participatory impact pathway analysis (pipa) …boru.pbworks.com › f ›...

Challenge Program on Water and Food

Basin Development Challenges

Stakeholder Consultation Workshop Report

Mekong River Basin

4-6 May 2009, Novotel, Vientiane, Laos

By Tonya Schuetz with contributions from Boru Douthwaite, Sophie Alvarez, Larry Harrington, Sophie Nguyen Khoa, Kim Geheb, David Clayton

2

Basin Development Challenges - Stakeholder Consultation Workshop ReportMekong River Basin, 4-6 May 2009, Novotel, Vientiane, Laos

3

ContentBackground..............................................................................................................................4

Workshop Objectives, Outputs and Process.............................................................................5

Workshop Languages...............................................................................................................6

Participation..............................................................................................................................6

Introductions.............................................................................................................................7

The PIPA Process....................................................................................................................7

Day 1: Problem trees and opportunities........................................................................7

Day 2: Network mapping.............................................................................................10

Day 3: CPWF BDC Mekong Outcomes Logic Models and Impact Pathways..............11

Next Steps..............................................................................................................................12

End of Workshop Evaluation...................................................................................................13

AnnexesAnnex 1: The CPWF Mekong Basin Development Challenge:................................................14

Annex 2: List of Participants ...................................................................................................15

Annex 3: Notes on the Groups Network Maps’ Presentation.................................................18

Annex 4: Combined impact pathways ....................................................................................19

Annex 5: Workshop Monitoring and Evaluation......................................................................24

Annex 5a: Participants’ Expectations..........................................................................24

Annex 5b: “Go-around” Day 1 (Monday 4th May 2009)................................................25

Annex 5c: “Go-around” Day 2 (Tuesday 5th May 2009)...............................................26

Annex 5d: End of Workshop Evaluation - Simplified After Action Review....................27

List of TablesTable 1: Steps the CPWF is taking to identify BDCs and contract research programs .............. 5

Table 2: Group composition ...................................................................................................... 9

Table 3: The vision of the NGO group: .................................................................................... 12

Table 4: Changes from the “Now”-Network to the future successful vision ................................ 9

Table 5: Outcomes Logic Model developed ............................................................................ 14

Table 6: Line Exercise………………………………………………………………………………11

List of FiguresFigure 1: Workshop Road Map ................................................................................................. 8

Figure 2: Workshop Participants ............................................ Error: Reference source not found

Figure 3a: Government group discussing and figure 3b their problem tree ............................ 10

Figure 4: NGO group problem tree with identified opportunities ............................................. 10


4

Figure 5a: Research Group I drawing their map and figure 5b their final product .................... 13


5

Background and Workshop RationaleThe CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) is a research-for-development program that works to increase the productivity of water for food and livelihoods, in a manner that is environmentally sustainable, socially acceptable, and alleviates poverty for all disadvantaged groups. The First Phase of the CPWF ran from 2004-2008, while the Second Phase will run from 2009-2013. In its Second Phase the CPWF works in six river basins (Mekong, Ganges, Limpopo, Volta, Nile, and the Andean Basins System) in the developing world. More information about the CPWF can be obtained at www.waterandfood.org.

In Phase II the CPWF will support one or two development challenges (BDCs) per basin. The table below describes the steps the CPWF is taking to identify BDCs and design coherent basin research programs with high probability of making substantial contribution to tackling them.

Table 1: Steps the CPWF is taking to identify BDCs and contract research programs to tackle them

Step Description Selection/ design criteria Sources of info / responsibility

1 Identify Basin Development Challenge

Broad stakeholder agreement on importance Addresses food and water issues Opportunity for the CPWF to contribute through

its core principles (partnership, interdisciplinarity, capacity building, adaptive management)

High impact potential after 10 years, with measurable progress after 5 years

Comprehensive Assessment

Basin coordinator consultation

Basin expert consultations

Consultation at the International Food and Water Forum (IFWF 2) in Addis in Nov 2009

Basin Focal Projects2 Identify

opportunities for research to contribute

Build on Phase I research and new opportunities Link and add value to existing research-for-

development projects and networks Outcomes likely after 5 years

Phase I project results Basin expert

consultations Stakeholder

consultation workshops3 Design a coherent

BDC research program

Research linked to impact through clearly defined and plausible pathways

To be contracted as 3 to 5 projects including a coordination function

CPWF MT responsibility, drawing on all other sources of insight and information

4 BDC research contracted and implementation begun

Projects awarded on merit and with their fit with each other

Coherence through agreement on common set of impact pathways at Inception Workshop; final implementation plans, budgets and contracts finalized after Inception Workshop

Inception Workshop

Steps 1 and 2 have been consultative. In contrast, step 3 relies on the CPWF Management Team to synthesize information and insight from the various sources to design BDC research programs in which a coherent research agenda is linked to expected impacts through causal chains. Causal chains, also called results-chains or impact pathways, consist of sets of hypotheses about how research, and the conduct of research, will lead to changes in stakeholder knowledge, attitude or skills that in turn lead to changes in stakeholder behavior, that in turn contribute to social, economic or environmental impacts. An example of an impact pathway identified in this workshop is:


http://www.waterandfood.org/

6

Research on use and valuation of water, carried out with planners and reservoir managers, leads to planners and reservoir manages able and willing to make more equitable water allocation decisions. More equitable water allocation to farmers allows for increased crop diversification and yields, higher incomes and improved rural livelihoods.

BDC research programs consist of not one, but a set complementary and reinforcing impact pathways. Continuing with the example, it may well be that knowledge of the value of water is not sufficient for planners and reservoir managers to change their practice: what is also needed is research to develop governance structures and mechanisms that support them in making more equitable water allocation decisions.

While identifying impact pathways is part of Step 2, and was a main objective of this workshop, the selection of a complementary and reinforcing set of impact pathways is part of program design and the responsibility of the CPWF Management Team in the first instance, drawing on all inputs. BDC research program design also involves packaging the research into projects. Once projects have been contracted, BDC Inception Workshops will be held to revisit and detail the impact pathways with researchers and key stakeholders responsible for implementation. The timeline for contracting the Mekong BDC is given the Next Steps section at the end of this report.

Workshop Objectives, Outputs and ProcessThe objective of this workshop, as indicated above, was to consult key stakeholders knowledgeable about the proposed Mekong BDC, how research can best contribute to tackling the BDC, while at the same time sharpening the focus of the BDC (i.e. refine Steps 1 and 2).

In the Mekong, the proposed BDC was on how reservoirs in parts of the upper Mekong (for example, the 3S border region that straddles the tri-point between Vietnam, Lao PDR and Cambodia) be managed for the benefit of all.

To this end, participants worked together over three days to:1) Scope out the BDC in terms of a problem and opportunity analysis2) Develop visions of what success would look like if the BDC is tackled3) Identify the main actors involved in reservoir management and their attitudes towards

what the BDC would wish to achieve4) Specify which actors need to be doing what differently to tackle the BDC5) Identify research strategies to contribute to these changes6) Provide advice on how the CPWF should design projects to carry out the research

identified.


7

1. Problem Tree

2. Outcom es Tree

3. Vision

6. BD C im pact pathw ays

4. "Now " networkmap

W hat the BDC should helpachieve

Current arrangement o factors working onreservoirs in the Mekong

Helps understand BDC logic

Prob

lem

ana

lysi

sIn

tegr

atio

n

5. K ey networkchanges required to

ach ieve Vision

Stak

ehol

der

anal

ysis

The changes the proj ect can help achieve, w ho w il l change andproject strategies to bring changes about

I ntroduction to BDC , I n troductions, Expectations

Group discussion of potential BDC projects

PI PA Process to develop BDC im pact pathways

Next S teps

W orkshop Evaluation

I dentifying opportunities

Figure 1: Workshop Road Map

The workshop agenda followed the roadmap shown in Figure 1 to achieve the objectives. The main workshop output were suggested impact pathways for the BDC describing changes needed in stakeholder behavior, knowledge, attitudes and skills necessary to tackle the BDC, and suggesting research that could help bring these changes about. The workshop used tools from Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis (http://impactpathways.pbwiki.com) to develop help identify impact pathways.

The Mekong BDC on “Managing Reservoirs for the Benefit of All” was shared with the participants prior to the meeting together with the invitation (see Annex 1: The Mekong Basin Development Challenge). A disclaimer was given at the beginning of the workshop that Participation in this workshop will not increase or decrease the chances of success in being awarded a Phase 2 project”. While the CPWF wishes to be fair to workshop participants – it also wishes to be fair to those who for one reason or another were unable to join in.

Workshop LanguagesEnglish was the working language for the participants during the workshop. However, once the participants were in their break-out groups, they were free to use their preferred language for clarification and discussions.


http://impactpathways.pbwiki.com/

8

ParticipationThe 32 participants in the workshop (see Annex 2: Participants) were staff from government agencies (nine), basin organizations (eight), NGOs (five), and researchers (twelve) with two from Thailand, five from Vietnam, eight from Cambodia, 16 from Laos, one each from France and the Philippines. Figure 2 shows the workshop participants. In total 80 people were invited, 31 sent their regrets notably due to conflicting meeting dates. A few could only attend some sessions. Sophie Alvarez and Tonya Schuetz, Impact Specialists, facilitated the workshop. Larry Harrington, Research Director, Sophie Nguyen Khoa, Associate Director, and Boru Douthwaite, Impact and Innovation Director, represented the CPWF Management Team, with Kim Geheb as the CPWF Basin Leader for the Mekong Basin.

Figure 2: Workshop Participants


9

IntroductionsLarry Harrington gave an overview of the Challenge Program on Water and Food with its history and institutional framework. Kim Geheb explained the process of development of the CPWF Basin Development Challenges for Phase II and introduced the BDC for the Mekong. Lastly, Boru Douthwaite introduced the CPWF approach to impact pathways and innovation management. After the technical introductions participants were given some time to get to know each other better through an introduction exercise.

Participants then were asked to write their expectations on cards and these were shared with the group and clustered into three groups: expectations that can be met (YES), that might be met (MAYBE) and the ones that are not expected to be addressed in this workshop (NO). Most of the expectations (35) were grouped into the section that they can be met, especially with the help and contributions of the participants. Four expectations voiced fell into the category that might be addressed and none into the category that would go beyond the workshop: For detailed expectations see Annex 5a: Expectations.

The Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis (PIPA) Process

Day 1: Problem trees and opportunitiesAfter the expectations were clarified, the participants were introduced to causal analysis through constructing problem trees. By asking several times (three to max. five times) why a problem (called “main problem”) is happening, each group arrives at the end at some possible entry points for the BDC to make a contribution to the solution of this main problem. In this case, the main problems to be developed in the causal analysis were pre- determined by the workshop team and shared with the groups. These were “Existing dams and reservoirs are not designed or managed for the benefit of all multiple uses” and “Future dams and reservoirs may not be designed or managed for the benefit of all multiple uses”, see figure 3a and 3b. The participants were then asked to separate into stakeholder groupings (representatives of government agencies, NGOs, and researchers) to begin developing their problem trees (see Table 2 for Group composition).

Table 2: Group compositionResearchers Group I Researchers Group IILarry Harrington Sophie Nguyen KhoaSuen Seng Bruno LidonSuthep Tangup Juha SarkkulaLatsamay Sylavong Kate LazarusChem Phalla Philippe Floch

Thomas MeadleyNGOs/Private Organizations Government AgenciesKim Geheb Boru DouthwaiteBui Kim Huu Chatchai BoonlueLim Soviet Chea Chhun KeatThorn Riguen Lam Hung SonVoradeth Phonekeo Lieng Sopha

Sok KhomSomnuk ChanthasethYamauchi KatsuhikoNguyen Van ToanDiana Suhardiman


10

Figure 3a: Government group discussing (above) and figure 3b their problem tree (right)

Figure 4: NGO group problem tree with identified opportunities in the uppermost left column


11

Participants were then asked to identify opportunities for the last level of identified problems in their causal analysis (see ovals in figure 4). With the focus on the positive, participants were taken to the next step, developing a vision of a successfully implemented CPWF BDC in five years time, 2014. They were asked to discuss in their groups and come up with a common vision describing the future scenario with the guiding questions shown below in Table 3 through the example of the NGO group. The results from the vision exercise from the other groups are captured in the annex 6 BDC-Mekong PIPA workbook a separate Excel document.


12

Table 3: The vision of the NGO group:

What are the next users doing differently?

Next users may be dam developers and managers and development agencies, whether NGOs or government.Lessons from past dam planning failures are learned and incorporated into dam design. Dam developers commit to implementing ‘deep studies’ of the needs and requirements of riparian and downstream communities.Dam developers’ implementation of EIAs will have improved, as will the quality of the EIAs implemented.An appreciation of the multiple benefits of dams and reservoirs has improved amongst stakeholders.Simulations will have been carried out to demonstrate the political and economic feasibility of alternative dam and reservoir uses.Water-use efficiency will have improved – e.g. irrigation initiatives will be water efficient. Typically, dam developers won’t want to release water to irrigation because it is so inefficient. Dam owners never fail to recognise the interests and wishes of riparian communities; but, at the same time, they expect villagers to improve their water productivity. Understanding water efficiency includes understanding the economics of storage, and the marketing of agricultural produce.

How are BDC outputs spread from farmers to farmers or community to community (scaling out)?

New technologies are communicated to farmers and communities by trusted development partners.Workshops, mobile training centres, farmer-to-farmer learning all contribute to dissemination of innovations.A focus on community-based organizations.The capacity of beneficiaries improved, so that they may use these innovations effectively.

What political support is nurturing this spread (scaling up)?

Scaled – from the politics of a wide variety of interests at the dam site, through to the national policies of the countries concerned, through to regional policies amongst the countries that share a river system.These need to focus on developing greater market orientation in thinking about economies and dam management; needs to be across scales, from villagers through to government. Government has the means to do these in terms of finances, techniques and capabilities.

What are the final users doing differently? How are they benefiting?

Final users may be dam developers and managers and riparian and downstream communities.They take advantage of the opportunities opened up by the research, be this technological adoption, or changes in management.Dam developers plan at the catchment scale, and carefully study potential land use within it. Everything is linked. Biological carrying capacities are not breeched, and appropriate land use is developed.The appropriateness of interventions is judged against a deep understanding of the culture, social and economic systems of riparian communities. If the changes proposed do not match these, no adoption will occur.

The last activity of the day consisted of having each working group present back in plenary a summary of their problem tree, identified opportunities and vision.

The day ended with a “go-around”, in which participants could share what they thought went well on this first day and what they would like to have improved for the next (for detailed responses by participants see annex 5b: “Go-around” Day 1).


13

Day 2: Network mappingNetwork concepts, network mapping and how to visualize networks were introduced to the participants. In the same working groups of day 1, participants draw research, funding, coordination and scaling-out and scaling-up relationships between organizations working on reservoir management and design (see figure 5a and b). Scaling-out is the spread of technology and knowledge from farmer to farmer, community to community, within the same stakeholder groups. Scaling-up is an institutional expansion, based largely on first-hand experience, word-of-mouth and positive feedback, from adopters and their grassroots organizations to policy makers, donors, development institutions, and the other stakeholders key to building a more enabling environment for the scaling-out process. In other words, scaling-up is the process by which policies and norms change in such a way as to support a scaling-out (adoption) process.

Participants also indicated how influential they thought the organization was and flagged extremely positive or negative attitudes towards the topic in their network maps.

Figure 5a (above): Research Group I drawing their map and figure 5b (right) their final product

The data from the network maps will be mapped using NetDraw software, which will allow for combining the maps drawn by the four groups to give a composite picture of actors involved in research and dissemination for the design and management of existing and future dams and reservoirs in the Mekong River Basin. This composite map will be included in a Mekong PIPA workbook that will contain all workshop outputs.

The participants then proceeded to identify the main network changes required to achieve their respective visions. The main changes required were captured in a table (see Table 4 below). Each group presented to the others (see for a brief summary Annex 3 Notes on the Network Maps Group Presentations).

Table 4: Changes from the “Now”-Network to the future successful vision

Describe the most important changes in networks & influences?

Why is it important to make the change?

What are the project’s strategies for achieving these changes?


14

The day was ended again with a “go-around” in which participants could share what part of the day’s exercises did they find most useful or most interesting, and if there was something they would like to change that did not go well for them (for detailed responses by participants see Annex 5c: “Go-around” Day 2).

Day 3: CPWF BDC Impact PathwaysOn day three the Outcomes Logic Model (see table 5) was introduced as the tool to bring together the information from the Vision, Networks and Network changes and Outcomes (derived from the Problem- and Opportunity Tree) exercises.

Participants filled in the outcomes logic model describing who, from their collective perspective, needs to change, what knowledge, attitude and skills (KAS) changes are necessary for that change to occur, and what strategies a BDC research program might employ to make these changes happen.

Table 5: Outcomes Logic Model to identify BDC Impact Pathways

When filling out the table the groups were asked to consider five types of actors: Intermediaries (people and/ or organizations, who directly use project outputs, e.g. technology, methods, knowledge), Final Users (people and/ or organizations that ultimately benefit), Politically-important actors, (people and/ or organizations whose support is needed for project success), Donors and Project Implementers.

From a brief review of the synthesized impact pathways (see Annex 4: Combined Impact Pathways) from the four groups, the CPWF team members presented back their key observations.

The last exercise consisted of a short discussion, in which, through a ‘scales of agreement’ exercise (using a scale drawn on the floor and a matrix contributed by one of the participants) the group members placed themselves on the issues of research focus on the one hand and in terms of geographic focus on the other (see table 6).


15

On the issue of research focus (multiple use of reservoirs) the group was split evenly: seven (7) agreed with the tight focus, and seven (7) disagreed with the tight focus on reservoirs and dam design and management, whilst four (4) participants were in the middle. In general, the ministry people agree that the narrower topic proposed would be a valuable one to focus on. The question was raised about how one determines where the ‘reservoir area’ stops.

On the issue of geographic focus, which was determined by the question on whether the BDC research should focus on the 3-S area, most (14) participants indicated that they would favor a broader geographic focus, while three (3) participants agreed fully with the focus on the 3-S area and two (2) participants were in the middle. The reason given by the

participants for disagreeing was that there are not many opportunities for research into multiple use in this limited area. One person said that if the research topic were to be multi purpose reservoirs, she would like to see the geographic focus broadened.

As a result of the discussion it seems that the participants would favour the research topic in a broader geographic area.

Next StepsFinally, Boru Douthwaite reminded the participants of the context of this stakeholder consultation workshop and that it was preceded by a number of steps of identifying the research and geographic focus for the CPWF Second Phase: Phase 1 basin research priorities, a ‘concordance’ exercise, results from IWMI’s Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (CA), recommendations of the CPWF External Review, the Basin Focal Projects and Phase 1 Projects, Basin Coordinators’ consultations, Basin experts’ consultations, and the IFWF 2 Basin Sessions.

The next steps are that a workshop report (this report) will be shared first with the participants for comments and corrections before sharing it more widely with people who could not attend. Key workshop results will be available on the CPWF website for everybody to access. As described in the Rationale and in Table 1, the CPWF


Table 6 Line exercise

FocusTopic on

multiple use reservoirs?

Geographic on 3-S area?

100% agree (tight focus)

7 3

30-70% 4 2Disagree (broaden focus)

7 14

16

Management Team and Basin Leader will use the information and insights from this workshop, together with our sources, to design a research program to tackle the BDC.

The Mekong BDC research program will be contracted as three to five projects until late 2013 which is the end of CPWF Phase II. Three contracting mechanisms will be considered, depending on what is most appropriate for each project. The mechanisms are open competition, restricted competition and direct commissioning. Direct commissioning will only be used when a project can only be realistically implemented by a single, known organization. The expectation is that the Mekong BDC research program will receive an average annual budget of approximately USD1.3m a year. Calls for project proposals are expected to be sent out in July 2009 with projects awarded by October 2009 and the BDC inception workshop held by the end of the year.

End of Workshop EvaluationBefore the official closure participants were asked to do an end of workshop evaluation in form of a simplified after action review, by giving some suggestions and recommendation of what they liked and thought worked well and what they would like to do differently next time. The latter was important in the light of the next Basin Development Challenge Stakeholder consultation workshop happening right after this one for the Nile Basin. See for detailed feedback Annex 5e: End-of-workshop Evaluation.


17

Annex 1: The CPWF Mekong Basin Development Challenge: Managing reservoirs for the benefit of all1

There is a proliferation of large and small reservoirs in parts of the upper Mekong (for example, the 3S border region that straddles the tri-point between Vietnam, Lao PDR and Cambodia). Some reservoir management strategies can result in broad-based development across a wide range of water users – including downstream fisheries and environmental uses. Other management strategies can direct benefits to a few water users to the detriment of others, among them the poor and the environment. How can reservoirs be managed for the benefit of all? In addressing this Basin Development Challenge (BDC), the CPWF and partners will engage in the following projects. Each project will seek to answer specific research questions.

Project 1 - Reservoir management strategies and their consequences Designing alternative management strategies for individual or sequences of reservoirs and understanding the cross-scale, downstream consequences of pursuing different strategies: How can the fisheries and agricultural benefits from reservoirs in the “3S” area be realized? How should reservoir management strategies be altered in order to benefit downstream small-

scale agriculturalists and fishing communities? If reservoir management strategies were altered in certain ways, what benefits would arise as

a consequence, and can these be measured in economic terms? Will hydroelectric power generation suffer from the adoption of such procedures?

Project 2 – Companion modelingUsing specialized modeling approaches to foster stakeholder dialogue on water allocation. In Phase 1, companion modeling was found to be effective method for negotiating water allocation and water use strategies at the community or catchment level. This project aims to explore whether such modeling approaches can inform stakeholder dialogue at larger, international, scales. The relevant research question is: Can multiple-agent modeling be scaled up and out to address tensions between Mekong

Basin countries to yield new operating procedures and the trans-boundary management of dam releases?

Project 3 – Transboundary policy issues High levels of dam investment in the 3S area will have downstream consequences for all of the Mekong Basin’s countries in terms of river flows and allocations. The relevant research questions in this regard are as follows: What sorts of policy and administrative mechanisms would be needed to implement cross-

border collaboration to optimize the benefits of hydroelectric dam operations? If the recommendations made by this research are promising, how can these results be

scaled up and out, potentially to include China?

Project 4 – CoordinationA project will be implemented to integrate and coordinate the above three projects in the context of a single impact pathway. This coordination project may be free-standing or combined with one of the projects described above.

1 sent to participants prior to the meeting


18

Annex 2: List of Participants BDC Mekong River Basin Workshop, Vientianne, Laos, 4-6 May 2009

Name Title Organisation Country Email

1 Jeremy Bird CEO Mekong River Commission Secretariat- Luncheon (meeting with 3 members CPMT and Kim Geheb)- VIP address to participants at banquet

Laos

2 Lim Soviet Researcher Center for Development Oriented Research in Agriculture and Livelihood Systems (CENTDOR)

Cambodia [email protected]

3 Suon Seng Executive Director Center for Development Oriented Research in Agriculture and Livelihood Systems (CENTDOR)


4 Thorn Riguen Project Officer of Mekong Project

Fisheries Action Coalition Team Cambodia [email protected]

5 Chem Phalla Senior Researcher Cambodia Development Resource Institute, Water Resource Management Research and Capacity Development Programme


6 Bruno Lidon Senior Researcher Cemagref (on assignment / came in thru KL) France [email protected]

7 Peter-John Meynell

Consultant Environment and Natural Resources - special presentation on 3S area

Laos [email protected]

8 Andrew Noble Director IWMI – SEA (also representing Worldfish) Laos- Cambodia

[email protected]

9 Diana Suhardiman

Post Doctoral Fellow – Political Ecology

IWMI – SEA (also representing Worldfish) Laos- Cambodia

[email protected]

10 P.T.Hang Programme Coordinator Mekong River Commission Secretariat BDP Programme Laos [email protected]

11 Yamauchi Katsuhiko

Irrigation Technical Advisor

Mekong River Commission Secretariat, AIFP Programme Laos [email protected]

12 Voradeth Phonekeo

Project Manager Mekong River Commission Secretariat, OPD Laos [email protected]

13 Kate Lazarus M-POWER Dialogues Leader & Research Associate

Unit for Social and Environmental Research Laos [email protected]

14 John Dore Program Director AusAID, Mekong Program on Water Environment and Resilience


15 Amphavanhy Sisouvanh

Program Officer AusAID – Mekong Water and Infrastructure Unit, Development Cooperation Section


16 Latsamay Sylavong

Country Representative IUCN – Laos Laos [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]















19


17 Xiong Tchechalicha

Senior Programme Officer IUCN - Laos Laos [email protected]

18 Sengpaseuth Simmanivong

Country Coordinator IUCN - Laos Laos [email protected]

19 Philippe Floch Researcher University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna


20 Thomas Meadley Consultant PhD. Researcher Laos [email protected]

21 Bui Kim Huu Project Coordinator OXFAM UK – Viet NamParticipatory Disaster Management Project

Viet Nam [email protected]

22 Vu Canh Toan Research Fellow Department of S&T Human Resource Policy and Organization, National Institute for Science and Technology Policy and Strategic Studies, Ministry of Science and Technology

Viet Nam [email protected]

23 Ian Makin Project Engineer Water Resources SEAE (on assignment in SEA – was in Vientiane for other meetings)

Philippines [email protected]

24 Chea Chhun Keat Director Department of Planning International Cooperation, Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology (MOWRAM)

Cambodia

25 Lieng Sopha Deputy Director Inland Fishery Research and Development Institute, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF)


26 Sok KHOM National AIFP Coordinator

Cambodia National Mekong Committee (CNMC) Cambodia [email protected]@cnmc.gov.kh

27 Somnuk Chanthaseth

Chief Planning and Cooperation Division, Department of Irrigation Viet Nam [email protected]

28 Lam Hung Son Program officer National Mekong Committee (VNMC) Viet Nam [email protected]

29 Nguyen Van Toan

Deputy Head of International Cooperation Department

Southern Institute of Water Resources Research, Viet Nam Viet Nam [email protected]

30 Suthep Tangsup Policy and Planning Analyst

National Mekong Committee (TNMC) Department of Water Resources

Thailand [email protected]

31 Chatchai Boonlue

Director Project Management Office, Royal Irrigation Department Thailand [email protected]

32 Juha Sarkkula Consultant Finnish Environment Institute Laos [email protected]


















20


33 Boru Douthwaite Innovations and Impact Director

CPWF [email protected]

34 Larry Harrington Research Director CPWF [email protected]

35 Sophie Nguyen Khoa

Associate Director CPWF [email protected]

36 Kim Geheb Basin Impact Leader - Mekong

CPWF

37 Sophie Alvarez Facilitator CPWF [email protected]

38 Tonya Schuetz Facilitator CPWF [email protected]

39 David Clayton Logistics Support CPWF Laos [email protected]

40 Aksone Phaniphong

Logistics Support MRCS Laos [email protected]

41 Sonepheth Chanthaphone

Logistics Support MRCS Laos [email protected]

1. Not all participants were present each of the three days2. In a few cases, while participants signed the morning registration sheets, did not attend full day3. WorldFish asked to be officially marked as present through representation by IWMI – SEA










21

Annex 3: Notes on the Groups Network Maps’ PresentationMaps drawn in Netdraw® will be available on the Mekong BDC workbook.

Research Group IThis group had representatives from Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia. Each countries’ representatives developed their own country’s networks first. In a second step they looked at overlaps and linkages across the countries. For regional linkages they identified the Mekong River Commission with its national representation and the M-POWER network. Laos was placed in the network map but it was not developed since there was no representative in the group. See figure 5b.

Research Group IIThe network map of the research group II grouped the different players into stakeholder categories, like donors, researchers, NGOs, dam/reservoir operators, and end users, like farmers and fishermen. Within the scope of the research-for-development BDC, the researchers group was placed in the middle and interacted with all the other network groups, including other research networks. Other groups had fewer interactions except from the donors to the dam operators and to the NGOs. This may be partly influenced by the more limited knowledge of participants on other network groups.

NGOThe NGO group clustered donors as interacting with BDC implementing organizations like the CG Centers, CPWF and M-Power, regional operating networks, like the MRC, IUCN, and WFC, and government agencies of the four countries. Electricity agencies in all countries are involved. In the middle of the network are government agencies’ ministries, departments and units, while associations are placed at the bottom. The main changes towards the vision would be in coordination and collaboration with the government agencies. There should be platforms for dialogue and exchange, e.g. in workshops and personal interaction. Stakeholders should embrace not only dam owners, but take a more holistic approach and take all stakeholders into account.

Government AgenciesRepresentatives from ministries from the four countries, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos drew a network map for their own countries and a couple of group members drew a regional network map. For example, Cambodia presented a very complex communication and intervention scenario. The Electricity Department and Donors were identified as the most important and influential players. In Thailand with dam management the focus is on the government agencies. The Coordination Committee for integration issues and the Operation Water Allocation Plan should be best at the coordination level.


22

Annex 4: Combined impact pathways to have existing and future dams and reservoirs designed and managed beneficial for all.Explanations: R1 = Research group I, R2 = Research group II, Gov = Government representative group, NGO = NGO representatives

Actor Change in practice Change in Knowledge, Attitudes or Skills Suggested BDC strategies for achieving these changes

Government agencies at all levelsNGO

Government agencies – Improved collaboration with R4D agencies.

– New/adjusted dam and reservoir construction and management protocols.

– ‘Market-oriented’ approaches to dam management and development.

– Knowledge of the benefits of implementing new technologies, and associated skills.

– Awareness of reservoir benefit optimizing skills and technologies.

– Pro-poor dam development attitudes.

– Networking, awareness-raising, dissemination and innovative communication of promising research results.

– Good relations between government and BDC.

– Capacity building.– Technical assistance.– Development of trust.

R1

- Cambodia: MIME, MOWRAM, MRD

- Thailand: MOWRE, NWRC

- Lao: Ministry of Mining and Energy, MAFF

- MOE, MAFF, MOE, MOAC,

- MEF, MOF

– Decision-making should balance the benefit of economic, social and environment

- Willingness to engage multi-stakeholders, concern stakeholders by providing and discussing related information

- Capacity of stakeholders are improved in making use of information on decision making

– Action research implementation

- Researchers need to influence the society or social process

- Providing information for the advocacy groups

– Stakeholders alliance

GOV

Governments Implement policies in support of multiple use of dams

BDC could link and support government research institutes who advise on policyInclude water for agriculture in existing 5-year plans, possibly through water valuation and evaluations of existing dams

GOV

Government (at all levels) and local communities

Implementing better watershed management

Land use planning, community education, testing and providing alternatives to slash and burn

R1

Provincial Authority - Protection of mutual interests- Ownership

- Capacity to integrate landscape management planning- Better understanding of livelihood system of different groups

- Engagement of provincial committee in action research and information dissemination. (PRDC, ….)


23


GOV

Government and local communities

Establish river basin organizations Develop strategic plans, identify basin boundaries, learn lessons from existing RBOs, develop regulations and operation guidelinesPilot RBOs, e.g. Sesan River Basin Org that is being proposed,

R2

National Level Agencies(Agriculture, Fisheries, Irrigation, Land Development, Hydropower)

Improve the capacity, engage with university (including the recruitment of staff), increase resources towards management and planning, with a focus on small- and medium-scale reservoirs. Agencies are linking and collaborating and the management of water resources. Agencies have better access to information

Agencies improve their knowledge of linkages and trade-offs within catchment-level water use.

Engagement, up-scaling / translating local knowledge to national level

GOV

National governments Modifying and rehabilitating dams and irrigation systems

Understand benefits and costs Evaluations and lobbying (need expressed for Nam Souang Dam)

R2

Province Level Agencies




R2

District Level Agencies





24


Others can be government or private NGO

Dam funders – Uptake of opportunities a requirement of funding.

– Impact assessments of opportunities implemented.

– Supportive funding policies and guidelines.

– Awareness of reservoir benefit optimizing skills and technologies.

– Understanding of the skills needed to implement these.


– Good relations between funders + BDC.– Development of trust.

NGO

Dam developers – Dam design reflects benefit-optimising options.

– Dam operating rules work to maximise benefits up- and down-stream of dam.

– Adherence to new dam building and managing protocols.

– M&E of new initiatives and measurements of success.

– Awaresness of multiple-use options for dams and their reservoirs.

– Awareness of socio-economic benefits of implementing the latter.

– Pro-poor attitudes.– Skills to design and implement new

optimisation technologies and techniques.


– Good relations between developers and BDC.

– Development of trust.

GOV

Planning agencies Optimizing water use to maximize benefit of all

Understanding the actual value of water use in different sectors and future changes of value

Make clear who benefits, where and how many from different water use. Also clarify environmental flows

GOV

Water Managers and dam operators

Changes in the way and timing of water allocation

Understand water use efficiency amongst water users to identify potential for improvement

Research on market of products coming from different water usersImproved collection and management of information

GOV

Water user associations + water managers

Better enforcement of rules and sanctions

Better understanding of whole system and how their actions affect each other

Provide policy support

NGOS and Private R1

Private - Follow the guidelines that decision-making has been made, include non-hydro users in hydro-projects.

– Financial /incentives to allow multiple uses

- Invest in landscape Management– Knowledge of integrated systems

- Influence through policy – Action research to set example on the

landscape Management

NGO

Local Development NGOs

– Support local communities to adopt new opportunities and new technologies.

– To inform communities of these

– Improved understanding of the plight of riparian communities.

– Professional skills to help communities around reservoirs.

– Building a strong network of implementing agencies.

– Dissemination of research outputs from BDC.


25


opportunities. – Livelihoods improvement support

to the communities.– Better collaboration with local

authorities.– Utilisation of outputs from research

agencies.

– Knowledge of potential impact of new technologies.

– Pamphlets, posters and other printed media.

R1

NGOs-Development, 3SPN, NGOs-network

- Advocacy informed by research - Capacity to integrate landscape management projects

- Engage in action research

ResearchersNGO

Research agencies – Advocacy – influencing decision-makers’ policy and practice viz reservoir development and management.

– Research and partnerships on ways to optimise the benefits from reservoirs.

– Research skills on how to optimise reservoir benefits.

– Capacity to develop supportive technologies for local communities.

– Research follow-up to measure impact of new skills and technologies.

– Strong relations with development agencies.

– Capacity building amongst local research institutions.

– Dissemination of research outputs from BDC.

- Mobilising research agencies to assist government and other actors to implement technologies and evaluate their impact.

R1

Researchers - The research is more integrated and more multidiscipline and links with big emerging issues

- Capacity to see bigger picture built on synthesised experience + better coordination- Research capacity to provide coherence and critical message

- BDC supports the researches by Impact Pathway- Support researches as defined in impact pathway

River Basin OrganizationsNGO

MRC and partners – New opportunities promoted amongst member governments.

– Mutually supportive relations between MRC and BDC.

– Improved in-house negotiation capacities.

– Stronger and better relationships with member governments.

– Knowledge of new opportunities and associated skills.

– Focus on BDP and Hydro-electricity Program, and development of relations with.

– Communication of research results.– Engagement of MRC in the research.

GOV

MRC-NMCs Approval and implementation of basin level principles of water use

Better definition of water use, related to water flow

Definition of the principles of water use- related to water flow

R River Basin Stakeholder engagement, transparency RBO is aware of the benefits of the Engagement of stakeholders


26


2 Organizations and communication. produced knowledge.R2

Community Level (Leaders, WUA, FG, Fishery Groups, Community Water Services Organizations, Urban Water Supply Utilities)

Groups are managing together at village level and across villages (networks, platforms). Ability to better control the management of resources. There is more confidence to participate in wider water management dialogues (catchment level, basin level). Agencies have better access to info.

Capacity building, mechanisms to support community engagement, including research.

End UsersGOV

Farmers supported by local Agricultural extension services

Improve seasonal and agricultural productivity

Crop diversification; rice and fish; use of canals and reservoirs for fisheries, fish habitat management, enhance reservoir stocking programs

NGO

End users – Adoption of new technologies.– Development of local institutions to

support and promote the adoption of new technologies.

– Sustainable management and exploitation of local resources.

– Knowledge of new opportunities.– Awareness of how to sustainable exploit

biological resources.– Skills to implement manage and maintain

new technologies.– Adaptation to new circumstances,

resource and economic activities.– Willingness to participate in

development.– Knowledge of market opportunities.

– Link farmers and other producers to markets.

– Development of next user networks.– Dissemination of research outputs from

BDC.– Pamphlets, posters and communication.

GOV

Water user associations/ farmers

Take care of operation and maintenance, Not damaging operating systems (i.e., Vietnam case)

Understanding all facilities belong to WUA and WUA are responsible for upkeep

Build capacity

GOV


Use water more equitably and effectively

Clear understanding that their actions affect downstream users

Mapping of whole schemes

GOV


Better understanding of whole system and how their actions affect each other

Study tours to learn from successful WUA

GOV


Suffering less from drought through use of technology (i.e., using channels as reservoirs)

Build capacity of Water Users Associations


27


GOV


Pollute water less from agrochemicals and wastewater

Build capacity of Water Users Associations


28

Annex 5: Workshop Monitoring and Evaluation

Annex 5a: Participants’ Expectations

YES, particularly with the help and input form participants:1. Better understand who (people,

institutions) can best help address BDC2. Relevant and useful research topic for

Mekong Basin3. To have good way to solve the problems

on sharing of Water Resources4. Well focused priorities identified for

Program action5. Clearer understanding of focus research6. How to manage reservoirs to maximize

benefits from them7. Who is responsible to take action and

handover responsibility and use of the development progress?

8. To have a better understanding of the complex multi-facetted issue/ program that is very handled by CGIAR/MBD

9. Expected outcome of BDC including policy changes

10. How to operate reservoirs effectively to meet number water users competition

11. We have fun12. Food for all people (fishery)13. Research for development process14. Gap between possible and reality15. Understand the insights of BDC16. Scope of work for CPWF in the Mekong17. Next activities of CPWF after this

Workshop (for Mekong River Basin)18. Which projects or key research areas

would you see contribute to the BDC?19. Workshop outputs are taken into account

in Mekong BDC design 20. Greater BDC focus21. Participants learn how to use PIPA

22. To learn more about the tool Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis

23. Better understand whether China-related issues really belong in BDC

24. How to manage reservoirs for the benefit of all? Idea from workshop.

25. Learning from your experience on water res. management especially on social and institutional aspects

26. Sustainability of work 27. Food security28. Interpretation of Mekong BDC and key

stakeholders what does it mean to you?29. A clearer understanding of what the

CPWF would like to achieve in this 4 outlined Basin Challenges and how they see these focal activities influencing development in the region

30. Know better about stakeholders expectations of Basin Challenges and how to address them.

31. Discuss openly also the complex/ potential nature of how “change” comes about in the Mekong Basin.

32. Sharing some experiences from Vietnam Case

33. Suggestions for implementing the BDC, where?, how? and with whom?

34. To identify … for supporting: - Develop strategies for international reservoir management to maximize the benefits, - Enhancing the optimum use of water from reservoirs for sustainable management.

35. Plan for integrated research

MAYBE, depending strongly on the participants:1. Learn and understand about impact of development in up-stream and down-stream2. A shared vision for the challenge program in the countries involved 3. … water allocation sharing between up-stream and down-stream4. Vision of further capacity building program

NO, is beyond the workshop:--none--


29

Annex 5b: “Go-around” Day 1 (Monday 4th May 2009)

• Good participation in the group work.• Liked the group work. Was a bit lost on the focus.• We have some way to move forward and I hope we get even better for the next phase of

CPWF.• I realized there are a lot of problems with reservoir management. • Enjoyed the friendly people.• Good discussions in the group.• This is a very good opportunity for many people to understand the problems. However, I

am not sure if everybody understands. I am afraid that there is some prejudice about hydropower from the comments I hear, seems that somebody is missing something. People have to understand perspective and somebody may have the tendency to just complain. This should be an opportunity for the governments of not so rich countries. We are poor governments and we try to do our best. And the government tries to repair and maintain the dams after the construction. You must also accept that there is a failure, but that the government is willing to do its best and well doing for the people. You must look on the positive side of things and the positive impact hydropower can have.

• Boru coordinated the group discussions very well and made the group understand the questions.

• Openness of discussion is very positive and what is inherit in the challenge. To improve we should even further clarify the BDC tomorrow.

• I was not present from the beginning but it looks that it is a good thing that participants were brought together and taken through the steps and process. Choosing the 3S might be not the best since it is an area that comes with a lot of problems in its own and there might be better alternative area to concentrate on.

• Very pleased about the discussion on hydropower, but disappointed to hear so little about food. Second positive would be great facilitation.

• This is a good opportunity for me to learn a lot. The program is new to me. I had a very good day.

• The process clarified a lot.• I am satisfied and enjoyed the discussion. The facilitator should improve and ensure that

everybody can have a say in the group discussions.• I agree on the government perception on hydropower and put something for the people

of the countries• Very interesting there are a lot of topics that need to be carified over the next couple of

days.• The discussion is very interesting the outcome of the ws will be very interesting for the

MRC project. • It is a good opportunity for these countries what is the next activity• We had an interesting discussion to day and it is not so easy to find how to manage the

reservoirs for the benefits for all• The working groups were good and looking forward to finalizing the vision, which will

need a bit more time.• I hope we will have a fruitful outcome of the workshop. Suggestion is to provide more

materials to the participants prior to the workshop for them to prepare themselves. • Excellent contributions and thankful for all the thoughts and depth of knowledge was

impressive.


30

Annex 5c: “Go-around” Day 2 (Tuesday 5th May 2009)

Most interesting part was that Sophie worked on the poster and we get snacks for a very cheap

Network maps very interesting people were sharing the ideas of each others work and the future,

Interesting to lean and see about the other countries how they are structured and to learn about the dam building planning

Net work map was a very interesting exercise to see the group members become active and to put together the identified actors from three different actors.

Opportunity for future research in Cambodia and in other countries is very exiting The way to work from now to the future The vision and see the wide range of issues around reservoirs and to see the network

maps in the different groups Enjoyed working with the ministry groups identifying some real opportunities Hearing the enormous perception, knowledge of the participants in this room. Learned about the network maps and the changes of the network and the changes of

the program on the regional and country level. Network maps vision and change worried a lot about the presentation of the vision and

the opportunities to the group in the next five years – the vision is very big for the next five years.

Enjoyed the day it is interesting to understand the level of complexity and different levels and scales.

Opportunity to get different ideas especially to see how the government point of view of the network maps

Strange to present something very complex quickly and simply Enjoyed the discussion to find out from the group, we missed out some important

stakeholders, key players from the countries. It is very useful and interesting the network map to find out more about the other

stakeholder groups, People who tried to understand this hydropower cross sector works - hope we can go

into more detail in the future, each country has different ways to go about it when it comes to planning and implementation

It is the first time to join the workshop would have liked to join from the beginning, we have the opportunity to share the idea what is the network mapping of each country.

Still go around in my head about next and final users and how we classify and influence them.

Enjoying regional and national change. It is good to see that we are on the same direction water use efficiency in the same general direction.

Very interesting and happy to join this workshop Fascinating how the countries came together with their network maps. Enjoyed that everybody worked so hard.

Any other comments or questions: Provide all the presentations and pictures on a memory stick and there will be a report

after the workshop. What will happen to the outputs of the workshop There will be a workbook with all the

outputs from the group works. Will we be sharing back with the people what has happened during the workshop?

CPWF will share how it has been used. And there is a CPWF website and the workshop and documentation will be placed there.


31

Annex 5d: End of Workshop Evaluation - Simplified After Action Review

WHAT TO IMPROVE WHAT WORKED WELL– Now, my expectation was met: to know a little

more about the CGIAR and BDC program and the PIPA tool. It is not easy to master it for a few days, but broadened my view.

– Not enough representation from region. We need good mix of stakeholders and also balance of those who participated in previous consultations.

– In general the workshop is organizing well and high result, if the organizer could send all material like network map, impact pathway … it would get better than this.

– Discussion groups might better be mixed.– Still complicated related to the scope for

discussion specifically or broadly.– I would appreciate to get document related to

workshop before [the event].– So many exercises, not much discussion in

plenary.– The exercises on focusing of project area/

breadth of program activities might have been useful to do on day 1, so that group discussions on day 3 were clearer in setting directions for next steps.

– Methodology might be ill-fitted if places and scale are not decided on, then things remain very general/ network maps too.

– Discussion groups have to mix. Research, Development, NGOs to improve background knowledge.

– MRC has just started a project on water use efficiency in irrigation and wil start the HP project soon. I hope MRC and CPWF would have cooperation in future.

– Needed more background information on how CPWF arrived at BDC and what were some of the other high research agendas.

– The original concept may have been too strongly emphasized and may have caused too much confusion/ dispersion in the team.

– Group a bit small.– I missed 1st day presentations so that I couldn’t

understand the relation between BDC and 3S.

– Entertainment was fun.– Excellent Logistics, entertainment and

organization.– We want to results of research study is used /

practiced for benefit for all.– Expectation is our idea in workshop can produce

future fruitful outcome for all.– Workshop excellent: generate ideas, group

discussions, food, arrangement, facilitation, brainstorming

– Process very good step by step. The meeting meets its objective.

– Group work facilitation was good and sincere, even though there were numerous differing opinions and views from original concept.

– Very interesting discussions and new ideas on water management good open forum

– My expectation on understanding of how improving multiple use of reservoir met.

– So good methodologies and direction of workshop: Problem Tree workshop Road Map.

– Expectation: changing of … next work and strategy of the changes.

– Good place and food.– Good communication of invitation participants to

workshop.– Excellent organizing, well discussing in group– Good process and discussions– Methods very good, guide discussion by workshop

organizer member during discussion.– I have learned through exercise 1-4 of the

Participatory Impact Pathway Analysis, identifying problem and how to the research output.

– Methods very good helps participants to stick to the agenda and the issues discussed.

– Methodology is also better to different idea as working group.

– Logistic fantastic. Nothing to be better.– It is so good for venue, food and entertainment.– Process and organization. Excellent!– Group discussion useful to get various

ideas/thoughts of others.– Content: very useful for my discussion and

learning. However, sometimes bit confused and not go to the right direction.


participatory impact pathway analysis (pipa) …boru.pbworks.com › f ›...

Documents