International Water Conference: Dialogueon Water, Food and Environment

Hanoi, 13–16 October 2002

Hans Wolter, editorDialogue Secretariat

DIALOGUE SECRETARIAT

ii

Editor: Hans W. Wolter, former Director of the Dialogue Secretariat, is presently attached to the Dialogueas a Senior Consultant in Integrated Water Resources Management and Agricultural Water Use.

The Hanoi Proceedings are available in the enclosed CDROM.

Wolter, Hans W., ed. 2003. International water conference: Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment,Hanoi, 13–16 October 2002. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Dialogue Secretariat.

/ water resources-management / water allocation / food production / food security / agriculturaldevelopment / water pollution / flood water / drought / water demand / environment / rice /water policy / river-basin development / groundwater / water harvesting / irrigation water /cultivation / watershed management / wetlands / poverty / farming systems / fertilizers / cropyield / Mekong / India / Vietnam /

Copyright © 2003, by the Dialogue Secretariat. All rights reserved.

Please direct inquiries and comments to: dialogue@cgiar.org

iii

Contents

Foreword ........................................................................................................................... v

Section 1. Summary Report ............................................................................................. 1

Section 2. Welcome Addresses and Guest Speeches .............................................. 1 7

a. Poem—Simi Kamal ...................................................................................... 1 9

b. Welcome Address of Dr. Dao Trong Tu, MARD .................................... 2 0

c. Welcome Address of Prof. Frank Rijsberman,Director General, IWMI ................................................................................ 2 1

d. Welcome Address of HE Le Huy Ngo, Minister of Agricultureand Rural Development .............................................................................. 3 3

e. Guest Speech of HRH the Prince of Orange ......................................... 3 6

f. Keynote Address of HE Shri Sompal, Member,Planning Commission India ....................................................................... 3 9

Section 3. Reports of Working Groups .......................................................................... 4 5

a. WG1 on “Crosscutting Issues” .................................................................... 4 7

b. WG2 on “Reducing Pressure” .................................................................... 5 3

c. WG3 on “National (Policy) Dialogues ....................................................... 6 0

d. WG4 on “Basin Dialogues” ......................................................................... 6 9

e. WG5 on “Subbasin/Local Action” .............................................................. 7 8

f. WG6 on “Mekong Forum” ............................................................................. 8 7

Annex A1 Conference Schedule ................................................................................... 8 9

Annex A2 List of Participants .......................................................................................... 9 7

v

Foreword

“Overcoming the world water crisis—achieving water, food and environmental securitysimultaneously—is one of the most formidable challenges on the road to sustainabledevelopment,” says the Dutch Prince of Orange, the guest of honor at the International WaterConference in Hanoi jointly organized by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Developmentof Vietnam and the Dialogue Consortium, represented through the International WaterManagement Institute (IWMI).

Right now the conflict between irrigation and environmental communities is putting thebrakes on investments in water for food security and poverty reduction. It is not only delayingimplementation of development projects and programs but also preventing sustainablecooperation between water-environment sectors.

The Asian region faces particularly severe conflicts on water for food and water for theenvironment. Large areas of Asia are experiencing environmental degradation. The drying ofthe Aral Sea, the destruction of South East Asia’s mangroves and the pollution of India’s riversare dramatic examples of widespread problems. Vietnam, having a rich experience in watermanagement but facing the limits of traditional approaches, is a suitable venue for such aconference that will seize the opportunity to support Vietnam’s ambition of a closer cooperationwith regional and international water organizations.The Dialogue, launched in Stockholm, in August 2001, responds to the critical need for reachingconsensus on the role of water use for food and water use for nature. It is a unique collaborationof ten of the primary actors in the fields of water management, water resources research, foodsecurity, environmental conservation and health joining forces to examine the question of futurewater needs for nature and food production, with Vietnam invited the Dialogue family to theInternational Water Conference in Hanoi from 14 to 16 October 2002. Altogether 254 persons,including 117 Vietnamese professionals, participated in the conference, representing a broadspectrum of professional background, institutional affiliation and geographic origin.

This report is intended to inform about the results of the conference and the current stateof the Dialogue. It is organized in five sections:

• Section 1 includes the Summary Report of the Conference. This report informs in aconcise form on the results and main achievements of the conference.

• Section 2 includes the welcome addresses and guest speeches.

• Section 3 includes the reports of the six working groups. These reports are rich indetail on various aspects of the dialogue.

• Section 4 comprises the background papers and presentations prepared for theconference. Due to time limitations, only a small number of the papers could beactually presented to the participants. The papers are however a valuable source of

vi

knowledge and experience and will be of benefit to all who want to engage in dialogueactivities.

• Section 5 contains the portfolio of potential dialogue activities that resulted from thefinal brainstorming session. This list of dialogue opportunities is probably the mostvaluable result of the conference. It is a sign that the Dialogue responds to a manifestdemand. Of course, all proposals presented will require further refinement and fine-tuning. In order to facilitate this work and as an easy reference, the “Guidelines forthe Development of Dialogue Proposals” are attached.

• The list of Annexes includes the Session Program, the List of Participants, the Spanishversion of the Guidelines, an overview of current activities of the Consortium and apicture gallery.

The Dialogue Secretariat is grateful for the support it received from the Dutch Embassy inHanoi, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Global Water Partnership and IWMI. Withoutthis support it would have been impossible to hold this conference. The support andcooperation received from Dr. Dao Trong Tu of the Ministry of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment (MARD), was smooth, efficient and friendly. MARD took care of the conferencefacilities and the local organization. The cooperation with MARD will continue on concretedialogue activities. Dr. Jerry Delli Priscoli facilitated the conference in a professional and efficientmanner. Many speakers shared their experiences and insights with the participants or providedpapers for the conference proceedings. The motivation and engagement of the participantswere outstanding and were a key factor that ensured the success of the conference. Finally,the unfailing engagement of the support staff of IWMI and the Dialogue Secretariat that madeit possible to organize the conference at very short notice is gratefully acknowledged.

Dr. Hans W. WolterEditor and former Director of the Dialogue Secretariat

1

Section 1

Summary Report

3

Summary Report of the International WaterConference on Water, Food and Environment,

Hanoi, 13–16 October 2002

1. Conference Objectives and Format

The principal objectives of the conference were to energize the dialogue initiative, to reachconsensus on key issues and processes, and to generate country ownership. Specifically, theHanoi dialogue sought to:

• raise awareness and gain country ownership of the dialogue process

• review core issues and ways to answer them

• identify opportunities and generate more commitments to dialogues

• review and learn from Vietnamese experience in Integrated Water ResourcesManagement (IWRM)

In line with these objectives the conference was designed essentially in a workshopformat in order to allow sufficient time for participants to interact and actively contribute tothe conference objectives. Only day 1 was designated to formal presentations that wereintended to create a common understanding of the dialogue process at different levels. Onday 2 six parallel workshops were set up. The first and second workshops discussed howcrosscutting issues (health and poverty) could be integrated in the dialogue process and whatpossibilities existed to reduce pressure on freshwater resources. The third to fifth workshopsdiscussed core issues, obstacles and ways to overcome them at global, national, basin andlocal levels, respectively. The sixth workshop dealt with dialogue issues in the Mekong region.The final day was organized as a marketplace and provided opportunities for conveners andtask forces to meet and agree on the next steps in the launching of dialogues. It was also anopportunity to meet with representatives of donor agencies. The conference program isattached in annex 1. The figure below outlines the conference format.

A G E N D A

D a y 1 D a y 2 D a y 3

O p e n in g

P le n a r y 1

R e c e p t io n

W o r k in g G r o u p s (W G s )1 -6

W G s ’ R e p o r tW r it in g

P le n a r y 3

P le n a r y 4

C lo s in g

R o u n d ta b le so n D ia lo g s

F ie l

d Tr

ips

Arr

ival

s

P le n a r y 2

4

2. Process and Results

2.1 Day 1

The program was launched with the welcome speeches of both HE, the Vice Prime Minister ofVietnam and Professor F. Rijsberman, Director General of IWMI. The guest speech of HRH,the Prince of Orange was read by HE the Ambassador of the Netherlands. HE Sompal, Memberof the Planning Commission of India gave the keynote address that placed the dialogue in thecontext of sustainable development. After the official opening, the session continued with 12presentations covering the Vietnamese water situation and case studies of other dialogues inIndia, Malaysia and Japan. They also covered talks on crosscutting issues, the concept ofthe dialogue, the knowledge-base nature of the dialogues and local action cases. During theday, participants signed up, on wall charts, for participation in one of the six workshops to beheld on day 2.

Day 1 ended with participants reflecting on these talks and brainstorming the key issuesthey felt should be addressed. One issue raised was the scope of the Dialogue. For example,some asked why it focused only on food and environment. Others felt that food was not thesame as, but broader than, water for agriculture. Still others noted that food security andenvironment were not necessarily separate. There was a general perception that the worldcommunity needed to move to action and go beyond talk on topics such as poverty alleviation.Some called for serious action on water allocation. There was also a perception that politicalwill must be achieved and agencies needed to be mobilized with experts and policymakersaddressing the topics of this Dialogue. There were suggestions for including more topics,such as bans on food destruction, fisheries, aquaculture and coastal areas and the whole foodchain. Finally, there was some doubt expressed over the mechanics of the Dialogue. Whilemost felt they could work if organized properly, questions were raised about whether theDialogue could really support action at the local level and rural areas. Overall, the day achievedthe objective of bringing all participants to a similar level of understanding of the dialogueprocess. The welcome addresses and guest speeches are presented in section 2 of this report.

2.2 Day 2

On day 2, participants worked in six working groups (WGs). Each WG had a facilitator andreporter along with a variety of resources persons. The WGs focused on the following:

• WG1. Integrating crosscutting issues of health and poverty into dialogues atnational, regional and local levels.

• WG2. Identifying options to reduce pressure on water resources at national,regional and local levels.

• WG3. Identifying issues, obstacle to dialogues, processes to overcome obstacles,and support needed at national levels.

5

• WG4. Identifying issues, obstacles to dialogues, processes to overcome obstacles,and support needed at regional and large basin levels.

• WG5. Identifying issues, obstacle to dialogues, processes to overcome obstacles,and support needed at local and subbasin levels.

• WG6. Identifying issues, obstacle to dialogues, processes to overcome obstacles,and support needed in the lower Mekong.

Each WG was asked to prepare a short report to include the following: a list of prioritizedkey issues; a list of obstacles to dealing with the issues; a list of ways to overcome obstacles;a list of tools and/or support needed from the secretariat; and a list of suggested, new orpotential dialogues. These reports of the WGs are presented in section 3 of this report. Theyall follow the desired format and are rich in detail.

2.2.1 Working Group 1For WG1, the most important issues for incorporating crosscutting issues into the Dialoguewere lack of processes to empower communities; lack of coordination among sectors;devolution of power not implemented; insufficient awareness of hygiene; and externalities notconsidered. They identified several ways to overcome obstacles and deal with these issues.The bottom line was that WG1 agreed on the following general principles to integrate healthand poverty into the Dialogue.

• Clear criteria and indicators should be developed and used for health and povertyimpacts of options/scenarios considered in the dialogues.

• There should be an evidence-based catalogue of solutions that have proved towork in specific settings.

• Grass-roots participation (especially women and underprivileged sectors of society;vulnerable groups) should be ensured.

• There should be cross-sector participation.

• Multidisciplinary research should add to the existing knowledge base on linksbetween water, poverty and health.

• Political commitment should be actively pursued and secured.

2.2.2 Working Group 2WG2 dealt with finding ways to reduce pressure on water resources at all levels. It identifiedthe following priority issues:

• Water abstraction and pollution leading to river and groundwater degradation.

6

• Need for a tough Dialogue because trade-offs or “bridging the gap” betweenagriculture and environment are not easy in the face of development imperatives.

• Empowerment of participants: men and women as end users and multiple users,and multiple interests, and empowerment of partners from local to higher levels.

• Capacity building to improve knowledge of the different stakeholders on the issuesand potential solutions; improving/shift in farming systems.

• Changing the crop structure away from high water-use crops and methods, suchas rice and irrigation, and also to focus on improved rain-fed agricultural farmingsystems.

• Governance of water including integrated upstream and downstream watermanagement, implementation of water laws, and international cooperationagreements.

The group found almost 40 ways to overcome these obstacles, all listed in their report.WG2 also listed what support was needed from the secretariat to carry out their

recommendations. These were:

• Facilitate the Dialogue platform at local levels: stakeholder identification andanalysis at various levels (stakeholders who are involved with the WFE issues).

• Measurement and dissemination of stream-flow data and major items of water-diversion information.

• Develop templates for multi-criteria water sharing and water-allocation options andanalysis.

• Guidelines for water sharing and water-allocation criteria.

• Methodologies for environmental flow design, implementation and assessment.

• Guidelines to assess the stress of a river.

• Identification and documentation of water-use conflicts at national and internationallevels, because dialogues must start with conflicts.

• International protocols for sharing water of international rivers.

• Sharing of hydrological data and information through the Internet.

• Carry out specific research projects to specific problems such as arsenic pollution.

7

2.2.3 Working Group 3WG3, which worked on dialogues at the national level, identified the following priority issues:national development policy and water management; allocation issues (between sectors,between social groups); management of extreme events (flood/drought); water quality/degradation; irrigation/agricultural productivity; and integrating water and land use.

The WG then addressed political, economic, natural/environmental/cultural,technological/knowledge, legal and institutional obstacles, which arise in each of these areas.This resulted in finding more than thirty ways to overcome obstacles. The group also listedthe tools they needed for the secretariat to pursue dialogues. They were:

• Trained facilitators.

• Produce background studies/situation analysis, including broad-based collectionof all available national-level information.

• Prepare a knowledgeable person about the Dialogue to champion it within acountry.

• Need governmental participation at local/national level.

• Provide experience (lessons learned/success stories) and methodologies.

• Help clarify who the participants are/should be for the national dialogues(government agencies [sector or geographic/administrative], implementers).

• Facilitate linkages with Consortium members and donors.

• Help establish a small coordinating unit to organize a dialogue in interestedcountries.

• Support production of studies/pilots/publication and dissemination of results ondialogues.

• Serve a monitoring role to see if criteria are met.

• Support or undertake a communication strategy to communicate dialogue objectivesto a variety of audiences (including simplifying existing materials).

• Help national organizers secure funding.

• Help consolidate/package single proposals to fund national, basin and localdialogues in a country (instead of a lot of small, disconnected proposals that arehard to fund).

8

WG3 also created a special Vietnamese subgroup, which used the same issues but lookedat them in their own Vietnamese context. This subgroup also shared the recommendations forsupport tools needed.

2.2.4 Working Group 4WG4, which dealt with dialogues at the river-basin level, came up with three prioritized issues:control of water quality and degradation issues with the involvement of all stakeholders;effective mechanisms for stakeholders’ involvement in cross-boundary coordination betweenhydrological and administrative boundaries to address pollution issues and flood incidences.The group identified several ways to overcome obstacles presented by these issues, such asawareness raising, finding the incentives and economic benefit for cooperation, equitableinvolvement, open and transparent governance, open communication processes, using scoopingexercises, using strong scientific bases, better demand management and balance with supply,using agreed frameworks for resolving conflicts, well-targeted and accessible informationcampaigns, start-up money, and several others as listed in the group’s report. The group alsolooked intensively at three cases to better define obstacles and ways to overcome them.

2.2.5 Working Group 5WG5 looked at the local and area-basin dialogue level. The group strongly felt that the localand subbasin level constituted the most important level for the dialogues. The group prioritized5 issues out over 20 they identified. These were: rights of people to water, food andenvironment within emerging realities; replication (horizontal learning) of successes and failures(in terms of both local action and dialogue process); link local action and local/subbasindialogues to national policymaking (vertical integration); strategies to assure that dialoguesand results are implemented and turned into concrete action; upstream and downstream issues.

The group looked at obstacles presented in each of these prioritized areas and then atways to overcome them in each area. In general, the group felt that the best ways to overcomeobstacles included; participatory knowledge gathering, disseminating experiences, actionmonitoring, building partnership and strategic alliances, bringing “generic” knowledge to locallevels, and vice versa, bringing local knowledge and experience to national and basindiscussions, consortium members to actively facilitate both local-action participation in theiractivities within the Dialogue framework and local knowledge, where possible, by makingavailable funding at the national and basin levels.

The group felt that the following tools from the secretariat were needed: Documentationof best practices; appropriate communication strategies and materials; demystification of genericanalyses bringing them down to local realities and bringing diverse local experiences to a genericlevel; conflict management; quantification of entitlements; resources to facilitate local dialoguesand the linking between subbasin and national/basin dialogues; water accounting; reservoirarea management; and financial funds.

2.2.6 Working Group 6WG6 focused on the Mekong region. The theme was more specific than those of the otherWGs. Several dialogues are underway or being planned in countries of the region. The groupidentified poverty as the key issue. In addition, they identified the potential destruction ofwetlands on which traditional fishermen depend, erosion of the upper catchments due to

9

uncontrolled expansion of agriculture and badly planned infrastructure, floods, lack oforganization among local people, and the need for government officials to better understandthe needs of the local people.

The group saw the major obstacles to be government policies and strategies that arenot coordinated; many large-scale planned developments have national benefits rather thanlocal benefits. Local people may not be suitably equipped to participate in “proper” dialogues.There is a need to adapt the language of the discussions so that local people can fully engagein dialogues and avoid discussions that get hijacked by influential individuals or groups fortheir own purposes and agendas.

The group felt these could be overcome by having the discussions facilitated throughindependent parties, possibly representatives from the Consortium where they have localoffices. The group also felt that the dialogue process should be linked to a larger economicand development agenda so that the discussions feed into national and regional policy debates.The group recommended that the secretariat be realistic; agree on one’s main stakeholders;one will never please everybody; and one may not be able to achieve all his or her goals inthe short term.

Participants in the WG recognized the need for research and studies, but research thatis demand-driven and applied to the needs of the local dialogue. They also noted that fundingis required to facilitate the process, as soon as possible

2.3 Day 3

2.3.1 Review of WG ResultsOn day 3, participants reviewed the outputs of the workshops and proposals to supportongoing dialogues and for generating new dialogues. Roundtables of 7-9 participants wereset up in one plenary hall. The morning began with participants reading the reports of each ofthe six working groups. Facilitated discussions on each working group’s (WG’s) products,first at each table and then among all in the plenary, were conducted. Participants were askedwhat commonalties and differences they saw in the reports, whether there were any surprises,and what messages the reports conveyed.

The strongest sentiments arose over the need for a better knowledge base and capacitybuilding, for economic and financial instruments and financial incentives for change, forempowerment of stakeholders and for moving to action. Many felt that the WGs did not movefar enough beyond problem identification and suggested that local action is needed in additionto dialogues. The need for education was strongly perceived in the reports. Participants feltthat the reports called for the need for a coherent knowledge base and more case studies.Several dimensions of organizing the dialogues were raised as both affirmations of what wasgoing on and as questions on how to do dialogues. Participants felt the reports also calledfor better coordination among the dialogue processes themselves, for ways to institutionalizedialogues at different levels to influence policymakers and action, how to identify stakeholdersin the dialogues and how they would be represented (especially in China) and what therelationship between the local dialogues and the larger dialogues are. A few suggested thatthere were some topics missing and mentioned some of them as rain-fed harvesting, gender,market instruments and arsenic pollution.

10

Participants also noted some surprises in the working group reports. A few felt thatdiscussions were “hijacked” by influential people for their own purposes. Some others feltthat not enough specificity on action came out and that the reports seemed to talk about generaldialogues and not the WFE topic. Others were surprised at the number of issues at the locallevel. There was surprise at the propensity not to talk about failures and some felt that therewas no model to demonstrate the benefits of dialogues. Others expressed the notion that therewas a lack of political support to make all this work. Many felt that health, sanitation andhygiene were not sufficiently discussed.

2.3.2 Dialogue Marketplace and Donor ReactionAfter this discussion, participants self-selected into regional groups, to review and work onproposals for ongoing and new dialogues. The day 2 WGs had already identified 28 potentialnew dialogues.

Before the session began, the Representative of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairspledged the support of his government for solid dialogue proposals. He noted that for theDutch Government the Dialogue was a very important issue and that they are committed toinvest in dialogues. He asked participants to be creative but realistic and come up with ideason Dialogue action in their countries or regions. The Representative said that ideally thereshould be a tentative portfolio of 40-50 dialogues with some information on the magnitude ofexternal support required. He concluded that if the participants were practical and came upwith good proposals, they could count on the support of the Government of the Netherlands.

This statement was an important motivation for the commitment demonstrated in thesession. As the session started, participants were asked to join a regional roundtable. Templateswith questions on how to organize and start new dialogues were handed out for participantsto fill in. Starting with the lists generated by the day 2 WGs, the regions then decided howthey would organize and what topics to cover. This process resulted in several more dialoguesand refinements of those proposed by the WGs. A complete list of dialogue proposals ispresented in section 5 of the Conference Report.

After short reports from the roundtables on the proposed new dialogues, participantswere asked to reflect on the proposals. Some shared ways in which they thought dialoguescould be coordinated. ICID mentioned its programs in India and China. South Asia mentionedhow existing partnership are in effect a platform for the forum. All participants generallyacknowledged how important it was to implement the outputs of the conference and this meantraising the awareness of leaders and advertising the outcome in countries.

At this point the conference was closed with statements of Professor Rijsberman, DirectorGeneral of IWMI and H.E. Thimh, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.

3. Background Papers

Prior to the conference, participants had been invited to prepare papers on the six conferencethemes. A rich collection of papers had been received. It should be noted that the papersrepresented the views of the different authors, not necessarily of the Dialogue Consortium orone of its members. Together, the papers cover many dimensions of the Dialogue and constitutea rich source of experience and case material on how to do dialogues.

11

3.1 Theme 1: Integration of Crosscutting Issues

Four papers were submitted under this theme. Mr. P. Smidt presented the water policy of theAsian Development Bank. He said that the IWRM framework was the most suitable approachto address conflicts on water for food and water for nature as well as crosscutting issues,such as health and poverty alleviation. He illustrated his talk with a brief presentation of threeADB-supported projects.

A paper of Mr. Faruque dealt with arsenic contamination of groundwater in Bangladeshand ways to solve the crisis. The issue is related to the Dialogue because of concerns thatarsenic might accumulate in irrigated crops.

Two papers submitted by N. Barot report on the potential of community mobilization, inparticular of women, in Gujarat. The papers do not deal directly with the water for food andwater for nature conflict; however, the author points out clearly how this conflict is related tounderlying problems of social injustice and inequality. Much of the content of these papers isalso relevant to the discussion on integrating local action (Theme 5).

Together, the four papers confirm the finding of the working group that integration ofcrosscutting issues is a difficult subject that requires more methodological work. The questionis where to draw the limit of the Dialogue. Dialogues at local level rarely deal exclusively withissues of water for food and water for nature but tend to include questions of participation,social mobilization and property rights.

3.2 Theme 2: Reducing Pressure on Water Resources

The three excellent papers received under this topic are valuable contributions to the DialogueKnowledge Base.

J. Rockström presented a paper on the potential of rainwater harvesting to reduce pressureon blue water resources. The well-researched paper made the point that rain-fed agriculturecan be much improved through rainwater harvesting and moisture conservation. Thehydrological limits of rain-fed agriculture in semiarid zones allow yields of up to 2.5 tons insteadof less than 1 ton at present. The finding is important and contradicts the conventional wisdomthat the required increase of production in the coming years must mainly come from irrigatedland.

In her paper, P. Knight reviews different approaches to define the environmental flowrequirements. She strongly argues that the frequency of different flow events through the fullspectrum from high to medium to low flow events should not be reduced to less than 60 percentin order to maintain a healthy river. The aggregation of flows into monthly averages tends tomask the damage done to a river. The paper also points out the management implications ofthis concept.

N. Landell-Mills presented a paper on watershed markets. The paper reviews the potentialof linking upstream land managers and downstream water users through market mechanismsthat would compensate upstream land users for water-conservation measures. The paper isrich in detail and very well researched and documented.

12

3.3 Theme 3: Issues and Processes in Country Dialogues

Five papers were submitted under this topic.A. Alejandrino reviewed the political perspective of water-demand management. He

pointed out that political decisions at higher level or on non-water issues (food securitystrategy, financial management of public resources) have profound influences on the water-demand pattern. The challenge for water professionals is to recognize these influences andadjust the water policy in a realistic manner.

Two papers dealt with the transformation process in former Communist countries inEastern Europe and ways to adjust to the Water Framework Directive of the European Union.J. Gayer and I. Ijjas reported on the Dialogue process in five East European countries in general.W. Mioduszewski looked specifically at the Polish situation that is characterized by a patternof small farms and a large percentage of the population still being engaged in agriculture.

Sharizailah bin Abdullah reported on a far-reaching dialogue initiative in Malaysia underthe auspices of the Malaysian Water Partnership where five dialogues are being planned infive major river basins. The results of the basin dialogues will be fed into sector and policydialogues at the national level. A paper on the same subject but focusing more on the basinperspective was submitted by M. Azhari et al. and is included under Theme 4.

A paper presented by M. Hasan reviewed the water situation in Pakistan and the majorissues related to water for food, nature and domestic use. The grim picture is that the waterdemand is rapidly approaching the limits leaving little room for nature conservation. Settingaside the water required for flushing out imported or mobilized salt is a daunting task.

3.4 Theme 4: Issues and Processes in Basin Dialogues

Five papers were received under this subject.N. Abeywickrama reports on the initiative of the Lanka Water Partnership to launch

dialogues in three river basins. The paper includes a realistic account of the practical difficultiesin setting up dialogues.

The paper of M. Azhari et al. includes a report on actual Dialogue experience in the Kieranand Kurau river basins in Malaysia and on a training program for national facilitators.

V. Paranjpye reported on the experience of the Gomukh Trust Fund in the Bhima riverbasin in Maharashtra. Four case studies are presented. One of the lessons learned from yearsof experience is that it is more productive to work with rather than against the administration.

K. Hallding presented a report on the water crisis of the Northern Chinese plain and theconflict between the City of Beijing and Hebei Province. The paper underlines the need forproper background documentation and scenario development to put dialogues on a realisticlevel.

This aspect is also addressed in the paper of K. Eiman. She is reporting on theimplementation of the new South African water policy at the river-basin level. One of the manydifficulties is the gap in the understanding and insight between the poor black communitiesand the educated class. Leveling the playing field and providing simple but realistic decisionsupport to local communities constitute one of the challenges of the national program.

13

3.5 Theme 5: Issues and Processes in Subbasin/Local Dialogues

Four papers were received under this topic.K. Athukorala reported on the Pinga oya initiative in Sri Lanka. This extremely interesting

case study presents an innovative approach of mobilizing schoolchildren in an ethnically diversesociety to raise awareness on the sad state of the river. The initiative received substantialpolitical support after a difficult start and is now considered as one of the showcases in SriLanka.

S. Sultan Hassan presented the lessons of 50 years’ experience in community mobilizationand grassroot work. His credo is that communities if properly mobilized have an unparallelcapacity to lift themselves out of poverty and solve difficult and controversial issues in thearea of water for food and/or nature.

S. Pollard reports on the Sand river project in South Africa. This paper complements theprevious paper of K. Eiman in giving a vivid picture of the particularly difficult situation in theSand river basin and ways to overcome the difficulties.

G. Siwakoti presents a brief case study on water/food and nature conflicts related to theKulekhani hydropower project and ways to overcome these conflicts.

3.6 Theme 6: Mekong Forum

Four papers were received under this topic.A. Anukularmphai presented a broad overview of the water/food/environment-related

problems in the Mekong region. Key issues are the overwhelming importance of agricultureas a water user, industrial and chemical pollution of water resources, low economic productivityof water in agriculture, encroachment of natural wetlands and forests, and general lack ofawareness. Anukularmphai advocated a fundamental shift in water policy but is realistic in hisexpectation on water as an economic good and the ability of water users to pay.

T. Van Truong presented an excellent paper on water-resources development in theMekong delta. The conflict between agriculture (rice farming), fishery, aquaculture (shrimpfarming) and nature conservation is highlighted against the backdrop of a rapid industrialdevelopment in the region. The paper is candid in its assessment of the management capacitiesof the involved states and their organizations.

Mr. N. Xuan Tiep presented a paper on water resources and food security in Vietnam.The paper is rich in statistical material and could be a good source of information for peopleworking in the field.

S. Taniyama presented a paper on water resources and rice cultivation in the Asianmonsoonal regions. The author reviews the multiple functions of paddy rice cultivation andpoints out that paddy is ideally suited to the monsoonal climate and that, in addition toproducing the staple food of the region, paddies have other important functions in floodmitigation, groundwater recharge, water-quality improvements, etc. Also paddy rice hasproduced unique ecosystems that constitute a cultural heritage. Rice cultivation shouldtherefore not be seen only in the economic context.

14

4. Analysis and Follow-Up

The Conference has achieved its objectives to a very large degree. These objectives havebeen defined as follows:

• Raise awareness and gain country ownership of the dialogue process.

• Review core issues and ways to answer them.

• Identify opportunities and generate more commitments to dialogues.

• Review and learn from the Vietnamese experience in IWRM.

4.1 Raising Awareness

The objective has been achieved through a series of keynote addresses and case studypresentations on day 1. The excellent attendance of 140 international and 120 nationalprofessionals is an indication of the interest in the Dialogue. About 30 high-ranking governmentofficials of ASEAN countries attended the meeting. While some critical questions remain, inparticular, on the linkage of dialogues to the political process and the sustainability of thedialogue processes, it can be said that most participants left the conference energized andwilling to apply the Dialogue concept in their countries. The patronage of HRH the Prince ofOrange and the Vice Prime Minister of Vietnam has raised the profile of the conference.

4.2 Review of Core Issues

The workshop sessions of day 2 focused almost exclusively on this aspect. Key issues,obstacles and ways of overcoming them at national and basin level have been discussed inextensive working sessions. The integration of crosscutting issues and ways to reduce pressureon water resources were the subjects of other WGs. As expected, the WGs were stronger inidentifying issue than in finding solutions. More work remains to be done on the “How to do”questions such as: How to organize dialogues? How to link it to the political process? How toassure stakeholder participation? How to create incentives and commitment to implement theresults? It is envisaged to establish small task forces that would convert the results of theworking groups in practical guidelines for Dialogue conveners.

4.3 Identification of Dialogue Opportunities

This was probably the most successful result of the conference. Energized by prospects ofdonor support the meeting produced 54 templates with Dialogue opportunities. While someproposals at this stage reflect only initial ideas it is an impressive response and a very solidbase to start Dialogue activities on a larger scale. The Consortium and the Secretariat havenow the task to follow up with the individual Dialogue conveners. It is obvious the DialogueProgram has now completed the establishment phase and turned the corner from a supply- toa demand-driven program. It appears that there is a strong and manifest demand for Dialogueservices.

15

The Mekong Forum was a considerable success. It was very well attended by governmentrepresentatives and officials of the Mekong Commission. Concrete Dialogue opportunities havebeen identified in four countries of the Mekong region and strong political support has beenraised.

4.4 Vietnamese Experience in IWRM

Two excellent presentations on day 1 introduced the audience to the specific issues of watermanagement in Vietnam, in particular in the Mekong delta. Vietnam faces special problems relatedto flood protection, matching the water demands of rice cultivation and fisheries and theparticular problem of sulfate-acid soils. Remarkable achievements have been obtained in allthree areas; stakeholder participation and Dialogue approaches are being increasingly used.

Overall, the conference exceeded the expectation. The Partner Organizations and theDialogue Secretariat are committed to follow up and will not allow letting the opportunitiesslip. It is intended to publish the results of the working groups and the conference proceedingsin a comprehensive conference report.

4.5 Issue Requiring Further Attention

The conference was also an occasion to receive feedback and review the Dialogue approach.Some issues were identified that will require further consideration, in particular of theConsortium and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP).

Limits of the DialogueDiscussions and papers presented have revealed that the limits of the Dialogue on Water forFood and Environment get blurred as the Dialogue deals more with local issues. Local dialoguesfind it difficult to limit themselves to water, food and environment. Some participants arguethat problems related to these issues are symptoms of underlying causes, such as unequalaccess to natural resources, lack of participation, social discrimination, gender inequality, etc.They argue that these issues should be addressed first in local-level dialogues. Restrictingthe Dialogue to food and environment would be artificial and nonproductive. Thecounterargument is that the Dialogue needs to preserve its focus and that the Consortiummembers have no particular competence in social mobilization and property-rights issues. Thedifferent perceptions of the Dialogue lead to a considerable gap in the expectation on whatthe Dialogue should do and what support the Dialogue program should extend to local actiongroups.

Scientific Support and Background MaterialThe need for scientific backstopping, proper situation analyses, scenario development anddecision support has been raised by many participants and is clearly one of the keyrequirements for successful dialogues. Mobilizing such support is however difficult and costly.Available case studies indicate that for a Dialogue process the development of realisticscenarios/modeling capacity costs about US$200, 000 for medium-sized river basins. It is notclear whether these resources can be raised in addition to the operational costs of dialogues.Dialogue proposals need to be realistic in the assessment of the requirements and costs.

16

Time Frame for DialogueExperience indicates that dialogues are time-consuming processes. Reaching agreement andunderstanding in relatively simple settings may take up to 3 years. More complicated Dialogueprocesses took up to 8 years to bear fruits. Dialogue convenors and donors need to be awareof these facts and need to be patient and persistent. It is not the number but the quality ofdialogues that matters at the end of the day.

17

Section 2

Welcome Addressesand

Guest Speeches

19

Vietnam

Decades of war and oppressionThe constant sound of battleThe endless fireReflected in your eyesVietnam

The death and destructionFirst at the hands of one civilized nationThen anotherThe internal strifeThe human tragedy

The supposed clash of ideologiesThe brutal assaultThe endless painPiecing your heartVietnam

But not for everNot even for a lifetimeNot for you the living in the pastNot for you the display of hurtNot for you the laments of loss

I see the eternal smileThe lithe young bodiesPoised for flightI see hopeVietnam

I see the old and the youngWorking so hardLike there is no tomorrowLike there is nothing but tomorrowLike the whole world is yours

You move me unbearablyWith your dignityYour zest for lifeYour instinct for beingVietnam

The people of VietnamI salute you

Simi Sadaf KamalOctober 2002

20

Opening and Welcome Addressof

Dr. Dao Trong Tu

Ladies and Gentlemen: Good Morning!

Finally we are opening the 1st International Water Conference on “Dialogue on Water for Foodand Environment.” We are pleased to welcome the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Le HuyNgo, the Hon. Vice Minister, MARD, Hon. Vice Minister, Science and Technology, ProfessorFrank Rijsberman, Director General, International Water Management Institute (IWMI),Representative of His Royal Highness The Prince of Orange, Hon. Shri Sompal, Member ofthe Indian National Planning Commission who is our Keynote Speaker, and Dr. Hans Wolter,Director of the Dialogue Secretariat. Your Excellencies and distinguished guests representingembassies, international agencies, invited government representatives, distinguished participantsand my colleagues from Vietnam, welcome to the International Conference on “Dialogue onWater for Food and Environment.”

We are extremely sorry that HRH Prince of Orange cannot be present on this occasiondue to the passing away of his beloved father. Our sincere sympathies are with him.

We have gathered here about 150 participants from around the world representing thevarious aspects of the water, environment, agriculture and health. Among them are well-knownscientists, leaders in their own field, government policymakers, farmer representatives,implementers at the field level and the nongovernmental sector representatives along witharound 100 Vietnamese experts.

In the next three days, we will focus on issues linked to agricultural production,environmental conservation, poverty alleviation, health, etc., related to the water sector. Thiswill be an opportunity to share world experience with our colleagues from Vietnam and viceversa.

Without taking much of your time, I would like to invite Professor Frank Rijsberman,Director General of IWMI to deliver the welcome speech.

Thank you.

21

Welcome Addressof

Prof. Frank Rijsberman

Director General, IWMI, Sri Lankaand

Chair, Consortium for the Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment

Water, Food and Environment: Conflict or Dialogue?

Excellencies, Honored Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

On behalf of the Consortium I am pleased to welcome you to the first Hanoi InternationalWater Conference marking the completion of the first year of the Dialogue on Water, Foodand Environment. I will use this opportunity to reflect on the meaning of the word “dialogue”in different contexts and link it to the Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment Program

Dialogue in Response to Increasing Relative Scarcity

The world is rapidly taking the world water crisis more seriously. While the water experts whoattend conferences such as this have been speaking of a water crisis for some 20 years now,the public at large and the decision makers have not taken that much notice of it. At the worldsummit in Rio for example, 10 years ago, water was not a high priority, but in the preparationfor Rio-plus-ten, and in the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg later,UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has named “water” as one of the five top priorities. At thesame time, there is a clearly growing attention in the media for water issues.

But what is the nature of the world water crisis? While it is true that only a very smallpercentage of all water on earth is available for human use, water is not so scarce that we donot have enough for household use, for industry or to grow food for all people. The WorldWater Vision concluded that the world water crisis is not a crisis of resource scarcity but acrisis of management (Cosgrove and Rijsberman 2000). The Global Water Partnership callsthis a crisis of “governance” (Framework for Action 2000).

It is true, however, that the abstraction and use of water from nature for human purposeshave increased tremendously. In the twentieth century the world population tripled and theuse of water increased sixfold, with an increasingly high rate in the second half of that century.As the total use of water on the planet is essentially constant, the increase in the relativescarcity of water is directly proportional to the increase in its use. This does mean that therelative scarcity of water has increased very rapidly in recent decades. It is this increase in therelative scarcity that matters for water users and water managers.

22

In places where water scarcity is constant or changes slowly, systems of water use canadapt to those conditions. People living in the deserts of Rajasthan in North India, for example,have managed to have thriving civilizations for centuries with no more than 200 mm of annualrainfall. Generally speaking, water institutions have developed in response to local water-scarcity conditions. This can be seen through the use of riparian rights that attribute the rightto water use to the landowners in the humid US East, while the system of prior appropriation,essentially tradable water rights and better-suited water scarcity, was adopted in the dry USWest. Rapidly increasing relative water scarcity, then, requires water users and water institutionsto adapt to new scarcity conditions. We can conclude that, in many places, the current systemof water management is not yet adapted to the new scarcity.

As any economist can tell you, the relative scarcity of any resource also determines itsvalue to the user, and rapidly increasing relative water scarcity therefore also means rapidlyincreasing water values. As the scarcity and value of water go up, so does the competition ofwater among users. With increasing competition and institutions that are not yet adapted tothese new conditions come conflicts—conflicts between growing urban areas that take waterfrom agriculture as well as conflicts between agriculture and the environment. Conflicts amongusers over the allocation of water increase with increasing relative water scarcity.

This paper argues that where relative water scarcity has increased, and water institutionshave not yet adapted to deal with the conflicts that arise out of this scarcity, a process ofdialogue among users can reduce conflict and lead to more effective, efficient and equitablewater use. In other words, dialogue offers a new way of dealing with increasing water scarcity,through reducing water conflicts by bridging the gaps in perception on desirable waterallocation. It has the potential to give rise to new institutions better equipped to deal withissues of water scarcity.

Approaches to Dealing with Water Scarcity

Traditionally, engineers have dealt with increasing water scarcity by increasing the supply topeople through building infrastructure suited to the local scarcity situation and the use madeof the water—low-cost, simple solutions for low-value uses and relatively plentiful watersituations, and gradually more sophisticated, expensive solutions as scarcity and water valuesincrease. It is not by accident that drip irrigation was developed in Israel. This is referred to asthe engineering approach—or the supply-side approach.

As water gets scarcer, required technologies get more sophisticated and the cost ofsupplying water to users increases, and there comes a point where interest in managing useincreases as well. The water literature in the 1980s, some 20 years ago, starts to show frequentreferences to demand management—culminating in the principle of “water as an economicgood” at the Dublin conference, 10 years ago. Demand management does not have to rely onwater pricing alone. The legal limit in the USA on maximum capacity of toilet reservoirs or thenear-universal cards in hotels that encourage you to reuse your towel to save water, are alsoexamples of demand management. Water pricing is the most well known, and also controversial,of the demand-management measures. The market or economic approach to address waterscarcity emphasizes the use of water markets, water pricing, and the privatization of water-service delivery.

23

While the market or economic approach to dealing with water scarcity can handle mostissues theoretically, it has not been easy in practice. It is difficult to deal with externalities,such as environmental impacts. It is difficult to price water because of very high transactioncosts, such as metering and charging for water. And market approaches also do not functionvery well in addressing equity issues.

Over time, we may expect institutions to adapt to the new scarcity situations. Given theproliferation of countries that are changing or adapting their water laws, this process isdefinitely in motion. Institutions do not change overnight, however. It is a lengthy processthat asks institutions to reevaluate their purpose and the way they act. Water-relatedinstitutions often originated to facilitate construction. They were designed to deal with issuesof water and power, agriculture and dams, reservoirs, and electrical networks among others.Current institutional requirements necessitate a change in perspective and activity, fromconstruction to management and require once separate and exclusive institutions to interactwith each other in an attempt to integrate various water-use sectors.

Dialogue, finally, is an exponent of what Roling and Woodhill (2001) refer to as theinteraction perspective. This approach to dealing with increasing scarcity emphasizes dealingwith conflict explicitly through methods of conflict resolution, negotiated agreement, sociallearning, consensual arrangements and collective action.

The willingness to “sit around the table” and negotiate a way out of mutually inflictedconstraints is the key to the concept of dialogue as discussed here. Growing scarcity andinterdependence among stakeholders are leading to the realization that they must come tosome agreement if anyone is to have satisfactory outcomes. Dialogue becomes necessary notonly to assemble expertise in terms of technical or economic solutions, but also to exploreroom for consensus, compromise, agreement, and concerted action among widely divergingscenarios and futures that are being envisioned by the stakeholders. Dialogue, then, facilitateschange processes.

Key Water ConflictsAs users experience the impacts of degraded, scarcer and further contested resources thelikelihood of conflict increases, often adding new fuel to old divisions among sects, castes,genders, age sets, etc. (Roling and Woodhill 2001). Water dilemmas, in particular, makethemselves felt everywhere. They emerge in degraded catchments that are unable to retainwater for human use, in pollution that prevents other uses and in diversion of water that leavesriverbeds dry and lifeless. As people realize that their failing crops, dwindling fisheries, lack ofclean drinking water, etc., are not a question of natural causes, but the result of other actorsupon which they have become dependent for their outcomes, this is likely to lead to increasingconflict (Roling and Woodhill 2001).

Many conflicts on water resources have a link with agriculture—by far the largest wateruser, worldwide and in most basins. Even though the world food production is high and foodprices are relatively low, malnutrition persists, mostly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.Much of this is in regions dubbed “economically water scarce” meaning that while there is

24

water available in nature, sometimes abundantly, it has not been developed for human use.Small farmers and the poor are particularly disadvantaged. They do not have access to landand water to satisfy their needs for food and sustainable livelihoods. For survival they areoften obliged to damage irreversibly the land and water resources they depend on, thus creatinga vicious circle of poverty and environmental degradation

The agriculture community sees continued growth of irrigation as an imperative to achievethe goals adopted by the international community to reduce hunger and poverty. This wouldlead to an increase of renewable water resources withdrawn for use in agriculture by 15-20percent over the next 25 years. Citing similar international commitments to maintain and improveenvironmental quality and biodiversity, many in the environmental community see it asimperative that water withdrawn for agriculture is reduced—not increased. Targets of reducingwater used for agriculture by some 10 percent are proposed by this group of stakeholders.The difference between a 15-20 percent increase and a 10 percent decrease is huge, and isleading to conflicts on how to develop and manage water resources. The Global WaterPartnership, in its Framework for Action, has called this conflict one of the most critical problemsto be tackled in the early twenty-first century (GWP 2000, 58). According to Lemly et al. (2000),the conflict between irrigated agriculture and wildlife conservation has reached a critical pointon a global scale (for an example, see box 1).

Box 1. Nature versus agriculture in the Sahel.

Other key conflicts related to water-resources development are, of course, those arounddams. Large dams have become such controversial projects that international funding for damshas dropped significantly. Because of the unresolved conflicts, even dams that would bebeneficial to society are no longer built. The World Commission on Dams was an effort initiatedjointly by the World Bank and IUCN to improve dialogue among stakeholder groups (see box 2).

Africa’s floodplains play a vital life-support role for a significant proportion of thecontinent’s population. For centuries, human populations have utilized theagricultural, fisheries, hunting, grazing, and water resources provided byfloodplains. These wetlands have been termed “the heart of Sahelian life systems”(Drijver and Rodenburg 1988; Drijver and Van Wetten 1992). However, the last40 years have witnessed the development of many large-scale water-managementschemes, frequently associated with large-scale dams and irrigated agriculture.Drijver and Van Wetten (1992) stated that by the year 2020 all Sahelian wetlandswill be subjected to the impacts associated with upstream dams—these impactswill have profound consequences for the human populations that depend on thesefloodplains.Source: Lemly et al. 2000.

25

Box 2. World Commission on Dams and the use of dialogue.

In April 1997, with support from the World Bank and the IUCN (The WorldConservation Union), representatives of diverse interests met in Gland,Switzerland to discuss the role of large dams in development in light of reactionsto a report by the Operations Evaluation Department (OED) of the World Bank.The breakdown of dialogue on the construction of dams worldwide—between NGOs,the private sector, governments and international organizations, such as the WorldBank—was imposing considerable costs on all parties. The World Bank and theIUCN realized that no group involved in the conflict could resolve the stalematealone.

The Gland workshop brought together 39 participants from governments, the privatesector, international financial institutions, civil society organizations and affectedpeople. The consensus proposal that came out of the meeting was for all partiesto work together in establishing the World Commission on Dams (WCD) with amandate to review the development effectiveness of large dams and developinternationally acceptable criteria, guidelines and standards for large dams. TheWCD commenced its activities in May 1998 and made every effort to incorporateall points of view. Many felt that the contested nature of the debate on damswould pull the Commission apart. However, the twelve Commissioners fromdiverse backgrounds developed an understanding and approach based on mutualrespect that saw them through many contested discussions.

The result was not a bland compromise document, but rather an innovativeframework within which to examine dams, both existing and planned. TheCommission’s final report, Dams and Development: A New Framework for DecisionMaking was launched in November 2000.

A 2-year follow-up to the process, initiated by the Commission got underway inNovember 2001. A project of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),the Dams and Development Project (DDP) promotes dialogue on improvingdecision making, planning and management of dams and their alternatives basedon the WCD core values and strategic priorities. A wide range of discussions aretaking place at the international, national, institutional and local level.Sources: World Commission on Dams, www.dams.org UNEP Dams and Development Project, www.unep-dams.org

Other typical conflicts, in developing countries often at relatively small scale, are thosebetween the growing demands of urban areas and the current users of water, often agriculture.Given the high social value of water for municipal and the high economic value of water inindustry, urban areas can usually “outbid” or displace agriculture—but lead with ample conflictsin the process.

In most cases, conflicts are multidimensional and linked to other non-water issues.Resolving such conflicts requires a comprehensive approach to finding solutions that havepositive outcomes for all or most of the stakeholders.

26

What is Dialogue?

In simple terms, dialogue is about helping key stakeholders to “think differently” so thatpractical solutions to emerging water conflicts, or dilemmas, can be found. Roling and Woodhill(2001) defined “dialogue” as follows: A dialogue is a contrived situation in which a set ofmore or less interdependent stakeholders in some resource are identified, and invited tomeet and interact in a forum for conflict resolution, negotiation, social learning and collectivedecision making on concerted action.

A dialogue process, then, is a process of negotiation that leads to a convergence ofinterests, through joint-learning about the stakes and the mechanisms at work, throughdeliberate reflection about mutual interdependence on others and the need to agree on commonsolutions (Roling and Woodhill 2001). Mechanisms that are thought to be part of effectivedialogue processes are indicated in box 3 below.

Box 3. Dialogue mechanisms.

Conflict management: Conflict management is understanding the different interestsand underlying values that lead groups into conflict and what methodologies andpolitical strategies can be used to overcome them.

Social learning: Different stakeholders have very different ways of looking at thesame resource. For example, farmers might only have a farm-level perspectiveand are unable to consider as one coherent whole the catchment in which theirfarm is located. Engaging different stakeholder groups in a shared learning processis required to reach some level of convergence on the basis of which dialogueand collective decision become possible.

Overcoming social dilemmas: A social dilemma is a situation in which everyoneis motivated to make short-term selfish choices while all would be better off ifthey made long-term cooperative choices. Such social dilemmas can be overcomethrough reaching agreements about such issues as the number of people whohave access to that resource, rules of access, ways of monitoring compliance,and sanctions for noncompliance.

Facilitation: Dialogues need to be facilitated. This refers to the management ofthe interactive processes among the stakeholders and includes skills in usingparticipatory approaches, the creation of curricula for discovery learning, and theability to design inclusive processes of change in large groups in whichcommunicative rationality is used in a strategic manner.Source: Roling and Woodhill 2001.

A design workshop organized by the Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment (DWFE)among stakeholders interested in developing national- and basin-level dialogues on waterissues resulted in a list of conditions that are conducive to a successful dialogue process (seebox 4). Some very large-scale water-related dialogue-type processes have been the World WaterVision process (Cosgrove and Rijsberman 2000) and the World Commission on Dams (see box 3).But dialogue processes have also been used successfully at a smaller, basin scale, as theexample of the Usangu wetlands in Tanzania shows (see box 5).

27

Box 4. Conditions for a successful dialogue.

1 . Appropriate fora and platforms for dialogue are established.2 . The dialogue forum and process have legitimacy, a clear mandate and are

politically feasible.3 . All relevant stakeholders are appropriately engaged and represented.4 . The dialogue is integrated with existing institutions and processes.5 . The focus of the dialogue is clearly defined.6 . Incentives for participation and negotiation by stakeholders are established

(disincentives minimized).7 . Interaction occurs between national, basin and international levels.8 . The dialogue process is effectively facilitated and communicated.9 . The dialogue is informed by good information, including a thorough situation

analysis.10. Diverse approaches (methodologies) are utilized.11. Performance questions and indicators are established and monitored.12. Plans are developed and commitment is established for follow-up actions.Source: Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment, www.iwmi.org/dialogue

Box 5. Example of a dialogue process: Towards a future for Usangu.

The Great Ruaha river starts in the highlands of the Usangu catchment, Tanzania.From here it flows through the Usangu wetland—home to 350 species of birdsand a potential Ramsar site—and onwards to the Ruaha National Park and Mterareservoir. Mtera provides water for up to half of Tanzania’s electrical powerproduction; shortages of water here have previously caused national powerrationing. Many people have blamed this on activities in Usangu. In the RuahaNational Park, the Great Ruaha river has dried up every dry season since 1993,stressing animals and reducing its attractiveness to tourists. And within Usanguthere is more competition over land and water, sometimes leading to conflicts.Water supports local livelihoods through irrigation of 40,000 hectares of rice, grassgrowth in the wetland for livestock, and fishing in the rivers and the wetland.However, the wetland is threatened as less water is available for the annual flood;a large part already no longer floods every year.

To improve management of Usangu’s resources, the Sustainable Managementof the Usangu Wetland and its Catchment (SMUWC) project is facilitating “a sharedvision for the future” by raising awareness and bringing stakeholders together,from all levels, to discuss these issues and seek locally acceptable solutions.

In the Mbarali district, dialogue has helped improve management of villageresources by bringing together local government representatives from the hamlet,village, ward and district levels, and members of the local community in order tostrengthen the planning system. This process has assisted village governmentsin understanding their roles and duties, assisted in the resolution of conflictsthrough village-level land use planning, helped villages overcome existing problemsand plan their future development, and made all parties aware of their roles andrights in shaping the future of their villages and of Usangu.Source: Towards a future for Usangu, www.usangu.org

28

Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment.

A key conclusion of the World Water Vision process and the subsequent discussions at the2nd World Water Forum was that, despite all best efforts, there was still insufficient cross-sectoral dialogue—particularly between the agriculture and environment (sub-) sectors. As aresult, 10 international organizations in the water1 sector established a Consortium to jointlysponsor the DWFE. This Dialogue was launched in 2001 by HRH the Prince of Orange througha presentation at the 2001 Stockholm Water Symposium. Since that time several otherinternational dialogue processes have been set up by key international organizations, i.e., theDialogue on Water and Climate2 and the Dialogue on Effective Water Governance.3

The key assumption behind the DWFE was that there is an urgent need to develop water-management strategies that ensure a fair, transparent and inclusive process that arrives at aconsensus on reasonable trade-offs and identifies solutions for existing and future watermanagement dilemmas. The identified solutions and management strategies should beacceptable to stakeholder groups in the agriculture and environment sectors and be beneficialto people directly involved in the management and use of water all over the world.

The DWFE (further referred to here as the Dialogue) approach is building on theprinciples of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) but adds the human dimensionsof conflict resolution, consensus building and social learning to the equation. The Dialogue isan action-research program that has limited objectives and a limited life span. The DialogueInitiative does not pretend to solve all or all major problems related to water, food andenvironment. The intention is to contribute to finding tangible solutions to the problem andbuilding a body of knowledge on critical issues related to water, food and environment. Thebody of knowledge will consist of authoritative answers to a set of (research) questions onwhich, at present, there is no consensus. The Dialogue will produce a number of case studies,which demonstrate that its approach can be successful and will leave behind a group of peoplewho have gained experience and are willing to continue sharing their knowledge even afterthe closure of the Dialogue Initiative.

The focus of the Dialogue is on water, food and environment. In the real-world contextthis sounds artificial because, in most case, multiple interest and sectors make claims on limitedwater resources. Still, agriculture and environment are the main consumptive water users. Itmay therefore be acceptable to use these sectors as entry points for the knowledge base.Real-world case studies will have to be flexible to integrate the demands of other sectors. Inshort, the Dialogue seeks to find solutions and answers to questions that are controversialand related to water, food and environment through an approach combining scientific rigor

1Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); Global Water Partnership (GWP); International Commis-sion on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID); International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP); TheWorld Conservation Union (IUCN); International Water Management Institute (IWMI); United Na-tions Environment Programme (UNEP); World Health Organization (WHO); World Water Council (WWC)and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). see www.iwmi.org/dialogue2WMO, UNESCO, IUCN, UNDP, FAO, WWC, IPCC and WB.3GWP, UNDP and ICLEI.

29

and stakeholder participation in an action-research program. The work of the Dialogue canbest be understood along clearly defined core issues. A suitable way of classifying these issuesis the level to which the issues relate:

Global LevelWork at the global level is fairly advanced because of the established capacity of theorganizations that established the Dialogue at international level. Issues include:

What is the dimension of the water, food and environment problem? Where andto what extent are water for food and nature really in conflict? What are the trends?

The Comprehensive Assessment Program of IWMI is designed to provide answers tothis set of questions, starting with agriculture and exploring the interactions with other usersand the environment. The Water and Nature Program of IUCN has similar objectives startingfrom an environmental perspective.

What is the potential of reducing pressure on limited water resources? Optionsinclude more efficient agricultural water use, alternative production systems, andtechnological innovations such as drought-resistant or short-cycle crops.

WWF has started a program to explore the potential of alternative production systems.A group of research institutions around IHE have started a multiyear program that will explorethe potential of improved rain-fed agriculture through water-harvesting options in the moistsavannahs of Africa.

Country (Policy) LevelIssues at country level are, in most cases, policy-related. There is uncertainty over the foodsecurity strategy to follow and, very often, the agricultural policies contradict or underminestated environmental objectives. Questions include:

How can the policy coherence in the agriculture and environmental sector beincreased? What policy options do countries have to assure a reasonable level offood security under situations of water stress?

The PODIUM model of IWMI is a suitable instrument to explore different policy optionsand support a policy dialogue. ICID, in cooperation with FAO, has started policy dialogueson the food-security policy in China and India. Similar work is under preparation in Egypt,Pakistan and Morocco. The Dialogue is planning to launch a number of additional country(policy) dialogues that would, in particular, focus on the issue of policy coherence and food-security strategies that are being planned. It is obvious however, that this depends on theactive interest of governments.

30

Box 6. Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment in Malaysia.

Purposes: (1) To establish, facilitate and promote an effective dialogue processat the national/sector/basin level by incorporating the entire spectrum ofstakeholders. (2) For improved implementation of better irrigation and drainage.(3) To address related institutional and organizational issues.

It started with the interest and the devotion demonstrated by the Malaysian WaterPartnership (MWP). The MWP was keen on helping the Dialogue processunderway in that country. MWP involved the Malaysian National Committee onIrrigation and Drainage (MANCID). On behalf of MANCID and its Director General,the Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) has established an “OrganizingCommittee with a Secretariat.” This Secretariat is chaired by the Director/DIDand is tasked with the organizing and implementing of the Dialogue in Malaysia.This is a clear example of how a country could own its Dialogue and make itoperational. During the planning of Dialogue activities, the Organizing Committeehas realized the importance of facilitation and assistance from the DialogueSecretariat, which agreed to organize a 5-day training workshop during the firsthalf of May 2002, for the intended local facilitators, with external expert inputs.At the end of this training, participants agreed on a Dialogue process—a plan ofwork to be implemented. This work plan entails three local-level Dialogue meetingsin three identified basins along with three papers on Water, Environment and FoodSecurity. Materials and opinions from these three Dialogues and papers will feedinto five mini-sectoral Dialogues, whose results will be synthesized into a singlethematic paper to be discussed at a national Dialogue. This is expected to bereflected in Malaysian water management.Source: DWFE Malaysia.

River-Basin LevelOne result of the debate at the Second Water Forum was a consensus that the debate onwater, food and environment should be brought down from the abstract to a level where thereal problems are and where solutions can be found. In most cases, this is the river-basinlevel. The Dialogue is planning to initiate a number of case studies that will attempt to provideanswers to questions such as:

What are the options to achieve win-win solutions or mitigate negative impact ofagricultural development? What are the in-stream flow requirements to preservethe ecosystem?

A series of basin-level dialogues is currently under preparation for the Yellow river, theVolta and a number of smaller basins, particularly in Asia and Africa.

Local LevelThe local level is particularly important for the continuum of water, food production andenvironment. Any decision on land use taken by a farmer is a decision on water management

31

that may impact many people and the environment downstream. Questions to be addressed atthis level include:

How to integrate local experience in river-basin and policy dialogues? How toassure participation and a voice for local action groups in higher-level dialogueswithout paralyzing the decision process? How to scale-up local experience to river-basin and regional level? How to assess the impact of scaling-up operation?

The GWP and a group of NGOs are currently preparing a number of dialogue activitiesat the local and regional scale.

Crosscutting IssuesIn addition, a set of crosscutting issues and questions will address the overriding issues ofpoverty and health as well as the overall feasibility of the dialogue approach in the context ofevolving societies. Questions include:

How to make sure that the poor and vulnerable are not negatively affected bytrade-offs between food production and conservation? How to assure that the ruralpoor own and benefit from conservation measures? What is the capacity ofdepressed societies in evolving societies to really engage in social learning, conflictresolution (putting short-term individual goals behind longer-term societal goals)?What mechanisms are required to trade short-term individual gains against long-term collective benefits? What is the role of peer pressure, and social control? Isthe time ripe for the dialogue approach? What is the influence of the level ofeducation and awareness? How to mainstream dialogue results in the politicalprocess?

The goals of the Dialogue are ambitious and the participating institutions have noillusion on the difficulties of the way ahead. The objective is not to launch a maximum numberof dialogue initiatives but to initiate a limited number of carefully monitored case studies andbuild a knowledge base that allows tentative answers on these questions. Case studies will besupported by targeted research and analytical desk studies. The list of questions is not closedbut will be reviewed and expanded as experience is gained and in accordance withrecommendations of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP). Any organizationinvolved in water, food and environment is invited to join the Dialogue’s Forum of AssociatedOrganizations in order to initiate dialogues, share experience and contribute to the knowledgebase.

Conclusions

Increased water conflicts, particularly in the agriculture-environment arena, are the result ofthe rapidly increasing relative water scarcity in many basins to which water institutions havenot yet successfully adapted.

32

“Dialogue” is proposed in this paper as a nonmarket, negotiated process that can helpresolve water conflicts, which arise due to the rapidly increasing relative scarcity in waterresources in many basins. A dialogue process is understood to be a process of negotiationthat leads to a convergence of interests, through joint-learning about the stakes and themechanisms at work, through deliberate reflection about mutual interdependence on othersand the need to agree on common solutions.

The Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment (DWFE) is a program of activities thatemploys dialogue processes at international, national, basin and local scales to help buildbridges between agriculture and the environment. The DWFE, launched in August 2001, hasgone through a one-year phase of establishment and design, and is currently in the processof kicking off concrete dialogue activities in the field.

I hope these details would be useful in your deliberations and thank you for bearingwith me. Your excellencies and honored guests, I thank you for your presence here today andwish you all the very best on behalf of the Consortium.

Literature Cited

Cosgrove, W. J.; Rijsberman, F. J. 2000. World water vision: Making water everybody’s business.London: Earthscan Publications.

Lemly, A. D.; Kingsford, R. T.; Thompson, J. R. 2000. Irrigated agriculture and wildlife conservation:Conflict on a global scale. Environmental Management 25 (5): 485-512. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Paranjpye, V.; Hirsch, D.; Wolvekamp, P. 2002. Dialogue on water, food and environment: Guidelinesfor integrated local action. Paper for presentation to, and comment by, the Dialogue Consortium.

Rijsberman, F. R.; Molden, D. 2001. Balancing water uses: Water for food and water for nature. ThematicBackground Paper for the International Conference on Freshwater, Bonn.

Roling, N.; Woodhill, J. 2001. From paradigms to practice: Foundations, principles and elements fordialogue on water, food and environment. Background Document for National and Basin Dialogue.

33

Welcome Address of HE Le Huy Ngoat the Opening Ceremony

of the Hanoi International Water Conference,

14-16 October 2002

Chairman, Board,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

On behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), I warmly welcomethe representatives from the Asian countries, the sponsors, the international organizations,the nongovernment organizations and the local participants at both central and grassrootslevels who are attending the Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment today. MARD ofVietnam has the honor to host the Conference in cooperation with the International WaterManagement Institute (IWMI) and with the valuable contributions from the Government ofthe Netherlands, the Royal Danish Embassy, AusAID Australia and the Asian DevelopmentBank (ADB). The outcomes of the Conference are the important inputs to the Third WorldWater Forum in 2003. It is a particularly significant theme for an agricultural economy withtypical characteristics like in our country.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Like some other Asian countries, Vietnam is considered as a cradle of the wet-rice civilization,and the country has undergone a long-period process in exploiting its advantages in term ofland and water resources. The two large deltas including the Red river delta and the Mekongdelta have formed, and have usually been considered as, the two granaries of the whole country.Similar to other Southeast Asian countries, Vietnam has a rather large volume of annual waterflow; however, this water flow is not equally distributed in seasonal and geographical terms.Often, our country suffers from natural calamities such as spate, flood and drought, andaccumulation of aluminum and salt water. Nevertheless, Vietnam is different from other countriesin terms of its narrow land mass and big population. Three-fourths of our territory ismountainous; agricultural land is very limited; and in 1995, its cultivated area per capita wasonly 730 m2. These factors cause great difficulty for Vietnam.

In such natural conditions, just at the beginning of the last millennium, the inhabitantsin the Red river delta chose an appropriate way of food production; that was to graduallydevelop and intensively cultivate the wet-rice. People have been building dykes to protectthemselves from spate, carrying out irrigation and drainage work in order to keep naturalcalamities under control and adapt themselves to natural changes. Some of the many tide-

34

based irrigation systems, built over 200 years ago, remain operative. Over the past 20 years,the experiments in adopting the viewpoint of living together with flood, taking advantage ofalluvium and utilizing the irrigation system with the aim of improving aluminous and saltwaterconditions have brought about a remarkable success in the agricultural development. Puttinginto action the motto “water resources are a key solution to develop the agriculture,” inconjunction with the proper utilization of land and water, our people have changed the formerflood plain and flood rice to the currently well-off wet rice ecosystem. Out of the total cultivatedarea of 8.6 million hectares, more than 3 million hectares exist with sustainable irrigation anddrainage systems. The average coefficient of land use reaches 2.2 and the total rice outputhas increased more than twice during the past 15 years. The irrigation works have made avery important contribution to the national food security and poverty-reduction program andto the shift of the country from food shortage to rice exportation.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Entering the twenty-first century, with high pressures from industrialization, modernization,urbanization and the growing population, exploitation and management of water resources inVietnam are facing many new challenges.

Water for food (mostly for rice-growing) accounts for 90 percent of the exploited volumeof water while water demand for other sectors, such as tree planting, livestock breeding,industry and service, has been increasing rapidly. At the time, only about 46 percent of therural population is being provided with freshwater for daily life. Overuse of water in somespecialized cultivated areas has resulted in aquifer depletion. The forest cover has dramaticallydecreased over the last decades. Despite the fact that the Government of Vietnam and its peoplehave made great efforts in afforesting, the recovery has not yet achieved the expectedoutcomes. The appropriate solutions for the problem of pollution of water resources, owing toindustrial, urban and agricultural wastes, are not available. Waterborne infectious diseaseshave not been decreased as yet. Meanwhile, the tendency for floods, droughts and tornadoshas been increasingly serious and frequent all over the country during recent years.

In the face of these challenges, the Government of Vietnam is clearly aware of the neededcomprehensive innovations in the management of water resources and environment. Thegovernment has outlined the implementation guidelines of the Law on Water Resources,specifically the new afforestation of 5 million hectares and the shift of the tree planting andlivestock breeding structure towards the diversified and adapted tendency, in accordance withthe natural conditions of land, water resources and climate, and the promotion of the regionallycomparable advantages with the aim of ensuring sustainable food security and povertyreduction.

At present, Vietnam is a big exporter of rice and agro-aquatic products. For the purposeof scaling up the values of agro-aquatic products in linkage with maintaining sustainableutilization of the natural resources, the addressed major orientation is to improve the qualityand diversify the range of products. Vietnam is actively speeding up its integration into theregional economy and is eagerly tightening trade cooperation with the regional countries interms of exporting the agro-aquatic products.

35

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Of nine large river systems with a total basin area of over 10,000 km2 in Vietnam, five systemsare international. Vietnam has considered the cooperation policies in exploiting and utilizingthe shared water resources as of national importance. Vietnam has been making positivecontributions to strengthening cooperation within the Mekong Delta Committee and isexpecting collaborative promotion in the utilization of other rivers with Lao, Cambodia andChina with the principles of making fair and appropriate utilization of water resources, ensuringmutual benefits and protecting the natural resources and basin environment.

The above policies and activities have received support from the sponsors, thegovernments worldwide and the international organizations. On this occasion, on behalf ofMARD, I would like to express our deep gratitude to the international communities for theirvaluable contributions.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment attracts the participation of many regional andworld professionals and managerial officials and is a good forum for the exchange of experience,solutions to problems and direction of proposals so as to secure more effective managementand utilization of land and water resources, with the aim of achieving the intended economicobjectives, environmental protection and improvement of the quality of human life.

Best regards to you, ladies and gentlemen and wish you a successful Conference!

Thank you for your kind attention!

36

Guest Speech of HRH the Prince of Orangeat the Hanoi Conference on Dialogue

on Water, Food and EnvironmentDelivered by HE, the Ambassador of the Netherlands

Today his Royal Highness, the Prince of Orange, would have presented an opening speech atthis Conference. You will be aware of the personal circumstances, which led to the cancellationof his visit to Vietnam. I have been asked to read for you the speech of the Prince of Orange.This is a great honor for me and I will use the exact wording of his speech. So, all in his words,I quote:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In an international water conference so soon after the Johannesburg World Summit onSustainable Development, we have to evaluate where we stand. I conclude that water hastruly risen to the top of the global political agenda. Not only has the Johannesburg Summitadopted a sanitation target to complement the drinking-water target adopted earlier, but theImplementation Agenda adopted in Johannesburg spells out the importance of water in all itsdimensions. I think that as water-sector leaders and professionals we can be satisfied there isnow a widespread political awareness of the importance of the water issues. Thanks to thehard work of the last few years, the World Water Vision, the Framework for Action, the 2ndWorld Water Forum, the work of the Global Water Partnership, the World Water Council andmany, many others—we have achieved unprecedented political will at the global level to addressthe water problems of today and of tomorrow. We can say that, at least at senior decision-maker level, we have succeeded in making water everybody’s business.

There is, unfortunately, not much reason to celebrate. Water issues are on top of theagenda because of the severity of the problems we face. In the company of the waterprofessionals gathered here in Hanoi, I do not have to explain what these problems are. Butwe do have to be impressed with the weight of the responsibility that now rests on ourshoulders. No longer can we blame the lack of political will, or the disinterest of seniorpolicymakers for water issues. The ball is back in our court. We will now have to show that wecan lead the way forward to solve the world water crisis. In my opinion, this implies that wewill have to achieve water security, food security and environmental security, all at the sametime. Clearly, water security is not so much a goal in its own right but a means to achievesustainable development. Or, to speak in terms of last year’s Bonn conference “water is thekey to sustainable development.”

I believe that Vietnam is a good case in point. The water resources in the delta of thegreat Mekong river have provided Vietnam with the opportunity to develop into a major riceexporter. But even within the Vietnamese side of the delta there is strong competition for waterbetween rice farming and shrimp aquaculture. The Mekong is also famous for its river fisheries

37

and provides an abundance of opportunities for hydropower further upstream—and then wehave not yet talked about its rich biodiversity that also relies on water resources. Clearly, thereis no water scarcity in the Mekong basin in the classic sense of arid and semiarid areas. Butthere certainly are major challenges to provide water, food and environmental security to apopulation that naturally strives to increase its economic development as well. I look forwardto hearing more about these issues during this Conference.

This Conference, jointly hosted by the Government of the People’s Republic of Vietnamand the Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment, is therefore very timely. In addition to thedrinking water and sanitation targets that are now adopted, I have proposed in “No Water NoFuture” that we also adopt a third target on water for productive use, particularly water forfood production. This target has not been adopted in Johannesburg, as you probably know,but the issue has been placed on the agenda and I am hopeful that through activities such asthis Dialogue we can increase awareness of the need for a Blue Revolution—focusing onincreasing water productivity for agriculture—more crop per drop.

Personally, I am convinced that the solution to the resource-management side of thewater crisis, as opposed to the service-delivery crisis in water supply and sanitation, is in thehands of agriculture. Sustainable solutions are not likely to come from agriculture in isolation,however. Solutions are more likely to be sparked through interaction of users and experts fromagriculture as well as from the environment. To prevent further damage to the environment,and limit the need for increased withdrawals, we will have to increase the productivity of wateruse in agriculture and get more value out of the use we make of the water that we do abstractfor human use. How to do that is obviously not a simple task. Clearly, opinions differ stronglyon what the best way forward is. As competition for water at the basin and local level increases,the risk of conflicts among users rises, particularly through the fragmented way we still managewater on a use-by-use basis in most countries and basins.

In many places, water is not necessarily scarce in the absolute sense, but a rapid increasein use—through population growth as well as through increased use per capita—has stronglyincreased the relative scarcity. I do expect that as society adjusts to the new, increased valueof water, we will develop ways and means, technologies as well as institutions, to deal withthe new situation. I am not a pessimist and I think a parallel can be drawn with energy. In theseventies there were many alarming reports about the energy crisis. The world was runningout of fossil fuels, the experts feared. You all know that we have not, but the fear of runningout did lead to a wave of research into sustainable sources of energy and—most importantly—energy-saving measures. This has had enormous impact on the way we use energy. Similarly,I do not expect that we will run out of water. But we will have to make a great effort to adjust:get more out of the water we use and possibly adjust to using more water where it is lessscarce.

Of course, water use is not the only important issue for agriculture, but many other keyissues in agriculture are linked to water. And we need to understand how decisions madeelsewhere, outside the water sector, will impact agriculture and the access of farmers in thedeveloping countries to land, fertilizers, markets and so forth. As I said in Johannesburg, theinternational trade regimes in agricultural products—a key issue at the World Summit onSustainable Development—also have an enormous impact on the water and food sector. Thatit takes at least 2,000 m3 of water to produce a ton of rice, explains why some people refer tothe export of food as the export of virtual water. We know, for example, that the agriculture

38

subsidies in OECD countries, such as the European common agriculture policy or the new USfarm bill, have a major impact on where food is grown and water is used. Agricultural subsidiesare currently around a billion US dollars per day, which is many times the total amount ofdevelopment assistance. These and other regulations, that limit market access, have a majorimpact on the export opportunities of agricultural products from the developing countries, suchas the export of rice from Vietnam. The Netherlands government supports a more ambitiousapproach to reducing European agricultural subsidies and increased access to markets bydeveloping countries. I believe it is of crucial importance that the impacts of changes inagricultural subsidies and the international system of trade in food and fiber on the nationaland local demand for water for food are assessed very carefully. These impacts should betaken into account in the Doha round of trade negotiations as well as in national- and basin-level discussions such as the dialogues discussed at this Conference.

In the light of the necessary transformation in agriculture I see an important role forinitiatives such as the Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment. Clearly, there is a need foran initiative that focuses on bridging the gap between major water-use sectors that havecommunicated insufficiently in the past. Agriculturalists and environmentalists are often lockedinto paradigms that are hard to break out of. It is already a big step forward that people recognizethis and are willing to address the issue head on. This does not mean that from there on it willbe easy to get this done. This requires more than a willingness to talk to each other. You will,collectively, have to develop a new way of communicating and sharing ideas on what theother side considers valuable. Definitely not an easy task, but one that is needed andworthwhile.

I was therefore pleased to accept the invitation, last year, to become a DialogueAmbassador and launch the initiative at the Stockholm Water Symposium. Now, one year later,I would like to see what your progress is: whether methods have been designed to get thedialogues off the ground; whether you have identified real cases at the basin and local levelthat can be pilots for the new approach; and whether you have managed to remain enthusiasticabout what is bound to be a difficult task ahead. I wish you a very productive meeting. Weneed you to be successful. The Johannesburg Summit has provided you with a strong globalmandate and a big responsibility. I am confident that you will meet the challenge.

I thank you.

39

Keynote Address of HE Shri Sompal

Member, Planning Commission at the International Water

Conference, Hanoi, Vietnam on 14 October, 2002

I feel extremely elated and privileged to have been invited to deliver the keynote address atthe “International Water Conference: Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment.” I thank theDialogue Secretariat for providing me this opportunity. Dialogue, as we know, was launchedin Stockholm in August, 2001 and this is its first Annual Conference, which is testimony to itsresolve; it clearly indicates that the Dialogue takes its mandate seriously and means business.On behalf of everyone present here, I commend the initiative. Equally commendable is thechoice of the venue, Hanoi, the beautiful capital of Vietnam, because Vietnam is a partner inthe Mekong River Commission (MRC). The MRC is living proof that dialogue is the mostpractical and positive mode of conflict resolution. I am sure this path-breaking long-termagreement forged by the five member nations will provide the basic framework for equitablysharing the common resources and serve as the role model and beacon light for all othercountries and communities in the years to come.

With the dawn of the twenty-first century, the human race is caught on the horns of adilemma. On the one side, we have the developmental imperatives and, on the other, thedeleterious effects thereof. We have witnessed a high rate of population growth especiallyduring the latter half of the twentieth century. In the 25-year period from 1950 to 1975 theworld population increased by 64 percent while in the next 25 years, up to 2000, the rate camedown to 48 percent. The present pattern of economic development, characterized by massindustrialization and urbanization aimed at meeting the ever-rising demand of humanity andthe use of high-energy-based technologies, has placed an unsustainable burden on the naturalresources of our planet. The ever-enhancing anthropogenic activities have given rise to severalparadoxes and problems, the most acute of which are the reduced availability and degeneratedquality of water and environmental degradation. While demand for water is continuouslyincreasing, its availability is getting constricted day by day. At the global level, only 2.5 percentof water is fresh, out of which 69 percent is locked up in glaciers, 30 percent in the ground,0.3 percent in lakes and rivers and 0.7 percent as soil moisture. In several river basins of theworld, per capita availability has already gone below the threshold value of 1,000 m3.

The situation in the monsoonal regions of Asia is still worse, as rains take place onlyduring a limited period of the year. In India, for instance, there are only 75 to 90 days of rainevery year. Actual rain precipitation, however, is only on 35 days and for merely 100 hours. Itis in these conditions that water is to be made available for drinking, irrigation and other usesduring the remaining 9 months of the year. It must be true of all other countries lying in themonsoonal region.

It is agreed by one and all that providing clean drinking water, producing enough foodand nutrition for the teeming millions and removal of poverty have to be the first and foremostobjectives of any developmental policy. In view of the emerging scarcity and deteriorating

40

quality, top priority is to be accorded to sustainable development and use of water resources,which would entail the evolution of a long-term policy on all aspects of water including itsrational allocation for various competing uses, equitable sharing among stakeholders,maintaining quality and managing demand. The Dialogue was launched with this as the mainobjective. Having gone through the Dialogue papers and agenda, I am pleased to note that allthe issues and dimensions of the problem have been clearly identified and the operationalguidelines comprehensively drawn up. The Dialogue Secretariat deserves our congratulationsfor that.

In my address, I propose to briefly share with you my perception on some of these issuesand their possible solutions. If the Indian experience is any guide, I see a lot of potential forwater-resources development, in spite of the difficulties that we are facing or are likely toconfront in meeting the rising demand. The choice, however, is not easy to make. The modesto be adopted and the approaches to be undertaken will have to be prioritized with great care.In India, we have been able to tackle the problem of food scarcity with reasonable success.Currently, the annual production of food-grains has crossed the 211 million tonne mark asagainst the mere 51 million tonnes in 1951. The major factor that has contributed to thisachievement is irrigation. Huge investments have been made in the irrigation sector anddrinking-water projects, which has enabled us not only to become self-sufficient in the matterof food and agricultural production but also to export our surpluses. Approximately, 14 percentof our exports come from the agriculture sector.

Still we are faced with many difficulties. First, even now, only 40 percent of our agriculturehas assured irrigation, while the remaining 60 percent continues to be dependent on the erraticmonsoonal rains. Consequently, the yields in the irrigated areas have reached, on average, 3.5to 4 tonnes per hectare and in certain areas we have struck the highest level of yields at 7 to8 tonnes per hectare, which is equal to that achieved anywhere in the world; however, theproductivity per hectare in rain-fed areas continues to linger around 1 tonne per hectare. Theirony is that the majority of India’s poor people live in these areas. Second, more than 20percent of our population does not have access to clean drinking water. Third, the groundwatertables are receding at an alarming pace and large areas have already been declared as “grey”and “dark” because of overexploitation. All the water sources, including groundwater, havebecome highly polluted.

In developing our water resources, we have adopted a multi-modal approach. The bulkof the potential that we have been able to develop initially has been provided by the majorand medium-sized projects. Of late, however, minor irrigation has made an equal contribution.Although the mass irrigation program has solved our food problem it has given rise to thetwin problems of receding groundwater tables and waterlogging caused by blocking of naturaldrainage systems and seepage of canal waters. Approximately 8 million hectares of ouragricultural land are waterlogged, making cultivation difficult or impossible and creating severalhealth hazards on account of waterborne diseases. For tackling these, we are trying to embarkupon a National Watershed Management Program of rainwater harvesting, proper drainageand evolving suitable cropping patterns depending on the availability of water.

The experience of India in the choice of modes of irrigation may also be of some interestto the participants. The capital investment required for creating one hectare of additionalpotential through a major and medium-sized project is approximately US$2,000 and the gestationperiod involved is around 12 years. As against this, a minor irrigation project can give one

41

additional hectare of irrigation at a cost of $400; it can be put in place in a few weeks, andthere are no problems of submergence, ecological degradation or rehabilitation, which areusually associated with large projects. However, minor irrigation, especially groundwaterstructures like tube wells, tends to deplete groundwater tables. Therefore, the third, more holisticand comprehensive approach known as watershed development has been found to be themost ideal. The investment requirement is approximately $150 per hectare and it is continuallysustainable and more equitable and has no negative side effects.

Allocating the scarce water resources is becoming more and more problematic. First ofall, there is a competing demand between the various users. Irrigation, of course, takes themajor share, i.e., about 70-75 percent of the total water resources developed so far. Second,the demand for drinking water, especially in urban areas and for other purposes, e.g., industries,etc., is continuously rising. Conflicts and tensions between the riparian states sharing thewater of the same rivers are assuming serious sociopolitical dimensions. In our endeavor toresolve these, the MRC model and the modalities delineated by the Dialogue would surely beof great value.

In addition to developing the water resources, demand management too assumes greatsignificance. Huge amounts of water are being wasted in irrigation, in urban areas and inindustries. Studies in India indicate that 38 percent of the water released from the dams intothe canal systems is wasted either through evaporation or seepage. And only 15 percent ofthe total water that reaches the fields is actually utilized by the plants because of the highlywasteful practice of gravitational/flooding system of irrigation. The bulk of the wastage withinthe systems can be saved through lining of channels. At the field level, however, the use ofwater-saving devices can be of great help in economizing water use. The modern techniquesof drip and sprinkler systems are some such devices. But these require huge amounts ofresources for ensuring a continuous power supply and capital investment by farmers, whichthe developing countries are presently not in a position to supply. Some innovations havebeen made by countries like Israel and we are adopting them in reducing the use of energy indrip systems. A simple change in the method of cultivation by adopting the practice of raisedbeds, zero tillage and mulching, can save 30 to 40 percent of irrigation water, and I am pleasedto learn that Vietnam is propagating this practice in a big way.

Changing the cropping patterns from the water-guzzling crops of rice, wheat andsugarcane, etc., to the coarse grain crops, oilseeds, legumes and tree crops also helps savewater. Based on the experience of some individual farmers including myself and NGOs in India,I have a feeling that the whole issue of agricultural technology based on seeds of high-yieldingvarieties (HYVs) and the use of high doses of inputs, especially agrochemicals, urgently needsa serious review. It is a known fact that the use of chemical fertilizers and HYV seeds has justdoubled the demand of water per hectare. My own experiment of cultivating a few nativevarieties of wheat along with HYVs makes me quite confident on this account. Native varietiesof wheat known as C-281, etc., have been found to contain 14.34 percent protein, 35.5 percentwet gluten and 13.3 percent dry gluten as against the HYVs known as PBW-343, etc., havingonly 10 percent protein, 18 percent wet gluten and 6.1 percent dry gluten. The moisture contentin the HYVs has been found to be higher by 25 to 30 percent. The irrigation requirement isalso 50 to 60 percent higher in case of HYVs grown with chemical fertilizers. The lesson learntis that reverting to natural cultivars and organic farming would not only allow a heavy savingon irrigation water and cost of fertilizers but also give better nutrition, longer shelf and field

42

life of seeds measured by retention of germinability for a longer period of time. The advantagein terms of no pollution, or much lower pollution, is well known. These alternative strategieshave been clearly demonstrated to be not only equally feasible but comparatively beneficialand, hence, do deserve proper scientific evaluation and mass adoption, if not for anythingelse but at least for a more optimal and sustainable use of water.

In cities also the use of water is quite wasteful. A survey in India has found that the percapita daily consumption of water in the 5 metros of India—Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Bangaloreand Calcutta—is 287 liters. The corresponding value for the rural areas is only 17 liters. Youwould acknowledge that one visit to the toilet costs 10 to 15 liters of water, which not onlywastes clean drinking water but makes it dirty on a large scale. Measures to regulate suchwastefulness are to be considered urgently. Prescribing the size of cisterns as 5 or 7 liters, asagainst the usual 10 to 15 liter ones, can reduce the wastage substantially. The use of separateurinals could be another such device. Prohibiting the use of clean drinking water for otherpurposes like gardening, floor and car washing, etc., too are being considered as some othermeasures in India.

Rainwater harvesting for recharging groundwater is being propagated and promoted inIndia in a big way in both rural and urban areas. A long-term perspective plan has alreadybeen formulated and is being implemented with huge public-sector funding and people’sparticipation. Legislation is being contemplated for making rainwater including roof-waterharvesting compulsory in all the urban areas. Plans are also afoot for impounding floodwaterin the floodplain zones for enhancing water supplies. For this purpose cities like Delhi, Agra,Kanpur, Lucknow and Varanasi have already been short-listed.

Water pollution too has assumed alarming proportions. Solid waste disposal and sewageof cities have converted all our major rivers into dirty drains and also polluted groundwater.Solid waste disposal is becoming more and more problematic day by day causing serious healthhazards. Industrial effluents are another major source of pollution. Overuse and indiscriminateuse of agro-chemicals, fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides, fungicides and weedicides havegreatly contributed not only to pollution of water but also to making the presence of toxicresidues in the whole food chain reach critical limits several times the prescribed tolerancelevels. Therefore, sewage and affluent treatment plants are being advocated as solutions. But,it may be appreciated that these need huge investments. The big question for the developingcountries is the resources. In this context the “polluter pays” principle has to be followednationally as well as internationally. The institutions like Dialogue are ideally suited for ensuringthe observance of this principle.

Solid wastes can be converted into economic goods by using them for generatingbiogas, bioenergy and composts. This would permanently solve the problem of solid wastedisposal and help phasing out of agro-chemicals. Some such experiments have already beensuccessfully done in India but, so far, only on a very small scale. Obviously, these needreplication, which can be promoted by international institutions like Dialogue throughout theglobe.

In the matter of conflict resolution, I would not go into many details and wouldstraightaway like to support the Dialogue Initiative and the framework it has delineated.However, I seek to place a sincere suggestion for the reflection of all present here. There is aneed to undertake a series of case studies listing the success stories and best practices foundanywhere in the world. For example, development of water resources through the holistic

43

approach of watershed management, as in the district of Alwar of Rajasthan, Ralegan Sidhiand Manjri of Maharashtra and successful rainwater harvesting models in the campuses ofthe Jawaharlal Nehru University and the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi and thecity of Chennai in India, could be studied and replicated. Similarly, the successful experimentsin organic cultivation and of native seeds should be scientifically evaluated and the informationdisseminated. Informed debate and involvement and participation of the people, i.e., of thestakeholders at grass-root level have rightly been identified as the basis of all such exercisesby the Dialogue. Therefore, let us support this approach.

It must, however, be understood that all these cannot be fully effective without involvingthe political system, which is the main repository of public authority and funds. Friends, youwould appreciate that the persons manning the political systems, mainly the politicians—andI happen to be one of them—take notice only of one thing, i.e., public opinion. Conferenceslike this one, in addition to flagging the issues and proposing the feasible and practicabletechno-economic solutions, have the capacity to arouse public opinion nationally as well asinternationally, which, I may reiterate, the political bosses can hardly afford to ignore.

Before I conclude, I would like to emphasize that water management is not merely anissue of investment and technology, or even public policy and law but a big cultural issue aswell. In India, we had a longstanding tradition of conserving, storing and minimum need-baseduse of natural resources including water. The system of village ponds, tanks and wells wasthere to harvest rainwater. All these water sources and systems were not only preserved andwell maintained but also worshipped. There was a regular practice of digging ponds in thesummer months preceding monsoons, especially on full-moon days. Every family memberincluding women and children would religiously go to the pond and well sites for removingthe silt and thereby enhancing the water-holding and groundwater-recharging capacity of thestructures. The silt so removed was utilized for making bricks and plastering the walls andmaking earthen pots. Some of the silt was put in the fields as it is quite a rich organic culturecontaining abundant microbial populations that are very useful in replenishing the naturalfertility of soil. What is most interesting is that there was a village community institution knownas the “Panchayat,” which was responsible not only for the joint and participatory managementof such common resources but also for effective conflict resolution. This was a need-basedself-activated system without any overhead/establishment costs. These practices and theelements of the self-governance system can still be highly relevant and useful. I offer myservices to the Dialogue Secretariat or any other entity represented here that wishes toundertake such studies in India. Dialogue can play a big role in inculcating this type of culturein the whole world.

Finally, I extend a hearty welcome and good wishes to all the participants and once againexpress my gratitude to the Dialogue for enabling me to participate in this Conference, whichis a rewarding experience for me.

45

Section 3

Reports of Working Groups

47

Report of Working Group 1:Crosscutting Issues and Synergies

The Working Group was given the task to discuss how crosscutting issues of health andpoverty can be integrated into dialogues at the national, regional and local level, and to identifyand suggest relevant dialogues.

1. Introductory Statements

The work of the group started with the introductory presentation by Mr. Smidt, followed bybrief statements by the resource persons. The facilitator then followed the generic procedureof all working groups: identification of issues, related obstacles of introducing crosscuttingissues in the dialogues and their possible solutions, a specification of the tools needed toimplement these solutions, what they meant in concrete dialogue terms, and finally, the keyprinciples underpinning the integration of the crosscutting issues into the Dialogue.

In his introduction P. Smidt, Country Representative of ADB in Vietnam, outlined theobjectives and components of the ADB water policy (Water for All), which recognizes wateras both a social and an economic good and aims at economic growth and poverty alleviation.This policy was implemented in the technical cooperation in three river basins—Red river inViet Nam, Nam Ngum river in Lao PDR and Haihe river in China. In a subsequent intervention,Mr. Schmidt also referred to the process of formulating this policy, which had the character ofa stakeholder Dialogue, first internally in ADB and later with the ADB member countries,altogether over a period of 4 years.

The intervention of Natasha Landell-Mills, Economist at IIED (International Institute forEnvironment and Development) spanned the two issues: development of water-zone protectionservices linked to land use. A market-based approach has been shown to be able to complementexisting institutional arrangements for sharing benefits in watersheds and to continue to deliverwater services. Upstream land use has important implications for the management of downstreamwater use, and markets are used as a concept of a stylized nature. Land managers have animpact on downstream water users and there is, therefore, a clear externality, of which theymay not be optimally aware. The challenge is how to close this loop. Can a payment systembe established from water beneficiaries to land-use managers? These are voluntary markets,and the benefits will have to be greater in value than what the downstream users will have topay in order to have the benefits. The health crosscutting issues may, at first sight, not beevident. IIED has catalogued the existing mechanisms. Action learning is a key to promotingthis concept. This is being undertaken in a number of countries.

Jean Marc Faures, Senior Technical Officer of FAO said that agriculture is the key drivingforce of processes in agro-ecosystems, where biotic and abiotic elements all interact in a specific

48

setting. Integrated management refers to management that recognizes the full complexity ofthe ecosystem interactions and takes them into account whenever development or change isproposed. By definition, an ecosystem approach is an integrated approach.

This approach must also take account of all ecosystem services and products (includingbiodiversity, eco-tourism, medicinal plants, etc.). Agro-ecosystems are dominated by three keyroles they play, in production, in a social role and in a cultural role. The difficulty inincorporating interventions into an agro-ecosystem arises from the many externalities (markets,international trade, international legal instruments on environmental issues, demographicpressures and issues like climate change, plus the more classical issues such as land tenure).Examples of integrated agro-ecosystem management include combined rice-fish farming, forest/pasture and agro-forestry.

A second challenge is how we can maintain the relative stability of traditional systems.There is no stable ecosystem (they are all dynamic), but the relatively stable nature of manytraditional agro-ecosystems should be maintained while improving their productivity.

Felix Amerasinghe, Principal Researcher of IWMI said that in relation to health andenvironment the question may be rightly asked: what are the specifics? In South andSoutheast Asia, as in other parts of the world, health and poverty are closely linked and cometo expression as a vicious circle. There are two types of diseases related to water: the water-related vector-borne diseases, linked to (agro) ecosystems, and then there are waterborne/water-washed diseases, to do with water quality and quantity. In the more arid regions,communities may in reality only have access to one and the same water source, that of irrigationcanals (either directly or through recharging groundwater)—in this context, existing water-quality guidelines are not relevant to the real world, and they are an obstacle to letting thissource to people for their domestic needs. Access to poor-quality water is better than no accessto water at all. In many parts of the world it is the lack of intersectoral dialogues that keepshealth out of the equation. What is the real-life value of water quality? Recent evidence indicatesthat contamination in the domestic environment is critical and it is hygiene behavior that needsto be changed to achieve significant improvements.

Shoaib Sultan Khan, referring to his 50-year professional career, with the last 24 yearsworking at the grass-roots level, shared the many lessons learned from the experience with50,000 communities and 2 million people. Communities must be involved, they must be thecenterpiece in any effort or initiative towards water for all and improved quality of life. Youcannot expect anything from technical solutions and calling conferences if you have notinvolved the communities. Investment in community mobilization is essential; people have tobe organized around what they perceive as important. Once the perceptions have been defined,interest groups within the communities can work as catalysts. Start by letting the communityhave its own say. Reaching out to 500 million plus poor people in South Asia can only beachieved if funds are specifically allocated to this mobilization and awareness-creation process.There is a clear need for autonomous efforts to empower people.

2. Key Issues

The Group’s discussions had a rather difficult start, as there was confusion concerning itspremise, scope and expected outcome.

49

It was soon clear, however, that the scope and boundaries of the Dialogue Initiativewere givens at this stage and that there were three levels at which crosscutting issues couldbe considered in dialogues: the policy, institutional and community levels. It was pointed out,however, that it was futile to include crosscutting issues into the Dialogue if they would notlead to action, that the perception of the Dialogue issues by communities was the critical point,and that new issues, such as domestic energy, may turn out to be important in the context ofthe Dialogue at a later stage while there should be room to take them on board. At thecommunity level this was not about food and environment, it was about sustainable livelihood.

Integration of crosscutting issues needed attention for vulnerable groups, options tointernalize externalities into the Dialogue process needed to be pursued, and resources shouldbe allocated specifically, and based on clear criteria, to inter-sectoral Dialogue and action.There was also a need to develop indicators that pinpoint to the externalities such as humanhealth. From the community perspective, there was a difference between providing the enablingenvironment, resources to mobilize communities, and the transfer of power to communities.The lack of progress towards devolution of power was a major obstacle to dealing with potentialwater-allocation conflicts in a truly holistic manner. This drew attention back to the key point:crosscutting issues in the process of water allocation in a framework constrained by waterscarcity and poor water quality.

The group went on to review the issues list that emerged from the previous day’s plenarybrainstorming and decided to generate its own list of issues relevant to their remit of crosscuttingissues. The group came up with the following priority issues:

1. Lack of processes to empower communities2. Lack of coordination among sectors3. Devolution of power not implemented4. Insufficient awareness of hygiene5. Externalities not considered

The WG worked out in detail the obstacles related to these issues, using a nominal groupprocess and next formulated solutions in smaller subgroups dealing with the two key problemareas. These are listed below.

3. Obstacles and Solutions

3.1 To Enhance Process to Empower Communities

• Foster autonomous and independent support organizations for institutionaldevelopment and capacity building at grass-roots level.

• Allocate adequate resources for the processes of grass-roots and various levels.

• Give official and legal recognition to the framework of grass-roots institutions alongwith adequate allocation of resources.

50

• Conscious and sensitive politicians, policymakers, planners and administrators atall levels and also donors to give full, long-term commitment to the process ofempowering communities.

• Strengthen political/democratic processes.

3.2 Lack of Coordination Among SectorsObstacle 2.1: Fragmented management and institutions

• Merge sector responsibilities

• Decentralization and local accountability

• Basin approach to integrate all players

Obstacle 2.2: Absence of coordination mechanisms and incentives for cooperation amongmembers

• Mechanisms for cross-sector coordination

• Joint steering committees

• Lead ministry

• Performance appraisals to encourage coordination

• Water-sector reviews

• Harmonizing the water policies

4. Dimensions of the Dialogue and Opportunities

As a matter of principle, crosscutting issues should be integrated in all ongoing and newdialogues under the Dialogue initiative.

The tools recognized as useful to promote integration include:

• Dissemination of success stories and lessons learned

• Dialogues at the regional level

• Dialogue of donors for long-term commitment

• Methodologies to encourage public participation and manage public meetings

51

• Media advocacy

• Immerse politicians in village living

Dialogue opportunities at basin or subbasin level

• Develop an enabling framework to enable active participation of local communitiesin poverty alleviation

• Basin-level dialogues to identify health and poverty issues related to daily livesof people

• Involve community organizations in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Planningconsultative process

• Dialogue among agricultural, health and government outreach programs

Dialogue opportunities at national or international basin level

• National policy dialogues and seminars

• Translating, synchronizing, making compatible datasets and developing indictorsfor various sectors

• Synchronization of datasets across geographic boundaries (scale and boundaries)

• Organizing people’s participation according to findings of synchronized data

• Establishment of basin organizations

• Better water-management projects addressing health and poverty issues: irrigationschemes and flood control/drainage

• Health impact assessment with all stakeholders involved

• Poverty impact assessment in water projects

5. Principles of Integrating Crosscutting Issues

The Group agreed on the following general principles to integrate health and poverty into theDialogue.

1. Clear criteria and indicators should be developed and used for health and povertyimpacts of options/scenarios considered in the dialogues.

52

2. There should be an evidence-based catalogue of solutions that have proved towork in specific settings.

3. Grass-roots participation (especially women and underprivileged sectors of society;vulnerable groups) should be ensured.

4. There should be cross-sector participation.

5. Multidisciplinary research should add to the existing knowledge base on linksbetween water, poverty and health.

6. Political commitment should be actively pursued and secured.

53

Report of Working Group 2:Reducing Pressure on Water Resources

at the National, Regional and Local Level

1. General Questions/Qualifiers

1. Dialogue on what topic?

2. Dialogue between what parties?

3. How to handle the dialogues?

4. How to link Dialogue to policy action?

5. Access to food and clean water as a right or need

2. Key Issues

Priorities

1. Reduced quantity and quality lead to river and groundwater degradation. There isa need for watershed protection and for the management of water extraction.

a. Presence of arsenic in groundwater is one quality issue that causes a seriousimpact on health and poses a great threat to the use of groundwater irrigation

2. Tough dialogues are needed because trade-offs or “bridging the gap” betweenagriculture and environment will be needed. How to build consensus and do trade-offs in the best way taking into account environmental requirements balanced withfood needs. Interactions between water departments and other sectors (water rights).

a. Economic efficiency of different uses.

b. Develop consciousness and belief that we need to cut agricultural water tosustain water.

c. Lack of Dialogue tools that allows quantification of options available to thedifferent Dialogue partners.

54

3. Empowerment of participants: men and women as end users. How to empower thedifferent groups to increase the negotiating power? Multiple users and multipleinterests: Empowerments of partners from local to higher levels.

4. Capacity b uilding to improve knowledge of the different stakeholders on the issuesand potential solutions.

5. Improving/shift in farming systems: Change crop structure away from high water-use crops and methods, such as rice and irrigation, and also focus on improvedrain-fed agricultural farming systems.

6. Governance of water including upstream water management, integrated system forwater-use strategy, implementation of water laws and international cooperationagreements.

3. Obstacles to Dealing with Issues

Different statuses of people affect their influence on the management of water resources, sowe must consider different socioeconomic and ecological equity issues.

Issue 1. River degradation and watershed protection

1. Cost-prohibitive rehabilitation options

2. Absence of agreements

3. Nonavailability of technology

4. Competition for harnessing natural resources

5. Lack of knowledge on arsenic

6. Lack of accurate measurement for both stream-flow and groundwater

7. Lack of volumetric licensing for abstraction

8. Lack of definition of limits on abstraction

9. Inadequate knowledge of actual amount of water abstracted

10. Lack of state policy

11. Lack of stakeholder awareness

12. Lack of institutional arrangements

13. Unregulated immigration

14. Lack of control on upstream activities

55

Issue 2. Consensus building (also Issue 4: Capacity building)

1. Lack of data for an informed debate

2. Ability to compare options with scenarios

3. Lack of representation for the environmental interests

4. Lack of knowledge on how to trickle down effects of general agreements (climatechange, such as Kyoto) and on global environmental trade-offs, consumptionpatterns

5. Lack of national policies

6. Externalities, some measures taken for watershed-protection benefits accrue todownstream of protection measures

Issue 3. Empowerment

1. Empowerment can mean helping people make better decisions. Delegation ofdecision making to stakeholders on water sharing needs caution. Representationof interests can become politicized, which can end up disempowering the variousgroups, because their involvement becomes a numbers game.

Issue 4: As given in Issue 2 above.

Issue 5. Shift in farming systems

1. Technologies exist, but are often not implemented.

2. Capital investments lacking.

3. Tradition and culture discourage shifts to other agricultural patterns.

4. Crop per drop savings are not well documented. Must build up a knowledge base.

5. Lack of integration of soil fertility issues as it is often more constraining than water.

6. Existence of disincentives for efficient use, such as looking at production per landarea rather than per water unit (example from Australia) and farmers focusing onincreasing the volume of water they could access.

Issue 6. Water governance issue

1. Inability to restrict crops grown during a particular season, lack of legislation toenforce agreed cultivation decisions

56

2. Sectoral conflicts of water use

3. Ignorance of the needs of others

4. Differences in defining governance

5. Lack of focal point in state management of water resources

6. Low outreach of legal documents on water resources, even to authority’s members

4. Ways to Reduce Pressures

Issue 1. River degradation and watershed protection

1. Empowerment by improving access to information on how decisions are made

2. Access to data to understanding

3. Relate research to action

4. Develop methods for multi-criteria analysis

5. Find appropriate stakeholder fora

Issue 2. Empowerment

1. Involves giving people the right instruments and skills to enable them to participatemore fully in the water-management process. Improve the structure of thestakeholder community and strengthen it.

2. There must be consideration of the views of the stakeholders, becauseempowerment of one group may dis-empower another group. This involves equityof power at all levels.

3. Empowerment is aligned with better governance. Legislation should be improvedconstantly.

Issue 3. Capacity building

1. The topic of gender is an important issue because needs are different. Must ensurethat women participate at all levels.

2. Capacity building can be divided into formal and informal.a. Formal education systems can teach water management from school through

highest technical training levels

57

b. Informal training for sharing information, attitudes and behavioral changes;understanding issues and developing partnerships between stakeholders

3. Capacity building is needed for better water-resources management at all levels.

Issue 4. Shifting farming systems

1. Water use efficiency—crops analysis, matching crop type to better match soil type

2. Improved incentives to invest, must overcome risk perceptions (especially in theshort term where adoption is lacking)

3. Understand variability of supply to better match with farming systems

4. Research on cropping practices and introduction of new technologies to reduceconsumption of water (“more crop per drop”)

5. For community-managed agriculture, increase information on soil fertility andintroduce abstraction limits

6. Look at food production options, for example with the integration of aquacultureto better address the food problem

7. Think of ways to decentralize management to grass-roots level

8. Increase focus on water quality—can use and reuse water depending on itsdifferent qualities. Improving quality can reduce the pressure on water

9. Need more research on the use of sewerage water and associated health risks.

10. Introduce low-cost water saving micro-irrigation technologies, also lining canals

11. Enhancing the adaptation and transfer of technologies among regions andsubregions

12. Develop dialogues among farmers to build their consensus to adopt specific cropsand technologies.

13. Abstraction limits cause farmers to look at increasing efficiency

14. Development of water markets can increase incentives to save water: could sellsaved water (from Australia).

15. Develop access to markets for agricultural products.

Issue 5. Water governance

1. Organize farmers (e.g., water user association) to better implement developed lawsand policies, including greater participation in their formulation.

58

2. Sectoral conflicts can be addressed through the introduction of IWRM and nationalwater policies. Between countries, international agreements need to be developed.Dialogues can play an important role in resolving these conflicts. Internet linksbetween countries and agencies at different levels.

3. Policies (subsidies) to encourage the adoption of water-savings managementpractices and technologies.

4. Establish the water rights and water-permit system.

5. Get various jurisdictions involved in agreeing on the criteria for gaining access toand sharing water resources, including protection of the environment.

6. Transparency of information by the government, donors, and NGOs. This alsoentails access to information by all the parties.

7. Environmental strategy needs to be backed by water laws and inter-ministerialdiscussions.

8. Community-based decision making and water allocation rules. Entails developmentof knowledge of rights at local level to participate in discussions.

9. Need to have good monitoring network to know what the real situation is.

10. Many government strategies can influence the way water is used in indirect ways,such as subsidies of various inputs in agriculture, for example. This requires thegovernment to raise its level of sophistication in the way things are done. Thegovernment must address the complexities and also act as a facilitator.

11. Water needs to be viewed as a social good first and as an economic good second.

12. Women should be given responsibilities so they can influence decisions, as theyare often nominated to positions but given no power.

13. Women are increasingly taking up technical training like engineering but not inenough numbers. Incentives should be given for them to take up technical training.Training and jobs must be made available to them.

14. Overarching approach: not on IWRM, based on the purpose of water use, but onthe concept of water as a natural resource.

15. Policies that encourage private investment in research and investment.

5. Tools and Support Needed

1. Facilitate the Dialogue platform at local levels: Stakeholder identification andanalysis at various levels (stakeholders who are involved with the Water, Foodand Environment issues).

59

2. Measurement and dissemination of stream-flow data and major water-diversioninformation.

3. Develop templates for multi-criteria water sharing and water-allocation options andanalysis.

4. Guidelines for water sharing and water-allocation criteria.

5. Methodologies for environmental flow design, implementation and assessment.

6. Guidelines to assess the stress of a river.

7. Identification and documentation of water-use conflicts at the national andinternational level, because dialogues must start with the conflicts.

8. International protocols for sharing water of international rivers.

9. Sharing of hydrological data and information through the internet.

10. Carry out specific research projects to specific problems such as the arsenicproblem.

60

Report of Working Group 3:National Dialogues

1. Key Issues at National Scale

The group focused on substantive issues related to water resources—what is the problemthat needs to be addressed or solved through the Dialogue? Participants contributed ideas ina brainstorm exercise, which were then clustered into the following key issues. The groupused a voting process to prioritize issues, with the following results:

• National Development Policy and Water Management [22 votes]

• Allocation Issues (between sectors, between social [15 votes]

• Extreme Events (flood/drought) Management [12 votes]

• Water Quality/Degradation [11 votes]

• Irrigation/Agricultural Productivity [11 votes]

• Integrating Water and Land Use [5 votes]

2. Obstacles to Addressing Issues

The group identified obstacles to resolving the issues identified, focusing on those that aNational-Level Dialogue could effectively address. As there was such a high degree of overlapin the obstacles identified for each of the key issues, the group decided that a single list wouldwork for all of them.

Political

• Political commitment/political will

• Lack of commitment for implementation

• Short-term political imperatives

• Vested interests

• Corruption

61

• Lack of freedom of expression

• Lack of faith in the justice of the system (to allocate equitably)

• Lack of integrated thinking of decision makers

• Inequality among sectors (power)

Economic

• Debt problem/external pressures from lending institutions (e.g., IMF)

• Corruption

• Undervaluation of environmental services

• Lack of economic incentives to manage well

• Lack of investment/financing for infrastructure

• No resources available

• Public/private operators

• Economic inequality among sectors (power)

• Water pricing (different sectors)/subsidies

• Valuation of ecosystem services

Natural/Environmental

• Lack of data/information/knowledge about water resources/environment

• Seasonal and geographic distribution of rainfall/water resources

• Existing environmental degradation

Social/Cultural

• Lack of awareness, access to information and education about the environment

• Demographic issues: population distribution/imbalance in population concentration,urbanization

• Lack of a “consensus mentality” (versus personal interest/greed)

62

• Lack of participation

• Lack of human resources/capacity

Technological/Knowledge

• Lack of a reliable knowledge base about water resources

• Lack of technical standards/good management practices

• Lack of knowledge about means for irrigation efficiency and productivity

• Lack of information on environmental flows

• Lack of decision-support systems for allocations

• Lack of infrastructure

• Lack of respect to local knowledge/technologies

Legal

• Obsolete command and control instruments

• Lack of compliance of the informal sector

• Too many laws/not enforced/confusion

• Lack of clarity regarding water rights/property rights/ownership

• Inadequate legal framework to support decisions of dialogues

• Inadequate water-quality standards

Institutional

• Lack of local capacity to support decentralization/subsidiarity

• Confusion of institutional roles (operators, managers, etc.)

• Lack of participation/many voices not heard

• Overlapping responsibilities

• Turf wars/institutional conflicts

63

• Lack of integrated strategies across institutions/integrated management/synergybetween agricultural-development and ecosystem-management sectors

• Lack of coordination/communication between formal and informal institutions

• Scale issues—thinking beyond administrative boundaries, linking across scales

• Too many institutions—confusion, duplication, gaps

• Transparency in decision making, financing of the sector (how much, from where)

• Ineffective national processes for tackling problems/establishing priorities

• Lack of ownership of decision making

3. Solutions–How to Overcome Obstacles Using Dialogues

Before getting into developing solutions, thegroup reviewed and discussed the “criteria forgood dialogues” outlined in the “DraftOperational Framework” and the groupsuggested a few additional points to consider(see box).

Although everyone agreed that all theabove key issues needed to be addressed,and were relevant agenda items for a NationalDialogue, some issues were considered ahigher priority. In a voting exercise, twoobstacles were categorized as most important:institutional and economic. The groupdeveloped potential solutions for overcomingobstacles in subsets of these two categories.

Criteria for Effective DialoguesSuggested Additional Criteria:

• Give clearer roles for stakeholdersand define what “relevant”stakeholder means (e.g., avoidhaving NGOs just to tick theparticipation box, consider whoreally needs to be there)

• Provide timely communication inadvance of meetings

• Focus dialogues and set limits

Institutional

• Human capacity

Create an enabling environment in support of local-level needs at the nationallevel

64

Identify capacity needs (e.g., support to increase enforcement of laws) anddevelop a capacity-building curriculum

Provide capacity building to participants as an incentive to their involvement

Set up resource/information centers

Support national educational/training policy to encourage professionaldevelopment of water managers

• Institutional roles

Identify and involve key organizations to participate in dialogues that maynot be normally involved in the decision-making process

Clarify institutional roles and reach consensus on them—define institutions’boundaries

Involve both practical and mid-level managers/technicians and representatives from involved institutions

Identify gaps in the responsibility of institutions

Gather inputs from the public on the perception of each institution—howbureaucratic or open they are

Promote subsidiaries—monitor processes, check transparency, give examplesof successful experience from other dialogues.

Facilitating interinstitutional coordination

Mechanisms for conflict resolution—arbitration

• ParticipationOpen and transparent communication about the DialogueEmpower groups that haven’t been at the tablePromotional activities to encourage involvement in the DialogueTraining in skill of consensus-buildingIdentify who a “relevant” stakeholder is

Don’t avoid more “radical” elementsBring in diverse groups/usersCivil society has an essential role

Ensure participation in decision making, not just information/consultationrole (help clarify with government their expectation on the roles ofparticipatory process—how passive or active, etc.)

65

Level the playing field—disparity in power among stakeholders through:

InformationThe demands of the consensus process itselfPhasing the process—do information exchange first, thenmove to consensusPossibly involve international advocacy groups to supportless-powerful constituencies (e.g., the environment? thepoor?), but proceed with caution, and only with agreementof national participantsProvide means of providing inputs that permit freeexpression of opinion (e.g., anonymous methods)Grow the process from “bottom-up”—empoweringconstituencies at the local, basin, and sectoral levelInstitutionalize equity in legal frameworkRemove barriers to participation created by differences inunderstanding, definition of terms, technical level

Economic

• Investment/FinancingHelp set priorities (can’t do it all)Look for different means for raising moneyAssess opportunity costs of potential investments

• Macro-Economic IssuesThe Dialogue can ensure that water is a high priority in the development ofPRSPs/expenditure plansDiscuss and form opinion of conditionality of various multilateral loans (costsand benefits/merits)Assess potential economic/investment implications of legal reformsExamine economic trade-offs across sectors

• Pricing/Subsidies/Valuation/IncentivesEndorse and educate to support “willingness to pay” in various sectors, andpricing with efficiency and demand-side management in mindConduct cost-benefits analysis of various management scenarios, includingenvironmental servicesPromote valuation as a tool for decision makingHelp make linkages with national policies in other sectorsGet difficult and politically charged pricing/subsidy issues on the table,especially across sectors (e.g., urban/rural), and raise political visibility ofdiscussion

66

4. Tools/Support Needed for Effective National Dialogues

We identified what would be needed to support national dialogues, especially focusing onwhat support the Dialogue Secretariat might be able to provide.

• Train facilitators

• Produce background studies/situation analysis including broad-based collectionof all available national-level information

• Prepare a knowledgeable person about the Dialogue to champion it within a country

• Need governmental participation at local/national level

• Provide experience (lessons learned/success stories) and methodologies

• Help clarify who the participants are/should be for the national dialogues(government agencies, sectoral or geographic/administrative implementers)

• Facilitate linkages with Consortium members and donors

• Help establish small coordinating units to organize a dialogue in interestedcountries

• Support production of studies/pilots/publication and dissemination of results ondialogues

• Serve a monitoring role to see whether criteria had been met

• Support or undertake a communication strategy to communicate dialogue objectivesto a variety of audiences (including simplifying existing materials)

• Help national organizers secure funding

• Help consolidate/package single proposals to fund national, basin and localdialogues in a country (instead of a lot of small, disconnected proposals that arehard to fund)

5. Potential New Dialogue Initiatives

• National-level dialogue in Tanzania

• National-level dialogue in Pakistan

67

• Follow-up dialogues in the Central and Eastern Europe region to 2004

• Local-level dialogues in Malaysia—to complement existing basin/national dialogues

• Dialogue in Central America—need more information

• Further discussion in Vietnam for possible dialogue

Specific Issues from the Vietnamese Subgroup

1. Key Issues

Same as for the general group

2. Obstacles to Addressing Issues

Institutional

• Confusion in organizational matters and unclear division of roles andresponsibilities

• Difficulties of policymaking and carrying out policies

• Need for the preparation of regulations/bylaws and guidelines and theirimplementation

• Overcoming poor cooperation among sectors and agencies

Economic

• Lack of financial resources and their poor allocation

• Lack of funds for infrastructural investment

• Low efficiency and productivity of projects

68

3. Solutions—How to Overcome Obstacles Using Dialogues

Institutional

• Strengthen, improve and complete the development of organizations at the centraland local level that ensure cohesion and consistency—in particular, provideadequate staff for the new National Council for Water Resources

• Provide training and retraining of water professionals to solve problems with newknowledge

• Provide adequate facilities and equipment to enable staff to carry out their work

• Increase manpower, especially of skilled people

• Formulate policy with the involvement of all stakeholders

• Strengthen monitoring of policy implementation and law enforcement

• Strengthen government management to get better coordination across sectors

Economic

• Increase government investment and prioritize budget allocations towards keyissues

• Mobilize people’s contribution

• Obtain more foreign loans for development projects

• Identify and apply new technologies/techniques for projects and for managementto save funds and increase efficiency

• Restructure the agriculture sector and promote the diversification of crops andlivestock

• Improve education and awareness-raising for water saving

4. Tools and Support for Effective National Dialogues

Same as for the general group

69

Report of Working Group 4:River Basin Dialogues

1. Prioritization of Issues

All topics were prioritized by colored stickers—by institutional perspective—government, NGO,research/academic and commercial (including consultants).

Three issues came out well ahead of the others.

The group selected decided to concentrate on issue number 1 (integration of scales inthe basin—administration and upstream-downstream issues), from three viewpoints thatemerged as high priorities:

1. Stakeholder involvement2. Politics and policy interests3. Ecosystem and environmental issues

No. Issue Rank

1 Control of water quality and degradation issues with theinvolvement of all stakeholders (integration) 3

8 Effective mechanisms for stakeholders involvement 26 Cross boundary coordination between hydrological and

administrative boundaries to address pollution issues andflood incidences (including trans-boundary issues (6b)) 1

6b Transboundary issues -9 Uncontested knowledge base to facilitate the Dalogue

process and its dissemination (scientifically basedassessment on which decisions are based) -

7 Rural versus urban -6c Regulation of water quality and quantity -5 Clear political will to facilitate and implement Dialogue decisions -4 Practical, tangible benefits to stakeholders -3 Financial, coordination, management and governance mechanisms -2 Integrated development and management and not only

integrated management (IWRDM) -13 Monetary valuation of all uses in the river basin -11 Prioritization criteria of issues involving stakeholders

ensuring that all are involved -10 Enabling legislation, institutional mandate and regulation of the law -

70

Stakeholder Awareness—needs active stimulation when civil society is not wellparticipation empowered. Local motivations and needs exist but may not be easily

expressed.• Ideally need internal momentum/demand rather than external stimulation.• Ensure motivation by clear understanding of benefits from participation.

Who are the stakeholders—agriculture and environment?• Those defined by the need or conflict/issue. Separate those who are

involved but are not empowered or do not have sufficient knowledge ofthe problem.

• Attention to how knowledge is made available and used by the broaderand grass-roots public.

• Equitable involvement.

Representation—who does what for whom and at what level?• Large number of stakeholders and administrative units at the basin level

(e.g. Red river)—implies need for nested dialogues at the local level andupwards from there.

• Multilevel dialogue required.• Define stakeholders on the basis of land and water use and conservation

interest.

How is the environment represented?• Involve international role players (for what, how long, to what end-

point?). What are the objectives of stakeholder participation—changein behavior?

Politics Issues with respect to stakeholder involvement:• Need open communication processes to stakeholders. Need to ensure

ownership.• Develop governance processes that are open and transparent and are

truly inclusive.• Dialogues between conflicting parties. How to offer the hope of real

benefits by participation?• Can’t insist too rigidly on accountability—need flexibility for active

communities to participate in important (basin-wide) issues.• Establish some sort of collective institutional memory.

Obstacles and their solutions were considered together by each of these categories,followed by discussion of:

ToolsCase Studies

2. Basin Dialogues: Obstacles and Solutions

71

Influence of “elite” personal/group interests—undermining civil societyinitiatives and processes.

Solutions—include clear language, link to reality, creating high-level politicalawareness.

Politics means decision making—needs information, understanding ofcomplexity at the basin level, people and issues, institutional arrangements(are not homogenous) and need to be brought together.

Clear policies required as drivers of change to trigger participation and action.Institutionalization does not necessarily need to be formalized to be effective.Outcome of political action and participation in policy change. Dialogueprocess must therefore be norm setting.

Politics is about vision—agreeing to a future.

Empowerment means enabling local people to develop and integrate their ownpolicies.

Need for integration of sector policies.

How to get the endorsement of local and lower-level derived policies. Withoutsuch an endorsement there will be no progress.

Different solutions are required for different political contexts and frameworks.Any solution must account for the history of the political system. Therefore,there are limits to transfer of experience.

Environment Start with a scoping exercise that is essentially qualitative to identify andecology quantitative issues of water quality and quantity.

• Translate local knowledge on water and environment as a substitute formore specifically quantified information. How to facilitate this? This is atask for research/experience/dialogue.

• Community cannot translate scientific information into a form they canunderstand; there is a lack of “scientific competency.” Opportunity ofthe Dialogue to help overcome this obstacle. There is some experiencein South Africa with visioning exercises in which people say how theysee their future.

Is a strong scientific knowledge base essential before we can do dialoguesand make interventions such as environmental flow provisions (for example)?—We don’t think so, though it’s highly desirable.

72

Dialogue and reform of local agencies. Separation of local and intra-governmental interests should be clearly mandated.

Problem of demand assessment (and actual use).

Allocation policy and framework for all uses is required. Definition andquantification of all uses.• Audits of actual water use and availability—precursor to

scenario development. How much negotiation and consultation arerequired to do this.

Balancing supply and demand—allocation/reallocation scenarios in a basinmust be evaluated and communicated to stakeholders as options with theirinput.

Dialogue should insist on data being made available from the n a t i o n a l /governmental data holders—commitment to share between agencies and withthe public.

Environmental water needs assessment at basin scale.• What ecological and other water-use standards are used—who should

set, monitor?• What are targets?• What sort of environment (ecology, river, and wetland) do “we” want?• Improve clarity on ecosystem services.

Do we need an agreed framework about which to resolve conflicts?

Who speaks for the environment?• Coastal areas—a different set of stakeholders—marginalized by in-basin

stakeholders?• The government has a responsibility to internalize this—down to the

municipal level. Cannot do basin dialogues without responsible statepartners.

• Make users, particularly agricultural ones, more aware of the servicesand functions of the environment and how it supports their livelihoods.

Commitment required of riparian states (or administrative units) to programand to institutionalize a platform for future cooperation/dialogue.

What are conflicts of land use and water use? Determine solutions on thebasis of this and other use/quality/access/conflicts.

Clearly, there is a need to learn and accumulate data andinformation in the Dialogues, and build this in a local and a broader-scaleKnowledge Base.

73

3. Tools required to support dialogues at a basin scale were considered asfollows:

Tools and support needed from the Dialogue SecretariatStakeholders Production of accessible and well-targeted information to build awareness in

specific situations.Give decision makers access to local grass-roots activities.Methods to inform stakeholders of where decisions that affect them are made.Training of trainers and facilitators to support grass-roots stakeholders?School-level education—backdoor targeting and information provision tofarmers, etc.Skill transfer—not clear what skills to do what—maybe too context- specificto elaborate here.Key task is in identifying the stakeholders and putting them together.Facilitation.Stakeholder processes—how to do facilitation. Corps of facilitators— nucleusgroup—trains other facilitators on request. 15 persons identified. E-mailconference going on methodologies, etc.Role-play tools—games? What possibilities? Getting individual stakeholdersto step out of their shoes. Remember that the reason they are often there isbecause they wear those particular shoes!

Support from Start-up moneythe Dialogue • Problem identificationSecretariat • Training facilitators

• Identification of stakeholders• Initial workshops

Brokering proposals to funders for long-term dialogues at basin level.Corps of facilitators.Technical assistance in proposal preparation.Knowledge Base and Dialogue tools.Facilitate local-action representation at the basin and national level dialogues.As demand rises establish regional focal points.

Criteria for List of criteria for successful dialogues in “Operational Framework.”selection Questionnaire to partners on how these criteria are addressed.

4. Review of Dialogue Experience

In the final session we broke into three groups to consider the experience of dialogues thatare in some way already underway at the basin scale. We considered the process and experience

74

of how they were established and how they developed, rather than the specific issues anddetails that they are attempting to solve (too detailed to go into at the time).

The framework was as follows:

1. Who are the stakeholders?

2. What were the issues and conflicts?

3. Who initiated the dialogues?

4. Who facilitated them?

5. What obstacles had to be overcome?

6. What was the composition of the dialogue and how did it change over time?

7. What support was supplied and by whom?

4.1 Subgroup 1: Three case studies

1.1 ICID –Has broad membership in more than 100 countries.Country-level dialogues conducted in conjunction with ICID, IWMI, IFPRI Policy

Dialogue.

• Water needs for food, using PODIUM

• Water requirements for municipal and environmental needs in 5 countries—China,India, Mexico, Pakistan and Mexico. Start in China and India—arising out of ICIDWater Visions 2025 and 2050.

1.2 RBO in Cuu Long mandated by new Water Law

• Government stakeholders

• Community stakeholders

• Steering committees, working groups—18 major issues from navigation, acidsulphate soils, saline intrusion, etc.

• Extensive government agency input

• Obstacles—bureaucratic process—leaders “speak” for people. Acknowledge top-down approach; have 120 facilitators from bottom up. Coop process Australia andVN.

• Establish a resource data directory: where to find the data.

75

1.3 RIPARWIN—Tanzania—Rufiji BasinConflict-ridden projects around irrigation, hydropower and wetland degradation. DFID-sponsored project continuing into the Dialogue. Poster presentation in hallway.

4.2 Subgroup 2: 4 case studies

1. Okavango—ecological preservation in the face of multiple water demands.

2. Dong Nai (ADB)—upstream-downstream conflicts and demands for interbasintransfers.

3. Rios Vivos Coalition—in three major river basins—Amazon, Praja, Sao Francisco.

• Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia—300 organizations (jointNGO and government) for integrated catchment management, water quality,alternative strategies for sustainable livelihoods. Discussion of mega projects,impacts and alternatives.

• Stakeholders: local and traditional communities, NGOs, researchers,universities.

• Require support for strategic planning and for mobilization.

4. Wageningen Agriculture University—4 PhD programs—South Asia, Europe, Africa.Based around a dam or flood problem.

• Indigenously started ones seem to be developing better.

• Comparative analysis possible—how to get working without externalstimulation and financing. Better use of GIS and other information, andopening access to data.

4.3 Subgroup 3: Two case studies and potential dialogues

Sao Paolo River Basin CommitteesProcess began in 1991, but included plans for levying water user fees.Stakeholder representation—1/3 government, 1/3 municipal agencies and 1/3 civil society(including agricultural and commercial interests, community-based organizations andenvironmental NGOs).

Twenty river basin multi-stakeholder committees established by state law to deal withconflicts over land and water use and produce a Land and Water Management Master Plan.Mandate to decide allocations from the State Freshwater Fund.

76

Issues of conflictsWater and land use planning. Establishing a land and water management master plan.

InitiatedIn response to State Law, subsequently reenacted at national level in 1995. Committees wereformed by Secretariat agency. Then adapt own bylaws. The Chair is usually the mayor, ViceChair, a civil society representative and the secretariat (one of the government line agencies)

Facilitation by secretariat— (delegated state agency working for the River Basin Committees).Money for this from State Freshwater Fund.Civil society assemblies.

Obstacles to starting the DialogueLack of knowledge of the RBC mandate: need awareness-raising of key issues in some locations.Unfair allocation of resources for stakeholder representation at the outset.Funds to hire consultants.

Changes in compositionNew national law specifies the balance of representation—50:50 government and civil society.Changes of secretariat organization, for example, from department of sanitation to hydrologicalbureau.

SupportContinued financing by special budget from royalties paid by hydropower generators. Wouldlike to broaden to extend levy to municipal water services.

Vietnam experienceTriangle of government—semi-autonomous enterprises (such as irrigation managementcompanies) and NGOs.

Government imbalance—Central government well-funded, but does not want to dialogue withprovinces or with enterprises and NGOs, both of which are poorly resourced. Tendency toavoid the hardest issues.

Comparative discussion with the Brazilian experience.

Potential dialogues

1. Coastal zone area—Poland, Czech Republic and Germany. Brokered by UNEP. Pilotproject under integrated river-basin management—water-quality issues—eutrophication and ecological services in coastal area, impacting on tourism.

77

2. The Kafue river basin in Zambia, subbasin of Zambezi. Local NGO facilitator,supported by national government to deal with tough stakeholders—mining,irrigation, massive nature reserve, hydropower and fisheries. Health issues anddeclining fish stocks are the main issues. Need to bring all to table.

78

Report of Working Group 5:Local and Area Basin-Dialogue—

the Way to Go

1. Definitions of the Work Group

Define the process towards inclusive subbasin/local dialogues with an effective link to nationalpolicy processes within the framework of water, food and nature.

Local dialogues or area-basin dialogues take place in a recognized geographical area,which can form part of a larger basin, e.g., watershed, delta, irrigation system and wetland.They include a variety of stakeholders with different interests and perspectives in water forfood and water for nature.

These dialogues supercede individual communities and have a clear link with basin ornational dialogues with a view of influencing policies and actions at different levels.

2. Agenda

a. General recap: Day 1 and Dialogue process.

b. Identify key issues and priorities.

c. What are the obstacles when dealing with each of the priority issues?

d. In what ways can these obstacles be overcome?

e. Which tools and support can the Dialogue provide to overcome these obstacles?

f. Identify opportunities for local/area dialogues.

3. General Recap

What do we understand by Dialogue: Dialogue takes place when people feel there is a certainissue that needs to be communicated, e.g., intrusion of rights, no links of rights, pollution.

It is relevant to demonstrate that, ideally, dialogues at the national and basin level buildon local dialogues, or at least actively facilitate these dialogues.

79

4. Key Issues

a. Local action, get integrated with the national policy

b. How to assure participation by local and community stakeholders

c. Equity in water issues

d. Absence of the river-basin perspective in the water-resources management

e. Integrate local knowledge in process/induce local knowledge in the process

f. As the opposite of the above, provide knowledge to local actors

g. Strategies needed to assure implementation and action as part of a successfulDialogue

h. Upstream and downstream issues

i. Urban-rural

j. Impact monitoring

k. Is nature really an issue at the local level?

l. Replication of experiences (i.e., horizontal level)

m. Integration of local experiences (i.e., vertical)

n. Rights of people to food, water and environment (including access, ethics,preservation, values) within emerging realities/changing contexts

o. Seawater intrusion

5. Prioritization

a. Rights of people to water, food and environment within emerging realities

b. Replication (horizontal learning) of successes and failures (in terms of both localaction and a dialogue process)

c. Link local action and local/subbasin dialogues to national policymaking (verticalintegration)

d. Strategies to assure that dialogues and results are implemented and turned intoconcrete action

e. Upstream and downstream issues

80

6. General Discussion on Participation and Inclusion of Local Action intoDialogue Processes

6.1 Obstacle to participation

a. Ability

b. Motivation/incentives/willingness

c. Ethnical and religious barriers to participation

d. Power difference

e. Scale of Dialogue often inappropriate to induce participation

f. Power differences

g. Alienation

h. Religion

i. Lack of “space” within bureaucracies to accommodate Dialogue processes andfollow-up on results

j. Inability of government to interact in a different way, to change mindset into theDialogue mood

k. Lack of continuity from Dialogue to implementation and back to Dialogue

l. Lack of “objective” information, leasing to a politicization of the conflicts/issuesat hand

m. Lack of explicit monitoring of implementation and action and real impact of Dialogue

6.2 Ways to overcome

a. Local empowerment

b. Participatory knowledge-gathering

c. Disseminate experiences

d. Action monitoring

e. Build partnership and strategic alliances

f. Bring “generic” knowledge to the local level, and vice versa, bring local knowledgeand experience to national and basin discussions

81

g. Consortium members to actively facilitate local action participation in their activitieswithin the Dialogue framework

h. Facilitate local knowledge where possible by funding made available at the nationaland basin level

6.3 What has already been done in the Dialogue framework?

a. Knowledge base, facilitating local-action translation into generic knowledge

b. Knowledge base—facilitate

7. Obstacles to Dialogues

7.1 Water rights related

a. Obstacles

• Lack of appreciation of the duties that go with rights

• Lack of a framework of rights and/lack of enforcement

• Lack of recognition of other stakeholders’ rights

• Lack of recognition of value of environmental services

• Lack of respect for law

• Appropriation of rights by specific groups

• Fear of repercussions when claiming rights

b. Ways to overcome

• (Legal and entitlement) reform at the local level

• Advocacy by Dialogue to push for legal changes at the national and basinlevel

• Information/awareness-raising of rights of different stakeholders, includingthat between upstream and downstream stakeholders

• Identification of common contentious issues affecting the largest numbersof people

• Recognition of traditional rights and negotiation of these rights givenchanges in context, quantified as entitlements

• Analyze rights at risk from specific policy decisions

82

7.2 Replication

a. Obstacles

• Lack of capacity and resources to replicate

• Propensity not to discuss failures

• Lack of sharing information, lack of means of sharing information

• Doubts about the potential/benefits/feasibility of replication

• Water-resources availability limits replication

• As yet no “model” to demonstrate the benefits of dialogues

b. Ways to overcome

• Communication of Dialogue experiences through existing disseminationsystems, e.g., fairs and festivals

7.3 Local—national links

a. Obstacles

• Language/communication gaps between local and national levels

• Logistic problems in getting people physically together

• Lack of resources to facilitate meetings and dialogues sessions

• Failure to include local priority issues into national policy documents relatedto poverty alleviation

• National water visions and Frameworks for Action were not developed asparticipatory as they could have been and they do not include communityperspectives

• Lack of an institutional framework that allows local action to emerge

• Lack of interest amongst policy makers for local issues

• Lack of information on how local actions can benefit national perspectives/policies related to water/food/environment

• Fragmented approach to water-resources management

• Misuse of local dialogues by specific interest groups

83

b. Ways to overcome

• Market-positive experiences in integrating local discussions into nationalpolicy discussions, if possible through existing institutions, such as thenational or basin-water partnerships

• Assure that national and basin dialogues link to local/subbasin dialogues

• Awareness-raising at local level of potential roles in policy discussions andpotential benefits

• Use existing visions, frameworks for action and national policy documentsas a window of opportunity to informed dialogues

• Create enabling institutional framework and/use an existing institutionalframework for facilitating local dialogues

• Awareness-raising of national and basin decision makers on the importanceand potential benefits of local dialogues

• Provide information on benefits and costs of engaging local Dialogue innational/basin discussions

• Learn the experience of Civil Society Organizations in developed countries(in particular consumer organizations) in pushing their agenda

c. Tools/support

• Capacity building, at local levels, of professionals and decision makers indialogues

8. Can Dialogues Lead to Action?

a. Obstacles

• Dialogues are perceived as theoretical discussions, often unfocused

b. Ways to overcome

• Focus on most strategic points

• Engage/focus on leaders/champions

• Identify time frame and partners to bring discussions to implementation andaction/deliver results

• Continuity of actors

84

• Ensure that process and ensuing actions are embedded in existing institutions(i.e., institutionalize Dialogue as a process, do not make it into a separateinstitution)

• Advocacy to ensure that Dialogue results are implemented

c. Tools/support

• Advocate capacity building for local groups

• Facilitate low-intensity conflict resolution

• Translate the development idioms in ways that respond to the context oflocal groups

• Dialogues

9. Upstream-Downstream

a. Obstacles

• Lack of recognition of costs and benefits across the basin

• Inequitable distribution of costs and benefits throughout the basin

• Excessive compartmentalization

• Excessive sector separation

• Lack of harmony between hydrological and administrative boundaries

• Stakeholders on different parts of the river have different perspectives andinterests

• Existing water infrastructure precludes upstream-downstream interaction andequitable action

• Lack of basin-wide institutions

b. Ways to overcome

• Cluster local interests

• River-basin authorities/Committees

• Benefits and costs-sharing mechanisms

85

• Cross-subsidies

• Local experience informs framework for basin-level management

10. Just a Word on Privatization

Privatization will become a problem if it includes the transfer of ownership over naturalresources to the private sectorBUTIf privatization of operation and maintenance of structures allows for more cost-efficient O&Mactivities, it may help improve water management from most stakeholders’ perspectivesANDIn a number of countries processes are ongoing that present variations on privatization.Examples include the “corporatizm” of water management, implementing the managementprinciples of the private sector in the water sector. Also, in Vietnam, a process called“equalization” transfers ownership of water utilities to a) users and b) workers of thesecompanies, which forces them to negotiate about service provision.

11. Tools

• Documentation of best practices

• Appropriate communication strategies and materials

• Demystification of generic analyses, bringing them down to local realitieswhile bringing diverse local experiences to a generic-level conflictmanagement

• Quantification of entitlements

• Resources to facilitate local dialogues and the linking between subbasin andnational/basin dialogues

• Water accounting

• Relevant for national policymakers

• Reservoir-area management financial funds

12. Potential Dialogues

• Jaffna Youth Dialogue Sri Lanka

86

• Basin dialogues focusing on livestock and environment in France—link toEU Agricultural Policy

• East Rapti river in Nepal (issue 3)

• Senegal river

• Nile initiative (all issues)

• Komadugu basin (North Nigeria)

• Replication of micro catchment dialogues on the Bhima basin

• Expansion of Pinga Oya Youth Dialogue to bordering catchment (as localdialogue)

• Ciliwung Initiatives (all issues)

• Volta river

• Sri Lanka: Initiate a national-level Dialogue based on basin and local-dialogueoutcomes

• Discussion on equal access to water resources in Vietnam in preparation fora fruitful dialogue amongst stakeholders with different interests

• Local dialogue based on Ethiopian small dams catchments

• South Mediterranean local dialogues focused on agriculture and wetlands

• Philippines water partnership initiatives at the local level

• Hub river cross-province dialogue

87

Report of Working Group 6:Mekong Forum

1. Key Issues in the Mekong River Basin

Poverty—the area is generally poor, although there are local differences.Local livelihoods depend on wetlands through traditional fishing and rice production.

Plans for improved agricultural production and other infrastructure developments will impacton these traditional systems, and may destroy them.

Pollution from industry is not yet a problem, but there is agricultural pollution in thefloodplains and there is heavy sediment pollution from the highlands.

Erosion of the upper catchments due to uncontrolled expansion of agriculture and badlyplanned infrastructure. The expansion of agriculture is a result of both increased demand andgovernment policies.

There are floods in the wet season and droughts during the dry season. Governmentsand local people have to develop response strategies that deal with both water shortage andwater surplus.

Local people are not well organized. We need to strengthen the capacity of local groupsto be able to negotiate better with the government and other stakeholders.

Government decision makers need to better understand the wishes of local people. Thereis a need for awareness-raising of senior government personnel.

2. Obstacles

Government policies and strategies are not coordinated, and this makes it very difficult toprepare response strategies and long-term development strategies. Integrated planning is criticaland harmonization of the policy framework is essential.

Poverty is a major issue, but we can help local people to raise their livelihoods. However,many large-scale planned developments have national benefits rather then local benefits.

There are upstream-downstream repercussions of developments in different parts of thebasin

Local people may not be suitably equipped to participate in “proper” dialogues, and weneed to adapt the language of the discussions so that they can fully engage in the discussions.There is also a need for capacity building of community groups so that they will continue tooperate after projects have ceased to exist.

We need to raise awareness of all stakeholders and this requires different approachesfor different target groups.

Dialogues need to lead to action. We need to show tangible benefits at local level, orparticipants will lose interest in the process, and we need to determine how the local dialoguesimpact upon macro-economic planning and decision making.

88

There is a risk that discussions get hijacked by influential individuals or groups for theirown purposes and agenda.

Not all stakeholders have the same starting point, and there are differences of opinionon what is required and what the outcome of a dialogue process should be.

3. How to Overcome the Obstacles?

Dialogues provide choices for local people and will allow them to choose options. Thediscussions need to be facilitated through independent parties, possibly representatives fromthe Consortium where they have local offices.

Maintain and strengthen links with the government, MRC and ASEAN, and build onprevious activities and information to avoid “reinventing the wheel.”

Link the dialogue process to a larger economic and development agenda so that thediscussions feed into a national and regional policy debate.

Be realistic; agree on your main stakeholders; you will never please everybody; andyou may not be able to achieve all your goals in the short term.

4. Tools and Support Needed

There is a need for a lot of research and studies, but the research should be demand-drivenand applied to the needs of the local dialogue.

Funding is required to facilitate the process, as soon as possible.

5. Opportunities

The four proposed local dialogues in the lower Mekong basin (Songkhram, Attepeu, StoengTreng, Plain of Reeds) were supported by the Panel.

There is an interest to talk about a Dialogue in the Huong river in Thua Thien HueProvince, Vietnam (Provincial Peoples Committee, IUCN).

A Dialogue is being planned for Southeast Thailand (FAO, Royal Irrigation Department,UNEP).

89

Annex A1

Conference Schedule

91

International Water Conference HanoiDialogue on Water, Food and Environment

Session Program

Sunday, 13 October Registration of Delegates

Monday, 14 October9:00 – 11:00 Opening Session (Venue: Grand Ballroom)9.00 – 10:30 1st Welcome Prof. F. Rijsberman, D.G., IWMI

2nd Welcome Honorable Vice Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung1st Opening Honorable Minister of Agriculture Le Huy Ngo 2nd Opening HRH Prince of Orange

Keynote Address Honorable Shri Sompal

10:30 – 11:00 TEA/COFEE BREAK

11:00 – 12:30 Plenary Session #1 (Venue: Grand Ballroom)Chairpersons 1. Professor Frank Rijsberman, Director General, IWMI

2. Pham Xuan Su, Director General, DWRM &HW

11:00 – 11:15 Conference objective. Chief Facilitator, Dr. J. Delli Priscoli

11:15 – 11:35 Solving water for food problems in Vietnam, Mr. Nguyen Xuan Tiep

11:35 – 12:00 Issues regarding food production/ecosystem maintenance in the Mekongdelta and Red river, Mr. To Van Truong

12:00 – 12:30 The Dialogue: Concept/Operational Framework, Prof. F. Rijsberman, D.G., IWMI

12:30 – 2:00 LUNCH

2:00 – 5:00 Plenary Session #2 (Venue: Grand Ballroom)Chairpersons 1. Dr. Le Van Minh, Director General, ICD

2. Dr. Biksham Gujja, WWF

2:00 – 2:30 Crosscutting Dialogues Issues, Dr. Robert Bos/Ms.Nafisa Barot

2:30 – 3:00 Policy Dialogue in Malaysia, Dr. Shahrizaila bin Abdullah, Dr. TaniyamaChairpersons 1. Dr. C. D. Thatte, Secretary General, ICID

2. Dr. Dao Trong Tu, Deputy Director General, ICD

92

3:00 – 3:15 TEA/COFEE BREAK

3:15 – 3:45 Local Action Influencing Policy, Prof. V. Paranjpye/Marcella D’Souza

3:45 – 4:15 Knowledge Base and Comprehensive Assessment, Dr. David Molden,Dr. Hugh. Turral

4:15 – 5:00 Introduction of Working Groups, Brainstorm Key Obstacles to Dialogue,Chief Facilitator, Dr. J. Delli Priscoli

19:00 – 21:00 Welcome Reception and Cultural Pageant (Venue: Poolside)

Tuesday, 15 October

9.00 – 5:00 Working Group Sessions

5:00 – 5:30 Selected members of the WGs meet to discuss WG outputs

• Lunch will be served between 12:30 and 2:00 p.m. and groups will beexpected to work through lunch.

• Six Working Groups (WGs) will be formed. A facilitator will beassigned to help each working group through the day. Resourcepersons have been assigned to each working group. The functionof the resource persons is to enrich the discussion with briefinterventions at opportune moments, not to make long preparedstatements. Areas of specialty are indicative.

• Each WG will produce a summary report that will be copied anddistributed for review by all participants on Wednesday morning.

• For key Dialogue opportunities that have been identified, roundtablemeetings will be formed on Wednesday to discuss how they mightproceed. Convenors for those roundtables will be identified.

WG1 Venue: LOTUS (Ballroom A)Will work on how to integrate crosscutting issues of health and povertyinto dialogues at national, regional, local levels. Identify and suggestdialogues.

IntroductionP. Smidt Creating Synergy

Resource PersonsMs. N. Landell-MillsManagement of up-stream watershedsMr. J.M. FauresIntegrated agro-system managementDr. F. AmerasingheHealth and poverty reductionDr. P. DuganFisheries and ecosystem health

93

WG2Venue: JASMINE (Ballroom B)Will explore what options exist to reduce pressure on water resources atnational, regional and local level. Identify and suggest dialogues.

IntroductionB. Gujja Options for reducing pressure

Resource PersonsMr. A. AlejandrinoPolitical perspectiveDr. J. RockstromPotential of water harvestingDr. C. ThatteWater saving in agricultureDr. P. KnightsEnvironmental flowsDr. T. TuongWater saving in rice culture

WG3Venue: ORCHID (Ballroom C)Will work on issues, stakeholders, interests, obstacles to dialogues,processes to overcome obstacles to dialogues, and opportunities atprimarily the national level. Identify and suggest dialogues.

Introduction:J. Gayer Policy Dialogue in East Europe

Resource PersonsDr. J. Gayer:Linking dialogues to the political processMr. M. Azhari:Dialogue process, stakeholder involvementMr. J. Portugues:Enabling political environmentMr. Mirza Hasan:Political legitimacy, policy coherence

WG4Venue: GARDENIA (Ballroom D)Will work on issues, stakeholders, interests, obstacles to dialogues,processes to overcome obstacles to dialogues, and opportunities primarilyat regional and large basin level. Identify and suggest dialogues.

IntroductionE. Karar Dialogue in a river basin

Resource PersonsDr. R. KfirLinking dialogues to the political processMr. R. BornStakeholder involvementMr. I. MakramDialogue issues, stakeholderMr. K.N. SharmaNeeds assessmentDr. R. WalkingDialogue tools

94

WG5 Venue: LILAC (Function Room)Will work on issues, stakeholders, interests, obstacles to dialogues,processes to overcome obstacles to dialogues, and opportunities primarilyat the local and subbasin levels. Identify and suggest dialogues.

IntroductionS. Pollard Stakeholder involvement

Resource PersonsMr. N. AbeywickremaLinking to political processProf. V. ParanjpyeInfluencing water policyMs. K. AthukoralaGender, equity issues, mobilizationMs. I. GuritnoFarmer and Water User AssociationsMr. M. NiasseWater for food and nature in West Africa

WG6 MEKONG FORUM Venue: IRIS (Function Room)Will work on issues, stakeholders, interests, and obstacles/ways ofovercoming obstacles, opportunities & current plans for Dialogue in thelower Mekong region. Identify opportunities for local-level dialogues.Chairperson Pham Khoi Nguyen, Vice Minister, Science & Technology

09:00 – 09:20 Introduction by Dr Apichart Anukularmphai (Global Water PartnershipSoutheast Asia Technical Advisory Committee)

09:20 – 09:40 Mr. Ho Ngoc Phu (Thua Thien Hue Province) Water, Food andEnvironment issues at Provincial level in Vietnam

09:40 – 10:00 Mr. Mak Sithirith, Cambodia NGO Forum – local issues about water, foodand nature in Cambodia

10:00 – 10:30 Discussion

10:30 – 11:00 TEA/COFFEE BREAK

11:00 – 11:20 Mr. Moong Leng, Department of Fisheries, Cambodia. Water, fish andnature in Cambodia

11:20 – 11:40 Ms Yang Fang, Forest Department, Yunnan: Food production, soil erosionand Ecosystem maintenance in Yunnan Province, China

11:40 – 12:00 Mr. Nguyen Hong Toan, Vietnam National Mekong Committee: Publicparticipation in the development of MRC Basin Development Plan; lessonslearned from Vietnam

12:00 – 12:30 Discussion

95

12:30 – 14:00 LUNCH

14:00 – 15:30 Panel discussion

Facilitator Mr. Nguyen Minh Thong (IUCN Vietnam)Presenter Mr. Hans Friederich (IUCN Asia Regional Office): A proposal for local

Dialogues on Water, Food and Nature in the lower Mekong river basin

Panel MembersHE To Gary, Secretary of State Ministry of Environment, CambodiaMr Soukata Vichit Head of Water Resources Coordination Committee,Science, Technology and Environment Agency, Lao PDRMr Nguyen Hong Toan Secretary General of Vietnam National MekongCommitteeDr. Parasuraman Action Aid, Asia

15:30 – 16:00 TEA/COFFEE BREAK

16:00 – 17:00 Comments from the floor and open discussion

17:00 Closing by Joern Kristensen, CEO MRC–TBC

Wednesday 16, October

8:30 – 10:00 Plenary Session #4 (Venue: Grand Ballroom)Chairpersons Dr. Robert Bos, WHO Le Duc Nam, Deputy Director,DWRM&HW

8:30 – 9:00 Review outputs of WGs

9:00 – 10:00 Discuss outputs of WGs and announce locations and procedures forroundtable discussions.

10:00 – 10:30 TEA/COFFEE BREAK

10:30 – 15:30 Roundtable Discussions (Venue: Grand Ballroom)

Groups meet to discuss how dialogues may proceed. The objectives areto push to start more “on the ground” activities. Each table will have aconvener who is knowledgeable and has an interest in a specific Dialogue.Participants will be requested to select a roundtable that is closest to theirinterest. The roundtables should discuss and record issues, procedures,obstacles, commitment, and follow-up action so that the Secretariat has

96

something in hand to follow up. The following potential dialogues havebeen identified as examples. It is expected that more will be identifiedduring day 2.• Country Dialogue in China• Country Dialogue in Indonesia• Regional Dialogue in the Volta Basin• Regional Dialogue in Okawango• Regional Dialogues in the lower Mekong Region• Basin Dialogue in Rifuji-Panjani• Basin Dialogue in Choluteca• Area dialogues in South Asia• Many more

13:00 –14:30 LUNCH

Discussions may continue during lunch. Representatives of WGs will meetto produce a summary report of WG activities based on discussions inplenary session 4. In addition, the convenor of each roundtable willproduce a short (1-2 page summary) of the roundtables.

15:30 – 17:00 Plenary Session #5 (Venue: Grand Ballroom)Chairpersons 1. Professor Frank Rijsberman, Director General, IWMI

2. Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thimh, Vice Minister, MARD

15:30 – 16:30 Review of summary of WGs and of roundtable outputs

16:30 – 17:00 Official Closing : Summary of what was heard and next steps

17:30 Farewell reception (Venue: Poolside)

97

Annex A2

List of Participants

No.

Part

icip

ant’

s Fi

rst

Parti

cipa

nt’s

Las

tO

rgan

izat

ion

Title

or

Prof

essi

onA

ddre

ssE-

mai

lTe

leph

one

Fax

Nam

eN

ame

Inte

rnat

iona

l Wat

er C

onfe

renc

e - H

anoi

, List

of P

artic

ipan

ts

Con

tinue

d

99

1Sh

ahri

zaila

bin

Abd

ulla

hG

WP

- SE

ATA

C m

embe

rEn

gine

er13

8, J

alan

Ter

asek

, B

angs

arsh

ahsh

am@

tm.n

et.m

y60

3-22

8404

3460

3-78

8376

66B

aru,

591

00 K

uala

Lum

pur,

Mal

aysi

a

2N

anda

Abe

ywic

kram

aLa

nka

Jala

niSe

nior

Adv

isor

to D

GIW

MI,

127,

Sun

il M

awat

ha,

n.ab

eyw

ickr

ama@

cgia

r.or

g94

1 7

8740

495

1 7

8685

1Pe

law

atta

, B

atta

ram

ulla

, Sr

i La

nka

3M

artin

Adr

iaan

seU

NEP

Prog

ram

me

Off

icer

UN

EP/G

PAG

PA C

oord

inat

ion

Off

ice,

P.O

.Box

162

27,

m.a

dria

anse

@un

ep.n

l31

70

3114

466

31 7

0 34

5664

8

2500

BE

The

Hag

ue, T

he N

ethe

rland

s

4A

ngel

Aus

tria

Ale

jand

rino

Asi

an D

evel

opm

ent

Ban

kC

ivil

Engi

neer

6 A

DB

Ave

, Man

dalu

yong

city

,aa

ljand

rino

@ab

d.or

g63

2 63

2 54

8063

2 63

6 23

81/

Met

ro M

anila

, Phi

lippi

nes

2356

5Fe

lixA

mer

asin

ghe

IWM

ITh

eme

Lead

erIW

MI,

127,

Sun

il M

awat

ha, P

elaw

atta

,f.a

mar

asin

ghe@

cgia

r.or

g94

1 7

8740

495

1 7

8685

1

Bat

tara

mul

la, S

ri La

nka

6M

icha

el, G

.A

ngst

reic

hN

OR

AD

Agr

icul

tura

l Adv

isor

NO

RA

D, P

b 80

34 D

ep, 0

030

Osl

o,m

ga@

nora

d.no

47 2

2 24

20

3047

22

24 2

0 31

Nor

way

/ O

r G

. Vig

elan

ds V

ei 4

2,02

74 O

slo,

Nor

way

7A

pich

art

Anu

kula

rmph

aiSE

ATA

C ,

A&

R C

onsu

ltant

Man

agin

g D

irect

or71

/5,

Sets

iri 2

roa

d, S

amse

nnna

i Ph

ayat

hai,

aand

rcon

@ac

cess

.inet

.co.

th66

026

1 86

048

66 0

227

1396

7C

o. L

td.

Ban

gkok

104

00,

Thai

land

8R

am H

ari

Ary

alN

atio

nal

Plan

ning

Join

t Se

cret

ary

Sing

ha D

urba

r, K

athm

andu

, Nep

alrh

arya

l@np

cnep

al.g

ov.n

p97

7-1-

2290

5997

7-1-

2265

00

Com

mis

sion

Sec

reta

riat

9K

usum

Ath

ukor

ale

Net

Wat

erD

evel

opm

ent

Con

sulta

ntN

o. 7

St M

ary’

s La

ne, C

olom

bo 1

5, S

ri La

nka

Kus

um@

itmin

.com

94-1

-521

604

94-1

-521

604

10N

afis

aB

arot

UTT

HA

N T

rust

Dev

elop

men

t Act

ivis

tU

TTH

AN

Dev

elop

men

t Act

ion

Plan

ning

Tea

m,

nafi

sa_b

arot

@ic

enet

.net

91 0

79 6

75 1

023

91 7

9 67

5093

5C

hitra

kut

Twin

s, N

ehru

Par

k, V

astra

pur,

Ahm

adab

ad 3

8001

5 G

ujar

at I

ndia

.

11G

erB

ergk

amp

IUC

NSe

nior

Fre

shw

ater

Rue

Mau

vern

ey 2

8, 1

196

Gla

nd, S

witz

erla

ndge

r.ber

gkam

p@iu

cn.o

rg41

22

9990

262

41 2

2 99

900

25

Man

agem

ent

Adv

isor

12R

ober

tB

erna

rdo

GW

P-SE

ATA

CPr

ogra

mm

e O

ffic

erW

R 1

08, W

EM/S

CE,

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y,bo

b@ai

t.ac.

th66

2 5

24 5

558

66 2

524

555

0P.

O. B

ox 4

, Klo

ng L

uang

, Pat

hum

than

i,12

120

Thai

land

13Y

oges

hBh

att

Dia

logu

e Se

cret

aria

tLo

cal A

ctio

n C

oord

inat

orIW

MI,

127,

Sun

il M

awat

ha, P

elaw

atta

,y.

bhat

t@cg

iar.o

rg94

1 7

8740

495

1 7

8685

1

Bat

tara

mul

la, S

ri La

nka

100

No.

Parti

cipa

nt’s

Firs

tPa

rtici

pant

’s L

ast

Org

aniz

atio

nTi

tle o

r Pr

ofes

sion

Add

ress

E-m

ail

Tele

phon

eFa

x

N

ame

Nam

e

C

ontin

ued

14Er

icB

ilton

enIW

MI-

SEA

Post

-Doc

tora

l Ec

onom

ist

PO B

ox 1

025

Ket

sart

Uni

vers

ity B

angk

ok,

Eric

b@iw

mis

ea@

cgia

r.org

66 0

9 92

3 80

4066

02

561

1230

1090

3 Th

aila

nd

15R

uben

s H

arry

Bor

nV

itae

Civ

ilis

Inst

itute

for

Engi

neer

PO B

ox 1

908

- Sa

o Lo

uren

co,

rbor

n@vi

taec

ivili

s.or

g.br

55 1

1 46

86-1

814

55 1

1 46

86 1

851

Dev

elop

men

t, En

viro

nmen

tD

A S

erra

- S

P, B

razi

l 06

850-

970

and

Peac

e

16R

ober

tB

osW

orld

Hea

lth O

rgan

isat

ion

Scie

ntis

t10

Rou

te d

e C

reux

de

Loup

,bo

sr@

who

.int

41 2

2 79

1 35

5541

22

791

4159

1285

Sez

egni

n, S

witz

erla

nd

(W

)W

HO

121

1, G

enev

a 27

,CH

17Ba

s A

nton

ius

Mai

raB

oum

anIR

RI,

Wat

er S

cien

tist

Wat

er S

cien

tist

IRR

I, D

APO

777

7b.

bour

man

@cg

iar.o

rg63

2 8

4505

6363

2 8

4506

06of

CSW

SDM

etro

Man

ila

18B

ram

Bus

stra

Fore

st C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Dir

ecto

r12

0, G

ingn

ian

Roa

d, K

unm

ing

Yum

an P

R C

hina

stim

ulan

@pu

blic

.km

.yn.

cn86

511

081

686

511

081

6

Com

mun

ity D

evel

opm

ent

Proj

ect

19D

elax

, D

Chi

lum

buA

dvoc

acy

For

Envi

ronm

enta

lC

ount

ry C

oord

inat

orSa

dzu

Rd

PO B

OX

FW

109

, Lus

aka,

arez

m@

yaho

o.co

.uk

260-

1-22

3150

—R

esto

ratio

nZa

mbi

a, S

outh

Afr

ica

20M

anue

lC

ontij

och

Vic

e Pr

esid

ent,

ICID

Pres

iden

t IC

ID M

exic

oIC

ID, S

an M

arco

s 84

cas

a 11

, Tla

lpan

.m

cont

ijoch

@–-

—

D. F

. C.P

., 14

000

Méx

ico

inge

nier

ors.

com

.mx

21B

aoD

amin

gD

ivis

ion

Wet

land

s

—

—

baod

amin

g@86

-(0)-

8423

853

1—

Con

serv

atio

nfo

rest

ry.g

ov.c

n

22La

lith

Das

sena

ike

Secr

etar

iat

of t

he 3

rdPr

inci

pal

Dia

logu

e A

naly

st5th

Flo

or, 2

-2-4

Koj

imac

hi, C

hiyo

da-K

u,da

ssen

aike

@81

-3-5

212-

1645

81-3

-521

2-16

49W

ater

For

umTo

kyo,

102

-008

3, J

apan

wat

er-f

orum

3.co

m

23Sa

njin

ide

Silv

a-D

ias

Dia

logu

e Se

cret

aria

tC

omm

unic

atio

n C

oord

inat

orIW

MI,

127,

Sun

il M

awat

ha, P

elaw

atta

,s.

desi

lva-

dias

@cg

iar.

org

94-1

-787

404

94-1

-786

854

Bat

tara

mul

la, S

ri La

nka

24C

orne

lisde

Zee

uwA

lterr

a - I

LRI

Dir

ecto

rPO

Box

47,

670

0 A

Ac.

j.dez

eeuw

@31

317

474

698

31 3

17 4

9559

0Ja

cabu

s K

ees

Wag

enin

gen,

The

Net

herl

ands

alte

rra.

wag

.-ur-

nl

25C

huan

pit

Dha

mas

iri

SEA

TAC

mem

ber

Gov

erno

r, Th

e M

etro

polit

an40

0 Pr

acha

chue

n R

oad,

Tun

g So

ngm

wag

ov@

wat

er.m

wa.

or.th

662

5039

461/

266

2 50

3 94

77 W

ater

wor

ks A

utho

rity

Hon

g, L

aksi

, Ban

gkok

, 102

10 T

haila

nd

26A

lber

t Jo

hann

esD

ipho

orn

Min

istry

of F

orei

gn A

ffai

rsH

ead

- W

ater

Sup

port

Uni

tP

O B

ox 2

0061

, 250

0 EB

The

Hag

ue,

A.J

.DIP

HO

OR

N@

31-7

0-34

8451

831

-70-

3484

303

(Ber

t)Th

e N

ethe

rlan

dsdm

l.min

buza

.nl

27M

arce

llaD

’Sou

zaW

ater

shed

Org

anis

atio

nD

irec

tor

“Par

yava

ran”

beh

ind

mar

ket

yard

,m

arce

lla@

wot

r.or

g95

241

356

188

95 2

41 3

4113

4Tr

ust

Ahm

edna

gar,

414

001

Mah

aras

htra

, Ind

ia

101

No.

Part

icip

ant’

s Fi

rst

Parti

cipa

nt’s

Las

tO

rgan

izat

ion

Title

or

Prof

essi

onA

ddre

ssE-

mai

lTe

leph

one

Fax

Nam

eN

ame

C

ontin

ued

28Pa

tric

kD

ugan

ICLA

RM

( W

orld

Bio

logi

stIC

LAR

AM

, P O

Box

126

1, M

AA

DI,

p.du

gan@

cgia

r.org

20 5

5 34

0 42

28—

Fish

Cen

tre)

Cai

ro, E

gypt

29Th

ierr

y G

erar

dFa

con

FAO

Reg

iona

l Off

ice

for

Wat

er M

anag

emen

t O

ffic

er39

, Phr

a A

thit

Roa

d, B

angl

amph

oo,

Thie

rry.

Faco

n@fa

o.or

g66

2-69

7415

666

2-69

7444

5A

sia

and

the

Paci

ficB

angk

ok, 1

0200

Tha

iland

30Y

ang

Fang

Wild

life

Con

serv

atio

n—

12

0# Q

inhn

ian

Roa

d, K

unm

ing

Yun

nan,

Chi

napr

otec

tion@

publ

ic.k

m.y

n.cn

86 0

871

513

4844

86 0

871

519

5589

Off

ice

of Y

unna

n Pr

ovin

ceFo

rest

ry D

epar

tmen

t

31H

ossa

in S

hahi

dFa

ruqu

eW

AR

PO, M

inis

try o

fD

irec

tor

Gen

eral

Hou

se N

o.4A

, Roa

d N

o.22

, Gul

shan

-1,

war

po@

cite

chco

.net

880-

2-88

1442

588

0-2-

9883

456

Moz

adda

dW

ater

Res

ourc

es,

Dha

ka-1

212,

Ban

glad

esh

32Je

an-M

arc

Faur

esLa

nd a

nd W

ater

Wat

er R

esou

rces

Off

icer

FAO

- v

ia T

erm

e di

Car

acal

la, 0

0100

Jean

Mar

c.Fa

ures

@fa

o.or

g39

-06

5705

394

939

-06

5705

627

5

Dev

elop

men

t Div

ision

(AG

L)R

ome,

Ital

y.

33H

ans

Fred

eric

kIU

CN

Hea

d of

Wet

land

s an

d W

ater

IUC

N, 6

3 So

i 39,

Suk

hum

vit R

oad,

hans

@iv

cnt.o

rg66

2 66

2 40

2966

2 66

2 43

87/8

Res

ourc

es P

rogr

amm

eB

angk

ok, T

haila

nd.

34To

Gar

iM

inis

try o

f Env

ironm

ent

Secr

etar

y of

Sta

te#4

8, P

reah

Sih

anou

k B

oule

vard

, C

ham

karm

on,

iucn

_com

bodi

a@85

5-12

812

875

855

23 9

2944

Phno

m P

enh,

Cam

bodi

abi

gpon

d.co

m.k

h

35Jo

zsef

Gay

erW

ater

Res

ourc

esC

ours

e D

irec

tor

Kva

ssay

UT

1, 1

095

Bud

apes

t, H

unga

rygw

pcee

tac@

vitu

ki.h

u36

1 21

5 60

47

361

215

60 4

7R

esea

rch

Cen

tre

36Ib

rahi

m M

akra

mG

hatt

asC

EO

SSD

irect

or,

Dev

elop

men

t Se

ctor

Blo

ck 1

331

Ahm

ed Z

aki S

t. El

-Noz

ha i

brah

im.m

akra

m20

2 29

42 2

7020

2 29

59 1

41El

-Ged

ida,

Cai

ro,

Egyp

t@

ceos

s.or

g.eg

37M

ohd

Azh

ari B

inG

haza

lliD

epar

tmen

t of

Irrig

atio

nD

irec

tor

No

31, J

alan

11/

149J

Tam

an s

ri Pa

talin

gth

ayal

an@

did.

moa

.my

603

2692

891

260

3 29

64 5

489

and

Dra

inag

e57

000

Kul

a lu

mpu

r, M

alay

sia

/az

hari@

did.

moa

.my

38M

arc

Goi

chot

WW

FC

oord

inat

or li

ving

#28,

Stre

et 9

, Ton

le B

asac

, P.O

. 246

7,m

arc@

bigp

ond.

com

.kh

855-

23 2

18 0

3485

5-23

211

909

Mek

ong

Initi

ativ

ePh

nom

Pen

h, C

ambo

dia

39A

nia

Gro

bick

iIW

MI -

Sri

Lank

aPr

inci

pal

Res

earc

her/

IWM

I, 12

7, S

unil

Maw

atha

, Pel

awat

ta,

a.gr

obic

ki@

cgia

r.org

94 1

787

404

95 1

786

851

CP

Coo

rdin

ator

Bat

tara

mul

la, S

ri La

nka

40B

iksh

amG

ujja

Wor

ld W

ild F

und

for

Polic

y A

dvis

or, L

ivin

gA

ve. M

ont-B

lanc

, Gla

nd, C

H-1

196,

bguj

ja@

ww

fint.o

rg41

22

362

9031

41 2

2 36

4 05

26N

atur

e -

Inte

rnat

iona

lw

ater

Pro

gram

me

Switz

erla

nd

41In

dres

war

iG

uritn

oW

orki

ng g

roup

for

Cha

irman

for W

GEI

ID/

Dep

t. of

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g, F

acul

tyIn

dri.P

.Gur

itno@

62-2

1-48

9 03

4362

-21-

470

2119

envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

of

Team

Lea

der

for

publ

icof

Eng

inee

ring-

Uni

vers

ity o

f In

done

sia,

BA

KER

NET

.com

Irrig

atio

n &

Dra

inag

e of

the

awar

enes

s ca

mpa

ign

Cam

pus,

Dep

ok I

ndon

esia

ICID

(IN

AC

ID)

42M

oham

med

Abd

ulH

alim

Ban

glad

esh

Agr

icul

tura

lM

embe

r D

irec

tor

Kris

hi B

haba

n 49

-51,

Dilk

usha

Com

mer

cial

ahal

im@

aitlb

d.ne

t95

6437

6/95

5216

988

-02-

9564

357

Dev

elop

men

t C

orpo

ratio

nA

rea,

Dha

ka -

100

0

43A

lan

Will

iam

Hal

lG

loba

l W

ater

Par

tner

ship

Co-

ordi

nato

r fo

r Fo

od,

How

bery

Par

k, W

allin

gfor

d, O

xfor

dshi

reaw

h@hr

wal

lingf

ord.

co.u

k01

491

8223

4901

491

8263

52w

ater

Dia

logu

eO

X10

8B

A, E

ngla

nd

44K

arl

Hal

ldin

gSt

ockh

olm

Env

ironm

ent

Man

ager

- W

ater

res

ourc

eB

ox 2

142,

SE-

103

14 S

tock

holm

, Sw

eden

karl

.hal

ldin

g@se

i.se

46 8

421

140

046

708

409

252

Inst

itute

Prog

ram

me

102

No.

Parti

cipa

nt’s

Firs

tPa

rtici

pant

’s L

ast

Org

aniz

atio

nTi

tle o

r Pr

ofes

sion

Add

ress

E-m

ail

Tele

phon

eFa

x

N

ame

Nam

e

C

ontin

ued

45M

irza

Ham

idH

assa

nSe

cret

ary,

Min

istry

of

Secr

etar

y N

o. 8

0 st

. 59,

Sec

tor

I -8

/3, I

slam

abad

, Pak

ista

nha

mid

_h@

hotm

ail.c

om92

51

92 0

2335

92 5

1 92

0627

2W

ater

/Pow

er

46D

unca

nH

ayIn

stitu

te o

f Nat

ural

Dir

ecto

r an

d Pr

ogra

mm

eIn

stitu

te o

f N

atur

al R

esou

rces

, Priv

ate

Bag

X01

,ha

y@nu

.ac.

za27

33-

3460

796

27 3

3-34

6089

5R

esou

rces

Man

ager

Scot

tsvi

lle, 3

209,

Sou

th A

fric

a

47

Hel

mi

SEA

TAC

Mem

ber,

Res

earc

her/

Lec

ture

rJl

. Bel

anti

Inda

h IV

No.

8, P

adan

g 25

136,

Indo

nesi

ahe

lmi@

indo

sat.n

et.id

62 7

51 4

4366

062

751

716

91In

done

sia

48D

anie

lle H

elen

eH

irsc

hB

oth-

END

SPr

ojec

t Le

ader

Dam

rale

28-

30, 1

012

LJ A

mst

erda

m, N

ethe

rland

sdh

@bo

then

ds.o

rg31

20

623

0823

31 2

0 62

0 80

49

49Ph

ilip

Hir

sch

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

,A

ssoc

iate

Pro

fess

orSc

hool

of

Geo

scie

nces

(F0

9) U

nive

rsity

of

hirs

ch@

mai

l.usy

d.ed

u.au

61-2

-935

1-33

5561

-2-9

351-

3644

Aus

tralia

n M

ekon

gSy

dney

, NSW

200

6, A

ustra

liaR

esou

rce

Cen

tre

(AM

RC

)

50Sh

ang

Hon

gqi

Dep

artm

ent o

f In

tern

atio

nal

Dep

uty

Gen

eral

Dep

artm

ent

of I

nter

natio

nal

Coo

pera

tion,

hqsh

ang@

yello

wri

ver.

86 3

71 6

0259

54

86 3

7159

4590

6C

oope

ratio

nSc

ienc

e an

d Te

chno

logy

, Y

ello

w R

iver

go

v.cn

Con

serv

ancy

Com

mis

sion

Min

istry

of

Wat

er R

ecou

rses

, N

o.11

Jin

shui

Roa

d,Zh

engz

hou,

450

003,

Chi

na

51Iz

har A

liH

unza

iG

WP

Secr

etar

iat

Coo

rdin

ator

, G

WP

IWM

I, 12

7, S

unil

Maw

atha

, Pel

awat

ta,

I.hun

zai@

cgia

r.org

94 1

787

404

95 1

786

851

Res

ourc

e C

entr

eB

atta

ram

ulla

, Sri

Lank

a

52St

even

Iddi

ngs

WH

O R

egio

nal O

ffic

eEn

viro

nmen

tal

Engi

neer

Box

121

7 Ph

nom

Pen

h, C

ambo

dia

Iddi

ngsS

@ca

m.w

pro.

who

.int

855

23-2

16-6

1085

5-23

-216

-211

for S

EA

53K

azi,

F.Ja

lal

Har

vard

Uni

vers

ityV

isiti

ng S

chol

ar,

Har

vard

Uni

vers

ity,

Pier

ce H

all

-125

,kl

alal

@de

as.h

arva

rd.e

du—

—

Har

vard

Uni

vers

ity29

Oxf

ord

Stre

et, C

ambr

idge

,M

ass

0213

8 U

SA

54Si

mi S

adaf

Kam

alSA

STA

C-P

WP

Con

sulta

nt3-

C,

Com

mer

cial

Lan

e-2,

Zam

zam

a,si

mi@

raas

ta.c

om92

-21-

5870

735

92-2

1-58

6530

5B

oule

vard

, C

lifto

n, K

arac

hi, P

akis

tan

55Ei

man

Kar

arD

epar

tmen

t of

Wat

erD

irec

tor

- C

atch

men

tsPr

ivat

e B

ag x

313

, Pre

toria

000

1 So

uth

Afr

ica

kara

re@

dwaf

.gov

.za

27 1

2 33

6 88

29/3

027

12

336

8849

Aff

airs

and

For

estry

man

agem

ent

56Y

amao

kaK

azum

iTh

e Ja

pane

se I

nstit

ute

ofD

irec

tor

- R

esea

rch

Dep

t9F

NN

Bui

ldin

g, 1

-21-

17 T

oran

omon

,ka

zum

i-ya

mao

ka81

-3-3

502-

1387

82 3

350

2 13

29Ir

rigat

ion

& D

rain

age

Min

ato-

ku,

Toky

o, J

apan

@jii

d.or

.jp

57R

ivka

Kfir

Wat

er R

esea

rch

Chi

ef E

xecu

tive

Off

icer

P B

x03

, Gez

ina,

003

1, S

outh

Afr

ica

rkfi

r@w

rc.o

rg.z

a27

12

330

0340

27 1

2 33

0 19

35C

omm

issi

on

58Sh

oaib

Sul

tan

Kha

nN

RSP

Cha

irm

an8

Aga

Kha

n R

oad,

F 6

/4, I

slam

abad

, Pak

ista

nch

nrsp

@is

d.w

ol.n

et.p

k—

—59

Penn

yK

nigh

tsU

nive

rsity

of

Sydn

eySc

ient

ist

56 O

livet

Stre

et, G

lenb

rook

NSW

277

3jm

inch

in@

pnc.

com

.au

02 4

7 39

5014

—

60K

azuh

isa

Kod

aSe

cret

aria

t of

Thi

rd W

orld

Chi

ef P

rogr

amm

e O

ffic

er5th

Flo

or, 2

-2-4

Koj

imac

hi, C

hiyo

da-k

u,ko

da@

wat

er-f

orum

3.co

m81

3 5

212

1645

81 3

521

2 16

49W

ater

For

umTo

kyo,

Jap

an

61Pr

eap

Kol

CA

MFA

DD

irect

or o

f CA

MFA

D#

11, S

t 308

, Phn

om P

enh,

Cam

bodi

a01

2877

833@

mob

itel.c

om.k

h85

5 12

877

833

855

23 2

19 4

15

103

No.

Part

icip

ant’

s Fi

rst

Parti

cipa

nt’s

Las

tO

rgan

izat

ion

Title

or

Prof

essi

onA

ddre

ssE-

mai

lTe

leph

one

Fax

Nam

eN

ame

C

ontin

ued

62Jo

ern

Kri

sten

sen

Mek

ong

Riv

er C

omm

issi

onC

hief

Exe

cutiv

e O

ffic

er36

4, M

V P

heah

Mon

ivon

g, S

angk

atkr

iste

nsen

@m

rcm

ekon

g.or

g85

5 23

720

979

855

23 7

20 9

72Ph

sar

Doe

rm T

hkou

v, k

han

Cha

mka

r,M

on P

O B

ox 1

112,

Phn

om P

enh,

Cam

bodi

a

63N

atas

haLa

ndel

l-Mill

sIn

tern

atio

nal I

nstit

ute

for

Envi

ronm

enta

l Ec

onom

ist

IIED

, 3 E

ndsl

eigh

Stre

et, L

ondo

nN

atas

ha.L

ande

ll-M

ills

44 (0

)207

388

211

744

(0)2

07 38

8 282

6En

viro

nmen

t an

dW

C1H

0D

D, U

K@

iied.

org

Dev

elop

men

t (II

ED)

64M

algo

rzat

aLa

ndsb

erg-

Stat

e In

spec

tion

ofH

ead

of D

epar

tmen

tSt

ate

Insp

ectio

n of

Env

ironm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

.go

sial

u@w

ios.

szcz

ecin

.pl

4891

430

331

348

91 4

33 9

941

Ucz

ciw

ekEn

viro

nmen

tal

Prot

ectio

n,in

Pol

and,

4 W

aly

Chr

obre

go S

tr. 7

Reg

iona

l Off

ice

in0-

502

Szcz

ecin

, Po

land

Wes

tern

Pom

eran

ian

65M

oong

Leng

IUC

N -

Cam

bodi

a—

Liai

son

Off

ice,

Stre

et 3

05, H

ouse

#2,

—

——

Phno

m P

enh,

Cam

bodi

a

66E

rhar

dLe

ucht

man

nG

TZPr

ojec

t C

o-or

dina

tor-

GTZ

256

Le

Dua

n, D

ong

Ha,

Qua

ng T

ri G

TZTL

@D

NG

VN

N.N

M 8

4(0)

53 5

5018

184

(0) 5

3550

183

67C

aiLi

ngen

Inst

itute

of

Wat

er R

esou

rces

Vic

e Pr

esid

ent,

ICID

20 W

est

Che

gonz

huan

g R

oaad

,ca

ilg@

whr

.com

86 1

0 68

4155

2286

10

6845

7179

and

Hyd

ropo

wer

Res

earc

hP

O B

ox 3

66, B

eijin

g, 1

0004

4 C

hina

68H

erat

hM

anth

rithi

lake

Dia

logu

e Se

cret

aria

tC

oord

inat

ion

IWM

I, 12

7, S

unil

Maw

atha

,h.

man

thri

thila

ke@

cgia

r.org

94 1

787

404

95 1

786

851

Pela

wat

ta,

Bat

tara

mul

la,

Sri

Lank

a

69Zh

ang

Min

ghua

Fore

st C

onse

rvat

ion

Acc

ount

ant

Qin

gnia

n R

oad

120,

Kun

min

g Y

unna

nst

imul

an@

publ

ic.k

m.y

n.cn

86 8

71 5

1948

6386

871

519

486

3C

omm

unity

Dev

elop

men

tPr

ovin

ce C

hina

Proj

ect

70D

avid

Mol

den

IWM

ITh

eme

Lead

erIW

MI,

127,

Sun

il M

awat

ha, P

elaw

atta

,d.

mol

den@

cgia

r.org

94 1

787

404

95 1

786

851

Bat

tara

mul

la, S

ri La

nka

71To

fiq P

asha

Moo

raj

Spri

ng O

rcha

rds

Con

sulta

nt12

5 B

hiro

o G

oth,

Deh

Tha

nno,

Mal

ir C

ity,

pash

afar

m@

cybe

r.ne

t.pk

92-2

1-45

6075

0—

K

arac

hi,

Paki

stan

72Jo

rge

Mor

a-Po

rtug

uese

Foun

datio

n Pa

rcel

Dire

ctor

of

the

Envi

ronm

ent a

ndFE

DEU

, 200

Sy

25E

del P

omod

oro,

jm

orap

o@ra

csa.

co.c

r50

6 22

4 38

5050

6 22

4 37

96D

esar

rollo

Urb

ano

Wat

er M

anag

emen

t A

rea

San

Pedr

o de

Mon

tes

de O

ca,

(FE

DE

U)

San

Jose

, C

osta

Ric

a

73D

anie

lleM

orle

yFr

eshw

ater

Act

ion

Net

wor

kPr

ojec

t C

oord

inat

orC

/O W

ATE

RA

ID, 2

7-29

Prin

ce C

onso

rt H

ouse

,da

niel

le44

220

7 45

2244

220

7 45

00A

lber

t Em

bank

men

t, Lo

ndon

SE1

7U

B@

fres

hwat

erac

tion.

net

dani

elle

mor

ley

@w

ater

aid.

org.

uk

74Sh

aron

Mur

ray

USA

IDW

ater

Res

ourc

es A

dvis

or,

Ron

ald

Rea

gan

Bui

ldin

g -

Rm

308

,SM

urra

y@us

aid.

gov

001-

202-

7120

515

001-

202-

2163

174

1300

Pen

nsyl

vani

a A

venu

e, N

.W.

Was

hing

ton

D. C

. 205

23

75R

egas

saN

amar

aIW

MI

Agr

icul

tura

l Ec

onom

ist

IWM

I, 12

7, S

unil

Maw

atha

,r.

nam

ara@

cgia

r.or

g94

1 7

8740

494

1 7

8685

4Pe

law

atta

, B

atta

ram

ulla

, Sr

i La

nka

104

No.

Parti

cipa

nt’s

Firs

tPa

rtici

pant

’s L

ast

Org

aniz

atio

nTi

tle o

r Pr

ofes

sion

Add

ress

E-m

ail

Tele

phon

eFa

x

N

ame

Nam

e

C

ontin

ued

76B

enes

saia

hN

ejib

Med

wet

Coo

rdin

atio

nPo

licy

Adv

isor

Alio

s 4.

115

28 A

then

s, G

reec

ene

jib@

med

wet

.org

3010

-808

6270

3010

- 808

6274

Moh

amed

Uni

t, A

THEN

S (R

amsa

rC

onve

ntio

n)

77M

adio

dio

Nia

sse

IUC

N -

Wor

ld C

onse

rvat

ion

Reg

iona

l C

oord

inat

or W

etla

nds

IUC

N-B

RA

O, 0

1 P1

618

Oua

gadi

ugou

mad

iodi

io.n

iass

e@ic

un.o

rg22

6 30

7047

226

3075

61U

nion

, Wes

t Afr

ica

and

Wat

er R

esou

rces

Pro

gram

01 B

urki

no F

aso

Reg

iona

l O

ffic

e

78R

afae

laN

icol

aEC

OA

/RIO

SVIV

OS

Coo

rdin

ator

Rua

Vic

ente

Pin

son,

419

cas

a 3

Vila

,rn

icol

a@ri

osvi

vos.

org.

br55

(67)

3026

280

455

(67)

324

3230

CEP

790

09-0

30 C

ampo

Gra

nde,

MS

Bra

zil

79Ph

onec

hare

unN

onth

axay

Wat

er R

esou

rces

Dir

ecto

r of

WR

CC

Sec

reta

riat

Nah

aidi

ou, C

hant

habo

uly

Dis

t.,PO

Box

227

9,w

rcc@

laot

el.c

om85

6 21

218

737

856

21 2

1873

7C

oord

inat

ion

Com

mitt

eeV

ient

iane

, Lao

PD

RSe

cret

aria

t

80D

idie

rO

rang

eIW

MI-

SEA

Res

earc

her

IRD

, Am

b de

Fra

nce

57 tr

an H

ung

dao,

d.or

ange

@cg

iar.o

rg /

84 9

0414

050

184

483

1455

8H

anoi

, Vie

tnam

xor

ange

@ir

d.fr

81Le

kan

Oye

band

eD

ept.

of G

eogr

aphy

,C

onsu

ltant

2, O

rits

ejol

omi

Thom

as C

resc

ent,

leka

noye

@ho

tmai

l.com

——

Uni

vers

ity o

f La

gos

cam

pus,

Ako

ka,

Lago

s 10

1017

, Nig

eria

.

82V

asud

haPa

ngar

eW

orld

Wat

er I

nstit

ute

Hea

d of

the

Inst

itute

D-1

0, D

arsh

ana

Row

Hou

se,

pang

are@

vsnl

.com

/91

-20-

2953

112

91-1

1-65

6944

2R

anw

ara

Hou

sing

Com

plex

,oi

kosi

ndia

@ho

tmai

l.com

ND

A-P

asha

n R

oad,

Bav

dhan

,Pu

ne 4

1102

1, M

ahar

asht

ra,

Indi

a

83D

hrub

a R

ajPa

ntIW

MI-

Nep

alR

esea

rche

rG

anes

hbas

ti, M

ahar

ajgu

nj,

Kat

hman

du-4

, N

epal

d.pa

nt@

cgia

r.org

977-

1-41

0539

977-

1-53

6219

84V

ijay

Para

njpy

eG

omuk

h Tr

ust

Cha

irman

, G

omuk

h Tr

ust

92/2

Dur

ga, G

ango

te P

ath,

Opp

. Kam

ala

Neh

ru P

ark,

para

njpy

e@ya

hoo.

cu.u

k91

20

56 7

3 32

491

20

5431

250

Eran

dwan

e, P

une,

411

004

Indi

a

85Su

rapp

asam

yPa

rasu

ram

anA

CTI

ON

AID

Asi

aA

sia

Reg

iona

l13

th F

loor

Reg

ent

Hou

se, 1

83 R

ajda

mri

Roa

d,sp

aras

uram

an@

66 2

651

9067

66 2

651

9070

Reg

iona

l O

ffic

ePo

licy

Coo

rdin

ator

Lum

pini

103

30 B

angk

okac

tiona

idas

ia.o

rg

86Fa

izal

Pari

shG

loba

l Env

ironm

ent C

entre

Dir

ecto

r7A

, Jal

an 1

9/29

463

00 P

etal

ing

Jaya

,fp

aris

h@ge

net.p

o.m

y60

3 7

957

2007

60 3

795

7 70

03Se

lang

or,

Mal

aysi

a

87Su

rapo

lPa

ttane

eO

ffic

e of

the

Nat

iona

l Wat

er—

Gov

ernm

ent

Hou

se,

Dus

it D

istri

ct,

sura

pol2

001@

hotm

ail.c

om66

2 6

29 9

453

66 2

629

945

1R

esou

rces

Com

mitt

ee

Ban

gkok

103

00, T

haila

nd

88G

enan

dria

line

Pera

lta

Uni

vers

ity o

f Ph

ilipp

ines

Nat

iona

l En

gine

erin

g C

ente

rN

atio

nal

Engi

neer

ing

Cen

tre, R

oom

317

,gp

eral

ta@

skyi

net.n

et /

——

Uni

vers

ity o

f th

e Ph

ilipp

ines

, Dili

man

, r

gper

alts

@ya

hoo.

com

Que

zon

City

, Phi

lippi

nes

1101

89S.

D.

Rey

nald

oPe

rez

PAK

ISA

MA

- IF

AP

Nat

iona

l C

oord

inat

or59

C. S

alva

dor

St.,

Loyo

la H

eigh

ts,

paki

sam

a@m

ozco

m.c

om63

2 43

6 16

8963

2 43

6 34

77Q

uezo

n C

ity,

Phili

ppin

es84

54

8232

70

90H

o N

goc

Phu

——

——

——

105

No.

Part

icip

ant’

s Fi

rst

Parti

cipa

nt’s

Las

tO

rgan

izat

ion

Title

or

Prof

essi

onA

ddre

ssE-

mai

lTe

leph

one

Fax

Nam

eN

ame

C

ontin

ued

91M

athi

eu J

ean

Pink

ers

Wag

enin

gen

Uni

vers

ityD

irec

tor

P.O

.Box

242

670

0 EE

m.j.

h.p.

pink

ers

——

Har

rie

Pier

reW

agen

inge

n, N

ethe

rlan

ds@

alte

rra.

wag

-ur.

nl

92K

amta

Pras

adG

WP

- In

dia

wat

erV

ice

Pres

iden

t,In

stitu

te f

or R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent

irm

ed@

del1

.vsn

l.net

.in91

11

2377

199,

91 1

1 23

7966

9Pa

rtne

rshi

p, I

RM

EDIn

dia

Wat

er P

artn

ersh

ipan

d Ec

onom

ic D

evel

opm

ent ,

2-B

,In

stitu

tiona

l Are

a, K

arka

r Doo

ma,

Del

hi 1

1009

2

93D

elli,

J.

Pris

coli

—Fa

cilit

ator

/Con

sulta

nt17

14 N

Bry

an S

t., A

rling

ton,

Va.

222

01, U

SApr

isco

li@er

ols.

com

703

254

6632

—

94Li

yiQ

inIU

CN

- W

orld

Chi

na P

rogr

am O

ffic

er64

Soi

39,

Suk

hum

vit R

oad,

Ban

gkok

, Tha

iland

qinl

iyi@

iucn

t.org

662

662

4030

662

662

4387

/8C

onse

rvat

ion

Uni

on

95N

guye

n N

han

Qua

ngV

ietn

am N

atio

nal

Secr

etar

y G

ener

al,

Vie

tnam

23,

Han

g Tr

e, H

anoi

, Vie

t Nam

nhan

quan

g@hn

.vnn

.vn

844

8240

327

844

825

692

9M

ekon

g C

omm

ittee

Nat

iona

l M

ekon

g C

omm

ittee

/ w

up-v

nmc@

hn.v

nn.v

n

96Su

shila

Raj

aman

ieG

WP

Secr

etar

iat

Adm

inis

trativ

e O

ffic

erIW

MI,

127,

Sun

il M

awat

ha, P

elaw

atta

,s.

raja

man

i@cg

air.

org

94 1

787

404

95 1

786

851

Bat

tara

mul

la, S

ri La

nka

97C

ham

inda

Raj

apak

seIU

CN -

Wor

ld C

onse

rvati

onW

AN

I Pro

gram

Off

icer

63 S

oi 3

9, S

ukhu

mvi

t Roa

d,ch

amin

da@

iucn

t.org

662

662

4029

662

662

4387

-8U

nion

Ban

gkok

, Tha

iland

98Fr

ank

Rijs

berm

anIn

tern

atio

nal

Wat

erD

irec

tor

Gen

eral

IWM

I, 12

7, S

unil

Maw

atha

,f.r

ijsbe

rman

@cg

iar.o

rg94

1 7

8740

495

1 7

8685

1M

anag

emen

t In

stitu

tePe

law

atta

, B

atta

ram

ulla

,Sr

i Lan

ka99

Joha

nR

ocks

troe

mU

NES

CO I

HE

and

Wat

erN

etA

ssoc

iate

Pro

fess

orW

ater

Net

, Uni

v of

Zim

babw

e,ro

ckst

rom

@26

3 (0

) 433

672

526

3 (0)

433 6

740

Sout

hern

Afr

ica

PO

Box

600

MP,

Har

are,

Zim

babw

een

g.uz

.ac.

zw

100

Mar

lies

Schu

ttela

arW

WC

—D

ocks

de

la J

diet

te 1

0.3,

130

02, M

arse

ille

m.s

chut

tela

ar@

33 4

91

99 4

1 00

—w

orld

wat

erco

unci

l.org

101

Padm

asir

iSe

nevi

ratn

eM

inis

try o

f Irr

igat

ion

and

Secr

etar

yM

inis

try o

f Irr

igat

ion

& W

ater

Man

agem

ent,

sene

irr@

diam

ond.

lank

a.ne

t94

1 6

8825

694

1 6

7665

3 W

ickr

ama

wat

er M

anag

emen

t -

No.

500

T. B

. Jay

a M

awat

ha, C

olom

bo 1

0,Sr

i Lan

kaSr

i Lan

ka

102

Kam

la N

ath

Shar

ma

ICID

Exec

utiv

e Se

cret

ary

ICID

, 48

Nya

ya M

arg,

Cha

nnak

yapu

ri,ic

id@

icid

.org

91 1

1 61

1 68

3791

11

611

5962

New

Del

hi 1

10 0

21, I

ndia

.

103

Ash

vini

Kum

arSh

ukla

Cen

tral

Wat

er C

omm

issi

onA

ssis

tant

Dir

ecto

rFl

at N

o. 6

2, S

ecto

r -2

, Poc

ket

-1, D

war

ka,

Shuk

la_a

shw

ini@

91 1

1 50

8933

4—

New

Del

hiho

tmai

l.com

104

M. H

.Si

ddiq

uiW

AR

POW

ater

Res

ourc

es

Expe

rt &

W

AR

PO ,

1/F

Moh

ua A

partm

ents

,m

hs@

bang

la.n

et88

0-2-

8113

292

/88

0-2-

9125

000

Form

er D

irec

tor

Gen

eral

167

Mod

huba

zar,

Dha

ka -

120

9, B

angl

ades

h88

0-11

-862

507

105

Mak

Sith

irith

Fish

erie

s A

ctio

n C

oalit

ion

Coo

rdin

ator

No.

35,

St 1

78, P

hnom

Pen

h, C

ambo

dia

msr

ith@

ngof

orum

.org

.kh

855

12 9

06 2

7985

5 23

214

429

Team

/ NG

O F

orum

on

Cam

bodi

a

106

Piet

erSm

idt

AD

BPr

inci

pal

Proj

ect

Impl

emen

tatio

nA

DB

-Han

oi ,

Uni

t 701

-706

, Sun

Red

psm

idt@

adb.

org

——

Off

icer

Riv

er B

uild

ing

, 23

Phan

Chu

Trin

h St

reet

,H

anoi

, Vie

tnam

107

Nan

oSo

enar

noM

inis

try o

f Se

ttlem

ent

Adv

iser

to th

e M

inis

ter,

Jl. B

ango

IV N

o. 9

A, P

ondo

k La

bu,

soen

arno

@cb

n.ne

t.id

62-2

1-76

9696

162

-21-

7696

960

& I

nfra

stru

ctur

esSe

nior

Tra

iner

Jaka

rta,

1245

0 -

Indo

nesi

a

106

No.

Parti

cipa

nt’s

Firs

tPa

rtici

pant

’s L

ast

Org

aniz

atio

nTi

tle o

r Pr

ofes

sion

Add

ress

E-m

ail

Tele

phon

eFa

x

N

ame

Nam

e

C

ontin

ued

108

Shri

Som

pal

Plan

ning

Com

mis

sion

Mem

ber,

Plan

ning

Com

mis

sion

-M

embe

r of

Pla

nnin

g C

omm

issi

on,

som

pal@

yoja

na.n

ic.in

——

Con

sulta

ntG

over

nmen

t of I

ndia

, 28

Lodh

i Est

ate,

New

Del

hi, 1

10 0

03, I

ndia

109

Suta

rdi

Suta

rdi

Indo

nesi

a W

ater

Prog

ram

Sec

reta

ry o

fJl

. Brig

if II

No.

2, C

igan

jur,

Jaka

rta,

s_su

tard

i@ho

tmai

l.com

62-2

1-72

2 19

0762

-21-

722

1907

Part

ners

hip

(IW

P)In

done

sia

Wat

er P

artn

ersh

ip12

630,

Ind

ones

ia

110

Tak

ashi

Tak

ahas

hiTh

e Ja

pane

se I

nstit

ute

ofSe

nior

Res

earc

h En

gine

er9F

NN

Bui

ldin

g, 1

-21-

17 T

oran

omon

,ta

kash

i-tak

ahas

hi@

jiid.

or.jp

81 3

350

2 13

8981

3 3

502

1329

Irrig

atio

n &

Dra

inag

eM

inat

o-ku

, To

kyo,

Jap

an

111

Shig

etak

aTa

niya

ma

Japa

nese

Ass

ocia

tion

ofV

ice

Pres

iden

t, IC

IDN

ihon

-Sek

ijujis

ya B

uild

ing,

tani

@m

bp.s

pher

e.ne

.jp81

3 3

432

5295

81 3

343

2 07

43R

ural

Sew

erag

e1-

1-3

Shib

adai

mon

, Min

ato-

ku,

Toky

o, J

apan

112

Ngu

yen

Min

hTh

ong

IUC

N—

—

T

hion

g@ic

un.o

rg.v

n 8

4493

3 00

1284

4 82

5 87

94

113

Phuc

Tuo

ngTo

IRR

I -

Cro

p So

il an

dA

ctin

g D

ivis

iona

l Hea

dD

APO

777

7 M

etro

Man

ila ,

Phili

ppin

est.t

uong

@cg

iar.o

rg63

2 8

4505

6363

2 8

4506

06W

ater

Sci

ence

Div

isio

n

114

Pete

rT

orre

kens

FAO

- A

GLW

Agr

onom

ical

Eng

inee

rV

iale

Del

lee

Term

e D

i C

arac

alla

,Pe

ter.

Torr

eken

s@fa

o.or

g39

(0)6

5705

3806

0010

0 R

ome

Italy

115

Mic

hael

Tron

brid

geW

ater

Res

earc

h In

stitu

te—

——

——

of B

lue

Hill

116

Dao

Tro

ngTu

Min

istry

of A

gric

ultu

re a

ndD

eput

y D

irec

tor

Gen

eral

2 N

goc

Ha

Str.

Han

oi, V

ietn

amM

AR

D-I

CD

-Tu@

Net

nam

.vn

84 4

843

4682

84 4

7330

752

Rur

al D

evel

opm

ent

117

Siza

Don

ald

Tum

boSo

koin

e U

nive

rsity

of

Agr

icul

tura

lP.

O. B

ox 3

003,

Mor

ogor

o,sd

t116

@ya

hoo.

com

255-

023-

2604

216

255-

023-

2604

649

Agr

icul

ture

Engi

neer

Tan

zani

a

118

Hug

hT

urra

lIW

MI

Res

earc

her

IWM

I, 12

7, S

unil

Maw

atha

,h.

turr

al@

cgia

r.org

94 1

787

404

95 1

786

851

Pela

wat

ta,

Bat

tara

mul

la,

Sri

Lank

a

119

Nir

jara

Nan

daV

aidy

aM

inis

try o

f W

ater

Join

t Se

cret

ary

Min

istr

y O

f W

ater

Res

ourc

es,

nirj

aran

v@ho

tmai

l.com

977-

1-22

6796

977-

1-22

2877

Res

ourc

esSi

ngha

durb

ar, K

athm

andu

, Nep

al

120

Dom

itille

Val

lee

Dia

logu

e Se

cret

aria

tK

now

ledg

e-B

ase

Man

ager

IWM

I, 12

7, S

unil

Maw

atha

,d.

valle

e@cg

iar.o

rg94

1 7

8740

495

1 7

8685

1Pe

law

atta

, B

atta

ram

ulla

,Sr

i Lan

ka

121

Souk

ata

Vic

hit

Dep

artm

ent o

f En

viro

nmen

t,—

——

——

Scie

nce,

Tec

hnol

ogy

122

Mer

cy D

ikito

Wac

htm

eist

erG

loba

l W

ater

Par

tner

ship

Net

wor

k O

ffic

erG

WP,

Sve

evan

gen

24-2

6,m

ercy

.dik

ito-w

acht

mei

ster@

46 8

698

45

8346

8 5

6 27

SE 1

05 2

5, S

tock

hlom

, Sw

eede

nsi

da.s

e

123

Mio

dusz

ewsk

iW

alde

mar

Insti

tute

for L

and

Recl

amat

ion

Hea

d of

Dep

artm

ent

Fale

nty,

05-

090

Ras

zyn,

Pol

and

W.M

iodu

szew

ski@

48 2

2 72

0053

148

22

6283

753

imuz

.edu

.pl

No.

Part

icip

ant’

s Fi

rst

Parti

cipa

nt’s

Las

tO

rgan

izat

ion

Title

or

Prof

essi

onA

ddre

ssE-

mai

lTe

leph

one

Fax

Nam

eN

ame

107

124

Ric

hard

Wal

klin

gN

atur

al H

erita

ge I

nstit

ute

Envi

ronm

enta

l Pl

anne

r21

40 S

hattu

ck A

ve.,

5th F

loor

,rp

w@

n-h-

i.org

510-

644.

2900

x10

951

0-64

4-44

28B

erke

ley,

CA

, 947

05, U

SA

125

Wei

min

gW

ang

Yun

nan

Dep

artm

ent

Dir

ecto

rQ

ungn

ian

Roa

d 12

02,

stim

ulan

@86

8 71

51 9

4863

86 8

71 5

11 0

816

of F

ores

tryK

umin

g, Y

unna

n Pr

ovin

ce, C

hina

publ

ic.k

m.y

n.cn

126

S. P

.W

ani

ICR

ISA

TD

eput

y D

G,

OEP

PIC

RIS

AT,

Pat

anch

eru

502

324,

s.w

ani@

cgia

r.or

g09

1 40

329

6161

091

40 3

2412

39A

ndhr

a Pr

ades

h, I

ndia

127

Jero

en F

rank

War

ner

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

agen

inge

n,Pr

ojec

t C

oord

inat

orN

ieuw

e K

anaa

l 11,

670

9 PA

,je

roen

.war

ner@

317

483

7006

317

484

759

Irrig

atio

n an

d w

ater

Wag

enin

gen,

Net

herl

ands

user

s.tc

t.wau

.nl

Engi

neer

ing

Gro

up

128

Dha

rmat

hila

keW

eera

koon

Dep

artm

ent o

f Ir

rigat

ion

Dire

ctor

Gen

eral

of

Irrig

atio

nD

epar

tmen

t of I

rrig

atio

n,ir

_dgi

@sr

i.lan

ka.n

et94

1 5

8498

494

1 5

8498

4PO

Box

113

8, B

audh

alok

a M

awat

ha,

Col

ombo

7,

Sri L

anka

129

Cla

udia

Wöl

kG

TZPo

licy

Adv

isor

Int

egra

ted

P O

Box

518

0, 6

5726

Esc

hbor

n, G

erm

any

clau

dia.

woe

lk@

gtz.

de49

-619

6-79

-125

449

-619

6-79

-714

5W

ater

Res

ourc

es M

anag

emen

t

130

Han

sW

olte

rD

ialo

gue

Secr

etar

iat

Dir

ecto

rIW

MI,

127,

Sun

il M

awat

ha, P

elaw

atta

,h.

wal

ter@

cgia

r.or

g94

1 7

8740

495

1 7

8685

1B

atta

ram

ulla

, Sri

Lank

a

131

Paul

Wol

verk

amp

Bot

h EN

DS

Proj

ect

Adv

iser

Den

mar

k 28

-30

1012

LJ A

mst

erda

m, N

ethe

rland

s.w

ater

@bo

then

ds.o

rg31

20

6230

823

31 2

0 62

0804

9

132

Xie

Yan

Gre

en F

ood

Seni

or E

ngin

eer

Div

isio

n O

f Te

chni

que

Stan

dard

izat

ion,

xiey

24@

sina

.com

8610

640

2 88

88/7

207

8610

642

2 11

75D

evel

opm

ent

Cen

tre

Gre

en F

ood

Dev

elop

men

t C

entre

, C

hina

133

Kaw

amot

oY

asuh

iro

The

Japa

nese

Ins

titut

e of

Seni

or R

esea

rch

Engi

neer

9F N

N B

uild

ing,

1-21

-17

Tora

nom

on,

yasu

hiro

-kow

amot

o@Ir

rigat

ion

& D

rain

age

Min

ato-

ku, T

okyo

jiid.

or.jp

81 3

350

2 13

8981

3 3

502

1329

134

Dan

iel

Kw

esi

Yaw

son

IWM

I-SA

Hyd

rolo

gist

P B

X 8

13 S

ilver

ton

0127

, Pre

toria

, Sou

th A

fric

a.d.

yaw

son@

cgia

r.or

g27

12

845

9100

27 1

2 84

5 91

10

135

XuY

ingm

ing

Agr

o-en

viro

nmen

tal

—A

gro-

envi

ronm

enta

l Pr

otec

tion

Inst

itute

, Min

istry

——

—Pr

otec

tion

Inst

itute

,of

Agr

icul

ture

, 31

Fuka

ng R

oad,

Tia

njin

300

191,

Min

istry

of A

gric

ultu

re

Peop

le’s

Rep

ublic

of

Chi

na

136

Shi

Yub

oM

inis

try o

f W

ater

—D

epar

tmen

t of

Wat

er R

esou

rce,

shiy

b@m

wr.g

ov.c

n—

—R

esou

rce

M

inis

try o

f W

ater

Res

ourc

e,N

o. 2

, Lan

e 2,

Bai

guan

g R

oad,

Bei

jing,

P R

Chi

na

137

Zhon

gpin

gZh

uIW

MI

Res

earc

her

IWM

I, 12

7, S

unil

Maw

atha

, Pel

awat

ta,

z.zh

u@cg

iar.

org

94 1

787

404

95 1

786

851

Bat

tara

mul

la, S

ri La

nka

108

Continued

List of Participants (Vietnamese)

No Name

1 Le Quy An2 Nguyen Van Bai3 Le Huu Ban4 Bui Ba Bong5 Bui Duc Ben6 Truong Van Con7 Nguyen Van Chau8 Chu Van Chuong9 Nguyen Xuan Dieu

10 Dang Ngäc Dung11 Nguyen Xuan Dong12 Hoang Sy Dong13 Nguyen Tien Dat14 Nguyen Ngäc Diep15 Le Thanh Bao Duc16 Nghiem Thi Hang17 Nguyen Van Hai18 Nguyen Dinh Huong19 Nguyen Thuong Hung20 Nguyen Tan Hinh21 Bui Hieu22 Nguyen Thi Tuyet Hoa23 Tran Xuan Hoa24 Nguyen Quang Hoa25 Le Thi Minh Hoa26 Nguyen Thi Khanh27 Tran Khai28 Tran Van Lang29 Nguyen Thai Lai30 Dao Minh Loc31 Cao Ba Loc32 Vuong Thi Lap33 Nguyen Hung Long34 Tran Kim Long

No Name

Continued

109

35 Nguyen Thi Luan36 Vu Tien Luc37 Kieu Van Luy38 Nguyen Tet Luyen39 Vu Van Me40 Le Duc Nam41 Cam Thi Ngoc42 Nguyen Huu Nghia43 Pham Duc Ngoan44 Tran Nhon45 Pham Hong Nhat46 Nguyen Dinh Ninh47 Le Van Minh48 Prime Minister Le Huy Ngo49 Pham Khoi Nguyen50 Nguyen Ty Nien51 Huúnh The Phien52 Cao Van Phung53 Tran ai Quoc54 Pham Xuan Su55 Nguyen Chi Ton56 Nguyen Thi Tam57 Le Van Tai58 Vu Duc Thai59 Nguyen Xuan Thanh60 Tang Duc Thang61 Le Thanh62 Nguyen Van Thuong63 Nguyen Van Thien64 Vu Huy Thu65 Pham Minh Thoa66 Nguyen Dinh Thinh67 Dao Quang Thu68 Dao Träng Thuan69 Nguyen Van Toi70 Nguyen Van Tien71 Dao Trong Tu

No Name

Continued

110

72 Ngo Van Toan73 Hoang Van Truong74 To Van Truong75 Le Kim Truyen76 Phan Duy Tuyen77 Ngo Thi Tuyet78 Lam Xuan Vi79 Nguyen Viet Vinh80 Ha Luong Thuan81 Le Van Can82 Nguyen Ngoc Anh83 Doan The Uong84 Phan Thanh Toan85 Dinh Huy Mong86 Nguyen Ninh Tuan87 Nguyen Chi Cong88 Truong Cong Tu89 Do Le Tao90 Ngoc Tinh91 Tran Bang92 Van Nam93 Nguyen Xuan Toan94 Tran Nhat Lam95 Bui Dinh Khoa96 Nguyen Duy Long97 Tran Huy Dan98 Tran Hung99 Tran Duc Thanh

100 Dinh Hue101 Nguyen Viet102 Ha Thi Thanh Van103 To Thi Kim Van104 Chu Tam105 Nguyen Thuy Quynh106 Nguyen Thi Tam107 Luong Minh Phuong108 Le Quang Tuan

No Name

111

109 Nguyen Quynh Hoa110 Le My Dung111 Ngo Gia Trung112 Tran Nam Binh113 Nguyen Thi Tuyet Hoa114 Pham Thanh Tu115 Chu Thanh Huyen116 Dao Ha Thanh117 Phan Thanh Toan