A quick summary of ongoing discussion

[vishnu pandey]

-----------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE/REMINDER:

·         Please introduce yourself in your first posting

·         Please indicate the sub-theme to which your views/comments are related to

·         This discussion would continue until 18^th March only. Closing remarks from moderators’ team indicate closure of e-discussion. Those who are observing silently are encouraged to participate in the discussion

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dear distinguished participants,

Thank you so much for expression your opinions/comments on the ongoing discussion. At least 27 views/comments are posted so far since the discussion opened on 9^th March (8 AM). We are expecting more discussion in the next 3 days. To facilitate discussion, here we tried to provide a quick summary of discussion made so far;

 

Sub-Theme	Discussion
Necessary groundwork for Transboundary cooperation	·  Recall of bilateral negotiations & treaties between riparian counties in the basin (e.g., Sarada Barrange Agreement; Farakka Agreement) ·  Recall of statement from Bob Varady in 1991 to relate failure of the riparian countries to establish a Transboundary commission; which ultimately resulted loss in opportunities that could be trapped through the cooperation ·  Knowledge management through formation of inclusive committee across the borders to ensure access to regional agreements & data/information ·  Some reasons for inadequate progress in Transboundary cooperation in the basin were noted as: perpetual institutional failure, benefit-centric discussion, limited type-I negotiations, flawed Type III negotiations, and Rare Type II negotiations. ·  Need of promote trust between riparian countries ·  Need of attempts to identify common problems and common grounds for solution is essential ·  Need to learn from other areas (e.g., Mekong, Tigris-Euphrates, etc) ·  There is a long way to go … ·  … … …
Sharing benefits/risks	·  At least two papers highlighting benefit/ risk sharing in the Ganges basin were shared ·  Need of vision and wisdom for the Transboundary negotiations in economic sense that offer opportunities for jobs and socio-economic transformation of all the riparian countries. A delay in cooperation is loss of opportunities. ·  Some views encouraged to think for the benefit of own country first and then for the others in the basin. Harnessing hydropower and boosting economic strength makes Nepal in a better place for Transboundary cooperation ·  Need to look for ways that creates synergy of efforts (same amount of efforts by a single country creates benefit for more number of people in the basin) ·  Defining consumptive use of riparian countries; jointly developing and providing markets for hydroelectricity ·  International organizations like UNO should take initiatives to make sure that international laws regarding Transboundary Rivers are adequately followed ·  … … …
Context of hidden resources	·  Need of vulnerability and risk assessment to the aquifers and springs in the tributaries in Himalayan Mountain region; community participation is the MUST for such assessments ·  Need to realize that groundwater is not a finite and hidden resources; knowledge generation is needed; a recently published book “Kathmandu Valley Groundwater Outlook” was given as an example of knowledge generation ·  Need to raise profile of groundwater in political agenda ·  Regular interaction, workshops among scholars in the riparian countries to compile information and develop joint efforts for maximizing benefits of Transboundary aquifer in the basin ·  … … …
Type-II diplomacy for Transboundary cooperation	·  Multi-track diplomacy for Transboundary negotiations was introduced (Track I: efforts led by the riparian governments; Track II: efforts led by the Think Tanks; Track III: efforts led by civil society organizations through advocacy to stimulate Track I & II diplomacies). ·  Some examples of Type-II diplomacy; regional initiatives to that end (e.g., SAWI, Abu Dhabi Dialogues (2006-2011)), some other initiatives (e.g., PCCP) etc were recalled ·  Water scientists within the basin (regardless of political boundary) should align together;  formulating science-based view; and stimulate politicians use the view for Transboundary negotiations ·  No merely bilateral dialogue but round-table discussion is necessary ·  … … …

 

With Best Regards,

Vishnu Prasad Pandey

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Dr. Eng.

Researcher

International Research Center for River Basin Environment (ICRE), 

University of Yamanashi
4-3-11, Takeda, Kofu, Yamanashi 400-8510, JAPAN

 

Email: vis...@yamanashi.ac.jp; vishnu...@gmail.com
Phone: (+81) 806 751 6443 (Mob), 55 242 7015 (Res), 55 220 8670 (Off)

Skype: vishnuprasadpandey
URL: http://www.icre.yamanashi.ac.jp/e/index.html

[Bishnu Gautam]

Namaste. I am Bishnu Prasad Gautam, currently a PhD student at the University of Toronto, Canada. I have worked in hydropower sector for the last 8 years. I appreciate this group discussion initiative taken on a sensitive and complex issue of water sharing. I hope this will pave a very important path ahead. 

Realizing the need of a similar initiative, I had floated an idea in one of the Engineer's groups one and half years ago. I thought it is relevant to copy the portion of that email, which follows below under the quotes. As mentioned below, I urge for a legitimate and powerful body, most likely Nepal Engineers Association, to set a program to make a national consensus about the rivers like Mahakali, Karnali and Koshi. Let's have a series of discussions and debates, and formulate a NATIONAL RESOLUTION, which will not be a political agenda of one party but will be a national agenda of Nepal. It is a real pity for we Engineers and Water Resources Experts to have the water related articles in the mainstream Nepali media written not by the experts but by somebody who is either far irrelevant or totally ignorant of the field or utterly biased and guided by a vested interest. 

Thank you.

"Pancheshwor has long been regarded as a controversial project. Nepal is divided, politics is divided and we Engineers are divided. Many of us even don't know whether it is in or against the favour of Nepal.Worst of all, we are following the views of those who know far less than us and who were supposed to be guided by us. In this scenario, can NEA take this agenda at its heart and make a consensus among we Engineers about it (whether this is desh premi or rastraghati!)? With the establishment of this consensus, no matter which government comes or goes, we will be having the same version and we will have the morality to stay on that version. In a true sense, we will be guiding our nation and national in dilemma by using our true professionalism. Yes, Engineers are not the only stakeholders for development projects and we cannot dictate people, but we can guide them and I believe it is only the NEA which truely deserves this role. 

It has long appeared that NEA has not become the organization that it should have been. It appears that we are diminishing the role of NEA by talking about the broader topics than what we are supposed to focus on. We should have guided politicians in technical matters and policy making. How much we really did contribute in our constitution making, let alone the policy making, is questionable. If we take this one step, our course will find our true destiny. "