Ecosystems for Life:

A Bangladesh-India Initiative

Proceedings: Joint Authors Meeting

8 December 2010, Hotel Windsor, Bangkok, Thailand

 

Dialogue for Sustainable Management of Trans-Boundary Water Regimes in South Asia: A Bangladesh-India Initiative

Table of Contents Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 1 

Opening Session and Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2 

Session 2: Thematic Group Discussions .............................................................................................. 4 

Session 3: Presentation from the Thematic Groups ........................................................................... 4 

Discussions on the presentations ......................................................................................................... 10 

Other Issues/Decisions .......................................................................................................................... 14 

Closing Remarks .................................................................................................................................... 15 

Annexure 1: Agenda .............................................................................................................................. 17 

Annexure 2: List of Participants ............................................................................................................ 18 

Page | 1   

Overview The Joint Author Meeting was organised in Bangkok, Thailand on 8 December 2010, as a part of the larger dialogue process of the Ecosystems for Life programme. The ‘Ecosystems for Life: A Bangladesh-India Initiative’ uses a multi-stakeholder dialogue process to promote insights across the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna rivers systems. The major interventions under this project build on consultations with stakeholders, identification of institutions to carry out research projects, and facilitation of multi-stakeholder dialogues in the two countries and the region. The dialogues and research focuse on five thematic areas: food security, water productivity and poverty; impacts of climate change; convergence of inland navigation and integrated water resources management goals; environmental security and biodiversity conservation. Prior to selection of research topics, situation analysis on each of these thematic areas has been an important exercise for the project and provided the main support in identifying core specific issues for joint research. A total of 17 situation analysis papers on the five thematic areas have been commissioned in Bangladesh and India. These studies taken up in the later part of 2010 will end in early 2011. These situation analysis papers will distil core issues related to the themes of the project and its significance within the India-Bangladesh national and regional geographic focus; determine research gaps; and identify future priority areas for joint research. The papers, which are to provide the foundation for the joint research of the Initiative, were shared through multi-stakeholders workshops in Bangladesh and India in November 2011 and the ensuing feedback will be incorporated into the final documents. While the papers will be done for individual countries, it was important to bring the authors of these situation analysis papers to bring in a more regional, comprehensive and integrated viewpoint. The authors were joined by experts and practitioners working in relevant fields to guide and mentor the participants. The Joint Author Meeting focussed on strengthening ties between researchers in both countries and initiating a platform, where policy-makers, advocacy groups, research scientists and media from Bangladesh and India come together to interact and deliberate on water, food and environmental issues.

Page | 2   

Opening Session and Introduction The meeting began with welcome remarks from Mr. Ganesh Pangare, Asia Coordinator of IUCN’s Water and Wetlands Programme. Thanking the gathering for their time, Mr. Pangare elaborated on the past events of the project and the future activities. He then requested everyone for a round of introductions with their areas of expertise and the situation analysis papers they were working on, following which he gave everyone a brief introduction of IUCN and the project. Explaining the objective of the authors’ meeting, he said that the situation analysis studies commissioned by the project were primarily for three purposes:

To look at the current knowledge and gaps in the given thematic areas of the project To identify issues for research within these themes To compile a reference list and bibliography of material available on these themes.

He further mentioned that IUCN is looking forward to receiving some key issues common to both countries by January 15, 2011.

Following the introduction, Ms. Bushra Nishat and Dr. Nidhi Nagabhatla, Project Managers from Bangladesh and India respectively, shared outcomes of the multi-stakeholder meetings held Dhaka, Delhi, Kolkata and Gohauti in November 2010. These outcomes are primarily list of issues, existing information gaps and general recommendations for research which would be addressed in thematic situation analysis papers. Ms. Nilufar Banu from Bangladesh Unnayan Parishad, Dhaka commented that while one could expect aspects of the situation analysis studies to be clearer in the consultation, the January or February deadline was still short and it could limit the number of issues.

Page | 3   

Mr. Pangare clarified that while detailing of an issue could be limited in a short time frame, the issue itself would not be so. He further stated that the situation analysis papers were not looked upon as books. These were to be briefs of 25-30 pages on the themes with rationales pertinent to themes and contextual issues to help generate research ideas of the project. For this, these pre-research papers were commissioned to people who were well-versed in their respective subjects. Answering another query of Dr. Mukund Behera, Assistant Professor at IIT Kharagpur, about linking up the five themes of the project, Mr. Pangare said that the Sundarban could be considered to link themes. This linking up would be done as the project moved along and upon importance from experts and authors of the papers. Ms. Bushra Nishat, Project Manager of Ecosystems for Life in Bangladesh also added that if one issue came out strongly in all the papers, then it would be considered one of priority. Dr. Bharat Sharma of IWMI, New Delhi, sought some clarification on the geographical focus of the project whether project activities would cover entire India or some specific areas. He also enquired about the approach to synthesise the papers coming from Bangladesh and India on the same theme. According to Mr. Pangare, the geographical region is going to be primarily the GBM region although the project does not explicitly mention so. The project would consider larger geographic coverage to include beyond the GBM region when such need is felt in due course. Regarding synthesizing the thematic papers, the project is open to ideas of commissioning a third person for synthesis. This depends on organization and content of the issues developed by the authors along with contradictions being well documented. Professor Jayanta Bandopadhyay of IIM Calcutta and Project Advisory Committee member also commented on the final output from the situation analysis studies. It could be a synthesis report covering all five themes and could be the only product. But most importantly, each report should stand out professionally. In a manner of getting a consensus on the issue, Mr. Pangare said that there could be:

One report for each theme or; Standalone reports from each of the situation analysis or; A synthesised report of all themes

Continuing the discussion on the nature of reports, Mr. Nityananda Chakravorty of Bangladesh said that authors and the person synthesising the reports should include cross-cutting issues in each theme. This would be an addition to the papers. Mr. Pangare agreed on the possibilities and left it for further discussion with the authors and the NAC members. Dr. Sugata Hazra of the School of Oceanographic Sciences, Jadavpur University opined that water, food, population, inland navigation and biodiversity could be cross-cutting issues that could hold the themes together. He also suggested two interdisciplinary topics – to look at changes occurring by natural as well as development drivers. Taking these drivers into account, one should then identify the issues for the pertinent geographic areas and basins. Dr. Nagabhatla clarified that authors of the situation analysis papers were requested to look at cross-cutting issues and it has been mentioned in their TORs. The discussion then moved to the notion of the GBM region. Professor Bandopadhyay opined one needed a comprehensive and interdisciplinary understanding at the basin level and the project should have an option of referring to it. In such a context, GBM may be the ultimate term, but is not always applicable from the perspective of the project. Adding more on the synthesis of papers, he suggested that the PAC should have a central role and ownership as far as advice on the reports was concerned. Material on the themes should be

Page | 4   

shared with the authors and the NAC can advise on the compilation of a bibliography. Mr. Pangare suggested that the stakeholder reports should also be sent to the authors to enable them to incorporate ideas and issues from these in the reports. According to him the project would need to synergise with other processes. Session 2: Thematic Group Discussions

Moderated by Mr. Ganesh Pangare Following these discussions, the authors from Bangladesh and India were divided into five groups according to the following themes:

Food security, water productivity and poverty

Impacts of climate change

Environmental security

Inland navigation

Biodiversity Conservation

The experts and NAC could join any group of their choice or move between different groups. The project team from Bangladesh, India and Bangkok accompanied the thematic groups as facilitators. Session 3: Presentation from the Thematic Groups

Moderated by Mr. Ganesh Pangare After deliberations each thematic groups presented their discussions and decision. Following is a gist of their discussions.

Group 1: Food Security, Water Productivity and Poverty

Presented by Mr. Wameq Raza and Mr. Arvinda Kumar

On sharing the situation analysis outline (Food Security and Poverty):

Bangladesh: Using agro-ecological zoning ( district/sub-district ) as a criterion to address food

security issues Incorporation of cropping patterns /crop diversification and productivity

in relation to disasters Food security will be analysed with respect to indicators such as food grains,

horticulture, fish and so forth Essentially use a combination of primary data from questionnaires Will take into account the “basin” perspective Compare basic demographics and others factors to the national level indicators Panel analysis using longitudinal data Take into account how migration, flooding, river ban erosion and so forth impact on

the level of food security Soil health and degradation

Page | 5   

India: The data will be analysed at multiple levels – National, Regional, State and the

District Levels The data will be analysed with respect to drivers and impacts Food security will be analysed with respect to indicators such as food grains,

horticulture, fish and so forth Relationship between food security and poverty (scaling of poverty using localized

definitions) Links between food security and water management and quality (using water as

ecosystems delivery system) The issues can be categorized - Natural, social and economic

On sharing the situation analysis outline (Water Productivity and Poverty):

Addressed with the basin perspective Spatial and temporal variation of poverty and/or water productivity and their interlink Using a scenario approach (for example, situation pertaining to the Ganges..) Using longitudinal analysis to address water productivity in the context of poverty Links between water prod. & poverty & environmental/seasonal migration Dealing with extreme climatic variations (such as variation in rainfall, storms, salinity

& floods, droughts ) Address unique ecosystems such as the Sundarban Study links between: surface, sub-surface and rainfall in the context of water

productivity

Identified gaps in research

Lack of baseline data from the region The existing data is scattered and needs to be accumulated Lack of trans-sectoral research approach (e.g., need to establish links between food

insecurity and health or poverty and health, links between agriculture and climate change etc.)

Uncertainty within the land distribution system and specially the accredited land Need to formulate or implement necessary policies Participatory/local community based approach to address issues Improved food security and reduced poverty through appropriate policy support and

improved institutional mechanisms

Timelines

A short summary on keys issues by the 15th of January, 2011 (should include: data gaps and challenges and issues: 2 to 3 pages)

First draft by 15th February, 2011 Final report by the end of February, 2011

Page | 6   

Group 2: Impacts of Climate Change

Presented by Mr. Ranjan Panda

Key issues identified by the group

• Systemic Approach • Hydrological changes • Agriculture changes • Health related changes • Livelihood changes • Meteorological changes/variability • Forestry and biodiversity • Infrastructure • Ecosystem services • Hazard, Risk, Vulnerability, Capacity scenarios

Results based on the key issues

1. Type of situation analysis report (common or separate)? – A final common report with each author responsible for different volunteered/

agreed topic 2. How will common report reflect differences between authors?

– Author responsible for writing specific topics with same format/ approach/guidelines given and consultation to linked authors

– Final synthesis after circulation of draft 3. How to synthesize the report?

– Agreed to have group coordinator who will consolidate the report, review, comments, and send back author for revision.

– Each author is required to review the synthesized report. 4. Cross-cutting issues for thematic report?

– Supplement the cross-cutting issues to related topics specific authors 5. Issues for working on the ground

– Each such section will be identified by each author and will be included to the extent possible

Group 3: Environmental Security

Presented by Dr. Nilanjan Ghosh

Definition of the theme

• State of a symbiotic relation between the changing natural environment and security of human societies is accepted here as Environmental Security.

• Human security embedded in this definition • Environmental security as a state of absence of conflicts in the complex and

interconnected relations in and between the biological, social, economic, cultural processes human societies and the natural environment

• Environmental security, thus, depends on dynamics in the natural environment, population change, degree of access to the environmental resources, etc.

• Interaction between and among the determinants of environmental security sets the stage for addressing the environmental security challenges.

Page | 7   

Objective of the situation analysis exercise on this theme

• To facilitate a new conceptual framework in understanding transboundary water regimes in the context of the overarching theme of environmental security

• To facilitate a process of creating a map for new and interdisciplinary research that can enhance linkages between issues in Bangladesh and India

Approach based on this objective

• A common research agenda looking at environmental security from different lenses – economic, ecological, international relations and social. The thrust is to move from a narrow hydraulic perception to an eco-hydrological one.

• Identify research areas and subjects that would be eventually converged towards addressing environmental security in transboundary water regimes – mainly in the GBM in general and between Bangladesh and India in particular - in the context of the definition and objectives

Methodology

• Common methodology looking at research gaps • Based on IUCN meetings in Bangladesh and India • Desk research with secondary material available and information/data available in

the public domain • Expert consultations

Questions to be addressed by the group

• Understanding of transboundary water flows in a historical context • Ecosystem services and linkages to livelihoods • Economic value and scarcity value of water linking with intensity of conflict/integrated

value study • Natural monsoon inundations • Considering the river basins functioning each as a single basin-level ecosystem

production unit • Ecosystem status and changes in the transboundary regime in different geophysical

zones • Water hazards, migration and loss of property, life and livelihood • Environmental security/insecurity and women • Availability and access to water • Watershed level management to look at availability and usage of water resources • Options to have civil society network on environmental security and a regional

knowledge hub • Broader assessment of upstream structural interventions (like Farakka) to look at

issues such as potential of such add value to ecosystem as a whole • Geomorphological dynamics at sources of conflicts • Health issues – ecosystem and human

Page | 8   

Group 4: Inland Navigation

Presented by Dr. Dinesh Mishra and on behalf of Mr. Syed Monowar Hussein

One of the two authors of the theme Mr. Syed Monower Hussain from Bangladesh could not attend this meeting and provided his inputs in advance for authors meeting. Dr. Dinesh Mishra from India addressed issues from both the countries and key points from Bangladesh were presented by Dr. Mishra on behalf of Mr. Hussein.

Comparing inter-country cargo carried in both Bangladesh and India between 2004 and 2010, the presentation stated that while the volume of cargo in the former is increasing, it has been on a gradual decline in India. The presentation then looked at the protocol on inland water transit and trade between Bangladesh and India. The Protocol was first signed in 1972 and later another protocol was signed in 2009. The latter is slotted to be renewed in 2011. The idea of the protocol is to make mutually beneficial arrangements for the use of waterways for commerce between the two countries and for passage of goods between two places in one country through the territory of other. The main features of the protocol are:

• Cross-border trade • Transit trade • Maintenance of the routes for smooth navigation • Transshipment at Ashuganj and at Sherpur

The routes under the protocol are:

1. Kolkata-Haldia-Raimangal-Mongla-Khulna-Kawkhali-Barisal-Chandpur-Narayanganj-Aricha-Sirajganj-Chilmari-Dhubri-Pandu-Silghat

2. Kolkata-Haldia-Raimangal-Mongla-Khulna-kawkhali-Barisal-Chandpur-Bhairabbazar-Ashuganj-Sherpur-Zakiganj-Karimganj.

3. Rajshahi-Godagari-Dhulian

4. Karimganj-Sherpur-Ashuganj-Narayanganj-Aricha-Sirajganj-Chilmari-Dhubri-Pandu-Silghat.

The protocol has the following ports of call:

• Bangladesh – Narayanganj, Khulna, Mongla, Sirjganj and Ashuganj • India – Kolkata, Haldia, Pandu, Karimganj and Silghat

Current state of knowledge on the theme

• 70% of off-season discharge comes from northern tributaries of Ganga • No data or information regarding traffic flow and future projection • Sedimentation and meandering of the Ganga and its tributaries • Rehabilitation of people living within the embankments of the rivers • No data or information regarding conditions of the rivers • No data or information regarding traffic flow and future projection • Vessel design • Modernisation of loading/unloading

Page | 9   

Key issues for the development of cross-border IWT trade

• Improvement of navigability of the existing Protocol and future routes • Identification of the most economic transport chain, establishing connectivity and

ways to improve other infrastructures

Priority research areas within the theme

• Find out the causes of the deteriorating conditions of the river and determine the ways and means for improving sustainable navigability;

• Find out the benefit of the socio-economics; • Find out the benefit on environment; • Find out appropriate technology to improve the efficiency of inland navigation; • Find out the requirement for amendment/simplification/waiver of existing regulatory

framework; • Digital survey and electronic dissemination; • Enhance efficiency of vessel and the crew; • Appropriate mechanization of loading/unloading.

Group 5: Biodiversity Conservation

Presented by Mr. Solaiman Haider

Core Biodiversity Issues for Joint Research

Conservation of Bengal Tiger Top-dyeing of Sundri trees Habitat Conservation for Gangetic Dolphin and Ghorial Migration pattern of Marine Turtles Conservation and information sharing of Whales Sharks and Dolphins in the Swatch-

of-No-Ground Hilsha spawning and migratory routes Cross-boundary Migration of Elephants (Sherpur, Banderban) Competition for Various Resources (Fisheries, Forestry etc.) Wildlife trafficking (needs dialogue and enforcement) Conservation of Germplasm to maintain agricultural biodiversity

Core issues within the theme

Watershed management in the bordering areas Conservation of Protected Areas Pollution management in riparian rivers Impacts of Transboundary Air Pollution on the health of ecosystems Biodiversity Conservation in the face of climate change, variability and extreme

events Any other potential areas of research

Page | 10   

Milestones for the group

Individual reporting of the authors – 31st Dec 2010 Joint reporting on key issues -10th Jan, 2011 Submission to IUCN -13th Jan 2011 Submission to 2 chairs of NAC-15th Jan, 2011 Multi-stakeholder meeting after 18th Jan 2011 Sending to e-group by IUCN-18th Jan 2011 Joint report would be presented to the PAC on 7th Feb 2011.

Recommendations/Implementation Plan

To be framed on the basis of the outcome of the multi-stakeholder workshops

Discussions on the presentations Food Security, Water Productivity and Poverty

Discussions following the presentation highlighted several conceptual and methodological issues in the theme. Ms. Meena Gupta, NAC member, pointed out that the issue of food security needed to be looked at in the context of marginalised and vulnerable people.

Dr. Nilanjan Ghosh of Takshashila Academia commented that there would be issues within the terminology used for productivity and one needed to be careful on conceptual aspects. Dr. Ghosh also felt that distribution is a crucial aspect of food security and looking at the relation between these, the definition of food security should be narrowed down to water productivity in this case. The theme should look at:

Recent literature on water and economics vis-à-vis the project Innovations and institutional interventions happening to address food security issues Crops and usage of water Linkages between water and food Aspect of distribution (market and the public distribution system) Availability vs. Access to resources Applying the ecosystem approach to issues of food security

Dr. Bharat Sharma of IWMI (one of the authors on this theme) stated that the group was looking at combining water related data and its links to poverty as a product. Professor Bandopadhyay opined that production has to be looked at in the context of quality, consumption and population. The population factor, according to him, is a critical element in assessing the footprint of food requirement.

It emerged in the discussions that there were many processes going on within the theme. There are technological solutions, adaptation, mitigation, changes in legal and policy issues. While studies suggest impacts of solar radiation in terms of evaporation and land use is going to be an important aspect of the study. Indicators of poverty and the scale at which this issue needs to be addressed – whether at block levels or district levels – were also pointed out.

Dr. Giash Uddin Miah of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agriculture University stated that minimal environmental or ecological flows should be studied as these are important in

Page | 11   

any intervention on river ecosystems that are directly related to the abundance of fish, dependency of livelihood and transportation. Siltation and pollution are two other issues that would come in here. While quality of silt is decreasing making it only sand, there is a resultant impact on production.

Dr. Miah pointed out further that with decrease in fish diversity and so is soil fertility and quality. Availability of water for livelihood and production is only for 2 to 3 months in a year. People are also utilising sub-surface water thereby, reducing the quantities. If one looks at the 300 litres of water that is used to produce 1 kg of rice, it would be better to use the surface water available. So it would be worthwhile to study the rivers and their services. There should be an assessment of production and production support by a river system and by ecosystem as a whole. Moreover, food security needs to be connected to environmental security particularly those issues raised on crop productivity from using certain volume of surface waters, such as from rivers. This would mean calculating total production based on ecosystem-based services for agricultural production.

Inland Navigation

In the context of the project, Dr. Nagabhatla mentioned that the IUCN team is already collating available data on the subject. There is an intern in Delhi who is doing research at the Inland Waterways Authority of India office and they have delegated a resource person to help with the task.

According to Dr. Chandan Mahanta of IIT Guwahati, there are major navigable stretches in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. The issues that perhaps need attention are sedimentation and their impact of navigability. One would need to follow the artery system of navigation. Professor Bandopadhyay commented that navigation is related to economic systems and economic locations. Navigation, with these two factors, has to be looked at in the context of shifting rivers. Dr. Hazra suggested that Brahmaputra should be brought in to the study of inland navigation and one would need to look at the factors for changes in navigation over time.

Page | 12   

According to Dr. Mishra, while the Brahmaputra and the Ganges should be major arterial routes, Dr. Mishra stated that the state of the rivers was not very good. There have been documents written with details of log transportation and other goods and materials being carried through various rivers and tributaries including the meandering points. With a thrust in the inland navigation sector, proper research has to be conducted in boats that would include types of boats and their manoeuvrability in different river systems. However, equally important is the fact that relevant stakeholders should listen to what comes out of this research and take policy decisions.

Climate Change

Responding to suggestions on distribution of responsibility, Dr. Mahanta said that the group needed to be tactful and in a systemic manner within the mandate given by the project. Intermediately clarity on the role of IUCN in facilitating this process would be of help to the authors. It has to comment on whether things are adequate now or additional issues need to be brought in. There is a good distribution and availability of data with all the participants of the studies. All would need to help each other and build upon each other’s strengths.

Dr. K Shreelakshmi of The Energy and Resources Institute asked the other groups if everyone was looking at climate change as there could be an issue of duplication of work. She said that they would look more at adaptation and issues of water, etc. She suggested that broad issues related to climate change on food security, biodiversity and other themes might focus on physical scarcity, impacts on microeconomics for changes and adaption requirements. Dr. Sharma responded that while they did not include climate change, they would certainly have a small section briefing its impacts on their theme. This would not be guesswork, but an analysis of scientific data. Dr. Sharma also requested the climate change

Page | 13   

group to send key issues included in their papers to avoid duplication of work in other themes and organize focus on climate change in other themes.

Professor Bandopadhyay commented that the climate change debate had been filled with differences since the very beginning. An effort at uniformity would disable the authors to keep to the timeline. So there should be various priorities with the groups as it would bring more issues for debate and critique.

Environmental Security

Dr. Hazra commented that this theme should look at policy level aspects and issues related to the theme in addition to specific focused issues. Drawing example from climate change, Mr. Ranjan Panda said that in addressing a problem under this theme, impacts of projects on local or national levels in terms ground work, fiscal allocation and donor aid should be taken into account.

Biodiversity Conservation

Dr. Behera, discussing biodiversity, said that there are three core issues that emerged in the discussions on the theme.

Assessment of biodiversity and looking at indicator or flagship species and bringing in lesser known species

GIS based platform to conduct this assessment on geo-spatial and temporal scales to observe land use change using reference and historical data

Creation of a database information system using GIS-based platform

He then mentioned about the following approach of research to be considered when authors identify issues for situation analysis

Narrowing down scope of research to assessment of biodiversity and identify general gaps with recommendations to overcome such gaps

Following assessments of biodiversity and knowledge/information gaps, conduct research at species level

What needed to be discussed here would be the time-frame/starting point that such an assessment would take into consideration.

Additional comments on themes

Commenting that the themes were vast, Dr. Hazra suggested that there is a need to have a structured approach. While the groups listed a large number of issues and areas, it could create a problem for the authors. One would also need to divide responsibilities among groups. For example the theme of climate change is quite exhaustive and the work should be divided between participants of the study to focus in thematic areas. One has to approach the themes from the perspectives of a) changes happening in these themes and b) activity based issues as interaction points caused by natural and developmental drivers and the impacts of the same and c) policy level decisions or policy oriented development.

Page | 14   

He further made the following points on biodiversity:

Address change of forest area in upper and lower parts of Sundarban Look at human intervention indicators Details of fish diversity and carry out a comparative study on temporal and spatial

scales for a strong indication of change

On food security, he suggested that one needs to look at:

Population dynamics Change in land use and settlement isssues Diminishing agricultural land and increasing population Population and access to water

On climate change, he recommended that authors should consider climate change for each theme to focus on relevant issues since climate change impacts all areas of the themes.

Such an approach would make it worthwhile to link poverty with other themes, one of the key themes of the project.

Mr. Ranjan Panda, opined that the existing apprehension about climate change, water productivity, rice production etc. is that various varieties of rice and cash crops have been introduced where small and marginal farmers have been pushed out. So addressing these vulnerable groups would be important as well as acknowledge producer sections who face scarcity at the ground level. There are debates on climate change and on management of resources (or whatever is left) forgetting about the source of the whole discourse. It presumes that resources will be scarcer. These issues should be addressed seriously too.

Ms. Gupta said that the emphasis should be more on action based on the studies conducted. The studies should not be an end, but a means to engage with issues in Bangladesh and India. Action becomes more important the issue of poverty is closely related to it. Moreover, exercises such as these to understand issues have the ultimate goal of facilitating social equity. This should be the fundamental concept behind all our actions.

Other Issues/Decisions On the nomenclature of the project Prof. Bandopadhyay raised the issue of the name of the project stating that while conceptually the participants are tuned to transboundary water dialogues, they were made to reorient to Ecosystems for Life. Ecosystems are important within countries as well and that leads to the question whether we are looking at transboundary issues or issues within countries as well. This clarification would be needed now for the authors to adhere to the deliverable timelines. The spatial aspect of the project is very critical.

Ms. Meena Gupta stated that since there is a slight gap because of change in the project title, a sub-heading addressing somehow ‘water’ would be useful for stakeholders and authors. She further stressed that authors should remember that all issues and findings should direct towards concerns over social equity.

Page | 15   

Mr. Pangare responded the project clearly is a transboundary one. If we look at the issue of arsenic, it is on both sides and the problem is also being managed by both countries. It is regional in nature and is based on the common hydro-geographical region. This project is based on ecosystems, and called Ecosystems for Life, with a basin perspective and a transboundary angle. There are country specific issues too and these have to be examined accordingly. However, in cases such as recommendations to governments or policy, these have to be done jointly. The heart of the project is still water. While the name has been altered for certain compulsions, the project will bring Nepal and Bhutan and talk about water explicitly at a later stage. The project is to build trust and not to create animosity. The idea is to see how this research is going to help both the countries. Moreover, there has to be sensitivity and one has to be careful as IUCN is accountable to both the civil society and the governments.

On the nature of reports

The nature of reports was discussed a noticeable number of times. There were suggestions advocating both standalone and joint reports. There were opinions on taking that decision after the reports were received as there could be issues specific to Bangladesh or India. There should be a certain degree of independence and flexibility. There should not be, however, any factual contradictions in the reports.

It was finally decided that the report aspect would be left to each thematic group to decide. The emphasis now would be to get the individual reports in by January. Mr. Pangare mentioned that IUCN will get back to the authors for further research in February 2011 and at a later stage.

Closing Remarks Mr. Ganesh Pangare

Mr. Pangare said that this exercise was just one aspect of the project. The situation analysis papers are meant to bring down the vastness of the themes to a concise report in order to help identify research issues and gaps. Thus, the situation analysis papers are comprehensive analysis of the topics to be identified for in-depth joint research. The authors should look at issues and research that are doable and achievable within a time frame, and at the same time can facilitate policy options. For example, the group dealing with water issues would need to look more into how lives and livelihoods are being affected. The core idea is to look at how issues impact vulnerable populations.

He clarified the participants further on this note that there have to be research areas doable on the ground ranging from broad theme to small scale subject. At the end of day, IUCN would like to publish these outcomes and find out modality to assist the governments for necessary actions. Therefore, there is a need to see whether we can help both the governments to take action or to form joint teams for joint policy. He stated that 2011 would be the year when the project would get into full scale research.

Page | 16   

The reports would be distilled by February and there would be a larger meeting in March to look at ways of moving ahead. There will be the authors and from both the countries and keeping the dialogical process, things will be ratified by a larger group of stakeholders. The philosophy of the project is credible scientific research and we should be able to say it.

He thanked all participants for their time and effort to be at Bangkok for such rich discussions.

The meeting was adjourned.

Page | 17   

Annexure 1: Agenda Regional Ecosystems for Life: A Bangladesh-India Initiative Project Meeting (Authors

of Situational Analysis Papers & Experts)

Hotel Windsor Suites, 8-10 Sukhumvit Soi 20, Bangkok, Thailand

December 8, 2010

Time Contents Responsibility

0900-0910 Welcome Ganesh Pangare

0910-0930 Introduction of participants Ganesh Pangare

0930-0945 Objectives of the consultation Ganesh Pangare

0945-1000 Progress from Bangladesh Bushra Nishat

1000-1015 Progress from India Nidhi Nagabhatla

1015-1030 Discussion Ganesh Pangare

1030-1045 Coffee Break

1045-1230 Five thematic group discussion

Thematic Group Discussion: Food security, water productivity and poverty

Nidhi Nagabhatla

Thematic Group Discussion: Climate change

Lalita Rammont

Thematic Group Discussion: Inland navigation

Bushra Nishat

Thematic Group Discussion: Environmental security

Kazimudin Ahmed

Thematic Group Discussion: Biodiversity conservation

Shahzia Mohsin Khan

1230-1330 Lunch

1330-1430 Time to prepare presentation by joint authors

Authors

1430-1530 Presentation by each thematic group Authors

1530-1545 Coffee Break

1545-1645 Plenary discussion

1645-1700 Wrap up and next steps Ganesh Pangare

1830-2000 Welcome dinner at IUCN ARO

Page | 18   

Annexure 2: List of Participants

Theme Bangladesh Authors

India Authors Expert NAC

Food Security, Water Productivity and Poverty

Dr. Nilufar Banu

Bangladesh Unnayan Parishad

Dr. Bharat Sharma

International Water Management Institute

Mr. Wameq A Raza

BRAC

Mr. Avnindra Kumar

Development Alternatives

Dr. Md Giash Uddin Miah

Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agriculture University

Mr. C.M. Shafi Sami

Former Foreign Secretary Government of Bangladesh

Climate Change

Mr. Nandan Mukherjee

Centre for Environment and GIS (CEGIS)

Mr. Ranjan K Panda

Water Initiatives Orissa

Professor Dr. M Monowar Hossain

Department of Water Resources

Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka

Mr. Nittyananda Chakravorty

Independent Researcher

Dr. K Shreelakshmi

The Energy and Resources Institute

Dr. Sugata Hazra

Professor & Director

School of Oceanographic Studies

Jadavpur University, Calcutta

Page | 19   

Theme Bangladesh Authors

India Authors Expert NAC

Dr. Chandan Mahanta

Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati

Inland Navigation

Mr. Syed Monower Hossain

(could not attend)

Dr. Dinesh K Mishra

Independent Researcher

Mr. Shiv Shankar Mukherjee

Former Ambassador, India

Environmental Security

Mr. Faiz Ahmed Choudhury

Unnayan Onneshan

Dr. Nilanjan Ghosh

Takshashila Academia of Economic Research Limited

Professor Jayanta Bandopadhyay

Professor and Head Centre for Development and Environment Policy, IIM, Calcutta

Mr. Shahab Enam Khan

Jahangir Nagar University

Biodiversity Mr. Mohammad Solaiman Haider

Department of Environment

Dr. Mukund D Behera

Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

Mr. Junaid Kabir Choudhury

Former Chief Conservator of Forests

North South University, Dhaka

Ms. Meena Gupta

Former Secretary

Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India

Page | 20   

Theme Bangladesh Authors

India Authors Expert NAC

Dr. Abdul Wakid

IUCN SSC Cetacean Specialist GroupHead, Gangetic Dolphin Research and Conservation Programme, Aaranyak

IUCN Participants:

1. Dr. Zakir M Hussain, Director, Constituency Development and Coordination, IUCN

ARO

2. Mr. Ganesh Pangare, Coordinator, Regional Water and Wetlands Programme, IUCN

ARO

3. Ms. Lalita Rammont, Programme Officer, Regional Water and Wetlands Programme,

IUCN ARO

4. Ms. Bushra Nishat, Project Manager-Bangladesh, Ecosystems for Life

5. Ms. Shahzia Mohsin Khan, Dialogue Coordinator-Bangladesh, Ecosystems for Life

6. Dr. Nidhi Nagabhatla, Project Manager-India, Ecosystems for Life

7. Mr. Kazimuddin Ahmed, Dialogue Coordinator-India, Ecosystems for Life