such infrastructure development to help enable benefit sharing outcomes (e.g. identification of benefit sharing pathways and building benefit sharing approaches into project design). Developing such a KM framework involves: Identifying key actors involved in decisions on the development of new dams/hydropower infrastructure

Mapping relationships and interactions between the actors,

flows of information and levels of cooperation/collaboration

Identifying barriers: to exchange of information; to

collaboration between actors

Exploring links between transnational – national – regional –

local levels (knowledge flows, decision making capacity);

investigating where there are gaps or disconnects between

these levels, and identifying potential strategies for

addressing these gaps.

The discussion looked at how feasible it would be to undertake these tasks for a given example. We considered whether this should relate to a specific hydro/dam project within the Koshi Basin area or be more a general (hypothetical) account to apply in a general case. One suggestion was to focus on a real project such as the (highly controversial) proposed Koshi High Dam, or perhaps completed infrastructure such as the Koshi Barrage or the Gandak Irrigation Project (not in Koshi Basin). The general view was that none of the real project examples were suitable, but we could still explore the tasks involved in developing a KM framework. For identifying key actors in the Koshi Basin the group listed some of the main players involved in hydro/dam development in the Koshi Basin area, noting their key roles and the information resources they provide (usually on their website). This included Nepal government agencies such as: the Department of Electricity Development (DoED) in the Ministry of Energy, who issue licences and whose website includes information on the policy, legal and regulatory environment around benefit sharing; the Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA); and the Water and Energy Commission (WEC). It also included: construction and engineering consultants (e.g. SMEC who have been involved in the West Seti project); Industry Organisations (e.g. Independent Power Producers’ Association Nepal (IIPAN)and Nepal Micro Hydropower Development Association (NMHDA)); NGOs and community advocates; and international donors and funding agencies (e.g. World Bank, ADB, Australian Aid, DANIDA). In exploring the relationships and interactions between these actors the discussion focussed on some of the key processes involved in hydro/dam development that involve interaction between key agencies and stakeholders to inform decision making and influence the final outcome. These included formal assessment processes such as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Social Impact Assessment (SIA), and Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA). It also included other points of influence such as UN declaration ILO169 on Indigenous People’s Right, which has played a role in influencing the outcome of some dam/hydro construction proposals. These processes are also formal opportunities for community participation and input into the decision making process and incorporate knowledge exchange between the various levels of authority and decision making (i.e. between government level, key stakeholders and the local community). A number of issues for local engagement were discussed including the role of intermediaries such as community and civil society organisations and NGOs, who often act on behalf of local people. It was noted that evidence required for decisions comes in many different forms, is generally not freely shared, and can relate to many different sectors and levels. There is also the risk that data and information could be misinterpreted or misused, for example due to it being biased, incomplete or based on large uncertainties (which may not be made explicit by the data suppliers). Once data becomes available there is also the issue that interpretation of data can also be a source of bias. Finally, there is also the issue of political inference in the decision making process, which presents a further challenge to evidence‐based decision making. However, ultimately these political factors are beyond the scope of a KM approach, which is geared at supporting effective decision making but cannot guarantee that external factors do not take precedence over evidence‐based approaches.

Dr Terry Chan Monash Sustainability Institute, and Faculty of Science, Monash University, Australia Koshi River Basin: Sub‐model development Systemic modelling can be a useful tool to integrate biophysical and socio economic models which encapsulate river basin behaviour (in response to climate change and/or response to management/policy intervention). Bayesian networks are favoured as they incorporate uncertainty, link variables of interest, and can be developed probabilistically as information becomes available. This approach aligns well to the current ICIMOD Koshi Basin Program component: community level modelling of adaptation. This also builds on the ANU/MAIRS and Tribhuvan University study which is examining local adaptation at sub‐basin level (Panchkhal community). The first approach is to build conceptual models with stakeholder input. This approach captures available information and can serve to identify gaps in knowledge which in turn informs investigative needs. In particular: what does the community value in the system? What do they want to improve/preserve/protect?

what are the threats to this/these values? How does this threat occur?

What adaptation occurs to respond to changes? For example what interventions occur to manage

threats?

What other factors impact the values?

From the above, we can build conceptual diagrams which represent systems within the Koshi Basin.

Importantly, these conceptual diagrams reflect stakeholder input.

Bayesian networks for the Koshi River Basin Results of focus group discussions Thursday 21‐22 May 2014 Researchers with regional expertise in multiple disciplines as well as local field experience were involved in a facilitated group discussion around the Koshi River Basin and how on‐going work could add value to other current and past work in this basin. A useful focus for future work was determined to be development of a systems model of community adaptation under climate change, with reference to current Australian National University and Tribhuvan University on‐ground field work, and local sub‐basin water resource plans. Initial group brainstorming elicited what local communities value and want to improve, preserve and protect in the Koshi Basin; what the threats are to these values and how these threats occur; the adaptations and interventions which occur to respond to (manage) these threats/changes; and what other factors impact the values. From the shortlist of values, the central focus for community stakeholders was determined to be domestic water provision for the local community (see Table 1).

Two focus groups were then used to develop preliminary conceptual models (Figures 1 and 2) around the central "value", adding and connecting what were thought to be the main variables influencing that central value. For each of those secondary variables the main variables that influenced them were then added/connected, and so on outward, including cross linkages with existing variables as new variables were added. At each stage the other values, hazards/threats and management actions/adaptations previously brainstormed (Table 1) were considered. It was emphasized that models are simplifications of reality and there is no one right way to model such a complex system. The first conceptualisation (Figure 1) focused on social and governance aspects of water provision. The second conceptualisation (Figure 2) had one part of the network primarily concerned with the social and governance aspects connected to a more physically based sub‐network around water quantity and quality. Next steps were identified and discussed for iterative development of the conceptual models with the intent to convert them into functioning Bayesian network models.

Figure 1.

WaterProvision

Rainfall

Climate Change

GlobalWarming

CO2 Emissions

Mitigation

Technology

WaterManagement

Proximity ofWater Resource

Electricity

InfrastructureDevelopment

LocalInstitutions

Ownership

IncomeLevel

Education

Migration

Uses

Population

Groundwater Recharge/Runoff

Water SupplyRegularity

GenderEquity

Health

Nat Fed WaterIrrigation Group

Village DevelopmentCommittee

LAPA

NAPA

Access toWater

Research Learning Outcomes

WaterQuantity

Figure 2.

Water Provision

Water Users Group, FMIS,

Sedimentation

Education

WasteManagement

SocialStructure/Practice

WaterQuality

IncomeLevel

Access toWater

Availability

Quantity

RechargeGroundwater

Rainfall/Precipitation

Water Sources

Land use/cover

Provision PolicyPriority

ClimateChange

GreenhouseGases

Lifestyle,migration

Access toPower, SocialStrata

Population

Water Demand

HouseholdUse

Other Use:-School-Industry-Tourism

InstitutionalSetup

Line Agencies,Utility

SupplyManagement

Education levelEconomic level

Agriculture

Agricultural Practices, Methods

Livestock

Crop TypesCrop Cycle

Soil Types

ClimateVariability

Table 1. Group brainstorming for systemic understanding of community adaptation Values: What does the community value? What do they want to improve/preserve/protect?

Threats: What are the threats to this/these values?

Adaptations: What adaptation/interventions occur to respond/manage changes/threats?

Other factors: What other factors impact the values?

Water provision

Water quantity

Water quality

Gender equity (in water provision)

Education/schools

Access to water resource

Local institutions for NRM mgmt

Water management

Tourism (environmental water/flow)

Supply – regularity/reliability

Proximity to WR

Ownership of wells (officially needs a licence even on private land)

Infrastructure development (e.g. Roads v high on agenda, esp rural – important for trucking water in)

Village development

Electrification

Health

Income

Uses: Irrigation, industry, drinking, household needs, livestock, sanitation

A good crop (Pancchkal as “vegetable bowl” of Kathmandu)

Water scarcity/droughts

Increased demand (ID) from migration/pop’n increase

ID from change in lifestyle

ID from new uses, e.g. Biogas production at Hh level, new industries, e.g. Selling water to city

ID from multicropping, change in crop patterns, increasing cropping

Climate change ‐> change in rainfall pattern (e.g. Intensity, shift of monsoon, )

Encroachment of GM seeds

Use of chemical fertilizers, amount, new techniques, pesticides, poor knowledge/application

Lack of government extension services /capacity/manpower to manage above

Deep boring bec of ID and deeper water table (recharge issues?)

Contamination issues? (As, Fe?)

Rising price for water extraction

Money for improving/changing water source

New non‐engineered/designed rds

Trouble with pumps /electricity

Lack of local elections (last 15 years) ‐> poor institutional function, lack of local accountable authority

Allocation of funds given poor inst function

Poor governance at local level

Surface water reduction ‐> affects irrig esp

Periurban?

Small dams? (sometimes “Check dams” to control erosion in headwaters , but none here)

Drying of streams/surface sources (observed by locals last 20 years)

Landslides (heavy rainfall/CC, haphazard road construction)

Tanks/ rainwater harvesting

Overflow from harvest used for irrigation

Drip irrigation, other alt irrigation than free flow

Deep boring for drinking water (cost of extraction ‐> minimise times/period used)

Informal community governance/regulation, amount each Hh is allowed to collect and/or times allowed (not actual Water User Group, small comm)

Reduction in Hh livestock to available water

Storage

Migration to urban areas, remittances (low in this area – 10%?)

Community Forest User Group (official, last 20 years)

Water User Group (should be there? Overlap w CFUG)

Nat Fed Ed Wat Irrig Group? (Rep for Panch region?)

Innovative agric practices: e.g. Mosaic ploughing to conserve water, less water intensive crops (Current v water intensive veg), change cropping practice/patterns

Income

Culture? (Little variation in P case

Gender issues, responsibility solely with women

Services from external agencies

KTM-2014 proceedings v2 - monash.edu scarcity are accentuated with climate change where changes to...

Documents

Transcript of KTM-2014 proceedings v2 - monash.edu scarcity are accentuated with climate change where changes to...