INTERNATIONAL WATER CONFERENCE Hanoi, Vietnam,

October 14-16, 2002

Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment in Malaysia

By: Mohd Azhari bin Ghazalli and Thayalan Gopal

DIALOGUE ON WATER, FOOD AND ENVIRONMENT IN

MALAYSIA

Mohd Azhari bin Ghazalli1, Thayalan Gopal2 1 ABSTRACT

Malaysia is rich in water resources. Water development has fueled socio-economic development of the country during the past decades. Dams and thousands of kilometers of pipes and canals divert water from the rivers to sustain domestic, industrial and agricultural needs. Lately, the water situation for the country has changed from one of relative abundance to one of relative scarcity. The population growth and the expansion in urbanization, industrialization and irrigated agriculture are daunting on the rapidly growing demands and pressure on water resources, besides contributing to the rising water pollution.

The major issues are the paradoxical situation of too much water on one hand and water scarcity on the other hand. Frequent occurrence of floods has adverse impacts on agricultural production while there is the increasing problem of insufficient water supply to meet the demand for agriculture, industrial production and domestic use. Environmental concerns include ineffective management of wetlands, siltation and erosion at estuaries and water pollution.

The Malaysian National Dialogue Committee has been formed to initiate efforts in arresting these issues through organized and friendly interactions among stakeholders. The aim of the dialogue process is to trigger actions at basin, sector and national level based on knowledge and stakeholder participation.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Malaysia is committed to the global Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment. Through the initiative of the Malaysian Water Partnership (MWP), together with the Malaysian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (MANCID) and the Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID), a National Dialogue Organizing Committee has been formed to implement the dialogue process at three levels – local or basin level, sector and national levels. Three important river basins have been selected for this initiative and the first dialogue was conducted in the Kerian/Sg Kurau river basin from 9th to 11th July, 2002. This report summarizes the Malaysian experience in starting and implementing the processes.

1 Director, Irrigation and Agricultural Drainage Division, Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia.

azhari@did.moa.my,pp@did.moa.my

2 Engineer, Irrigation and Agricultural Drainage Division, Jalan Sultan Salahuddin, 50626 Kuala Lumpur. thayalan@did.moa.my

1

2.0 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

At the Second World Water Forum in March 2000 in The Hague, one of the conclusions drawn was that there had been insufficient interaction between the agricultural and environmental sectors. The urgent need for more interaction between the sectors to develop a shared vision on development of water resources resulted in the establishment of a consortium in the field of water resources management, water resources research, environmental conservation and health. The Consortium has established a Dialogue process to examine the urgent question on future needs for nature and food production while a Dialogue secretariat has been set up in Colombo, Sri Lanka, hosted by IWMI.

The development objective of the Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment is to “Improve water resources management for food security and environmental sustainability with a special focus on the reduction of poverty and hunger and the improvement of human health”. The intermediate objective is to “build bridges between agricultural and environmental communities on water resources issues by improving the linkages between the sector approaches that dominate policy making and implementation, particularly at national level”. Immediate objectives are to “establish a dialogue that will produce tangible solutions for the seemingly conflicting interests of water for food and environment, primarily at national and local levels and draw together, maintain and improve the required knowledge base for the Dialogue. Identify best practices and raise awareness amongst the relevant actors and stakeholders”.

In response to the above-mentioned global initiative, the Malaysian Water Partnership (MyWP) has planned a Malaysian Dialogue process on Water for Food and Environment and formed the Malaysian National Dialogue Committee. The lead agencies for that Dialogue are: The Malaysian Water Partnership (MyWP), in collaboration with MANCID, the department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) Malaysia and the department of Environment (DOE) Malaysia. The WWF Malaysia and both the FAO and the IUCN are invited to be collaborating partners. MANCID/DID plays the lead and facilitating role and also host the Secretariat of the Committee. 3.0 GETTING STARTED - PLANNING THE DIALOGUE PROCESS

Planning the dialogue process is essential as to entail positive results. Dialogue partners and stakeholders have to fully understand the concept and participate in the processes. The dialogue initiative in Malaysia worked itself on the following steps: 3.1 Identifying dialogue needs

The Malaysian dialogue process was initiated through the Malaysian Water Partnership. It was felt that river basin management in the country needed a new outlook

2

with better understanding and greater participation from the various stakeholders. The need goes beyond the food and environmental sector but inclusive of all other sectors of development in total.

About 22 percent of the land in Malaysia is utilized for agriculture, 10 percent used up by townships, mining activities and other uses, leaving 68 percent under forest cover. Agriculture takes up more than 70 percent of the total water demand and the majority of agricultural water use was for paddy irrigation. Agriculture is regarded as the country’s third engine of growth requiring further development and expansion of the agriculture sector. There is some concern, as agricultural development would require expansion in the use of water resources development while at present irrigated agriculture performance has much room for improvements. 3.2 The dialogue partners/stakeholders support

It is pertinent to get support from partners and stakeholders. The Malaysian Water Partnership (MyWP) as the initiator for the Dialogue collaborated with MANCID, the department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) Malaysia and the Department of Environment (DOE) Malaysia. The WWF Malaysia and both the FAO and the IUCN are invited to be collaborating partners. MANCID/DID plays the lead and facilitating role and also host the Secretariat of the Dialogue Committee. The Committee has formed action groups to accelerate decision and actions on behalf of the committee. The committee is well informed of the progress and results from the action groups through direct interactions and regular updating. The organization set up of the dialogue process is highlighted in diagram:

GWP

GWP - SEATAC

MyWP Chaired by DID

Dialogue Org. Comm Chair DID

MSAE

DOE MANCID EPU DOA FOA WWF MyWP UPM

State governm . agencies Lestari ENSEARCH

Action Group

3

3.3 Preparatory phase - Understanding concept and processes

The people running the dialogue processes must be adequately equipped and prepared to handle the various dialogue situations. The participation of experienced facilitators is an essential factor for the success of the dialogue. The training potential facilitators therefore became part of the planning phase in the dialogue process.

Some twenty potential facilitators from the various Dialogue partners were short listed for a five-day training to equip them with the concept, knowledge, skills and attitude in handling the various dialogue levels. Proficiency in local dialects was considered essential to allow conducting basin level dialogues in local language, whereas English and the National language would be used at the Sector and National level dialogue. The training of facilitators was successfully conducted by a team from the Dialogue Secretariat headed by Dr. Jim Woodhill from 6-10 May 2002. An outline of the training program is attached as Annex 1. During the training sessions it became apparent that the facilitating tools and approach depend a lot on the dialogue group. Thus the number of trained facilitators should be sufficient to cater for all occasions. 4.0 WORK PLANS

In line with the set of guidelines developed by the Global Dialogue Secretariat, the Malaysian Dialogue is planned in 3 phases and the conceptual plan is shown in diagram.

MAY JUNE AUG OCT DEC FEB

NATIONAL

SECTORAL

BASIN

5 days training of facilitators

(22 p)

Food outlook

Water outlook

Envir outlook

Basin level Workshops (3 sessions) Kerian Tenggi Langat/Kedah

Sector level Dialogue Workshop

1. Policy 2. Agriculture 3. Nature 4. Research 5. NGO

Draft papers Synth . paper

2 days national dialogue workshop

(150 p)

Final papers

2002 2003

4

Phase 1: the preparatory phase, a training workshop was held from 6-10 May

2002 in which some 20 selected national facilitators were trained to get a clearer understanding of the Dialogue, especially regarding the principles and elements of a successful dialogue process. Also in phase 1 three resource persons were identified and commissioned to prepare thematic discussion papers with critical views on Malaysian Agriculture, Environment and Water.

Phase 2: a series of workshops will be held to reach the larger audience of

stakeholders. Three basins namely Kerian and Kurau, Tenggi and Langat or Kedah were identified to capture the local issues and five groups to cover the various interests of the three sectors (water, food and the environment).

Phase 3: a multi-stakeholder National Dialogue will be organized from which the

results will be submitted for the consideration of relevant authorities, while identifying focus areas at basin level for continuing the dialogue but targeted at stakeholders at the local level. 5.0 OUTPUTS Dialogues for two basins were held and conducted by the teams of Malaysian facilitators. The Langat basin dialogue was conducted on 12 June 2002 while the Kerian and Kurau basin dialogue was held from 9-11 July 2002. The summary for the Kerian/Kurau river basin dialogue is included as Attachment 2. The three thematic discussion papers on water, food and environmental outlook are currently being drafted by the respective authors and should be ready sometime middle of October 2002. The sector dialogue has been scheduled for 23 December 2002 and the National dialogue on the 23-24 January 2003. While the action group at the national level is preparing for the Sector and National dialogue, the action groups for the Kerian and Kurau basin are busy preparing the basin action plans.

The expected outputs from the Malaysian dialogue on water, food & environment at the various levels are presented in the following table:

5

Table 1 - Process and expected Outputs from the Malaysian Dialogue on Water, Food & Environment

INPUTS

DIALOGUE LEVEL

OUTPUTS

• Background

information on the basin re-land use, water quality issues, frequency of flooding, water resource and management, agriculture, demography and economy

• Existing policies on land use, irrigation etc

• Information on present stakeholders

BASIN DIALOGUES: OBJECTIVES

• To identify issues & conflict • Identify issues • High light issue/problem • To Identify/familiarized stakeholders

on the issues/problems • Instill awareness among stakeholders

at basin level • Grass root levels information • Understand Government Policy • Agreed on root causes of problem • Vision for Basin • To put up some guidelines/action on

how to tackle issues • Agree on who do what, when, how,

where to solve those problems • Commitment /recommendation To come up with action plan

preserving the need for water, food & environment Resource

• Support Requirement

• Analysis of present

situation in basin • Identification of

issues and conflicts • Cause-effect

analysis of conflicts • Vision for basin • Commitment by

stakeholders • Guidelines and

action plan • Recommendations

to National Dialogue Committee

• Suggestion national vision

• Outputs of basin

dialogues • 3 position papers

on outlook on water, food and environment

• Background information on the global dialogue

SECTORAL DIALOGUES:

OBJECTIVES • Identify issues • Identify issues & conflicts • Identify main issues • To list out some policies pertaining

water user right among each sector • Iron out inter sector differences • Close cooperation among agencies • Commitment • Commitment of stakeholder to

resolve problems • To help the decision makers to plan

ahead water usage in the future

• Identification of

sector issues, concerns and priorities

• Commitment by stakeholders to support dialogue process and recommendations

• Recommendations to National Dialogue Committee

6

• Input to formulate National Policy on food, water and environment

• Support Requirements • Agreement on action plan • Recommendation for Betterment

• Suggestion national vision

• Outputs of basin

dialogues • Outputs of sector

dialogues • Draft position

paper on national outlook on water, food and environment (Synthesis of proceedings of the basin and sector dialogues and the position papers)

NATIONAL DIALOGUE:

OBJECTIVES • To examine conflicting issues

between water, food and environment development at national level

• To make water as a commodity so that internationally becomes an asset/resources

• Consolidate the nos. of agencies involved in water

• Commitments • Solicit commitment to carry out

action plan • Commitment of policy/plan

implementation • To come up with National plan • To come up with National action plan • Communication: Create awareness through publicity dialogue • IRBM policies • Consensus/agreement on proposed

policy

• National scenarios

of water, food and environment (Present, Ideal and Sustainable scenarios)

• National vision for water, food and environment

• Preliminary national action plan on water

• Recommendations to Dialogue partners at national, regional and international levels

6.0 ISSUES 6.1 Working beyond the administrative boundaries

The fragmentation of authority and responsibility is one of the strongest reasons for the Dialogue. Actions at the basin and sector levels strongly follow the administrative jurisdiction and boundaries however, problems, issues and their solutions more often cut across the administrative demarcations. The dialogue should work out on a new mechanism to instill actions that work beyond the existing human made boundaries.

7

6.2 The need for action

There have been a lot of talks and promises in the past to resolve the many water and environment related issues. “The dialogue is just another talk show” must not be allowed to happen. Action groups formed at the various levels have to walk the talk. Participation from as many stakeholders should be encouraged. 6.3 Trust and commitments

Building trust from the many failures requires strong commitments. The one criterion in selecting facilitators is their dedication and commitment. Dedicated and committed facilitators go a long way to earn the lost trust and build rapport with and among participants though without the authority and monetary gain expected in pursuing some of the actions. If at all possible, the dialogue process would result in stakeholders to respond with the same level of commitment if not more. 7.0 CONCLUSION

The Dialogue process is an option for the sustainable development of irrigated agriculture in the context of river basin management apart from the legal and economic processes. However, the dialogue has to be planned and executed in a systematic manner as not to create unhealthy situations out of the processes. The processes identified include identifying dialogue needs, getting support from partners and stakeholders, training of facilitators, basin and national level dialogue, communication and monitoring.

The Malaysian Dialogue Committee is very pleased with the result from the

Kerian basin dialogue. Facilitators are confident with their skills and are committed to their work. However, there are still some areas that could be improved as reflected from the feedbacks on the sessions as shown in attachment III. The successful development of the Malaysian Dialogue is greatly attributed to the relentless support given by the Dialogue Secretariat. Thanks and salute to Dr. Hans Wolter and his team.

8

Attachment 1

Outline of the Training Program of Facilitators 1. HOW TO SET-UP A DIALOGUE?

1.1 PROGRAMMING 1.1.1 Site Visit to problem area 1.1.2 The program can include visits to sites related to issues,

problems or even places of interests 1.1.3 Site visits 1.1.4 Includes visit 1.1.5 Punctual 1.1.6 Time-frame of each session must be well planned 1.1.7 Difficult session i.e. problem tree analysis should be

conducted in the morning 1.1.8 Social activities at night 1.1.9 Prayers 1.1.10 Motivation courses 1.1.11 Socializing with participants, sightseeing, boat ride and

field trips 1.1.12 Games

1.2 CHOICE of VENUE

1.2.1 Locally Acceptable 1.2.2 Spacious Room/Hall For Group Discussion 1.2.3 Good choice as far as place is concerned 1.2.4 Best available in the basin accessed 1.2.5 Good-centralized 1.2.6 Venue is ok. But during group discussions

1.3 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES 1.3.1 Card technique time processing 1.3.2 Good P.A. system desirable 1.3.3 Not enough space for display cards 1.3.4 Proper facilities (stationeries) should be provided 1.3.5 Important to be sure that they understand the tools and

techniques 1.3.6 Must separate the group into different room if possible 1.3.7 Provide round table 1.3.8 If groups are too big, hall must be partitioned otherwise

communication troubled occurred 1.3.9 Reduce using white board, introduce wall

9

1.4 FACILITATION 1.4.1 Need more training on motivation and psychology 1.4.2 Reduce group size to <10 person one group to tackle

dominant ones 1.4.3 Practice makes perfect 1.4.4 Facilitators should not lead the decision making 1.4.5 Not enough facilities 1.4.6 Trained more facilitators and strengthen the existing facts 1.4.7 Number of stakeholders too many for facilitators to handle 1.4.8 Short time to complete a discussion

1.5 PREPARATION AND LOGISTICS 1.5.1 Allow more time to prepare (min. 1 month) 1.5.2 Must go through checklist in detail in all aspects 1.5.3 Invitation should be earlier 1.5.4 Should have more people to handle registration 1.5.5 Opening ceremony with a protocol 1.5.6 No sharing of rooms by facilitators 1.5.7 Reasonable and good accommodation for everyone 1.5.8 Food provision arrangement not suitable for such a big group 1.5.9 Open counter for registration earlier

1.6 SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS

1.6.1 Too many group discussion members 1.6.2 Should cover all levels/field of stakeholders within the basin 1.6.3 Proportion of groups well represented 1.6.4 Do not involve too many politicians 1.6.5 The numbers of participants in each groups are too big and

some did not participate actively 1.6.6 Presentation is not sufficient. Could be improved e.g.

preliminary stakeholder survey some groups may “fear” attacks from other basin dwellers

1.6.7 Adequate lead time in invitation process 1.6.8 The district office can help to identify participants if enough

time is given 1.6.9 Selection in consultation with the office 1.6.10 Reduce government servants 1.6.11 Local NGO’s 1.6.12 Give priority to members of the public 1.6.13 Focus group and stakeholders more through selection for

representative

2.0 HOW TO PREPARE A LOCAL ACTION PLAN?

2.1 Background Material

10

Process: Form District Action Groups (DDAG) (5 groups) Problems: Identify key problems

Flooding Pollution Water Scarcity

Causes: Verify the data and establish cause / effect relation (logframe) Solutions: Identify possible options (solutions) i) immediate ii) long term

2.2 DAG Action Plan

• Letter from DID– i) photos

ii) briefing report iii) invitations

• Groups (5 groups) • Form DDAG – all members • Selection problem areas • Propose Action Plan • Work on Photograph and send it to district (DID)

ACTIVITES TIME

11

Attachment 2

The Kerian and Kurau Basin Dialogue

Objectives:

The aim of the dialogue is to develop a vision on the sustainable use of water for food

and nature in the Kerian/Kurau river basin. To achieve this, the dialogue will:

1. Gather grass root information on problems and conflicts on water use from the

perspective of various stakeholders in the basin

2. Identify the potential causes of the problems and conflicts on water and suggest ways

to overcome them

3. Raise the level of awareness on the issues on water among various stakeholders so

that they can contribute towards the realization of the vision for the Kerian/Kurau

river basin.

Approach:

Implementation of the basin dialogue was done at two levels; the first being focus

group discussions at the grass root level to gather information on issues and conflicts on

water from the perspective of various stakeholder groups. The next level was by way of a

workshop involving the participation of representatives from various organizations and

stakeholder groups who have an interest, stake or involvement in the basin. The output of

the grass root level session was deliberated at the workshop session which went on to

analyze the potential causes of the problems and conflicts and suggest approaches to

improve the use and management of water resources in the basin.

Facilitators from the Malaysian Dialogue Organizing Committee, chaired by the

Department of Irrigation and Drainage of Malaysia, conducted the dialogue sessions at

both levels. In preparation for the Dialogue, 20 people were given training on facilitation

skills and methodologies by an expert provided by the Dialogue Secretariat in May 2002.

12

Background on the Basin:

The Kerian/Sg Kurau river basin consists in reality two basins, the Kerian and

Kurau rivers, covering a total area of 2111 sq km in three states, namely Perak, Kedah

and Pulau Pinang. As the basins are contiguous and the economic activities and the water

problems are broadly similar, they are grouped as one basin for the purpose of the

dialogue. The Kerian/Kurau basin is a major river basin in Malaysia, supporting a

population of 282,040 people (1991 census), that in its majority is involved in

agricultural activities. While rice farming dominates the landscape in the basin, other

major activities include logging for timber in the upstream, oil palm and rubber

plantations and smallholdings, fruit tree and vegetable cultivation and sand mining. At

the estuaries and along the coast, the livelihood of many depends on fishing activities. In

recent years, the basin has also seen expansion in real estate development and factories in

the vicinity of major towns. The basin has also become a tourist destination through the

development of the Bukit Merah Lake town Resort. The features of the basin, as depicted

in a rich picture drawn by workshop participants, are shown in Plate 1.

Plate 1: Rich Picture of the Kerian/Kurau River Basin

13

The diverse agricultural and commercial activities within the basin could give rise

to problems and conflicts in respect of use of water resources by various stakeholders.

The major issues include the paradoxical situation of too much water on one hand and

water scarcity on the other hand. Frequent occurrence of floods in the middle and lower

reaches of the basin have adverse impacts on agricultural production and other activities

while there is the increasing problem of insufficient water supply to meet the demand for

agriculture, industrial production and domestic use. Environmental concerns include

ineffective management of wetlands, siltation and erosion at estuaries, and water

pollution.

The Stakeholders:

During the planning of the dialogue sessions, particular attention was given to the

identification and selection of stakeholders. For the focus group discussions, 69 people

representing the interests of rice farmers from the three states, fishermen, oil palm and

rubber smallholders, fruit farmers shop owners as well as local community leaders and

members of the LA 21 Committee participated.

The 2-day workshop session was attended by 110 people representing a wide

range of stakeholders in the basin, ranging from farm and community leaders to

representatives of public and private organizations. 10 participants from the focus group

discussions were also invited to join the workshop. Government agencies involved

included DID, Public Works Dept, Environment Dept, Forestry Dept, Fisheries Dept,

Fisheries Development Authority, Wildlife Dept, Land and Mines Dept, Local

Authorities and District Offices in the basin. Private sector participation included

plantation companies, a property developer, Felcra Berhad and Indah Water Konsortium.

The Basin Dialogue Process:

a. Focus Group Discussions

Nine focus group discussions, representing the following stakeholders were

conducted concurrently on 9th July 2002.

14

- Padi farmers (3 focus groups, one each from Perak, Pulau Pinang and Kedah

- Fishermen

- Oil palm and rubber growers

- Fruit farmers

- Shop owners

- People impacted by logging activities

- People impacted by sand mining activities

A pair of facilitators conducted each focus group discussion; a lead facilitator

conducted the discussion while the second facilitator documented the proceedings. Every

group was required to discuss key water issues and problems experienced in the basin and

potential causes of these problems. They were also asked to consider a vision for the

basin. However, the time available was spent mainly on identifying the key problems

and conflicts on water.

At the end of the 90-minute discussion, participants assembled for a plenary session

when the lead facilitator of each group presented the outputs of the respective group.

b. Workshop on Water, Food and Environment

The workshop on 10th and 11th July 2002 commenced with the welcome address

by the Director-General of DID Malaysia and an overview of the global and national

dialogue sessions by the Chairman of the National Dialogue Organizing Committee. In

setting the scene for the workshop, participants were briefed of the outputs from the focus

group discussions on the previous day. They were also presented with the background

information on the Kerian/Kurau river basin.

Following the plenary opening session, participants were divided in five groups to

undertake the following group activities. At the end of each group work activity, a

plenary session was conducted to discuss the outputs of each group.

15

1. Drawing of rich picture –“Getting to know our basin”

2. Brainstorming/Card Technique on water worries and conflicts

3. Problem tree analysis on the causes of water worries and conflicts

4. Development of a vision for our basin

5. What’s Next?- Brainstorming for ideas to improve water management in the basin

Highlights of the group activities are shown in the Appendix.

c. Results

Overall, the dialogue session for the Kerian/Kurau river basin, comprising of

focus group discussion followed by a 2-day workshop was very successful. There was a

high level of participation was very encouraging. The focus group discussions identified

numerous issues on water that are of concern at the grass roots or farm level. Key

problems include flooding, riverine water pollution, and soil and riverbank erosion, water

shortage during dry seasons and ineffective water management and distribution. These

problems were examined during the ensuing 2-day workshop; an effort was made to

discover the potential causes of problems using the problem tree analysis. With the

hindsight of the problems and their potential causes, participants brainstormed on visions

of the basin if these constraints were overcome. An example of a vision for the basin is:

“Pengurusan lembangan sungai secara bersepadu dan berterusan untuk

peningkatan taraf dalam semua aspek kehidupan”

(“Integrated and sustainable river basin management for improving the standard

of all aspects of life”)

Conclusion – Next Steps:

In the concluding plenary discussion session, several participants expressed

satisfaction over the dialogue process. In the past, they did not have the opportunity to air

their views and concerns on water and related issues. The present dialogue has provided

them an appropriate and timely avenue to do so. While thanking DID Malaysia for this

initiative, the participants recommended that the dialogue should be a continuing process

16

to bring about more effective management of water resources in the basin. Chairman of

the National Dialogue Organizing Committee, stated that the outputs of the basin

dialogue would be tabled at the upcoming sector level dialogue session and the national

dialogue on water, food and environment. However, stakeholders in the Kerian/Kurau

river basin should also do their part by forming working groups within every district to

address the local problems identified during the dialogue session. It is through their

commitment that all stakeholders could ensure the sustainable use and management of

water resources for food production and preservation of the environment in their basin.

17

18

End of month – feedback (30.09.2002)