Presented by IWMI's Alan Nicol at a pre-conference workshop (part of the "International Conference on Climate and Environment Change Impact on the Indus Basin Waters") in Kathmandu, Nepal, on February 16, 2016

1. Mapping complex decision making
in critical geographies – Identifying
approaches and establishing
partnerships in the Indus Basin
Kathmandu Workshop
16th February 2016
ICIMOD HQ

2. I. Background
• SAWGP supporting work on Indus Basin
– Informing Change in the Indus Basin
• Six components: Knowledge (1), Analysis (2) and Dialogue (3)
– Purpose of this meeting is to support development of
component 2a on ‘Mapping Complex Decision Making
in Critical Geographies’
• Your input to the process, engagement in a partnership of
individuals and institutions to help design and deliver
• Addressing a key question: How to strengthen decision
making and build a more inclusive decision support
environment using GIS in the Upper Indus Basin?

3. II. Upper Indus Decision-Making
Environments: What are the
fragilities and what options are
there to tackle them?

4. Source: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/basins/indus/indus-map_detailed.pdf

5. Key challenges driving ‘fragilities’
• Natural-systemic
– Relationship between ‘reservoirs’ (upstream/downstream)
– Nature of variability and uncertainty – including changing land use and
climate change shifting seasonal timing/shuffling geographical
distribution of supplies
• Complex change to glaciers as natural storage reservoirs, providing
perennial supplies
• Human-systemic
– Demand on resources for hydropower development
– ‘Dependence’ on water (c.300 million…but key differences between)
Knowledge gaps and lack of consolidation – sub-optimal decisions
– Challenge of becoming a ‘closed’ basin (implications for ecosystems)
– Need for better connection between upstream assessments (supply)
and downstream demand, including ag production (93% of withdrawals)
– Fragmented institutions and decision making, contested geographies
– No basin-wide institution

6. Uncertainty Certainty
Upstream
Downstream
Rising
demand in
agriculture
Future flow
regime
control
structures
Changing
glacier /
snowmelt
Knowledge Gaps
Knowledge Gaps
Population
growth
Water
quality
issues
Institutional
fragment.

7. Critical questions to pose
• What is the significance of climate change as a cause of variability and
uncertainty in basin flow dynamics and what are future changes likely to
being in 5, 10, 20, 50 years?
• How far are future changes likely to be outside recent extremes? What is
the order of magnitude of populations at risk? How will the frequency and
magnitude of extreme events such as floods and droughts in the Indus
Basin change in the future?
• How will future water demand and availability and access scenarios in the
Indus Basin change as a result of climatic and socioeconomic shifts?
• What information related to glaciers/snowmelt (that we don’t already
have) is critical for the improvement of understanding of water resource
dynamics in the Indus Basin?
• How can we make future responses to challenges more sensitive to local
needs and be more equitable (including aspects of gender equality)?
• What low/no regrets options are there for adaptation to future scenarios
in the Indus Basin?

8. III. The objectives of this meeting
• To build an analytical model that overlays
multiple data sets and provides a useful decision
support function at different scales
• To establish a partnership with ICIMOD and other
institutions to take forward its development
• (This meeting)
– A design protocol (what is it that we are trying to do
and how)
– Partners and timeline (at least until end 2017…)
– Outputs and working arrangements (key milestones)

9. Tentative timeline
• Jan-Mar: Start up preparation of preliminary
data and mapping package
• Apr-Sep: Develop prototype tool
• Oct-Dec: Engage with important stakeholders
• 2017:
– (early) pilot tool within decision making
environments at different scales
– Build feedback loops for refining and adjusting

10. What kind of decision support?
• Enabling shared understanding with
transparency of design that enables
stakeholder engagement
• Seeking optimal solutions to management,
• What level of sophistication:
– ‘…a framework linking a database and processing
environment, knowledge and information system,
modeling and analysis framework, socio-economic
framework and a communication framework’
(GWP, 2013)

11. Challenges
• Data availability, quality and consistency
• Volume of data now potentially available (how
to manage in a cost-effective manner / vfm)
• Building a robust user interface (who are
they?)
• Scale and breadth versus granularity and
depth (balance)
• Data permissions and sharing

12. Examples of DSS
• RIBASIM http://www.wldelft.nl/soft/ribasim/int/index.html
• WEAP http://www.weap21.org/
• MIKE BASIN http://www.dhisoftware.com/mikebasin/Description/
• MODSIM http://modsim.engr.colostate.edu/
• WBalMo
http://www.wasy.de/english/produkte/wbalmo/index.html
• Decision Support Framework (DSF) for the Lower Mekong Basin
• Nile Basin DSS
• DSS including hydro-economic modeling for the Euphrates-Tigris
region
• Zambezi River Basin
• Multi-Sector Investment Opportunities Analysis (MSIOA), a DSS
including hydro-economic modeling in the Rio Grande basin
• Okavango River Basin Decision Support System

13. The Nile DSS

14. The Mekong

16. IV. Working Group Questions
Breakouts:
• Four working groups (‘1,2,3,4’) each tackle four core
questions (need to ensure group balance)
1. What are the ‘hotspot challenges’ the GIS tool should
respond to (define 4-5 critical issues in the UIB)
2. Who would be the potential user groups?
3. What functionality would make the tool practical and
useful?
4. What should be key next steps in development?
• Report back with short PowerPoint slides (one per
question/set of answers)