7200.pdf

Media

extracted text
Dialogue
,on Water, Food and Environment

Summary Report
nning and Design Meeting
COLOMBO, DECEMBER 2000

______________

IWWII

International
Water Management

•t-

....... ,

Colombo Dialogue Planning and Design Meeting: December 2000

Summary and conclusions

Achieving water security for the sustainable production of food and rural
livelihoods while maintaining or improving the quality and biodiversity of
the natural resources and ecosystems is one of the key challenges of the
early 21" century. In the face of increasing competition over scarce waler
resources the traditional, sectoral approach to development and manage­
ment of waler resources for all uses independently is failing. There arc
widely diverging—and mutually exclusive—views on the desirable path
to achieve water security within the agriculture and environment commu­
nities and in government, academia and the private sector. Given that
irrigated agriculture is the dominant user of water withdrawn from nature
for human purposes, the future expansion or contraction of irrigated agri­
culture is at the heart of the debate. At stake are the size and nature of
investments that arc necessary to grow food for a growing population, pro­
vide sustainable livelihoods for the rural poor and maintain the quality and
integrity of the environment

The eight co-sponsoring organisations and over 130 participants in the
Colombo Dialogue meeting concluded that there is an urgent need for more
interaction between the agriculture and environment sectors to evolve a
shared vision on development and management of water resources. There
arc currently many planned and ongoing activities at global to local scales
in the fields of waler, agriculture and environment. The essence of the new
activity would build on existing actions, provide a coherent framework for
synthesis and interaction and provide loose coordination on a voluntary.
non-directive basis.

Water security for

sustainable food production
and rural livelihoods....

...while preserving the
quality and biodiversity in

natural resoruces.

To this end a Dialogue on Water. Food and Environment is proposed to
be carried out with the following three main components
I A true dialogue process among the stakeholders, at global, national
and local) levels, that is open, clear, transparent and inclusive. The heart
of the dialogue would be formed by a large number of national level
dialogues or roundtables. At global level these would come together for
an annual dialogue in a Fomin in which a large number of stakeholders
arc represented. At local level the key challenge is to involve the real

1

water users, the man or woman al the pump. Il is recognized that the
dialogue is a political process.

2 An enhanced knowledge base to feed the dialogue and establish
credible and authoritative knowledge accepted bv both agricultural and
environmental constituencies The know ledge base would focus both
on food security and on environmental security and both on impacts
of past development as well as on evaluation of options for future
development. It w ould consist of a set of thematic studies, jointly
allowing a comprehensive assessment

The December 2000
'Colombo Dialogue'
planning and design meeting:

The 8 co-sponsoring agencies
and over 130 particpants from

around the world.

3. A network of local and basin level action projects focused on
development, testing and implementing innovative approaches that
enhance sustainable water security for agriculture and the environment.
This would essentially be a platform for information exchange—
leading to identification of "best practices ’. The local and basin level
activities would be independent but contribute to the knowledge base
and dialogue process.
The Dialogue deals with water management for agriculture in general.
i.c. including irrigated and rainfed agriculture, and large scale as well as
small and micro-scale fanning. Agriculture will be broadly defined, in­
cluding food and cash crops, aquaculture. li\cstock and agro-forcstry
Food security will be interpreted at various levels, ranging from regional
and national scale food-self sufficiency to household level food and live­
lihood security. Environmental issues will include water quality as well
as aquatic and land-based ecosystems, and w ill look al biodiversity for
its own sake as well as goods and sen ices provided by nature, includ­
ing capture fisheries
While the Dialogue is proposed to focus on water for agriculture and en­
vironment. there are several important cross-cutting issues, of which the
most important arc poverty and health.

The Dialogue process is foreseen as a decentralized, multi-year process.
with milestones at the 3"* and 4"' World Water Fora in Kyoto and
Montreal. The 8 co-sponsors that formed the organising committee for
the Colombo Dialogue meeting have committed to the development of a
full-scale proposal for the Dialogue by April 2001 and hope to launch
the Dialogue at the August 2001 Stockholm Water Symposium. The group
of co-sponsors recognise that the success of the Dialogue will require a
substantial enlargement of the constituency in a consultative and partici­
patory process. They have formed a temporary Working Group, with
participation of the secretariats of the 2nd and 3"' WWF. as an interim ar­
rangement to take the initiative forward.

2

1. Introduction
Following the World Waler Vision and Framework for Action process.
that ended with the 2nd World Waler Forum in March 2000 in The Hague.
many felt that there had been insufficient interaction between agricultural
and the environmental communities. In fact, these two sectoral visions
show widely diverging views on the need to develop additional water
resources for agriculture and the benefits and costs that such develop­
ment would have. The difference between credible high and low estimates
of the water required for agriculture in 2025 is in the order of 600 cubic
kilometers—more than is estimated to be required for all domestic uses.
Many feel that resolving the differences between these views is one of
the key challenges facing society al the beginning of the 21" century
While the water crisis of the late 20"1 century was defined by the lack of
access to waler for domestic purposes, the water crisis of the coming
decades will be one of increased competition for water among uses within
river basins.
The Global Water Partnership organised a first meeting of about 20 people
to discuss the need for action following the 2nd World Water Forum on
14 August 2000. It was concluded that while there arc many planned and
ongoing initiatives, these would benefit from some form of loose coor­
dination To explore the form and nature such an effort could take, the
International Water Management Institute initiated and hosted the Co­
lombo Dialogue meeting from 13—16 December 2000.

2. Meeting organisers and participants

Colombo Dialogue conclusions:

The meeting was co-sponsored and organised by 8 organisations' and fi­
nancially supported by the Secretariats of the 2"d and 3,d World Waler
Fora.
Over 130 people participated in the Dialogue meeting (sec list of par­
ticipants). representing mostly, government agencies, international
organisations, research institutes and non-governmental organisations.
Farmers, or farmer organisations were not represented, nor was the pri­
vate sector (other than through several small scale irrigation NGOs and
consultants). Slightly more than half the participants came from the South.
with the majority coming from Asia, a smaller group from Africa and sev­
eral from Latin America. About 30% of the participants were women

'The co-sponsors arc: The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO).
the Global waler Partnership (GWP). the International Commission on Irrigation and Drain­
age (ICID). the World Conservation Union (IUCN). The International Water Management
Institute (IWMI). the United nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Health
Organisation (WHO) and the World Water Council (WWC).

3

'There is an urgent need for
more interaction between the
agriculture and environment
sectors to have a shared vision on
the development and
management of water and

natural resources."

The three main disciplinary groups were engineers, biologists and social
scientists (including economists), in roughly 40-30-30% proportions.
The meeting recognised that while there was already a great diversity of
opinions and backgrounds represented in the meeting, for the Dialogue
to be successful will require broadening the partners involved.

3. Organisation and programme of the meeting
The meeting consisted for more than half the time of open, workshop
type consultations with a minimum of presentations (see attached
programme). During the first morning key activities were presented that
have a bearing on the Dialogue, particularly the sector Visions on Water
for Food and Rural Development and on Waler and Nature, as well as
the recently completed process of the World Commission on Dams.

This goal: a true dialogue
process among stakeholders.
Creating more knowledge

through research.
Action projects, through a
network at the local level.

During the afternoon of Day I (December 13) six groups considered the
key issues or conflicts between agriculture and environment and the de­
sirability. nature and scope of a activities aimed at overcoming the current
differences between the sectors. The work of the Groups was reported
back in plenary in the morning of Day 2. It was concluded that the large
majority of the participants agreed that there is an urgent need to bring
the current parallel thinking along 2 tracks into closer contact. Both the
gradual recognition of the need for integrated water resources manage­
ment. as well as the pressure through increasing water scarcity, floods.
droughts and falling aquifer levels, have led to a situation where many
actors recognise the need for dialogue.
The remainder of the morning of Day 2. cross-cutting issues were pre­
sented in their possible relation to the Dialogue, i.c. poverty and gender.
health, trade in food and food security, water scarcity as a techno-politi­
cal process. In addition, the long-term water use and development
perspectives were presented from an agriculture (FAO and ICID) as well
as nature (WWF) point of view.

In the afternoon of the second day. and after plenary feedback again on
the third day. six working groups discussed the design and planning of
key elements of the dialogue. These were
° Participatory processes and poverty
o Dialogue as a techno-political process

° Options for Action
= Knowledge Base I Assessment

• Analysis & Modelling
Q Communication

In a Iasi plcnaty meeting on Day 3, the working group results were pre­
sented and discussed and proposals from the group of co-sponsors were
tabled on the follow-up process. The results of the working group and
plenary' discussions arc used to write this summary report. The Dialogue
Working Group will prepare a full Dialogue proposal that will also be
sent for comments to all Colombo Dialogue meeting participants and will
be discussed at a planned (open) meeting of the Working Group in March
in Rome at FAO.

Irrigated agriculture is...

4. The need for a Dialogue
At a global level, the need for a Dialogue of Water for Food and Envi­
ronmental Security follows most directly from—depending on one's
perspective;

I the slowdown in investment funding available internationally for water
resources development, c.g. from the World Bank; or
2.

the continued high priority that key national governments give to major
water resources development projects in China, the Mekong Basin etc.

The appropriate nature and content of such a dialogue depends strongly
on the region and current level of development of the water resources.
Four typical situations arc. for instance'

I.

Areas where major developments of irrigated agriculture have alreadyoccurred and most resources have been developed (basins have
closed). Here the main priority now is how to maintain sustainability
(in the face of increasing salinity or sharply falling groundwater tables)
and increase water productivity in agriculture as other sectors
(domestic and industry') demand an increasing share of the resource
at the expense of agriculture. This situation is typical in (large parts
of) Central Asia. Pakistan, Western India. Northern China and Mexico.

2.

Areas where major infrastructure has been dexeloped and relatively
large volumes of water are withdrawn for human use. but productivity
and basin efficiency is low. There is scope for “water savings" by
increasing waler use efficiency. This is the ease in Sri Lanka, parts of
Indonesia and Southern China, for instance

3.

Areas where there arc considerable water resources not yet developed.
where there arc high values associated with the “undeveloped"
resources, c.g. in terms of fisheries and biodiversity, and where there
arc conflicting views on how those resources should or should not be
developed. This situation is typical for the Mekong Basin. Central
Africa and parts of Latin America.

5

...the primary user of water

drawn for human use.

Its future expansion or

contraction lies at the heart of
the debate.

4 Areas where there arc large numbers of poor people with restricted
access to land and water resources that place high pressure on
agriculturally marginal, but environmentally valuable resources such
as sloping lands, marshes and wetlands Considerable parts of SubSaharan Africa and South-Asia are in this situation.
It is clear that the dialogue process, knowledge base and action projects
need to reflect these regional, national and local differences. Nonethe­
less. there are generic lessons to be learned, experiences to be shared
Also—as a large part of the change required will involve changing atti­
tudes and values through increased public awareness—there is a value
in a larger, more visible, more public exercise than any number of smallscale. local projects could achieve individually.

The World Water Vision. Framework for Action and World Water Forum
process started a process of consultation involving larger numbers of non­
water insiders than before. It helped put water on the agenda and make
water no longer simply the business of the water experts. This process
can be continued, learning from earlier experience, and focused on spe­
cific critical issues. For the process to be successful it will need to reach
out to larger and larger groups of stakeholders—bottom up. as well as
reach out to the national governments that are in most places concerned.
key actors.

I

At stake are the size and

nature of investments needed
to grow food...

The discussions at the Colombo Dialogue meeting pointed to the follow­
ing key issues that need consideration in the design of the Dialogue:
I. Defining Food Security and defining Environmental Security

...provide sustainable

carefully at different scales. Food security can be defined ven
differently, ranging from a ccreals-bascd national food self-sufficiency
focus to a household based definition that includes livelihood and
health aspects. Environmental Security also needs to be defined, there
are many aspects involved (c.g. ecosystem services, ecosystem
maintenance, nature conservation, biodiversity) that need to be
operationalised in the Dialogue

livelihoods for the rural poor...

...and maintain the quality of
the environment.

2 Assessment of (minimum) water requirements—allocation of
water to various uses. Not enough is known about how much and
when ecosystems need water. To some extent this goes for other uses
too Assessing requirements better will be a basis for allocation of
water over uscrs/uscs.
3.

Scales of actions. Actions need to be taken at national and sub­
national (river basin, community) level The Dialogue needs to look
at laying out options for actions (and trade-offs) at levels where such
actions can have direct impact (not stay at level of global
recommendations of principles). It needs to look al who benefits and

who pays.

(Participatory analysis as a techno-political process. Recognition

of the fact that implementing actions will be a (tcchno-)polilical
process. Recognise that all actors operate within their own “paradigm”.
Institutional barriers need to be analysed. Participation and
consultation are key Identification of stakeholders requires care—the
rights and risks approach of WCD may help. Communication and
dissemination is crucial.

5. Defining "irrigation" The Dialogue needs to consider all waler
management for agriculture. That involves a continuum of approaches.
large-scale irrigation, groundwater irrigation, micro-scale irrigation.
rainwater harvesting, traditional water management technologies, and
rainfed agriculture. It includes food and non-food agriculture and
irrigation as an enterprise as well as social irrigation

The Dialogue process,

knowledge base and action

projects will reflect regional,

5. Proposed structure for the Dialogue

national and local differences.

But there are also valuable

In the Dialogue the process will have to ensure broad acceptance of the
results In designing the process important lessons can be learned from
the process put in place by the World Commission on Dams Important
criteria in designing the process arc that it is:

» open, clear, transparent and inclusive;
o involving a broad constituency and explicitly reaching out to the
■'real’' water users at micro-level, often poor people that do not have
access to the communication channels that participatory processes
often rely on;

o non-directive and based on voluntary collaboration.
o based on putting together existing initiatives where possible.
It is proposed to organise the Dialogue as a decentralised, bottom-up
programme of activities. What some people refer to as a light and flex­
ible. new-age organisation. It will not have a cumbersome bureaucratic.
top-down approval processes, because it will be based on largely volun­
tary cooperation of existing and new. independent, "self-governing’’
initiatives. In practical terms it means that a large central budget is not
foreseen, but that individual activities arc funded directly by interested
donors and sponsors. Somewhat similar to the World Water Vision exer­
cise. where a very light central structure helped raising funds, but the
funds were largely directly disbursed to implementing agencies respon­
sible for carrying out the components.

The Dialogue will partly bring together—and provide loose coordination
for—a scries of activities that will (or might) be carried out independently
as well.

generic lessons to be learned,
and experiences to be shared.

a shared overall conceptual framework and timeline, which leads
to more sharing of know ledge and interaction;

increased interaction with a larger number of stakeholders than
individual projects could organise:
important milestones at which shared work can be presented.
particularly the 3rd and 4"' World Water Forum events—and the Rio
plus ten meeting and preparatory process;
increased awareness raising and dissemination of the results
through a larger, combined communication programme that will
generate more media attention than through individual projects:

improved fund-raising for the programme as a whole;

The context is water

management for agriculture

increased impact through large scale activity. better able to provide
credibility through shared approach and coordinated results.

in general—ranging from

irrigated and rainfed

agriculture, to large scale, small

and micro-scale farming.

5-6
Ambassadors
orChampions

Secretariat

In designing and putting together a Knowledge Base—the experience
gained by the WCD process and also by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) could be used to advantage, important criteria
for design of the knowledge base will be that it needs to be accepted by
both agricultural and environmental interests, i.c credible and authorita­
tive. this will require an open process with sufficient peer review
In considering the above, and taking into account (hat there recently have
been two world commissions in the water field, the co-sponsors propose
the following governance structure for the Dialogue (sec Figure 1)
A single apex body to w hich the authority to decide w here funds w ill go
(a rather top-down management approach) is not proposed. It is proposed
that proposals for funding components arc considered directly by donors
or sponsors—apart from a limited amount of core funds for a secretariat
and some central activities. Hereafter the four
key elements in the proposed structure arc dis­
cussed in some more detail
I Ambassadors. In speaking for the Dialogue
and subsequently getting the results back to a
larger audience it is proposed to appoint a small
group of very high caliber Ambassadors, or
champions, for the Dialogue. This small group
of five or six individuals should have a high lev cl
of name recognition, global level authority and
stature, represent different regions and different
tvpes of stakeholders (government, academia,
NGO's private sector) These individuals would

not personally be responsible for the Dialogue results (as in the ease
of a World Commission) but they would be regularly informed, share
the goals and objectives, and be able to speak on behalf of the
assembled stakeholders to other influential individuals as well as the
media.
Forum. It is proposed to broaden the current group of co-sponsors to

become a large and representative group of organisations (possibly
between 100 and 200) that would meet annually and form the global
level of the Dialogue process. The Forum would provide the legitimacy
to the Dialogue. It would provide an opportunity for dialogue among
key stakeholders at global level and discuss and comment on key
Dialogue outcomes—and publish products under a shared "logo or
label”, once approved through some formal process (to be designed)
It would not be responsible for these results, or have to approve
activities, or disburse funds. In between Forum meetings a Bureau
could be established. For establishment of a peer-review process over
the Knowledge Base a Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
(STAC) could be appointed
3. Secretariat. The Ambassadors. Forum (and its Bureau and STAC)
would be supported by a small secretarial. Since many of the key
elements of the Dialogue will be independently managed (and in part
consist of existing projects and programmes), the role of the secretariat
will be limited, it will not “run” the Dialogue, but be involved in "loose
coordination", synthesis and public awareness / media activities. It
could help raise funds (prepare the package of activities and organise
donor support meetings), but donors or sponsors arc expected to pick
up individual components and fund these directly.

4 Sponsors. The Dialogue cannot be. or seen to be. influenced by any
particular point of view, be it from agriculture, environment, health
or large players such as the World Bank. It is therefore important to
have a broad set of donors or sponsors, that agree to pro\ ide funds
without "strings", i c . private sector support could only be accepted
under careful guidelines (but would be welcome w ithin those).

The Dialogue approach:

♦ Open, transparent and inclusive
• Explicitly reaching out
to the "real" water users at
micro-level,

• Non-directive and based on
voluntary collaboration;
• Striving to build on existing
initiatives where possible.

6. Principal components
The three key proposed components in the Dialogue arc shown in
Figure 2

6.1

Dialogue

Dialogue process

It is recognised that actions that har e the potential to affect the develop­
ment and use of water resources will largely have to be taken at the
national or local level. The Dialogue among stakeholders is therefore pro­
posed to be mainly conducted at the national level, through a large number
of essentially independent, but coordinated national dialogue activities
(with inputs from the knowledge base and r ice versa) Such national level
dialogues or roundtables appear
feasible and could—in every
Knowledge base
Local action
country where there is interest—
be led by groups such as the
ICID. IUCN national committees,
wherever these exist, with others.
to provide a balanced and consis­
tent approach throughout.

Figure 2. Three Principal Dialogue
Components

An important role for the national
level activities will be to commu­
nicate and translate the knowledge
base so that it is relevant and un­
derstandable at various levels and
to various constituencies. These
include: governments. NGOs. experts in irrigation and ecology, ordi­
nary citizens' groups, women, the poor and disadvantaged, and others.
The level of understanding, awareness and interest of each of these groups
is different To communicate effectively with them requires the prepara­
tion of materials derived from the same know ledge base—and interacting
with them—in a "language" that they can understand and respond to.
To make progress towards the extremely difficult goal of direct partici­
pation of poor water users, rather then their more affluent representatives.
case study activities arc proposed. These ease studies would explicitly
focus on ways and means to get direct representation of those normally
excluded: the poorest of the poor.

W

Al global level the annual meetings of the Forum could provide a frame­
work for reporting back from the national and local dialogues, reviewing
and discussing the various other outputs, and key events for media con­
tact and awareness raising.

6.2

Knowledge base

The Know ledge Base would sen e as a key source of credible and au­
thoritative information for the various Dialogue activities. Several key
outputs could prov ide a global frame of reference for evaluation of past
development and the generation and evaluation of options for future de­
velopment and management. Key components of the Knowledge Base
would be formed by ongoing activities such as FAO's Long Term Fore­
casting Program, the UN's World Water Assessment Programme, the
CGlAR's Comprehensive Assessment of Waler Management in Agricul­
ture (SWIM2). IUCN's Freshwater programme, the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, the CBD/Ramsar River Basin Initiative. ICID's
text delivery services—and no doubt others that could come in on a vol­
untary basis Development of a shared programme of work (a set of
thematic studies) can be done analogous to the development of the In­
ternational Geosphere-Biosphere programme (of ICSU) or the
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change The crux is to get a com­
prehensive scientific programme that is considered credible by all
stakeholders. The Knowledge Base would also be the platform to
synthesise and evaluate the outcomes of the large number of pilot-projects
and experiments with action-oriented activities at the basin and local scale
level (see 6.3)

6.3

Action projects—information exchange platform

Many organisations arc currently planing or implementing water-saving
projects, experimenting with innovative technologies . policies and in­
stitutions at scales ranging from household and communities up to the
river basin. These range from water-saving competitions organised by a
GEF project in Central Asia and ICID's WatSavc work team on water
saving in irrigation, to small-dam programmes of CARE, the Framework
for Action Activities of the GWP and its regional and national
organisations, etc. It is proposed here that a loose form of coordination.
exchange of experience, synthesis into the Knowledge base, and contacts
with the various forms of Dialogue, would provide added value to these
various activities. The end result would be the identification of widely
accepted best practices.

0720 }

Action projects will include
efforts such as:

•water-saving competitions
organised by a GEF project in
Central Asia
• ICID's WatSave work team on
water saving in irrigation

•small-dam programmes of

CARE

• the Framework for Action
Activities of the GWP and its
regional and national

organisations

7. Timeline and planning
The rough liming of the desirable development of the Dialogue is as fol­
lows (Figure 3):
• Draft summary report of Colombo meeting available in early January
for comments and finalised by the end of January 2001

• Working Group reports, background papers etc. to be "published"
through a page on the web (the Dialogue pages temporarily hosted
by IWMI)—not through a separate publication
• First draft project proposal ready by late January, early February, for
discussion at Working Group meeting in Rome in March 2001,
«> Commitment to contribute to the Dialogue obtained from various
actors in the period February-June 2001.

• Launch of Dialogue at the Stockholm Symposium in August 2001.

• First Dialogue Forum meeting in late 2001.
• Linking of contributing activities start during 2001.

• The proposed time-scale of the Dialogue process as a whole is to have
a an important milestone in March 2003 (at the 3"‘ World Water Forum.
i.c. in 2 years) and an endpoint in March 2005 (at the 4"‘ World waler
Forum, i.c. in 5 years).

Interim

December 2000

Stockholm - Aug 2001
Organisation of the key bodies in the Dialogue

Co-Sponsors &
Organising Committee
December meeting

Working Group:

Co-sponsors

• FAO

• WWF2

• GWP

• WWF3

5-6
Ambassadors
orChampions

• ICID
• IWMI

• IUCN

o UNEP
• WHO
• WWC

Secretariat:
• IWMI

Output
• proposal
in March 2001

Figure 3. Timeline and planning

i
I

12

Secretariat

• Loose coordination
• Open structure
• Calls for proposals

Round Table and Workshop Sessions

ROUND TABLE SESSIONS
13 December 2000 (Day 1)
Chair

Facilitator

Rapporteur

A

Hans Wolter (FAO)

Ian Makin (IWMI)

Amreeta Regmi

B

Alan Hall (GWP)

Ger Berkamp (IUCN)

Chris Scott

C

Veerle Vandeweerd (UNEP)

Joel Scheraga (US-EPA)

Joel Scheraga

D

Hans Friederich (IUCN)

David Molden (IWMI)

Shree G. Shah

E

Bill Cosgrove (WWC)

F

Peter Furu (WHO)

Ken Strzepek (U. Colorado)

Vania da Silva Nunes

G

Ferenc Ligetvari (ICID)

Constantina Safiliou (NCSR, Greece)

Caroline Sullivan

Group

Vasudha Pangare (Oikos)

14-15 December 2000 (Day 2 & 3)
Topic

Chair

Facilitator

Rapporteur

1.

Participation of Poor/
Village Case Studies

S. Abeyratne

C. Safiliou

Ganesh Pangare

2.

Dialogue as a Political Process

P. S. Rao

G. Berkamp

Reinier A. van Hoffen

3.

Actions/Options/Tradeoffs

R. Nakamura

Ian Makin

Prem Bindraban

4.

Assessment of knowledge

Caroline Sullivan

D. Molden

Jean-Marc Faures

5.

Analysis — Global Basin

D. Gupta

K. Strzepek

Subhrendu Gangopadhyay

6.

Communication/Dissemination

J. Scheraga

Faizal Parish

Session

13

LgsS ©ff participants

AUSTRIA
• Guenther Fischer—Project Leader, Land Use Change Project
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

• David Wiberg—Research Scholar, Modeling Land Use and Land
Cover Changes in Europe & North Africa, International Institute
of Applied Science Analysis
BANGLADESH
• Ainun Nishat—Country Representative, World Conservation
Union (IUCN)
BRAZIL
• Vania da Silva Nunes—International Liaison Officer/Researcher, Embrapa Pantanal

CANADA
• William J. Cosgrove—Governing Board Member, World Water
Council, Ecoconsult Inc.

CHILE
• Patricio Galeb Salomon—Inversiones y Asesorias Mada Ltda.
CHINA
• Dong Bin—Researcher, Wuhan University

• Liang Rui Ju—Chair, Chinese TAC, China Institute of Water Re
sources & Hydro Power Research

COLOMBIA
• Carlos Garces R.—Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de
Maizy Trigo
DENMARK
• Peter Furu—Senior Adviser, World Health Organization, Danish
Bilharziasis Laboratory
EGYPT
• Patrick Dugan—DDG (Africa & West Asia), International Center
for Living Aquatic Resources Management

• Raouf F. Khouzam—Resource Economist, Performance Mea­
surement Advisor, IRIS Environmental Systems

• Jeremy Meigh —Water Resources Specialist, Centre for Ecology
and Hydrology
• Susan Milner—Environment Programme Leader, Natural Re
sources Institute

• John Soussan—Director, Centre for Water Policy & Develop­
ment, School of Geography, University of Leeds
• Caroline Sullivan—Head, Water Policy & Management, Centre
for Ecology & Hydrology
FRANCE
• Subhrendu Gangopadhyay—Division of Water Sciences,
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

• Yoshiyuki Imamura—Consultant, World Water Assessment
Programme, Division of Water Science, United Nations Educa­
tional, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
• Banu Neupane—Consultant, World Water Assessment
Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization
• Thierry Ruf—Institute of Research for Development
• Gordon J Young—Coordinator, World Water Assessment
Programme, Division of Water Sciences, United Nations Educa­
tional, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
GERMANY
• Joseph Alcamo—Director, Center for Environmental Systems
Research, University of Kassel

• Franz Heim—Head, Water Policy & Rural Water Use Division,
Food and Agriculture Development Centre (ZEL),German Foun­
dation for International Development (DSE)

• Thomas Maurer—Head, Global Runoff Data Centre, Federal In­
stitute of Hydrology
GREECE
• Constantina Safiliou—National Centre for Social Research

HUNGARY
• Jozsef Gayer—Interim CEETAC Chair, GWP, Water Resources Re­
search Centre
• Ferenc Ligetvari—Minister of Environment, C/o. VITUKI

ENGLAND
• J.A. Allan—GWP, The School of Oriental and African Studies,
University of London
• Alan Hall—GWP, HR Wallingford

14

INDIA
• Shyamala Abeyratne—Country Director, Wl India, Winrock In­
ternational

• S.V. Govardhan Das—Consultant Hydrologist, Apwell Project
(Indo-Dutch)

• Raj Gupta—Rice Wheat Consortium Facilitator, Regional Office,
Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo
• Mukesh B. Joshi—Chief Information Officer and Unit Leader,
Unit-H, Narmada Project Main Canal Design Circle No. 1, Sardar
Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.
• Ganesh Pangare—Chief Executive Officer, Indian Network on
Participatory Irrigation Management
• Vasudha Pangare—Director, Oikos Consultants
• Prabhakar Pathak—Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Man­
agement Program, international Crops Research Institute for the
Semi-Arid Tropics
• P. S. Rao—Consultant

• M. S. Reddy—Member, South Asian TAC, Global Water Partner­
ship
• Amreeta Regmi—Consultant/Researcher, FREEDEAL
• Amitabha Sadangi—Dy.Country Director,International Devel­
opment Enterprise

MALAYSIA
• Faizal Parish—Coordinator, River Basin Initiative Secretariat,
Global Environment Centre
MALTA G.C.
• Vanya Walker-Leigh—Economist & Journalist, Nature Trust
Malta

NEPAL
• Bhimsen Gurung—National Program Director, International
Development Enterprises
• Shree Govinda Shah—Ecologist and Policy Analyst, Environ­
ment Resources Planning & Monitoring, AFORDA

NETHERLANDS
• Ir. P. S. Bindraban—Group Member, Wageningen Working
Group/Water for Food
• Jan Bouwhuis—Policy Officer, Ministry of Agriculture

• Bert Diphoorn—Senior Policy Advisor, Integrated Water Re­
sources Management, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

• C. R. Shanmugham—Program Officer, DHAN Foundation

• Pieter Gooren—Director, International Agricultural Center, Uni­
versity of Wageningen

• Reinier A. van Hoffen—Assistant to the Executive Secretary,
Asia Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions
(APAARI), Food and Agriculture Organization

• W. Bart Snellen—Secretary, Wageningen Working Group/Wa­
ter for Food, International Livestock Research Institute

• M. P. Vasimalai—Executive Director, DHAN Foundation

• Jan Willem Tellegen—Consultant
• Eelco van Beek—Inland Water Systems, Delft Hydraulics

INDONESIA
• Sustriayu Nalim—Senior Scientist, Vector and Reservoir Con­
trol Research Centre

IRAN
• Abbas Keshavarz—Deputy Minister for Agriculture, Agricul­
tural Research Education and Extension Organization
ITALY
• Jean-Marc Faures—Water Resources Officer, Land and Water
Development Division (AGL). Food and Agriculture Organization

• Jean Payen—Technical Advisor, PT Division, International Fund
for Agricultural Development

• Veerle Vandeweerd—Coordinator, Global Programme of Ac­
tion, United Nations Environment Program

• Linden Vincent—Professor, Irrigation & Water Engineering,
Vakgroep Tropische Cultuurtechniek
PAKISTAN
• Karamat Ali—Secretary, Pakistan Water Partnership
• Amir Muhammad—Rector, National University of Computer &
Emerging Sciences
• Sardar M. Tariq—Managing Director, Member (Water), Water
and Power Development Authority

• Hans Wolter—Director of AGL, Land and Water Development
Division, Food and Agriculture Organization

PHILIPPINES
• Cristina C. David—Senior Research Fellow, Philippine Institute
for Development Studies

JAPAN
• Kenzo Hiroki—Vice Secretary General, Finance, Planning, and
General Affairs, Preparatory Secretariat of the Third World Wa­
ter Forum

SRI LANKA
• M. M. M. Aheeyar—Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research
and Training Institute

• Riota Nakamura—Professor, Faculty of Biological Resource Sci­
ences, Nihon University,
• Taikan Oki—Associate Professor, Institute of Industrial Science,
University of Tokyo
• Shigemitsu Tsukamoto—Vice Secretary General, Policy and
Agriculture, Preparatory Secretariat of the Third World Water
Forum
• Junichi Yoshitani—Chief, Urban River Research Division, Pub­
lic Works Research Institute, Ministry of Construction

KENYA
• Francis Ndegwa Gichuki—Regional Coordinator, Soil & Water
Management Prg., Department of Agricultural Engineering, Uni­
versity of Nairobi
• Clifford Mutero—Liaision Scientist for IWMI Health & Environ­
ment Program, International Centre for Research in Agroforestry

• Felix Amerasinghe—Researcher, International Water Manage­
ment Institute
• R. De. S. Ariyabandu—Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research
and Training Institute
• Kusum Athukorale—Convenor, Network of Women Water Pro­
fessionals (NetWater)
• Channa Bambaradeniya—Senior Programme OfficerBiodiversity, Country Office, World Conservation Union (IUCN)
• Dharmasiri de Alwis—Managing Director, Mahaweli Authority
of Sri Lanka
• K. S. R. de Silva—Project Director, National Irrigation Rehabili­
tation Project, Irrigation Department
• Peter Droogers—Researcher, International Water Management
Institute
• Dedo Geinitz—Development Economist/Team Leader, Inte­
grated Food Security Program, Trincomalee, German Technical
Cooperation (GTZ)

15

• Hassantha Gunaweera—Teamleader, Dry Zone Ag. Develop­
ment Project, CARE International
• T. Haritharan—Civil Engineer, Agrarian Services, Integrated
Food Security Programme, German Technical Cooperation (GTZ)
* Lanka Haturusinghe—Technical Director, Technical Services
Divison, Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka

• Kris Hendrickx—Project Director, Dry Zone Ag. Development
Project, CARE International

• Peter Reichert—Divisional Head, Systems Analysis, Integrated
Assessment and Modelling, Swiss Federal Institute for Environ­
mental Science and Technology (EAWAG)

SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
• Theib Oweis—Senior Scientist, International Centre for Agricul­
tural Research in the Dry Areas

• P. I. L. Imbulana—Irrigation Management Section, Irrigation
Department

THAILAND
• Sananee Choowaew—Wetlands & Water Expert, Faculty of
Environment & Resource Studies, Mahidol University

• M. A. C. Jaseeem—Civil Engineer, Agrarian Services, Integrated
Food Security Programme, German Technical Cooperation (GTZ)

• Ashim Das Gupta—Professor, Water Engineering & Manage­
ment, Asian Institute of Technology

• J. S. Jeyamaran—Civil Engineer, Agrarian Services, Integrated
Food Security Programme, German Technical Cooperation (GTZ)

• Hans Friederich—Head, Asia Wetlands & Water Program, World
Conservation Union (IUCN)

• Badra Kamaldasa—Deputy Director, Headworks Safety, Irriga­
tion Department
• Ian W. Makin—Researcher, International Water Management
Institute

• Ananda Mallawatantri—Director, US-Asia Environmental Part­
nership, US Agency for International Development
• Yutaka Matsuno—Researcher, International Water Manage­
ment Institute

• David J. Molden—Researcher, International Water Manage­
ment Institute
• Ms. Priya Monaguruswamy—Law Officer, Environmental Foun­
dation Ltd.
• Hammond Murray-Rust—Acting Director, Pakistan Office, In­
ternational Water Management Institute

• Mahinda Panapitiya—Water Management Engineer, Davids &
M Engineering Pvt Ltd
• S. Priyantha Ranjan—Lecturer, Ruhuna University
• Frank R. Rijsberman—Director General, International Water
Management Institute
• R. Sakthivadivel—Senior Irrigation Specialist, International
Water Management Institute
• Senaka Samarasinghe—Public Consultation Officer, Water Re­
sources Secretariat
• Peter Samaraweera—Director, Water Management Secretariat,
Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka
• Sonali Senaratne—Head, Marine & Coastal Programme, Coun­
try Office, World Conservation Union (IUCN)

• Barbara van Koppen—Researcher, International Water Man­
agement Institute

• Mr. Lynton T.Wijesuriya—Additional Secretary, Ministry of Ir­
rigation and Water Resources Management

UKRAINE
• Prof. Peter I. Kovalenko—Director/Vice President, Institute of
Hydraulic Engineering & Land Reclamation, Ukranian Academy
of Agrarian Science
• Olga I. Zhovtonog—Head of Department, Institute of Hydrau­
lic Engineering and Land Reclamation, Ukranian Academy of
Agrarian Science

USA
• Richard Affleck—International Research Administrator, Foreign
Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
• Balazs Fekete—Research Associate,Complex Systems Research
Center, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, Uni­
versity of New Hampshire
• Hector Galbraith—Ecologist, Galbraith Environmental Sciences

• Susan Herrod Julius—Office of Research and Development, US
Environmental Protection Agency
• Levent Kavvas—Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineer­
ing, University of California, Davis
• Jack Keller—Liaison Scientist for IWMI, US Agency for Interna­
tional Development

• Mark Rosegrant—Senior Research Fellow, International Food
Policy Research Institute
• Joel Scheraga—National Program Director, Global Change Re­
search Office, R&D, US Environmental Protection Agency
• Chris Scott—Research Scientist, Hydrology, Water Team (Envi­
ronment Center), US Agency for International Development
• Kenneth M. Strzepek—Associate Professor, Civil, Environmen­
tal & Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado

• Shiney Varghese—Researcher, Environment & Agriculture
Programme, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

• Shiranee Yasaratne—Country Representative, Country Office,
World Conservation Union (IUCN)

UZBEKISTAN
• Gulchehra Khasanhanova—Head of Dept., Ministry of Agricul­
ture & Water Management

SWEDEN
• Nighisty Ghezae—Network Officer, Africa, Secretariat, Global
Water Partnership

• Vadim Sokolov—Deputy Director, Scientific Information Cen­
tre, International Coordination Water Commission

SWITZERLAND
• Peter Bauer—Environmental Scientist, Institute of Hydrome­
chanics and Water Resources Management

• Ger Bergkamp—Freshwater Management Advisor, World Con­
servation Union (IUCN)
• Biksham Gujja—Head, Freshwater Programme, World Wildlife
Fund International

16

ZAMBIA
• Angel Daka—Irrigation Specialist, Cooperative League for USA

• Inyambo L. Nyumbu—Africa Water Engineering Consultants
ZIMBABWE
• Ryan Hill—Projects Coordinator, Regional Office for Southern
Africa, World Conservation Union (IUCN)

MumiMu.unnmiii.niii.f

Dialogue Secretariat
Postal Address
P 0 Box 2075
Colombo
Sri Lanka
Tel.
94-1-867404, 869080

Fax
94-1-866854
E-mail

dialogue@cgiar.org
Website

www.cgiar.org/iwmi/dialogue/dialogue.htm

Position: 1288 (4 views)