3.3.2. Methodological Commitments

In addition to its capacity building objectives, sponsors conceived of BESS as an opportunity to provide an independent, expert perspective on risks, opportunities, trade-offs, and synergies in the Ayeyarwady basin [53]. BESS aimed to demonstrate the complex social-ecological implications of resource development decisions. In so doing, BESS could demonstrate the value of an inclusive, integrated human-environment approach, and offer guidance on the development of the subsequent Basin Master Plan project.

Specifically, designers wanted BESS to offer a consolidated understanding of the basin as a hydro-ecological system. This understanding would include the degree to which hydro-physical changes would lead to a change in ecological functioning. The hydro-physical changes of interest included change to land use/land cover (notably from forest conversion or restoration) and changes to flow regimes from the development of water storage for hydropower and irrigation. The effects of interest included impacts on sediment dynamics, fisheries, flooding, and navigation. This consolidated understanding was of interest to BESS' sponsors, because they anticipated that the Basin Master Plan project would emphasize the extent of unrealized natural resource development opportunities, in a manner similar to the Basin Development Plan program of the Mekong River Commission [54].

As shown in Figure 2 below, the original design of BESS focussed on hydrological scenario analysis as an entry point to an understanding of environmental and social impacts. The hydro-physical scenarios would inform a rapid integrated assessment, based on expert judgement. This assessment of ecological and social responses—to be provided in a semi-qualitative manner by specific experts

who had co-authored the SOBA—would then allow the team to draw conclusions about development opportunities and trade-offs for the Basin. In addition, the design called for the study team to formulate "candidate" development objectives, for example, water levels that should be maintained to allow year-round navigation between key cities. The envisioned timeframe for the study was approximately 12 months, with the intent of influencing the design phase of the DSS/Basin Master Plan project.

#### 3.3.3. Consequences for River Basin Planning

The original design and methodology for BESS had an ambitious goal (the synthesis of key development opportunities and trade-offs); a broad scope yet short timeframe; and a particular emphasis on hydro-ecological impact assessment. In attempting to implement this design and methodology we experienced several constraints, tensions and contradictions, which are notable from the perspective of IWRM. These challenges required that we adapt and augment the original methodology, as described below.

The original design emphasized hydrological modelled scenarios and hydro-ecological knowledge. The Ayeyarwady hydrological model allowed us to explore the impacts on surface water resources availability under three exploratory scenarios (described below), and to describe notable alterations to flow regimes at the sub-basin level [3].

To conduct the above analysis, it was necessary to translate qualitative narratives to quantitative modelled scenarios. We made modelled outputs available to participants via an online dashboard, presentations from modellers and access to modellers for questions during workshops. However, we experienced several challenges. Some aspects of particular interest to stakeholders (e.g., navigability) were not explicitly modelled. Model parameterisation also required assumptions that could only be partially tested, given the scarcity of observational data [3] (chapter 4). For example, configuring storages in the model required assumptions about operational rules, yet these details are not always known for existing storages, let alone planned facilities. The impacts of hydropower development on downstream flows were sensitive to such assumptions. We made assumptions that stakeholders and modellers regarded as appropriate, choosing operating rules that maximise the impact of hydropower options on the seasonal hydrograph. Such challenges contributed to our decision to complement the modelling with more intensive stakeholder involvement in the impact assessment process.

Time delays incurred during the activities above meant that we were not able to enlist a sufficient number of the original SOBA co-authors, to conduct the rapid integrated assessment (essentially, an estimate of alternative bundles of ecosystem goods and services that the Ayeyarwady basin could provide under the exploratory hydrological scenarios). This delay had implications for the production of the rapid integrated assessment (Figure 2, "A") and for overall project delivery. In order to deliver, within an acceptable timeframe, an assessment of strategic trade-offs and opportunities—a key intermediate output—it was necessary to make several interlinked revisions to the design. These revisions amounted to a move from a multi-disciplinary to a transdisciplinary practice [30].

First, to conduct a rapid ecological and socio-economic impact assessment, assumptions about future states were required to complement the hydrological modelled scenarios. We therefore developed three "Ayeyarwady 2055" exploratory scenarios. These storylines depicted imagined future conditions in upland and lowland zones of the Ayeyarwady basin, based on an initial set of drivers and outcomes that were explicitly social and political, as well as bio-physical. The storylines conveyed essential social and economic dynamics. Although the hydrological scenarios remained analytically distinct, we conceptualised them as devices to illustrate the storylines [3] (pp. 9–44). In so doing, we made them more accessible to a non-specialist set of participants.

Second, the original design focused heavily on hydrological scenarios and made the expertise of the SOBA authors prerequisites for stakeholder discussion about strategic issues. This was consistent with a rational choice model where authority is vested with experts; however, we revised the technique to be more conducive to co-production of knowledge. Our first workshop invited a set of state and non-state stakeholders in Myanmar to discuss such issues using their existing knowledge (Figure 2). In so doing, we mobilized a wider set of expertise, beyond that of disciplinary specialists (cf., [45]). To motivate this discussion about impacts, risks and opportunities, participants first read and discussed the Ayeyarwady 2055 scenario storylines. The integrated assessment workshop elicited a wide range of development issues which the participants regarded as significant. Participants provided insights regarding the broader, cross-sectoral impacts ssociated with upland and lowland resource development [3] (pp. 45–51).

Our subsequent "development pathways" workshop (Figure 2, "B") invited a broader cohort of participants than was conceived in the original design to formulate major sequences of public actions to attain development objectives, to which, as citizens of Myanmar, they might reasonably aspire [3]. Participants formulated objectives to improve water quality, upland forest and catchment governance, sediment management, electrification, and agricultural development. They articulated ambitious goals and proposed reasonable and relevant sets of objectives linked to each goal. For each objective, they generated actions, ranging from concrete, incremental steps, achievable in the short term, to more complex actions. Some of the latter are ambiguous, and will require clarification and elaboration. Many of the pathways require transformative changes (for example, peace agreements with inclusive approaches to upland catchment management) [3] (pp. 52–60). The study then explored the gap between such aspirations, and dynamics-as-usual trajectories of development in the Ayeyarwady basin. It concluded by reflecting on the implications of its methodology for the ongoing Basin Master Plan project.

#### *3.4. Initiative 2: Water Resources Development Strategy for Kamala Basin, Nepal*

#### 3.4.1. Origins and Actors

Government of Nepal's Water and Energy Commission Secretariat (WECS) formulated a National Water Resources Strategy in 2002, and a National Water Plan in 2005. WECS provides other government agencies with a technical review of their development plans. Since the early 2000s, it has been the proponent of IWRM in Nepal, with IWRM officially recognised in the Water Resources Strategy [55].

In 2017, WECS intiated the formulation of a National Water Resources Policy. The draft policy proposes differentiated responsibilities for water management, consistent with the 2015 Constitution. Among other things, it proposes that a revitalized Water and Energy Commission and its Secretariat approve the periodic submission of strategic river basin plans. Further, it proposes that all three tiers of government, including the private sector, need to take techno-economic clearance (consent) from WECS to implement any new water resources development project in a river basin. WECS consequently identified that it would need to build hydrological and associated modelling capabilities, in order to support a techno-economic review of proposed water resource development plans and projects. For improving the capacity for multi-objective optimization for planning, as well as participatory planning, the Kamala river basin (population 610,000) was selected as an appropriate case. The implementing partners are WECS and CSIRO.

The participant pool for Kamala basin strategy formulation initially consisted of the following categories of actors, with A–F identified through a stakeholder analysis:


As of 2019, actual participants have come from categories A–D. These participants contributed to structured small group discussions in one or more of the following workshops: six visioning and goal setting workshops (July and November 2018), and a multi-criteria analysis workshop (May 2019). By contrast, participation of actors from categories E–G has occurred through interviews and focus group discussions on selected topics (e.g., livelihoods and water use), as opposed to direct participation in strategy formulation.

#### 3.4.2. Methodological Commitments

Figure 3 shows key steps in the methodology as of 2019. Those include participatory formulation of development pathways (following techniques used in Initiative 1); multi-disciplinary analysis impact assessment of development scenarios; participatory multi-criteria analysis (MCA) of development scenarios; and institutional and political economy analysis of preferred development scenarios, for the purpose of providing implementation advice. (The original study design [4] included additional techniques which the study team elected not to pursue because of resource constraints.)

The implemented design is consistent with a deliberative, analytic approach to strategy formulation. However, its detail and complexity has not been well suited to an operating context constrained by time, geographic distance, and disciplinary backgrounds. Furthermore, the scope of topics of interest to participants has been broad, in comparison with the project's resources and timeframe.

#### 3.4.3. Consequences for River Basin Planning

Project constraints drew to light methodological tensions within the project team, as well as between stakeholders, where time, budget, resources and significant uncertainty dominated. As we explore in this section, tensions over prioritization included the acquisition of new data; the production of knowledge by technical experts; and the integration of stakeholder knowledge and participation in the planning process.

The complexities of design and technique led to disagreement across the project team about the significance of each technical component, its definition and necessity, and, hence, its relative priority in a context of constrained resources. For example, one position observed among the team was the prioritization of detailed baseline assessment, as well as the projection of future water demand and supply (Figure 3, step 1), as an important pre-requisite to strategy formulation. This position questioned the value of developing a strategic plan based on limited observational data. A contrasting position observed among the team was a belief that the central methodological challenge was, notwithstanding the inevitability of limited data, could any strategic advice be offered regarding two or more options to achieve key objectives (e.g., meeting agricultural water demand)?

One element in our response to this planning challenge was to use participatory multi-criteria analysis (MCA), a technique that could be iterated to incorporate new knowledge (Figure 3, step 5). Participants in the Kamala initiative had previously formulated three goals as part of their Development Pathways (Figure 3, step 2). The Pathways were formulated through the exchange between local and national government actors of values, goals, and means–goal actions. One of the three goals was a broad, water-centred development goal: "reduced impact of water induced disasters, and improved availability, use, and allocation of water resources for livelihood generation, well-being and economic growth" [56]. Participants envisaged several major actions that could meet this goal: building small or medium reservoirs; the conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water; and building a large inter-basin water transfer scheme (the Sun Koshi–Kamala multi-purpose diversion project [57]). The project team elaborated these actions, plus the rehabilitation of the existing Kamala Irrigation Project [58], into four Development Scenarios. Notwithstanding uncertainty about the status and trends of water supply and demand, the project partners eventually agreed to proceed with a participatory MCA workshop focussed on the Development Scenarios.

MCA is sensitive to prior understandings of a policy issue, and how particular options are described. The question of who evaluates has consequences for representation and legitimacy [48,59]—as such,

we recommended inclusive participation. Our MCA design, adapted from [47], involved an impact evaluation conducted by the project team (based on desktop analysis, hydrological modelling, and expert interviews), for nine initial evaluation criteria. Participants individually weighed each criterion twice, before and after viewing evaluation results. The team computed individual utility scores. The median and distribution of individual scores for each Development Scenario were then viewed, as a contribution to the deliberation over prioritizing the Development Scenarios.

The focal agency regarded particular NGOs and research organizations as inappropriately politicized, or insufficiently prepared to engage in such deliberation. Consequently, we invited participants from the three levels of government, and a restricted set of research organizations. Such outcomes reflect unfamiliarity with public participation in the direct formulation of strategy (Figure 3). They further reflect relatively low trust, and perhaps relatively low mutual accountability, between state and non-state actors in Nepal's water sector (cf. Section 3.2). Such dispositions were concentrated among Nepali experts advising the focal agency, but at times were expressed by elected representatives. (In late 2018, some elected local government representatives told us that time constraints prohibited their direct participation in co-production of the water resources development strategy. Instead, they requested to review the team's analyses and recommendations, consistent with a rational choice model of decision-making. The local representatives did not express preferences regarding the participation of other actors)1. We reflect on the appropriateness of the methodological design in the following section.
