MEKONG-GANGA DIALOGUE - Observer Research Foundation

MEKONG-GANGA 

DIALOGUE 

(Water, Food and Energy) 

7 th -9 th May, 2012 

DIALOGUE REPORT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

The Observer Research Foundation gratefully acknowledges and thanks all the distinguished 

speakers, especially our esteemed guests from the Mekong Region, at the conference on 

‘Mekong-Ganga Dialogue: Water, Food and Energy”, May 7 th – 9th 2012, whose expert 

suggestions and recommendations have made this report possible. Our special thanks to Prof. 

S.R Hashim, Chairman, Indian Association of Social Science Institute, who graciously presided 

over the inaugural session and delivered the keynote address; and Dr. Kanokwan Manorom, Co- 

Chair M-POWER, our esteemed guest from Thailand for giving the keynote theme address. 

M-POWER appreciates the commitment and contribution of all Mekong delegation members 

who generously gave their time and experience to travel to India for this cooperation and 

engage fully with Ganga-interested colleagues. The Mekong delegation would also like to put on 

record their appreciation of the Observer Research Foundation’s extraordinary hospitality and 

arrangements, including meeting of the costs of Mekong delegates in New Delhi. Finally, the 

Mekong delegation would like to record their appreciation of the CGIAR Challenge Program on 

Water and Food in the Mekong, who financially enabled the trip, and provided very professional 

logistics support. 

DISCLAIMER 

The Contents published in this report are only informative in nature. Observer Research 

Foundation and M-POWER may not be legally held responsible for any omissions or inaccurate 

information / mistakes here. 

The views expressed in this report may not be attributed to any individual contributors unless 

explicitly cited. 

20 Rouse Avenue, New Delhi – 110002 Ph 91.11.4350020 Fax 91.11.43520003 Email: sonali.mittra@orfonline.org 

www.orfonline.org 

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 3 

1.2 Objectives...................................................................................................................... 3 

1.3 Opening Ceremony ....................................................................................................... 5 

2. SUMMARY OF BREAK-OUT SESSIONS 

2.1 Energy Connections ..................................................................................................... 8 

2.2 Food Production, Policy and Practice .......................................................................... 9 

2.3 Groundwater Mining .................................................................................................. 11 

2.4 Flood Psychology......................................................................................................... 13 

2.5 Inter-Intra Regional Reportage ................................................................................... 15 

2.6 Cooperation Tracks .................................................................................................... 16 

3. CONCLUSIONS FROM THE PLENARY SESSIONS ............................................................... 19 

4. WAY FORWARD................................................................................................................ 21 

5. ANNEXES 

ANNEX I 

Welcome Address by Mr. Sunjoy Joshi, Director, Observer Research 

Foundation…………………………………………………………………………………………………...... 24 

Theme Address by Dr. Kanokwan Manorom, Co-Chair, M-POWER ......................... 30 

Key note Address by Prof. S.R. Hashim, Chairman, IASSI ......................................... 33 

ANNEX II: List of Speakers and participants............................................................................ 40 

ANNEX III: Mekong-Ganga Dialogue - Program Details .......................................................... 43 



2

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 BACKGROUND 

Mekong-Ganga Dialogue (MGD) is an international cooperation forum for 

enhancing understanding between Mekong and Ganga countries about water, 

food and energy challenges. MDG organized its first official opening conference 

in New Delhi, India on 7 th – 9 th May, 2012 through the collaborative efforts of a 

Delhi based think-tank, Observer Research Foundation (ORF) and the Mekong 

Program on Water, Environment and Resilience (M -POWER), a knowledge and 

governance network from the Mekong Region in East Asia. 

A team of over thirty experts drawn from varied fields such as economics, 

energy, ecology, social sciences, hydraulics and environmental sciences from 

the Mekong and Ganga regions participated in the forum. The program was 

designed to be open and interactive in nature to provide opportunity for 

deliberation on key issues related to water, food and energy. 

1.2 OBJECTIVES 

The Mekong-Ganga Dialogue aims to focus on a shared cross-learning between 

communities of practitioners, policymakers and scholars focusing on 

transboundary and regional cooperation, and the water-food-energy nexus. It is 

not a Track-I or a Track-II initiative but both and more. Problems of water, 

energy and food facing these two vibrant regions are “wicked problems” where 

defining ‘what is the problem?’ is itself problematic. Wicked problems with 

water-food-energy involve a plethora of stakeholders holding contradictory 



3

certitudes as well as conflicting value systems that define problems in different 

ways, interlace through multiple layers of society, and require constructive 

engagement among themselves to discover new (and perhaps uncomfortable) 

‘knowledges’, that might lead to new solutions to past impasse. As such, this 

MGD is intended to be the start of a sustained conversation between varied 

stakeholders of the two regions that would enable mutual learning. 

The broad purpose of this first meeting of the MGD was to bring together 

scholars, practitioners, policy makers and others from the Mekong and Ganga 

regions to share their experiences and to explore areas of fruitful mutual 

collaboration. 

OBJECTIVES 

 

To create a platform for sharing experiences of successes and failures in order 

to evolve specific solution to common challenges. 

 

Identify key interdependent water, food and energy issues between the 

Mekong and Ganga regions with respect to their differences and similarities. 

 

Formulate a game plan for Mekong and Ganga colleagues to work together 

in addressing the water, food and energy challenges that promise the best 

mutual learning. 



4

1.3 OPENING CEREMONY 

Mr. Sunjoy Joshi, Director, ORF 

The opening session for the Mekong-Ganga Dialogue was attended by highly 

experienced and distinguished policy makers from India who diligently, with the 

Mekong guests, set the context for the forum. The welcome address was 

delivered by the Director of the Observer Research Foundation, Mr. Sunjoy Joshi. 

He highlighted that water, food and energy are going to circumscribe the 

common destiny of the world in this millennium. These among themselves would 

determine whether the 21st century would be more prone to instability and 

insecurity rather than social harmony; to violence rather than peace. 

Dr. Kanokwan Manorom, Co-Chair, M-Power 

Dr. Kanokwan Manorom, Dean, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Ubon Ratchatani 

University, Thailand and Co-Chair of M-POWER, in her keynote theme address, 

presented both the opportunities and complex challenges from the Mekong 

Region where globalisation and regionalisation are generating unprecedented 



5

flows of goods, investments, and people across the national boundaries of: 

Cambodia, China, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam. Dr. Manorom 

observed that despite the differences between the countries of the region, there 

is widespread agreement of the need to look at problems jointly, learn what was 

not previously understood, and seek agreement on how best to handle 

important regional and Transboundary issues. 

institute 

Prof. S.R Hashim, Chairman, Indian Association of Social Sciences 

Prof. S.R Hashim, Chairman of the Indian Association of Social Science 

Institutions (IASSI) and former member & Secretary of the Planning Commission, 

in his keynote address, mentioned diverse yet significant challenges that India 

faces in water management, ranging from groundwater exploitation, water 

quantity and quality to water governance and planning. He elaborated on the 

different perceptions, bureaucracies and misappropriation of natural resources, 

which are detrimental to the development that India aspires to achieve. 



6

Roundtable Discussions 

Ramaswamy Iyer, Former Secretary, 

Water Resources Ministry, India 

A.K Bajaj, Vice-President, 

International Commission on 

Irrigation and Drainage 

Plenary Session 

Chair of the Plenary Session 

(John Dore, Senior Water 

Resources Advisor, AusAID 

Samir Saran, Vice President, 

Observer Research Foundation 



7

2. SUMMARY OF GROUP DISCUSSIONS 

An important objective of this Mekong-Ganga Dialogue workshop was to provide 

opportunities for peer-to-peer learning to improve the understanding of the sectoral 

challenges and to synthesize the lessons disseminated into the broader picture. 

Facilitated group discussions identified key concerns facing current and future 

development of water, food and energy and searched for creative and feasible 

suggestions for steps forward. 

2.1 ENERGY CONNECTIONS 

Energy connections focused on 

the physical inter-dependence of 

water and energy. Both energy 

and water are essential to every 

aspect of life: social equity 

ecosystem integrity and 

economic sustainability. While 

water is an absolute necessity 

for energy generation, whether it is nuclear, hydro, coal or oil, energy is essential 

for water too. Energy is used to extract, transfer and to treat drinking water. It is 

used in the collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater and for heating and 

cooling purposes by households and industries. In this context, key points to 

note from the session, include: 



8

The energy experts observed that water challenges are intimately connected 

to the quest for more energy, especially groundwater pumping. The demand 

for more energy is driving the demand for more water and vice-versa. It is 

not possible to address water and energy issues in isolation from each other. 

Critical issues of energy shortages, water unavailability, and production and 

management inefficiencies require amalgamation of water and energy 

priorities through integrated policy frameworks as well as political and social 

engagements. 

In line with the Mekong-Ganga future cooperative efforts, promotion of 

integrated energy markets was seen as one of the effective ways of 

improving energy efficiency in South Asia through re-invigorated existing 

forums within ASEAN and SAARC as well as new ones such as the MGD. 

2.2 FOOD PRODUCTION, POLICY AND PRACTICE 

The Mekong and Ganga regions have substantial small-holder agricultural 

systems with moderate contrast between policy, reality and practice. Since, the 

bureaucracies in Asia have not yet internalized the new integrated knowledge 

and understanding about river hydro-ecology, they tend to see rivers only as a 

means of irrigation and energy on one hand and on the other, disconnectedly 

perceive the food security agenda from a national security perspective without 

adequate consideration of other aspects. Therefore, there is a startling gap in 

food policies and implementation of sustainable practices for optimal utilization 



9

of the water resources. As a common point of reference for both the Mekong 

and Ganga, this small group discussed and identified this gap in order to produce 

tangible recommendations for the sector. Key points to note from the session 

include: 

 

 

Agricultural economists, policy makers and sociologists, present in the group, 

concluded that 

implementation 

of sustainable 

productivity 

enhancement 

technologies 

have become 

imperative to 

the sector’s holistic development. For instance, Systems of Rice 

Intensification (SRI), which increases productivity and conserves natural 

resources, has improved productivity and ecological integrity of the land in 

many parts of Cambodia. India has not been able to absorb this technology 

completely and therefore needs to encourage such practices to sustain its 

agricultural productivity before it irreversibly damages its productive lands. 

From the discussion on SRI and its process of implementation, it was 

revealed how technology socialization is critical. Absorption of new 

technological advancement requires flexible policy tools and mechanisms, 

enhanced engagement with the civil society and farmers. Agro-ecological 



10

innovations, from inception to practice require more effective public 

participation and strengthened institutional arrangements. 

 

Specifically, analyzing the Indian agricultural situation, it was felt that the 

‘food bowls’ need to shift from water scarce north-west (Punjab, Haryana 

belt) to water abundant north-east area. Growing water requirements, 

degrading soil qualities due to excessive exploitation and excessive 

dependence on north-west for food security, has logically directed the 

attention to consider the option of diversifying land for agriculture, favouring 

areas with natural water availability. 

2.3 GROUNDWATER MINING 

The debate between experts 

and decision-makers on the 

management of groundwater 

resources with respect to 

overexploitation of aquifers is 

based on the question of how 

to assess and regulate 

groundwater mining. The 

socio-economic dependence on groundwater resources requires explanation 

over a range of factors. Depletion of groundwater supplies due to irrigation is 

one of the major areas of concern in India, although not as much in the Mekong. 

This session shared the experiences of the Indian story of groundwater mining; 



11

more as a lesson to alert the Mekong Region colleagues to take precautionary 

measures. Key points to note from the session include: 

 

 

 

 

Some of the major challenges to India’s irrigation sector include: steady 

decline in the management and performance of all government and 

community managed groundwater irrigation systems and deterioration of 

quality and groundwater overdraft. 

Groundwater use in India largely increased because of its ‘democratic’ 

nature, available to farmers who have access to a pump, further facilitated 

by power subsidies for agriculture. Accessibility led to wide spread 

exploitation of the resource leading to over-exploitation of the resource. As 

revealed, groundwater in India sustains 60% of the irrigated lands. 

Increasing the sustainability of groundwater-irrigated agriculture is intricately 

linked with the power and irrigation policies. For improvement in the 

groundwater balance, multi-dimensional and multi-scalar interventions are 

required by the government. 

Experts agreed that conjunctive management is required for integrated and 

joint administration of rainwater, surface water, wastewater and 

groundwater. Treating them in isolation would compromise on optimal 

socio-economic and environmental outcomes at the level of aquifer and 

irrigation system or a river basin. 



12

2.4 FLOOD PSYCHOLOGY 

The Mekong and Ganga regions are highly prone to floods. So far coping with 

floods has been through mitigation measures and risk-based flood management. 

Analysing the range of issues that plague the sector, this session aimed to 

investigate the perception of floods in terms of negative and positive 

consequences and the challenges surrounding the preparedness and 

management of floods. Key 

points to note from the session 

include: 

 

 

Historical perspectives on 

floods revealed that in 

ancient times, floods were 

regarded as the source of 

life-giving water and nutrients and welcomed. Flooding was considered good 

in an integrated relationship between nature and human activities, until 

modern engineering notions started dominating it with its uni-disciplinary 

ideologies. 

Given the context of monsoon-driven subtropical ecological systems for both 

Mekong and Ganga, experts felt that there is a requirement for looking at 

events like floods, droughts, groundwater recharge and extraction, not as 

disasters but as a normal phenomenon. There is a need for a mindset change 

because in the last century the dominant idea was that floods are disasters 



13

and hence the mitigation methods. Now, focus should be on treating flood 

management as part of adaptation strategies. 

 

 

How does data eventually flow from the bottom to the top and also laterally? 

There needs to be rapid means of communication through infrastructure 

development – contributing to data dissemination. Therefore, immediate 

actions can be taken in situation like flash floods. 

Democratization of data collection through community-based participation is 

imperative for strategic planning for flood management. Participatory data 

collection at the minimum watershed unit level that cuts across 

administrative, revenue and political boundaries seems to be fundamental in 

understanding the nature of the basin itself. This in effect can feed into some 

of the methods and technologies (GPS, mobiles etc.) that in turn can be used 

for this data collection. A plural multi-stakeholder forum needs to be in place 

to aggregate this method of data collection with the bottom-up approach. 



14

2.5 INTER-INTRA REGIONAL REPORTAGE 

Regional reportage on water and water-related developments offer insights into 

the way such issues are portrayed in the public domain. As much as it has the 

potential to dictate the direction of the debates, it can also propose to bridge 

the gap between civil society concerns and government initiatives by being 

responsible channels of communication. Over the past years, it has been 

observed that the sense of environmental and social awareness has gained pace 

with improved media reportage. This session delved into the possible role of the 

media in gauging the dynamics that surround the perceptions of water in society. 

Key points noted, include: 

 

 

There is no regular monitoring at any media level or through any 

organization for tracking the changes in water development in different 

regions. Also, transparency 

in data sharing is a critical 

issue in the Ganga region in 

contrast with Mekong, 

where data is more readily 

shared between and within 

countries. 

It is essential to galvanize communities to start bearing weight on the larger 

discourses around water. Pluralizing discussions around the media and 



15

educing the level of obsession with large media may be the right direction to 

influence inclusive decision-making processes. 

 

Mapping a trend line of attitudes towards water management is required to 

understand the socio-cultural temperature of the evolving societies and their 

changing concerns. Unless, that is identified and known, not much progress 

can be made towards sustainable water management. 

2.6 COOPERATION TRACKS 

Cooperation tracks in Asia have a mixed record of influencing either policy at the 

level of governments or at that of mass public opinion. On some issues, positions 

are polarized while there are issues not even on the discourse map. In the 

context of the Mekong-Ganga Dialogue, a question that needs to be addressed 

is: how can countries that share rivers (i.e. transboundary waters) come to a 

mutual understanding of their respective interests? The session set to explore 

the various definitions of ‘boundaries’ and its characteristic pronouncements 

implicating the future relationships and cooperation efforts. Key points 

discussed, included: 

 

The agreed idea of ‘boundaries’ is that it is not just physical or political or 

administrative but is a notion that incorporates all of the above. It also 

includes the idea that there are disciplinary boundaries (i.e. beyond the 

current over-emphasis on civil engineering and neo-liberal economics that 



16

cries for the need to treat water as a focal point, the intersection of multiple 

disciplines and not as the hegemony of a single subject by itself. 

 

 

 

Experts evaluated the lack of sociology, economics and legal disciplines at the 

national and international level of Transboundary issues. It was agreed that 

this wide range of disciplinary disjuncture needs to be removed. 

Water education was seen as an area of neglected focus. Water as seen by 

physics, chemistry, biology, history, geography, politics, sociology, poetry and 

religion needs to be understood to appreciate how society treats, uses, 

manages and values water. The way water is taught in elementary education 

determines a society’s attitude towards water and how it is taught in 

universities will determine how wide-visioned and sensitive our future 

‘water managers’ will become. If there has to be a shift in perception 

towards water, it has to be dealt with from where the education about water 

starts. 

It was observed that the preference of bilateralism over multilateralism 

arises specifically in India because of the nature of geography. In the SAARC 

region, India has boundaries with Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Bhutan; 

but these countries do not have boundaries with each other. India chooses to 

work with neighbours on many issues in bilateral forums, but is also slowly 

increasing its engagement in regional fora. Mekong countries also work 

together mainly in bilateral forums, but have begun to actively engage in 

evolving multilateral forums, including those on other shared international 

rivers – Irrawaddy, Salween, Mekong, Red. For example, there is a Mekong 

River Commission, represented in the Mekong delegation to this dialogue. 

These varied cooperative multilateral arrangements have encouraged 



17

productive, constructive engagements between officials, academics, 

businesses and social activists, enriching their understanding not only of 

water’s complexity but also each other’s sensitivities. Most notably, the 

Greater Mekong Subregion Cooperation, originally focused on economic 

c 

o 

o 

p 

e 

r 

a 

t 

i 

o 

n 

and facilitated by ADB, has now grown to a range of working groups and joint 

arrangements, with bi-annual meeting of six Prime Ministers. ASEAN and the 

larger East Asian Community also address many Mekong Region issues in 

multilateral forums. 



18

3. CONCLUSIONS FROM THE PLENARY SESSIONS 

The parallel session briefings were further deliberated upon to link it to the 

broader context of Mekong-Ganga collaboration. Key conclusions agreed upon 

are as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

A shift in thinking around river-basin development and climate change issues 

from narrow national security concerns to a regional perspective that 

includes ecological and social concerns is imperative. Collaboration needs to 

be improved between regional scientists, policy makers, business groups and 

civil society on water governance and climate change issues. 

Incorporation of the voices of poor and marginalised communities into policy 

debates should be done through well-communicated media approaches. 

The future research agendas should also answer questions about what 

happens to the future food, farming and livelihoods in critical areas of the 

regions. The regional cooperation in these circumstances may be just one 

scenario among possible futures and would see how cooperation at the 

regional level delivers outcomes at the household level. 

Certain policies at the domestic level create distortions within the domestic 

markets – create difficulty to assess or compute the cost benefit analysis of 

Transboundary cooperation. It requires strong research to understand 

domestic situation at both ends, then work towards regional cooperation. 

Given that Mekong and Ganga countries have their own struggles within 

each country, international cooperation, at least could be a driving force to 

promote internal reforms in water management. 



19

More lessons need to be disseminated from the other parts of the world to 

understand the process of regional cooperation more deeply with subregional 

emphasis. 

Discussion efficiency needs to be improved to extract the best out of the 

debates and dialogues for concrete results, findings and learning. 



20

4. WAY FORWARD 

Participants from the Mekong and Ganga regions agreed upon the following 

suggestions, roles and responsibilities as a way forward for this dialogue: 

 

COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR MEKONG-GANGA PROGRAM 

Our committee will work to promote: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Joint studies for identifying gaps and opportunities for Mekong-Ganga 

collaboration in the domains of water, food and energy. 

Organisation of annual dialogues, events and conferences to increase the 

level of communication. 

Articulation of road maps in a time bound manner for future cooperation 

activities. 

Joint training for water management and allied sectors. 

Fellowships to promote cross-border learning among researchers, 

scholars and policymakers. 

Working groups that link organizations, and perhaps ‘pair’ individuals or 

small teams with similar interests. 

 

WORKING GROUPS: 

Our working groups will, for example: 

o 

Explore data and information sharing approaches and systems. 



21

o 

o 

o 

Produce policy analysis that crosses sectors (water, food, energy related) 

and crosses regions (contrasting and learning betwe en Mekong and 

Ganga). 

Improve the interface between science, practice, media and policy. 

To facilitate enriched Mekong-Ganga Dialogue in the years ahead, Ganga 

colleagues will explore establishing a perhaps similar multi-stakeholder 

‘G-POWER’ suitable to South Asian region’s specificities. 

 

ACTION TOPICS: 

Our topics for joint action might include, for example, examinations of: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Prospects for the 1997 UN Watercourse Convention being adopted in the 

Mekong and Ganga regions. 

Status of transmission grids and trading in Asia, and power sharing 

arrangements. 

Poverty and livehoods in critical areas of Mekong and Ganga. 

Progressive agricultural technologies – absorption and socialization. 

’Management’, or at least better understanding of the Asian water 

towers that, with the monsoon, supply the rivers of the Mekong and 

Ganga. 

Global virtual water flow and consequences for Mekong and Ganga. 

Political economy of hydropower in Mekong and Ganga. 



22

o Water scholars and concerned activists from the Mekong 

writing/speaking in the print and electronic media of the Ganga region 

and vice versa on a regular basis. 

o 

o 

Mapping the similarities and differences between policy, practice and 

culture between Mekong and Ganga countries. 

Other suggestions that arise and garner a constituency for constructive 

action! 



23

ANNEX I 

WELCOME ADDRESS 

SUNJOY JOSHI, DIRECTOR, ORBSERVER RESEARCH FOUNDATION 

Dear Dr Manorom, Co-Chair of M-Power, Dr Hashim Chairman IASSI, honoured 

delegates from the Mekong Countries, speakers from India and other countries and 

colleagues, 

It gives me great pleasure to welcome you all to this ORF-M-POWER exchange between 

experts of the Ganga and the Mekong to look at, in particular issues of Food, Water and 

Energy. 

Energy, water and food are inseparably tied to each other. The production of energy 

requires water, and access to water is in many ways controlled by access to energy. 

These three between them are going to circumscribe the common destiny of the world 

in this millennium. The answers to which questions will also determine whether we are 

going to move onward in a 21 st Century more prone to instability and insecurity rather 

than social harmony, to violence rather than peace. 

Together the Ganga and the Greater Mekong region are home to nearly one billion 

people whose fortunes are intricately bound with the destiny of this region. That 

represents one sixth of humanity. It presents perhaps the largest concentration of 

people without access to electricity and still dependent on biomass as the mainstay of 



24

its energy needs. It also hosts the largest number of people without access to safe 

drinking water or basic sanitation. Over seventy percent of available water in these 

countries is used in agriculture witnessing growing conflict between the production of 

crops for cash or food. 

The mainstream discourse so far has too often framed the debate in terms of three 

main issues. These have to invariably do with a) insufficient financial resources, b) 

inefficiencies in the utilization of these resources, and c) poor governance structures 

leading to inept management of resources. 

However, moving beyond this familiar debate, within the geographical space defined by 

these rivers, a population of 1 billion engages with the waters directly and indirectly; it 

does so every day in a million ways that have shaped not only their lives and livelihood, 

but their living cultures for centuries. Consequently, conversations around “managing” 

and “conserving” these majestic rivers cannot happen between Governments alone. 

They must incorporate the participation and involvement of these 1 billion hopes and 

aspirations. 

It is these enhanced and deeper conversations that are a necessity for all of us engaged 

in the policy debates within our domains of influence. The need is to link up the myriad 

independent conversations that are occurring in this region and create a community 

where learning and experience can be shared freely and honestly. 

Yes, Food, Water and Energy – or rather access to these, defines the level of 

development and security of any region and community. Yet, the macro narratives 



25

around these, confined to the level of governments and the strategic community, tend 

to often get framed by nationalist and other ideological perspectives. 

Viewed in these narrow confines, the debate around food, water and energy becomes 

securitized, transformed into a narrative that translates human needs into national 

security. This only makes it a zero sum game and the misery and vulnerability of the 

other becomes part of a policy calculus. The need therefore for a more reflexive debate 

on these matters. 

The need therefore to bridge the divide between the macro- and the micro – 

conversations – micro conversations that encompass the needs and aspirations of 

farmers and fishermen, labourers, women and plantation workers, the myriad micro 

narratives that remain muted that do not manage to find any weight among the larger 

policy discussions. It is this yawning gap that remains the greatest of all challenges as we 

seek a framework for equitable and efficient access to these principal human needs. 

Actually speaking, the two most bandied about phrases in the lexicon of development 

have in fact been "Participation” and “planning from below". Contrary to what most 

development theorists would have us believe, these two were not really discoveries 

made in the 1990s, but had rather been very much a part of the vocabulary of 

development since the euphoric days of community development and the ‘animation 

rurale’ programs which took birth in the British and French colonies. These were then 

carried over into the development ideologies of many of the newly independent nations 

of the region through the 40s and 50s. 



26

Thus the cooperative movement of yore was also conceived as a means of 

institutionalising the control of local populations over their own organizations. 

Yet 'participation', persistently and obstinately, has proved to be a most difficult and 

elusive goal to attain. Ultimately, if Community Development projects failed to affect 

the basic structural barriers to equity and growth in rural communities, it was exactly for 

the same reasons their successors failed too. The failure was directly related to their 

inability to affect or tackle the intricate contests for power reflected in rival attempts to 

problematize the issues involved. 

And I illustrate what I mean by referring to the mainframe discourses around natural 

phenomena such as droughts as well as floods – two occurrences that invariably and 

repeatedly force us to focus on the issues around water, energy and food. In all 

discussions on both drought as well as floods we see the articulation of two narratives 

each with its own set of contending truth claims. One posits them as a purely natural 

calamity, the failure or excesses of the monsoon, bringing in its wake suffering, disaster 

and starvation upon helpless subjects. It is posed as crises of food, work, fodder, 

drinking water, health calling for immediate measures and immediate solutions. This is 

the familiar calamity discourse of the here and now of instant schemes, instant solutions 

and instant gratification. 

The second is the familiar Malthusian narrative of human intervention having caused 

ecological disaster. The focus on calamity as a springboard for action is still there, but 

the need is now to restore the "balance" by careful planned interventions. This makes 



27

the victims are not so much as "helpless" as in many ways actually "responsible" for 

their plight. 

Politically, both sets of narratives are articulated by different actors or at different times 

to press forth differing truth claims. The first appears in self- congratulatory speeches as 

Governments commend themselves for the successful management of a crisis; or as 

local elites see opportunities to press forth with their favourite village schemes. 

The second makes itself felt in the deliberations at Copenhagen and Durban, the 

opposition's attacks on the government's "long term" plans to tackle drought; the 

Reports of Finance Commissions or the Recommendations of Special Task Forces; and 

finally, in demands for choosing between alternate schemes at the local level. 

Eventually, however, let us not forget that the causes as well as effects of vulnerability are 

never spatial, born out of the accident of geography or demographics. They are intensely 

economic, social and political being inalienably tied to the politics of access and control. It 

is this gap which needs to be bridged – the distance between Big Science and Traditional 

Knowledge, between technology and local know how, the difference between national 

priorities and community aspirations. 

The Mekong Ganga initiative hopes then to begin exploring these many strands to 

discover collaborative approaches that can help communities in the region to develop 

their own capabilities, and capacities. Share the stories and experiences of success and 

failures, to learn even more from each others’ failures, so that ideas and ideation 

happen across narrow state and national boundaries just as the rivers flow – in order to 



28

link up and discover ways to accommodate individual interests and the interests of 

communities with their common, their shared destiny. 

On this note, I declare the Mekong-Ganga Dialogue on water, food and energy duly 

open. 

Mekong-Ganga Delegation, New Delhi, 2012 



29

THEME ADDRESS 

DR. KANOKWAN MANOROM, CO-CHAIR, M-POWER 

Thank you very much Lydia, Sunjoy Joshi, Prof. Hasim, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues 

and friends, 

On behalf of our Mekong delegation, I say that we are delighted to be here and we look 

forward to meeting and working with your team. M-POWER is a network of people 

committed to high quality research and policy engagement between the six Mekong 

countries and with other parts of the world. The M-POWER vision is to realize an 

international standard of democracy in water related governance. Our mission is to 

support sustainable livelihoods and help the community and eco-systems in the Mekong 

region to conducting action research, facilitating dialogues, and nurturing transboundary 

knowledge networks that encourage diverse collaborative relationships and 

improve policy and practice. 

Hence, we were very pleased to receive this invitation from Observer Research 

Foundation to assemble a Mekong delegation and to come here to beautiful New Delhi 

to take this first step in a new Mekong-Ganga Cooperation. This first step is about crosslearning 

between communities of practitioners, policy makers, and focusing on transboundary 

and regional cooperation and water-food-energy nexus. Our delegation 

includes men and women from all 6 countries (Vietnam, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, 

Thailand and China) very different, different organizations, some from government, 

some from outside government, some older, some younger, but all came to work for the 



30

improvement of our own country, but also our shared region. You will hear many times 

in the next few days we have a Mekong River and a Mekong Basin, but this is just a part 

of the wider Mekong region. We are six very different countries. We have different 

societies, landscapes and religions. The Mekong region is recognized for its diverse 

cultural richness. 

The Mekong region is rapidly changing. Globalization and regionalization are generating 

unprecedented flows of goods, investments, and people across the nation and 

boundary. Greater knowledge and appreciations of regions, socio, culture or diversities 

under the transformation view, contribute to mutual understanding, cooperation, 

sustainable development and prosperity. We also have vast differences within our own 

countries. 

On the signs and television advertising in Thailand we hear about “Incredible India” and 

are invited to “Come, seek and be discovered”. And to “match India's rhythms to our 

hearts, and colours to our minds...” We are told that Incredible India is friendly, warm, 

welcoming and unique. 

Well, we are here now, happily, so we will find out for ourselves! 

We will share with you our experiences in attempting to manage our many national and 

boundary water, food, energy challenges and water-related governance research and 

practice. We will share with you our methods of negotiation and policy making. Our 

delegates have different perspectives on water, food, energy challenges depending on 

where they are from and depending on their individual experiences. We work with 

many different partner organizations within and outside the Mekong region. We highly 



31

value networking and practical collaboration. Despite the differences between us in the 

Mekong region where we fully agree is that we need to look at problems to learn what 

we can and contribute to a decision in the most constructive ways possible. Our 

contribution to Mekong water-food-energy governance includes core research, 

convening or contributing to platforms and active fellowship program, exploration of 

new hydropower sustainability protocols, arranging of independent expert panels, and 

Mekong region’s future scenario-building. 

We are very pleased to have this opportunity to come to the famous Observer Research 

Foundation, share with you and learn from you how you are dealing with challenges in 

your own place. Comparative perspectives and discussion on water, food and energy 

between Ganga and Mekong delegates will enhance our understandings about 

differences and commonalities about water-food-energy nexus. We will reflect on 

compare, contrast, diverse and context in the Ganga and Mekong. For us, we will focus 

on the Mekong, but please push us to be clear in our expression of our understanding. 

For us, we will focus on the Ganga and we will be proactive in our questioning and 

sharing by bridging environmental, social, culture, economic and political perspectives. 

We expect to discuss and share with our Ganga colleagues and identify area of mutual 

interests for future work. 

Thank you for the hospitality already extended and the efforts to get us to this point. 

We look forward to taking this first step together with you and a new Mekong-Ganga 

Cooperation. 



32

KEYNOTE ADDRESS 

PROF. S.R. HASHIM, CHAIRMAN, Indian Association of Social Sciences Institute 

Dear Dr. Manorom, Dr. Sunjoy Joshi, very distinguished participants from Mekong 

region and from India; it is a great pleasure for me to be associated with this event 

which has such an eminent gathering, airing some of my concerns on water, food and 

energy. I think this gathering or this dialogue between the two regions, the Ganga Basin 

and the Mekong Basin countries offers us a unique opportunity and advantage. We are 

dealing with two regions that have many common concerns, but at the same time do 

not have a common viewer to share. Therefore, this dialogue can proceed without 

passions of political hedging which underlie dialogues between those countries that also 

share a region and the concerns of course. A common concern arises from the particular 

conditions of these two countries; they are very populous regions with perhaps world’s 

highest density, have started developing fast in the last decade, still have a very large 

burden of poverty and concern with livelihood issues. Concerns about food security and 

water is at the base of both livelihood and food security for very-very large number of 

people in these two countries. 

In the modern world, the knowledge and the technology grows very freely as compared 

to what it used to be decades back. It is available to more countries and is freely 

exchanged. Therefore, on that front, I think there is not much of a problem yet. But 

issues arise in straightaway implementing that knowledge and those technologies in a 

particular situation. It is due to the particular conditions of the people, the way people 

are organized, and other urgent priorities e.g. the objectives of equity, social justice. The 



33

issues of political nuances, social organizations, and administrative problems are at the 

ground level and it is in these areas that we have to learn from each other a lot. 

I just made a distinction between the technology and methods of dealing with a 

problem. I deliberately put a secondary importance to those things, but the primary 

concern remains to be: how we manage our resources at the community and ground 

level? How the administrative systems are geared? How political problems are solved 

dealing with these issues? And it is here we can learn a lot and we can exchange. 

Food security is very important for India. We have a population which is already 1.22 

billions. In the decade between 2050 and 2060, the population will be at its maximum, 

more than 1.6 billion and then it may stabilize. Even with the current level of 

population, the food security becomes important even in the days of free trade because 

food is something for which even a relatively short deficiency, you cannot completely 

depend on trade. Last year’s food production in India, particularly measured in part of 

the food basket i.e. food grains which includes cereals and pulses, was about 240 million 

tons. Almost the whole of it is absorbed, indicating the level of consumption. 

Now, even if there is a 10% shortage of supply, means something like 25 million tons of 

food grains and food grains are only a part of the food basket, but very basic part in our 

situation. First of all, it is just not available at short notice. Secondly even at the 

indication of such shortages before you go to the market for shopping, the prices start 

touching the skies; prices shoot up making it almost impossible to procure. 



34

National security questions are related to food security questions. Shortage of food may 

even destabilize the growth. Therefore, there has always been a concern to produce 

almost the whole requirement of basic food i.e. the food grain and only trade at the 

margins. 

At present though we are in a relatively comfortable position as far as the food grain 

production and supplies are concerned in India, but there are certain weaknesses. One 

very important weakness is that almost the entire or very large part of this supply comes 

from north-western region of India i.e. Punjab, Haryana, and western UP. Historically, it 

is so because this was the area where infrastructure for agriculture was very well 

developed, there was canal system, irrigation system was very well developed and when 

we started our green revolution in mid 60’s, naturally this area came under focus. But 

today we have reached almost the peak of yield levels in food grains in this region with 

high level of fertilizer consumption, irrigation and intensive use of land, producing three 

crops per yr. Also, its ecological and environmental consequences are not very desirable 

results. The ground water is being excessively used and return flows from irrigation 

pollute even the ground water with chemicals, which is detrimental to the ecology of 

the region. Besides, the incomes of the farmers in this region are stagnating now. 

Punjab, which used to be no. 1 in per capita income in India a decade back, has slid 

down to almost 5 th position in per capita incomes in India. These are a few indications, 

so there is the situation that is not very sustainable. Therefore, we have to find solutions 

which conserve our situation, our water particularly and allow the north-western region 

to diversify away from food grains and yet keep India self-sufficient or at least food 

secured. This is the circumstance where the elements are sometimes contradictory; 

however, it is possible to meet all the rudiments of the situation as we will have to make 



35

a regional shift in the focus of production from north-west region to eastern region. 

Eastern region is also more water abundant region with more rainfall. But what is even 

more important perhaps for us, I think, is here that we have to exchange our views with 

other regions in the world and particularly the Mekong region. 

Overdependence on a basket of food is largely based on wheat and rice, a cereal and a 

few lentils and pulses, which needs to be broken. Discover other foods where you can 

beat the situation with less of water intensity, chemical intensity, pollution, and energy 

intensity. So at a more radical level it is not just how to put use a given set of crops, but 

to see how to manage our demand away from very water-intensive to less waterintensive 

cultivation and a more diversified eating habit. I should say it appears that we 

have a habit that cannot be changed because we have been eating rice for a very long 

time. In fact, India till 50’s was almost 90% rice-eating country. In the wake of food 

shortages in 50’s and 60’s when we have started importing PL-480 wheat, the habits 

slowly changed. Many people in the south and in the east thought that wheat could 

simply not be eaten; slowly the habits changed and now it almost cover the 40% of the 

food basket rather than just 10%, so habits have changed. In Gujarat, in western region 

of India, groundnut oil is the oil which is generally eaten and if you live there it appears 

that you just cannot live without groundnut oil. But groundnut was introduced in India 

only in 1930s. Before that it was just not known. In fact, the oil used in that region was 

the sesame oil, which is now not at all used. Habits changed over time and there is 

nothing sacrosanct with a particular given basket of food. 

Coming to the overall water situation in India, of course, for producing food and water 

at the base, just to give some very broad indicators we have about 4% of the world’s 



36

water resources in this country, but more than 17% of the population and this 

population still is growing at the ultimate speed. When we have maximum population, 

maybe we will have world’s 19% of the population around 2050 or so. Relatively 

speaking our water resources as compared to the rest of the world is scarce. When we 

talk of water resources really, we mean utilizable water resources, the water which can 

be used for agriculture, for drinking or other uses. Most of our renewable water 

resources we get through precipitation through monsoon which has spatial and 

temporal variability. One of the crucial problems of water resources in India has been 

and will remain how to store the maximum possible water from the precipitation. For 

that type of storage, the dams are very insignificant. Dams do not store a lot. I think the 

best storages are the underground aquifers. But how to see that excess water gets into 

the underground aquifers? This is one of the most important problems if we can solve in 

the long run or in the short run, we can go a long way in solving our water resources 

problem. 

There are many other concerns with our water resources. One of the most important 

concerns that nowadays bother us is climate change. Really do not know exactly what 

would be the consequences of climate change in details, but from all the studies which 

are available now it appears that one conclusion is definite that climate change is going 

to introduce lot of variability and uncertainty, even in the precipitation of rainfall. 

One of the other concerns, which is a very acute concern now, is the drinking water 

availability. We have all the water available, we have the ground water aquifers which 

are increasingly getting polluted, particularly in the rural areas and even in urban areas. 

Water supply systems have not been very efficient because of associated costs and its 



37

ecovery, distribution, subsidies and equity. So this is one area which requires our 

attention. 

How to enhance the availability of water? Enhancing the availability, there have been 

many ideas in this country and one of the grand ideas was interlinking of rivers. Of 

course, interlinking of basins at the margin has been possible; in fact it has been in 

practiced. Latest example is Narmada project which takes water from Narmada basin 

and part of it is put to Rajasthan, which belongs to another basin. So it is inter-basin 

transfer of water. There have been some small projects like this. But at a grand level, 

this type of a transfer perhaps is not very feasible. In fact, our largest water resources 

which flow to the sea are in the eastern region, Brahmaputra valley, and Brahmaputra 

water cannot be just simply transferred to this side because of the topography. It goes 

down and then again it starts arising towards the north-west. It would be very difficult 

and in fact it would involve an enormous amount of energy to transfer such waters, too 

much of energy that perhaps the value of water will not be worth it. 

Water use efficiency has been another important concern with us. The way we use our 

water has been very inefficient. In fact, more than 80% to 83% of the water that we 

have goes for irrigation and most of this water is carried through earthen canals which 

are unpaved and then through channels in the fields and a lot of water gets absorbed in 

the land, lot of water sieves through. In fact, the irrigation efficiency so far on an 

average is about 30% to 35%. You have brought the water to surface to the canals after 

spending a lot of energy ultimately and if you put it down under the ground then to 

extract it again you require a lot of energy. Underground aquifers should be charged 

with surplus water, when it is not being used but not with that valuable water which has 



38

een brought at a great cost for irrigation. In fact, if sufficient measures technically as 

well as administrative are taken, it is estimated that your water use efficiency can go 

above 50% and you can understand for 83% of the total water resources if the efficiency 

goes from 35% to 50%, you have almost 40% to 50% more water available just by 

improving the efficiency. 

This brings me to the other subject of energy. Hydropower comes with issues of 

investment, submergence, resettlement and rehabilitation, ecological and 

environmental impact. Yet hydropower is one of the most useful and cost-economizing 

source of energy. 

For other options, perhaps we can desalinate sea water, but that requires again very 

large amount of energy to meet energy demands. It has been used in the Middle East 

very widely now, Saudi Arab, even to some extent Israel. They are so far relatively 

energy-abundant countries and they are using desalinated water for drinking purposes; 

in a very limited way. We are using a lot of energy and if you add up perhaps it is very 

costly in terms of using that energy. So when we talk of water, we are really talking of 

energy and it is in this context I say that water use efficiency must be given prime 

importance because water use efficiency also means energy use efficiency. It is this 

energy-water nexus which I think must get our focus. 

Now with these few words, I think I would like to conclude. We will all look forward to 

deliberations in these two and half days’ dialogue and I hope lot of useful solutions will 

come out. Thank you very much. 



39

ANNEX II 

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 

Indian Designation Organisation Email 

Delegates 

S. R. Hashim Chairman Indian Association of Social 

Science Institutions (IASSI) 

iassi79@yahoo.com 

Ramaswamy 

Iyer 

Former Secretary Water Resources Ministry ramaswamy.iyer@gmail.co 

m 

Sunjoy Joshi Director Observer Research 

Foundation 

Joydeep Director 

Internews Earth Journalism 

Gupta 

Network - The Third Pole 

Project 

A. K. Bajaj Vice President International Commission on 

Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) 

sunjoyjoshi@orfonline.org 

joydeepgupta@gmail.com 

akbajaj@gmail.com 

Manu 

Bhatnagar 

Principal Advisor- 

Environmental Project 

INTACH (Indian National Trust 

For Art And Cultural Heritage) 

manucentaur@hotmail.com 

A. K. Roy Chairperson Hazard Centre hazardscentre@gmail.com 

B. C. Barah Acting Director-NCAP Indian Agricultural 

barah48@yahoo.com 

Research Institute (Dept. 

NCAP) 

Prem S. 

Vashishtha 

Professor & Incharge R&D SHARDA UNIVERSITY premsv08@gmail.com 

Salman 

Haidar 

Amb. (Former Indian 

Foreign Secretary) 

Institute of Peace & 

Conflict Studies (IPCS) 

shaidar@airtelmail.in 

Samir Saran Vice President Observer Research 


Saurabh Program Advisor 

Observer Research 

Johri 


Clare Shakya Regional climate change 

DFID, India 

and water adviser for 

South Asia 

samirsaran@orfonline.org 

saurabhjohri@orfonline.org 

c-shakya@dfid.gov.uk 



40

Mekong Delegates Designation Organization Email 

Chanthana 

Wun'gaeo 

Professor 

Faculty of Political Sciences 

Chulalongkorn University, Thailand 

Chea Chou Researcher Cambodia Development Resources 

Institute & M-POWER fellow, Cambodia 

Dipak Gyawali Research Nepal Water Conservation Foundation 

Director Pragya (Academician) and M-POWER 

Steering Committee member,Nepal 

John Dore 

Kanokwan 

Manorom 

Senior Water 

Resources 

Advisor 

Dean 

Australian Agency for International 

Development (AusAID), Lao PDR 

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Ubon Ratchatani 

University, Co-Chair of M-POWER, 

Thailand 

Chantana.B@chula.ac.th 

chou@cdri.org.kh 

dipakgyawali@ntc.net.np 

johndore@loxinfo.co.th 

kmanorom11@gmail.com 

Khim Sophanna Chairman Irrigation Service Center (ISC), Cambodia khimsophanna@cedac.org.kh 

Kyan Dyne Aung 

Program 

Coordinator 

Economically Progressive Ecosystem 

Development (ECODEV), Myanmar 

kyandyneaung@gmail.com 

Lilao Bouapao Coordinator M-POWER, Lao PDR lilaolee@gmail.com 

Lu Zeng 

Mme Do Hong 

Phan 

Program 

Officer 

Chair of 

Council 

Australian Agency for International 

Development (AusAID), China 

Centre for Promotion of Integrated Water 

Resources Management, Vietnam 

lu.zeng@dfat.gov.au 

phan.dohong@gmail.com 

Piyaporn 

Wongruang 

Souphab 

Kongvichith 

Senior 

Journalist 

Dean 

Bangkok Post, Thailand 

Faculty of Environmental Studies, 

National University of Lao PDR 

piyapornw@Bangkokpost.co.th 

souphabk@gmail.com 

Te Navuth 

Secretary 

General 

Cambodia National Mekong Committee, 

Cambodia 

navuth@cnmc.gov.kh 

Tira Foran 

Wang Jianping 

Energy 

Analyst 

Associate 

Professor 

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial 

Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia 

School of Resource & Environment and 

Earth Sciences, Yunnan University, China 

tira.foran@csiro.au 

kmynwjp@yahoo.com.cn 

Xu Jianchu 

Senior 

Scientist 

World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), China 

and East Asia 

Zhang Jianping Director Institute for International 

Economic Research, National 

Development and Reform Commission, 

China 

J.C.Xu@cgiar.org 

jpzh88@gmail.com 



41

OTHER PARTICIPANTS 

Name Designation Organization Email 

Sarvjit Dudeja Consultant & Jawaharlal National University 

dudejasarvjit@yahoo.com 

Advisor on 

Science and 

Technology 

Arvind Kumar President India Water Foundation shweta.tyagi@indiawaterfound 

ation.org 

Karuna Kalra 

Senior 

AF-Mercados EMI 

karuna.kalra@afconsult.com 

Consultant 

Sanjay Gupta Communicatio 

ns Officer, 

South Asia 

Water 

Initiative 

World Bank 

sgupta6@worldbank.org 

P. K. Tiwari Chairman Ganga Devi Shakshik Society gdss_2003@yahoo.co.in 

Ashwini Goyal UNESCO Chronicle akgoyal18@yahoo.com 

G. N. Kathpalia Chairman Alternative Futures gnkathpalia@airtelmail.in 

Jan Axel Voss Counsellor, 

Environment 

and 

Climate 

Change 

C. K. Varshney Former Dean, 

Retired 

Professor 

Arvind Kaul 

Indian 

Administrative 

Service (Retd) 

Ramesh Kumar Jalan Resource 

Person & 

Moderator, 

Climate 

Change 

Community 

German Embassy 

School of Environmental 

Sciences, JNU 

Government of India 

United Nations Development 

Programme 

wi-21@newd.auswaertigesamt.de 

ckvarshney@mail.jnu.ac.in 

arvindkaul@hotmail.com 

ramesh.jalan@un.org.in 



42

ANNEX III 

PROGRAM 

MEKONG-GANGA DIALOGUE 

Observer Research Foundation & M-POWER 

DAY 1: 7 th MAY, 2012 

TIME ACTIVITY SPEAKERS 

1100 - 

1200 

1200 - 

1330 

1330 - 

1430 

1430 - 

1600 

1600 - 

1620 

Welcome 

Remarks 

Keynote 

Address 

Inaugural 

Address 

Sunjoy Joshi, 

Director, Observer Research Foundation 

Kanokwan Manorom 

Co-Chair, M-POWER 

S.R Hashim 

Chairman, IASSI & Former Member & Secretary - 

Planning Commission, Government of India 

G.K Chadha 

President , South Asian University & Former Vice- 

Chancellor, JNU 

SESSION 1: Context Setting; Acknowledging different perspectives 

Participant introductions, aspirations 

Joydeep Gupta 

Ganga context Director, Third Pole Project of Inter-news Earth 

Journalism Network and China Dialogue 

Mekong 

Context 

Mekong 

Context 

Lunch 

SESSION 1 - Continued 

Lilao Bouapao, 

Coordinator, M-POWER 

Xu Jianchu, 

International Centre for Research on Agroforestry, East 

Asia. 

Tea-Break 



43

1620 - 

1720 

Plenary: 

Comparing & Contrasting the constellation of drivers & contexts in the 

Ganga and Mekong 

1720 - 

1730 

Closing Remarks 

End of Day 1 



44



DAY 2: 8 TH MAY, 2012 

TIME ACITIVITY SPEAKERS 

1000 - 

1030 

1030 – 

1200 

Reflections on 

Previous Day 

Chantana Wun'gaeo 

Faculty of Political Sciences, 

Chulalongkorn University, Thailand 

Girish Chadha 

Editor, US-Based OOSKAnews 

SESSION 2: ROUNTABLES 

SESSION 2.1: Energy Connections 

A.K Bajaj* 

Vice President, ICID & Former Chairman, CEA 

Facilitator 

Mohan Guruswamy, 

Distinguished Fellow, ORF 

Tira Foran 

Mekong 

Energy Analyst 

CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences 

Lydia Powell 

Ganga 

Head & Senior Fellow, Observer Research 


SESSION 2.2: Groundwater mining - taming the Anarchy?; Flood 

Psychology 

A.K Roy 

Facilitator 

Chairperson, Hazard Center, India 

Te Navuth 

Mekong 

Secretary General, 

Cambodia National Mekong Committee 

Manu Bhatnagar 

Ganga 

Principal advisor – Environmental Projects 

INTACH 



45

1200 - 

1300 

1300 - 

1400 

1400 - 

1530 

SESSION 2.3: Food Production, Policy & Practice 

B.C Barah 

Principal Scientist, 

Facilitator 

National Centre for Agricultural Economics and 

Policy Research (NCAP) 

Khim Sophanna, 

Mekong 

Chairman, Irrigation Service Centre, 

Cambodia 

Prem Vashishtha 

Prof. & Incharge, R&D, 

Sharda university 

Ganga 

Saurabh Johri 

Program Advisor, Observer Research Foundation 

SESSION 2.4: Inter/Intra Regional Reportage; Cooperation Tracks 

Salman Haider 

Facilitator 

Former Foreign Secretary 

Piyaporn Wongruang 

Mekong 

Senior Journalist – Mekong Region 

Bangkok Post, Thailand 

Samir Saran 

Ganga 

Vice President & Senior Fellow, Observer Research 


Plenary Discussion - 

Recommendation All participants 

Draft 1 

Lunch 

SESSION 3: REGIONAL COOPERATION 

Dipak Gyawali 

Facilitator 

M-POWER 

Steering Committee 

Transboundary Issues 

& 

All Participants 

Cooperation Tracks 

Policies: Water-Energy- 



46

1530 - 

1600 

1600 - 

1700 

1700 - 

1730 

Food 

Key Water-Energy - 

Food topics 

Tea-Break 

All participants 

Closing remarks/ Recommendation Draft 2 

End of day 2 



47



DAY 3: 9 TH MAY, 2012 

TIME ACTIVITY SPEAKERS 

SESSION 4: NEXT STEPS 

1000 - 

1030 

1030 - 

1200 

1200 - 

1300 

1300 - 

1320 

1320 - 

1330 

1330 - 

1430 

Reflections on Previous 

Day 

Facilitator 

Mekong-Ganga Dialogue: 

Sharing Ideas for Next 

Step 

Mekong-Ganga: Agreeing 

Future Cooperation 

Final Reflections 

Lydia Powell 

Head, Senior Fellow, Observer Research 


Clare Shakya 

Senior Regional Climate Change and Water 

Adviser 

DFID India 

All Participants 

Closing Ceremony 

Lunch 

End of Day 3 



48

MEKONG-GANGA DIALOGUE - Observer Research Foundation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?