www.monash.edu/sustainability

Developing regional collaboration in river basin management in response to climate change

2 - 4 June 2015 Canberra, Australia

PROCEEDINGS

ABOUT THE MONASH SUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE

The Monash Sustainability Institute’s (MSI) mission is to solve the climate change and environmental sustainability challenges facing our world. The problems are complex. To find the answers, we have to work very differently.

That’s why we bring together the best minds from multiple fields of endeavour. We pull together scientists, lawyers, economists, psychologists, biologists, engineers, health professionals, and more to nut out the ‘wicked’ problems. Together, the world-leading experts from the Monash Sustainability Institute and Monash University, combine with the best industry and academic know-how from around the world to help create the world of the future.

For more, visit: www.monash.edu/sustainability

ABOUT OUR DEVELOPING ASIA PROGRAM

Our Developing Asia program brings together the multidisciplinary research expertise of Monash University with international teams of experts to link research and policy on adapting and mitigating climate change in South Asia and Southeast Asia. The program is assisting efforts to reduce poverty in the region through sustainable development of natural resources.

National economics and politics tend to overshadow science when it comes to negotiations over shared resources. Under the leadership of Dr Paul McShane, MSI is heading up an international, multi-disciplinary effort to provide governments and their agencies with research-backed data to facilitate more informed policies and agreements. MSI’s Chief Research Officer, Dr McShane, and his team have been working across Asia and the Australia-Pacific region for the past few years. They have built up considerable expertise in pulling together multi-disciplinary teams to identify appropriate courses of action that provide mutual benefit.

For more on our Developing Asia Program, visit: www.monash.edu/sustainability/programs-initiatives/developing-asia

August 2015

Table of contents

Introduction 1 Developing systemic models of the Teesta and Koshi River Basin 2 Table 1: What do stakeholders value in the Teesta River Basin 3 Table 2: Values, threats and adaptive responses 3 Fig 1 - 3: Conceptual models 4 The Teesta Basin: Project impacts of climate change & options for adaptation 6

Knowledge perspectives of the Koshi Basin 7 Fig 4: Development cycles of hydro-electricity development project in Nepal 7

The Koshi Basin program: Closing the knowledge and competency gap 9 A knowledge management framework for the Teesta and Koshi 10 Fig 5: A knowledge management framework for the Teesta 10 Fig 6: Information pathways responsive to river basin management 11 Fig 7: A knowledge management framework for the Koshi 11

Introduction

Dr Paul McShane, Chief Research Officer, Monash Sustainability Institute

This workshop is part of a Public Sector Linkage Program (PSLP) funded by Australian Aid (Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade). It brings together public sector institutions from Nepal, Bangladesh, India, and Bhutan.

The workshop follows previous workshops and in-country activity examining opportunities and barriers to developing regional collaboration in trans-boundary river management in South Asia.

The program addresses an emerging challenge in the region with the nexus of demography, energy, and water causing potential water scarcity. Compuonded by likely climate change, this increasing demand for energy - - to support continuing economic growth in Asia, particularly in China and India - is placing further pressure on already scarce groundwater and surface water resources.

Water, used primarily for agriculture, is now being used to generate electricity, either directly through hydropower (dams) or indirectly through cooling of nuclear and coal-fired power stations (particularly in India). The concentration of human populations in dense urban settings and changing water consumption patterns could result in major cities like Mumbai running out of water.

Further to this, countries with monsoonal climates face extremes of water availability with damaging floods in the wet season and crippling droughts in the dry season. This dichotomous situation may become worse with climate change. Yet necessary poverty reduction strategies require sustainable economic development.

This PSLP program addresses the fate of Himalayan-sourced rivers given the need to sustainably manage available water resources.

We focus on two exemplar trans-boundary river basins: the Koshi (Nepal/India) and the Teesta (India/Bangladesh). Our aim is to promote regional collaboration in South Asian river management based on identification of mutual benefits among riparian states responsive to impacts of climate change and human development.

Past workshops in this program have focused on benefit sharing. Here we examine knowledge management to inform systemic approaches to river basin management.

Knowledge management - the systematic collection and sharing of information to inform policy - involves government and non-government organisations influential in water resource management. The harmonisation of approaches to water management is a necessary prerequisite to sustainable trans-boundary management of Himalayan-sourced rivers.

We also develop and present systemic models of the exemplar river basins to capture biophysical and socioeconomic issues influential in the governance of major river basins.

Yet successful trans-boundary management is frustrated by longstanding conflict among states on water access. Power asymmetries exist with influential populous countries like India and China driving access to major trans-boundary rivers. This will affect water resource allocation strategies including the provision of water to support agriculture, energy generation, industrial development and human well-being in major cities. Prioritisation, conservation, and sustainable water management strategies will be required, together with effective trans-boundary river management, to avert severe water shortages in the region.

1

2

Developing systemic models of the Teesta and Koshi River Basins

Dr Terry Chan, Research Fellow, Monash Sustainability Institute

Bayesian network models provide an opportunity to link biophysical and socioeconomic models of river basins. They present linkages among key variables and provide a framework for examining the consequences of policy interventions (e.g. dams) on water availability.

They also can assist examination of likely climate change impacts (e.g. glacial and snow melts) on river flows.

Past workshops have presented basic models which identify issues influential to water availability for human well being, such as quantity and quality. In this session, workshop participants were asked to identify:

f local adaptation plans of action (LAPA);

f the status in the Koshi and Teesta basins;

f cross LAPA communication between countries; and

f research priorities for trans-boundary river management.

In Nepal, district planning involves District Development Committees and District Village Committees. They meet at least annually. LAPAs have been piloted in more than 60 districts by the Ministry of Science Technology and the Environment. This involves translating mechanisms to integrate LAPAs into local district plans.

The Ministry of Environment co-ordinates the National Adaptation Plans of Action (NAPAs) involving six sectors (including Health and Agriculture).

NGOs play an important role to implement actions at community level from the LAPAs. However, in Nepal, it is difficult to integrate NAPA actions into district level plans. Capacity building is needed to improve the planning process and to translate adaptation plans to local level. This and the problem of agency staff continuity (qualified and experienced staff that leave create gaps in capacity).

This is further complicated by the many layers of government, ministries and departments that have input into NAPAs and are involved in translating regional priorities into action. This is particularly important when examining consequences for the Koshi Basin given climate change (e.g. glacial lake outburst floods, extreme floods/droughts) and human intervention (storage and hydro dams).

Stakeholder engagement revealed several issues for the Teesta river basin. (See Table 1)

Workshop participants also presented current values, threats and adaptive responses. (See Table 2)

Although qualitative, this information can assist in identifying common values and a shared response to water resource allocation in the region given current threats to the Teesta basin.

Conceptual models are also presented in the following pages (including the Koshi Basin).

3

What do stakeholders value in the Teesta River Basin? What do they want to improve/protect/manage?• Equitable/fair allocation of

water• Water for irrigation/irrig agric• Water for hydropower• Environmental flows to

preserve the life of the river• Transit/transport• “Productivity” (E.g. Hh net

Income)• Livelihoods• Char livelihoods• Provisional services• Regulatory services• Habitat• Flood control• Reliability

• Quality• Fisheries• Sediment• Salinity (not as sig in Teesta)• Public health/health services• Erosion• Groundwater table/piezo levels• Household domestic use of water• Sanitation• Subsistence agriculture• Flood recession agriculture?• Cultural meanings/value (esp upper

reaches/Sikkim)• Beneficiaries/equity?

TABLE 1

Values: What does the community value? What do they want to improve/preserve/protect?

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

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

Other factors: What other factors impact the values?

• Water provision• Water quantity• Water quality• Gender equity (in water provision)• Education/schools• Access to water resource• Local institutions for NRM mgmt• Water management• Tourism (environmental water/flow)• Supply – regularity/reliability• Proximity to WR• Ownership of wells (officially needs a

licence even on private land)• Infrastructure development (e.g.

Roads v high on agenda, esp rural –important for trucking water in)

• Village development• Electrification• Health • Income• Uses: Irrigation, industry, drinking,

household needs, livestock, sanitation• A good crop (Panchkal as “vegetable

bowl” of Kathmandu)

• Water scarcity/droughts• Increased demand (ID) from migration/pop’n increase• ID from change in lifestyle• ID from new uses, e.g. Biogas production at Hh level,

new industries, e.g. Selling water to city• ID from multicropping, change in crop patterns,

increasing cropping• Climate change -> change in rainfall pattern (e.g.

Intensity, shift of monsoon, )• Encroachment of GM seeds• Use of chemical fertilizers, amount, new techniques,

pesticides, poor knowledge/application• Lack of government extension services

/capacity/manpower to manage above• Deep boring bec of ID and deeper water table

(recharge issues?)• Contamination issues? (As, Fe?)• Rising price for water extraction • Money for improving/changing water source• New non-engineered/designed rds• Trouble with pumps /electricity• Lack of local elections (last 15 years) -> poor

institutional function, lack of local accountable authority

• Allocation of funds given poor inst function• Poor governance at local level• Surface water reduction -> affects irrig esp• Periurban? • Small dams? (sometimes “Check dams” to control

erosion in headwaters , but none here)• Drying of streams/surface sources (observed by locals

last 20 years)• Landslides (heavy rainfall/CC, haphazard road

construction)

• Tanks/ rainwater harvesting• Overflow from harvest used for irrig• Drip irrigation, other alt irrigation than

free flow• Deep boring for drinking water (cost

of extraction -> minimise times/period used)

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

• Reduction in Hh livestock to available water

• Storage• Migration to urban areas, remittances

(low in this area – 10%?)• Community Forest User Group

(official, last 20 years)• Water User Group (should be there?

Overlap w CFUG)• Nat Fed Ed Wat Irrig Group? (Rep for

Panch region?)• Innovative agric practices: e.g. Mosaic

ploughing to conserve water, less water intensive crops (Current v water intensive veg), change cropping practice/patterns

• Income• Culture? (Little

variation in P case• Gender issues,

responsibility solely with women

• Services from external agencies

TABLE 2

4

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

Koshi: merging conceptual models

Water Provision

Water Users Group, FMIS,

WaterQuality

Rainfall/Precipitation

ClimateChange

Lifestyle,migration

Access toPower, SocialStrata

Population

Water Demand

HouseholdUse

Other Use:-School-Industry-Tourism

InstitutionalSetup

Line Agencies,Utility

SupplyManagement

Education levelEconomic level

Agriculture

Agricultural Practices, Methods

Livestock

Crop TypesCrop Cycle

Soil TypesClimateVariability

Quantity

IncomeLevel

Access toWater

WasteManagement

SocialStructure/Practice

Education

Sedimentation

GreenhouseGases/CO2 Emissions

Village Development Committee

Technology

Water Management

Nat Fed Water Irrigation Group

Provision PolicyPriority

LAPANAPA

Research Learning Outcomes

RechargeGroundwater

Land use/cover

Topography

Availability

Water Sources

Uses

InfrastructureDevelopment

HealthGenderEquity

5

These conceptual models presented above clearly do not present the regional complexity characteristic of trans-boundary river basins. Rather, they illustrate the process of integrating biophysical and socio-economic variables through participant interaction to examine the consequences for water availability (given human interventions and differences in policy positions among states). Importantly, exercises such as these (which result in conceptual models for exemplar river basins) allow dialogue among actors responsive to water resource management and water allocation policies among states.

As more information comes to hand, model synthesis can become more detailed and more expansive reflective of a systemic approach to river basin management and regional collaboration. In this way an integrated approach can be developed which takes into account likely climate change impacts (e.g. on river hydrology) and policy interventions (e.g. dams). Such an exercise requires much more input to fully integrate bio-physical and socio-economic variables which influence water availability to communities in the region..

Teesta: merging conceptual models

BWDB

PolicyInfluence

Barrage

Ministryof Land

LandusePatterns

Power/DieselSubsidy

Infrastructure andWater Diversion

Allocative Institutions

AgriculturalPolicy

Quantity

Surface Water Groundwater

Economics of Energy(Electricity & diesel)

Water MarketsandWater Lords

Water Quality

Water Quality

Lack of Capactiy for Storage

Salinity Intrusion

Cost

WaterAvailability

Water Efficiency

Water forIrrigation

Livelihoods

Governance andInformation Exchange

Seasonality especiallydry season flow

Climate Variability

Farmer Field Schoolsand Agricultural Extension

Sedimentation

Crop Type

Arsenic in Crops

Intensity of Crops

Agro-ecologicalConditions (soil etc.)Nutrient Imbalanceand Loss

CropYield

Governance

FIGURE 3

6

The Teesta Basin: Projected impacts of climate change and options for adaptation

Dr Shresth Tayal, The Energy Resources Institute (TERI), India

The upper Teesta Basin in India is glaciated (more than 400 glaciers).

Most of the Teesta basin (>80%) lies in India (Sikkim and West Bengal) with the remainder in Bangladesh.

Glacial retreat is evident in the upper basin reflecting global warming. Climate change is likely to present other impacts including loss of economic, ecological, cultural amenities. Changes to monsoonal climate patterns may also increase extremes of flood and drought.

Increasing demand for energy, particularly in India, has promoted proposals for damming the Teesta for hydro-power generation. Such proposals create conflict particularly given the potential ecological and economic impacts of dams.

Attempts at collaborative trans-boundary management of the Teesta river have been frustrated by a trust deficit between India and Bangladesh, a failure to ratify a water sharing treaty, and lack of data sharing. Potential solutions include additional supply of water to downstream regions in Bangladesh and sharing of benefits (e.g. agriculture).

More troubling is the projected increase in demand for water (at least 2.85% p.a.) with declining or static supply. Supply side improvements (e.g. improved reticulation) suggest about 0.1% p.a. in water savings.

Even so, projections suggest a shortage of 460 billion cubic metres by 2030. Further improvement in water conservation may result from improved irrigation practices (e.g. drip irrigation) but further savings will need to be identified to avert a water scarcity crisis (particularly in Bangladesh).

This reinforces the need for regional collaboration in rivers such as the Teesta which are vital to the well being of communities in India and in Bangladesh.

Knowledge perspectives of the Koshi Basin

Professor Narendra Raj Khanal, Department of Geography, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal

The Koshi Basin derives from the Tibetan Plateau. It includes the input of rivers draining the high Himalayas including the Melamchi, Indrawati, Tamakoshi, Likhu, Dudhukoshi, Arun, and Tamor River feeding the Sunkoshi river which flows via Nepal into India. Traditionally, wood and agricultural residue are the main energy source (88%) for Nepal.

Yet demand for hydropower from energy-hungry India and the relatively low water storage availability for Nepal has prompted exploration of hydropower potential in Nepal.

Development of Nepal’s water resources, including those in the Koshi basin, offer benefits in power generation, irrigation, and flood management. The Sapta Koshi high dam has been in the planning stage since 1946 and many more dams are planned.

However, government instability in Nepal and an uncertain planning process has forestalled further development. There are also concerns in relation to inundation of fertile land, and the ecological impacts of restricted water flows through dams. Within Nepal, several Ministries have input into planning for water resource development.

These include the Ministry of Energy (Department of Electricity Development), the Ministry of Irrigation (Department of Water Induced Disaster Prevention), the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The approval process for hydropower development in Nepal is illustrated below.

7

Preliminary selection of projects based on Master Plan and Field

Investigation

Submission of application and proposal with relevant materials/documents to DoED for

Survey License

Review of proposal by DoED . If found appropriate it recommends

to issue survey license to MoE

Submission of relevant materials/documents for making agreement for the purchase of

hydropower with NEA

Agreement with NEA for hydro-electricity purchase after

evaluation/reevaluation of the documents, technical reports

Submission of feasibility (technical, economic and environment) and environmental (EIA) study

reports for approval for construction license-MoE/MoSTE

Review of proposal by MoE. If found appropriate, issue survey

license

Submission of application for license for hydropower generation with documents such as

feasibility study report, environmental impact study report, preliminary financial investment

scheme, copy of agreement of hydro-electricity purchase with NEA

Preparation of detailed design by proprietor and beginning of

construction work. Submission of half early progress report during

construction period to DoED

Production of electricity as per production license issued

Guarantee of financial provision within one year after receiving generation license

Handing over project without any cost to the government after ending the date mentioned in the production license

Recommendation by NEA after reviewing documents to MoE for

approval

Issue of license by MoE by reviewing the documents and

recommendation forwarded by DoED

Development Cycle of Hydro-electricity Development Project in Nepal

FIGURE 4

8

Other modifications to rivers including earthen embankments, ring bunds, gates and barrages can cause inundation during the wet season. This is problematic for southern Nepal. Joint initiatives India and Nepal include:

f The Standing Committee on inundation problems (Director General Department of Water Induced Disaster Prevention and the Chairperson of the Ganga Flood Control Commission India) which meets twice a year before and after the Monsoon.

f Bi national committee on flood forecasting.

f Joint committee on water resources.

f High level Technical committee on Inundation problem (Executive Director Water and Energy Commission Secretariat, Nepal; and Commissioner of Water Resources India).

Challenges to manage joint water resources remain given likely climate change and its impact on glacial/snow melts for Himalayan-sourced rivers.

9

The Koshi Basin program: Closing the knowledge and competency gaps

Dr Shahriar Wahid, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Developmen (ICIMOD), Kathmandu, Nepal

As a downstream riparian state, India seeks to manage potentially catastrophic floods emanating from the Koshi basin. Access to information on trans-boundary water resources in a timely manner is crucial.

Key steps in knowledge management include:

f strengthening the system of monitoring (river heights);

f establish and technically support face-to-face and electronically-mediated learning exchanges; and

f facilitate the integration, exchange and accessibility of data and information.

During heavy rainfall events, landslides are also problematic in the Koshi basin. Susceptibility maps can assist in managing landslide risks. Climate change will affect rainfall patterns although prediction of regional rainfall remains coarse. Warming will increase the likelihood of Glacial Lake outburst floods (GLOFs) which can be catastrophic to exposed communities in Nepal.

GLOFs also have severe economic consequences with damage to infrastructure (e.g. roads, dams, buildings).

The recognition of upstream/downstream linkages is important in developing local water use master plans for the basin. Such linkages are important in facilitating knowledge management and regional collaboration for the Koshi Basin.

A knowledge management framework for the Teesta and Koshi

Dr Jeremy Aarons, Monash Sustainability Institute

In the context of collaborative river basin management, knowledge management is the systematic approach to collecting, sharing and integrating knowledge to inform policy and support decision making.

10

FIGURE 5

Top down policies that govern a national approach to water resource management intersect with bottom up community-level responses (e.g. in water consumption patterns).

This is illustrated below for the Teesta basin.

11

FIGURE 6

FIGURE 7

Information pathways between the various actors responsive to river basin management (India, Bangladesh) are shown below.

Similarly, for the Koshi Basin, information systems and knowledge transfer involve multiple agencies responsive to international, national, and local community needs.

This includes an understanding of their ownership Yet current (state-led) approaches to data sharing are limited.

For the Teesta, India and Bangladesh have established a Joint Technical Committee but this has not worked effectively as a joint body with poor collaboration, ad hoc meeting schedules, a lack of strategy and unresolved Teesta treaty negotiations between the two countries.

For the Koshi, there has been limited progress improving data collection and sharing via implementation of Nepal’s National Water Plan (2005) including the Koshi River Basin Management pilot program. ICIMOD’s current Koshi Basin Program aims to develop a more collaborative information sharing approach consistent with integrated water resource management and effective trans-boundary river management.

Issues which require resolution in a knowledge management framework include:

f Who are the principal actors in water allocation decisions?

f What forms of infrastructure are involved (dams, irrigations) and how are final designs/decisions made?

f Is the priority electricity or water and how is this decided across state boundaries?

f How is the private sector involved and how does it interface with government?

12

Knowledge management including information sharing can stimulate co-operation/collaboration, developing a common factual basis for policy making and promoting other forms of co-operation.

Knowledge is not just technical data but also includes stakeholder information (including indigenous knowledge), economic incentives, market mechanisms, and information systems which can assist develop understanding among stakeholders engaged in river basin management.

The role of the private sector is more difficult to contextualise in trans-boundary river management. National governments do not engage the private sector in water management plans.

Yet governments are also encouraging investment by the private sector (e.g. in hydroelectricity development).

This includes public private partnerships. However, private sector interest does not include basin-wide approaches. Rather, they will examine projects through relatively narrow regional perspectives.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Monash Sustainability Institute

8 Scenic Boulevard, Clayton Campus

Monash University, Victoria, 3800, Australia

T: +61 3 9905 0124

E: enquiries@msi.monash.edu

W: www.monash.edu/sustainability

T: www.twitter.com/MonashMSI