Folie 1

1
Models and stakeholders Lessons learnt from
research on different continents
Thomas Gaiser
2
WAVES Water Availability and Vulnerability of
Ecosystems and Society in Northeast Brazil

• Studying the interactions between water
  availability and lifelihood in semi-arid rural
  areas

• Developing two integrative modeling approaches at
  different regional scales

3
Study area
4
Two model approaches
5
Institutions involved in Germany

• Ceara
• State Ministry of Planning
• State Institute for Planning
• State Ministry of Agriculture
• State Ministry of Water Resources
• Federal University of Ceara
• Municipal Governement

6
Incentives to use the project results

• Frequent dry years with water and food shortage
• High expenses for emergency aid
• First attempt to develop a tool for integrating
  water and land use related sectors
• Involvement of the state secretary for planning
• Well established database management
• Degree of complexity not too high

7
Obstacles to adopt the developed modeling tools

• Obstacles
• Relevant institutions were not participating from
  the very beginning
• Transfer phase to short
• Lack of financial resources for additional staff
• Political changes

8
RIVERTWIN Scientific and Technological Objectives

• Building of scenarios of integrated water
  resources
• management together with stakeholders to
  support the
• establishment of River Basin Management Plans
  (RBMP)

• Developing an integrated regional model for
  scenario analysis and evaluation under
  contrasting ecological and socioeconomic
  conditions in three river basins

9
Three selected river basins
10
MOSDEW - Model for Sustainable Development of
Water Resources Coupling of submodels --
Surface and ground water flow
Integration and evalution
Water demand
Scenario assumptions
Chem. Water quality
Biol. Water quality
Web-GIS
Crop production and diff. pollutions
Agricultural economy
11
Driving Forces
Stakeholder Participation in the Story and
Simulation approach
Climate change
Socio-economic change
Interventions
Input
MOSDEW
Stake- holders
Output
Indicators
Socio-economic and ecological Evaluation
Agreement
Basin Management Plans
12
Institutions involved in Germany

• Neckar
• Ministery of Environment
• Environmental Protection Agency
• Regional Commission Stuttgart (River basin
  agency)
• District administration
• Water supply companies and associations

13
(No Transcript)
14
Weighting of the stakeholder input
Institution Driving forces Model development Indicators Evaluation
Ministry for Environment
Environmental agency
River basin agency 0
Others (district administration, water supply companies) 0
15
Incentives to use the project results

• Incentives
• Political pressure from EC
• First project which truely integrated
  agricultural sector and a wide range of water
  related problems
• Technical and human capacity exist
• Insufficiency of existing tools
• Potential end-user involved from the beginning

16
Obstacles to adopt the developed modeling tools

• Obstacles
• Lack of integrating institution
• Fear to open the black box of existing tools
• Fear of becoming dependent on external know-how?
• Existing lobby for other approaches

17
Institutions involved in Benin Republic

• Oueme
• Governmental Water Authority
• National Agricultural Research Center
• Water supply company
• University and national statistical office
• Leaders of the districts (communes)

18
Future institutional framework Oueme basin
Ministere des Mines, de lEnergie et de l
Hydraulique
Direction Generale de lEau
Data management unit
GIRE Gestion Integre des Resources en Eau
(River basin committees)
Minstere de lAgriculture, dElevage et de la
peche
Societe Beninoise des Eaux et de lElectricité
Chefs des departements et des communes
19
Weighting of the stakeholder input
Institution Driving forces Model development Indicators Evaluation
Direction Generale de lEau 0
Ministry of agriculture livestock and fishery 0
University academics/ national statistical office 0
Others (district administration, water supply companies) 0 0
20
Incentives to use the project results in Benin

• Incentives
• New water law which makes basin related water
  management imperative
• First project which tried to integrate
  agricultural and water sector
• New water law making basin related water
  management imperative
• End-user project partner and involved from the
  beginning of the project

21
Obstacles to adopt the developed modeling tools

• Obstacles
• Integrating institution is not yet established
• Technical and human capacity exist only for some
  of the submodels
• Financing of staff for database administration
  and model maintenance not secured
• Project duration too short
• Poor internet access for many of the
  administrative institutions
• Technical and human capacity not yet well
  developed

22
Institutions involved in Uzbekistan

• Chirchik
• Interstate Commission for Water Coordination
• River basin agency
• Regional water boards
• Water User Associations

23
Institutional framework Chirchik basin
ICWC
BWO Syrdarya Transboundary surface waters ICWC
Scientific Information center
Chirchik basin organization of irrigation
systems, Minagrowater Uz
Reservoirs and HES JSC Uzbekpower 2,5km3, 1230
MWt
382 th. ha
Ground water resources Ministry of Geology
Irrigation systems and water canals
WUAs
shirkats
state farms
24
Weighting of the stakeholder input
Institution Driving forces Model development Indicators Evaluation
ICWC
River basin organisation
Regional water boards / Water user associations 0

25
Incentives to use the project results in
Uzbekistan

• Incentives
• Heavy competition for water between mainly
  hydropower generation and irrigation
• Transboundary issues
• Project tried to quantify not only water balance
  but also economic aspects at the basin level
• Modelling is an established tool in the
  institution
• End-user of the model project partner

26
Obstacles to adopt the developed modeling tools

• Obstacles
• Project duration too short

27

• Factors encouraging model adoption
• Urgent problem that needs modeling approach
  (demand)
• Participation of end-users of the models in the
  project planning (Desired output, scale etc.)
• Modelling and database management is an
  established tool in the institution
• End-user of the model project partner
• Favorable institutional setting when different
  sectors are concerned
• Own funding for end-users
• Trust (Personal relationships, recognition of
  scientists)

28

• Obstacles for model adoption
• The product does not fit the needs
• Insufficient technical and human capacity
• gt Capacity building
• Competition between institutions (ministries)
  gtCoordination by neutral academic institution
• Lack of financial resources for model maintenance
• gt Show the economic benefits
• Lack of input and control data gtmonitoring
• Project duration (development and implementation
  phase) too short
• gt Flexible project time lifes

29
Thank you for your attention !