 I am here with my colleague, who is from Balani, Latak, in Chisholm, so would you introduce yourself? I am Harish Sharma. I work with the International Department of Institute as a Principal Searcher. For this project, I am leading the 9-2, Marine Waterway Systems project. I have been working with CQW for quite a number of years, right from its inception, led in a number of projects from Norwell and Sinishia, the FBI, the IDV, all these nine reasons. Ask the world if you do this, please. Okay, so thank you for joining us. Let me ask you one or two questions around the concept of integrated watershed management. Firstly, can you tell us what you understand about the concept of integrated watershed management? The main, this particular concept developed globally, and especially in South Asia or India context. We can say that initially it was just this water conservation, the most technical way we have been just constructing barns, gullies or terraces and all kinds of things. But there was a little acceptance or there was a little, you can say overall, the kind of acceptance or scaling out of these kind of perceptions or this kind of a program. It was thought that unless you make it a comprehensive concept, you involve the communities, you involve the institutions, you involve all the components and not just water and crops, the concept is not likely to develop. So in India and especially in this part, over the last 40 or 50 years, the concept has grown just from water conservation to integrated watershed management or water resources. Okay, so just to break this into reality, can you just mention one or two of the successful cases of integrated watershed management that you have been involved with? The first case which is generally considered the golden story or the temple of watershed management in that part of the world was started by David Sackler, the first director general of IMI. The project is called Sukhomaji project. At that time it was part of the Rockefeller Foundation which founded that. The all concepts which we see today over here that how to involve communities, how to involve institutions, how to take the full ecosystem and full landscape interview. That was the first, because the living and watering which is still cited, that particular site has produced more than 20 HDCCs, several reports and more number of visitors even to the integrated drainage might be lesser than the soil and water conservation practitioners or water conservation practitioners, they have been visiting that site. But then there were several other similar successful experiments like Raleh Ghansati in Maharashtra, where Mr. Anna Hazale who has been in the news for different reasons these days. But there have been several other kind of major projects, these kind of ideas developed by the civil society, developed by the governments, developed by the institutions. They have been tested and they are now considered very successful. So what would you say were some of the key factors which led to success? One of the most turning point in the success of this watershed management was that we just shed away with our very narrow concept that water is just for crops and we have to just tap water. Unless we see that all the arts of the society, whether they are landless, whether they have land, whether they are historians, whether those kind of, all those who have stick in that kind of the particular landscape if they are involved and involved in a very thought manner. And the entire process of this implementation, it becomes very bottom up, it becomes very transparent and then you can say the total concept takes over. One of the very recent things, one of the very kind of landmark thing which happened about 15 years back in India, that government established this watershed development societies or institutions at small village level. And all the funds from the central government, from the state government, from the donor agencies, from everything used to go directly to that kind of institution. And it was made mandatory that not only the government officers, but the village chief or any representative from the village will also be assigned a tree to issue of the checks for issue of the contacts. So no contract or no payment regarding the development of that watershed management can be made unless the community authorizes to make it. So that made the system entirely transparent, that was one kind of a major change. The second change which we think that the involvement of the civil society in that thing. We know that the capacities of the most governments to govern these kind of things are very limited. The innovations, they come from the civil society. They come from those people who are experiencing those difficulties day in and day out. So they developed models that the models which came from top down, the governments that how they thought. Whatever you are suggesting is less likely to work or it has got certain inadequacies, inefficiencies. And if you evolve your model, if you develop that model in a more comprehensive way, the way society feels it. So then there was a little coming down from the top down, there was also very good suggestions from the bottom up. And we found a merging ground which that particular model that really has started working and that has really started giving good results. So it sounds like a lot of this is about community empowerment and training voices from the communities holding the authorities accountable to the communities in the development process. Yeah, that's a very large extent. This is good. The most innovative models or most the models which we see that how the communities involvement, how the transparency in the system, how the sustainability of the systems, how these things they progress. They really are progressing in such a way that when the voices of the people, those are at the bottom of the pyramid. They have heard, they are taken, the growth becomes inclusive, those kind of issues, they can happen. Otherwise you can say most of the governments or most of the institution, they try to do things which are fantastic, which make an impact. It's very easy for a government to have a leverage by inaugurating a dam. You can see a chief minister putting a button in the water gushes out. But when you make even hundreds or even thousands of 3 meter cube or 10 meter cube of smart phones, nobody notices. The critical mileage which governments considering was getting by making those large dams, those kind of things. So they have to talk that those things are important, but still there are about 70% of the population. There is about 70% of the people who are living in the area. Their voices need to be heard and the programs need to be suitable. Made in such a way that they are both scientific that they lead to the livelihoods. They develop sustainable institutions and they improve the overall livelihoods of those people. So can some of those processes be translated into recipes which could be applied elsewhere? Several of those models you can say they have been tried over here and one of the, they have spread to several of the neighboring countries. Even this particular project or you can say at IME we started a very small project in the beginning which was called South-South Collaboration. Before joining this project, we, I already visited Ethiopia where this EIR and others can say we invited them to visit India. There are several, about 10 or 12 of those workshops, successful workshop development projects and I visited can say several of those projects then. And then not only me, but several of all of those institutions they were brought together. Even recently our SLM leader Dr. Darian Donano, he had been visiting India and other kind of things. There are people find that there are very good elements of these success stories which can be from a developing country can be still transferred to a country which is at it. If I visualize South Asia or India, we were almost comparable or little higher than at the stage at which Ethiopia is today, about 40 or 50 years back. But the communities are similar, the constraints are similar, the governments or the institutions or those kind of things, they are quite comparable. We have similar kind of things, means the kind of lethargy or the kind of inefficiencies or the kind of less understanding of the voices or the concerns of the communities. But then you can say once those models they became suitable, they became understandable, there are very good things you can say. And I'll just take one more minute that my recent visits to all these three or four sites where we spent about more than around two weeks. And when you interact with those communities, the concerns are quite similar. They just want similar those things which are happening elsewhere. And I think this particular project, the NVDC as a whole and this is a real good platform. Otherwise in the natural systems or other kind of systems we find very few projects who are that kind of interdisciplinary, who have all those components built into one project and showcase them that this is a model. We cannot transform whole of Ethiopia, we cannot transform whole of Africa but at least if we can transform those three oradas or three even working sites, if we can see, tell at the end of a project, yes, this is a working model where you have biophysical, where you have institutional, where you have social, where you have livelihood and all other components. And the process is entirely net over the three or four years. Now it's up to the government, it's because when you invite them, they are already partners. I think there should be a very good opportunity to transform the ongoing projects and start the new projects in the same way in which these models will be able to do that. So let me bring you back again to the differences or similarities between Ethiopia and India. Do you see any contextual differences which would make it, which would need to be overcome in order to apply some of these processes in Ethiopia? I think I'll try to be candid on this one. One particular difference which I find in the societies in South Asia and especially India where I have little more experience and in Africa is the voice of the civil society. It is rather mute here in this part of the world, which is really very strong over there. In most of the South Asia, the civil society, they can enforce the governments. They can ask the governments that this is what we want and the rules should be, the policies should be, the frameworks, the investments, they should come this way. If you are not going to do this, we are not around to work on this. There can be a real kind of a confrontation which somehow led Adna Gandhi to the Indian population. But that has become a real tool that this is what the society wants and that kind of voices I think are rather mute or they are not effective. That particular thing if really can work from the bottom. The second thing is about the innovations or the institutions. Here also, what I've noticed, there are even the dark spots, there are really bright spots. They are small but they are also very intelligent, very innovative with great potential of scaling out or scaling up. Those things, they need to be tapped, they need to be brought up and we need to just work with the situation with which we are. We cannot change the critical systems, we cannot change those things and that's not within our mandate to do. What we need to do, a good science, a good demonstrable science with which people can be convinced that this is really what we do. I think that this is a, the ground is right, the concerns of the government whether it is here, whether it is there, they are the thing. Everybody wants to be welfare, everybody wants to do this thing but if we really have good models with which people can adopt. We which are not just from our scratch of mind that we think that this is going to work, this should work, it's not like that. It has to work, people has to accept. Okay, so just from my final question, we are gathered here at the MBVC community. What do you think the implications of some of this thinking are for these projects and what are the mechanisms by which we can learn from the Indian experience? Since given this opportunity that one of the reasons that I was given this opportunity to lead this NTU project which is kind of a little larger project over there to bring and translate those Indian experiences over here, whether these are biophysical, whether they are institutional, whether they are policy and other kind of things. So I'm trying to do that thing but there are several other channels as well. We will try to bring the national ring fat area authority from India, those persons we have already touched but there are several good local examples as well. There are several good local programs and projects right over here which can be brought over there. We means that with such a beautiful, with such an integrated and cohesive group with all those kind of knowledges still available but only thing is that we are right at the stage of this takeoff but if we steer in that particular direction with that purpose in mind that we have to bring at the end really adoptable models, adoptable strategies and implementable feasible policies at the end of 2014 or something so I think I have full confidence that we can deliver and make a difference. Thank you for sitting in that hard seat.