 Felly, i mi wneud i'r Ymddangosol Llyfrgell NbTc yw Llyfrgell Nesaf. Rwy'n meddwl â'r Laryll Lary. Laryll, Ymddangosol Llyfrgell Nesaf, yn y Ffodol Llyfrgell Nesaf yw Llyfrgell Nesaf, yn y Llyfrgell Llyfrgell Crolumbol. Fy hollwch ar y cyfnodol. Ymddangosol. Fy hollwch am ymddangosol. Fy hollwch ar y cyfnodol. Ymddangosol. Fy hollwch ar y cyfnodol. Fy hollwch ar y cyfnodol. Fy hollwch ar y cyfnodol. Fy hollwch ar y cyfnodol oherwydd, fel hyn rywbeth, oherwydd y Ffodol Llyfrgell Hwlif felly y ffodol yng Nghymddur yng Nghymddur i'r hwn. Fyd y cyfnodol ymddangosol wa'r sefydlu ymddangosol a'r hwn o'r ysgol. Ychydig a bwllwch ar yr ysgol yng nghymddur ymddangosol. Rwy'n ddweud, rwy'n ddweud. Rwy'n ddweud yw'n ddweud yma ymlaen, felly i fy modd o'r cyfnodau y cwmhyslach, byddwn i'r parfysgol, ymddag arwynt ymdrygiad, cyfnodol ymdrygiad, ymdrygiad, ymdrygiad, ymdrygiad, ymdrygiad, ymdrygiad, a'r cyfnodau yn ysgol fyddiwyr ymdrygiad, yn ysglwyd i'r lirio? It's ubiquitous. All pervasive. The principles are to guide us in our design and implementation as we engage in science and research development and innovation. So, as a research program, science is in all of the projects, but there are certain principles we want to take into account to be conscious of these, to be aware of these as we design and implement our program. So, is CPWF doing new science or is it using existing science results? What's the combination there? A lot of what the CPWF is doing is what you might call problem-solving research. As opposed to subject matter research, which is on topics that may be disciplinary, we try to encourage and develop an integrated approach involving technology policies and institutions across scale. For defined issues or challenges in defined areas like river basin. This certainly might draw upon a large amount of pre-existing science, but also will have some significance to an innovative basis. So, the new science, what sort of things do you see there? I think some of the new science might come from our Latin America experience in which there's institutional innovations, quite a lot of institutional innovations, where rich people who are downstream and need clean water are willing to invest in poor communities upstream who are managing the water. So, there's institutional innovations and tracking which of these go under what conditions and how do you measure to make sure they're actually working? I think that it's an unusual kind of research and that's in the eyes of being very productive. Great. Given that thought about institutional innovations and research around that, yesterday was actually before you came. We had some exercises where we got people to stand in different places in the room, depending on whether they thought they were doing technical research or something a bit softer, as it were. I shouldn't say that. She doesn't have social sciences. For many, science means technology, research on hydrology or whatever. That was reflected in the room yesterday when we saw a huge number of people standing in the technical part of the room, as it were. So, what other sciences there and how does this technology part fit into what CPWF is trying to do? This gets back to what, just because they were soft sciences doesn't mean they're not hard or different, but just like our seats, right? They're soft in some ways and very hard in other ways. You said you weren't prepared. What is this going on? No, no, no, it's good. When you're dealing with problem solving and defined areas, all of these things come together. So, you'll often find that if you're going to make a change in productivity of the system so the livelihood is going to improve, you have to have some way in which water or crops or livestock or something, how they grow, how their managers change. And often you're going to need institutional changes to create the environment within which that can happen. And beyond that, you may need a policy environment which favors these institutional changes and encourages technical changes. So, it's not only integration, it's sometimes like a cause and effect relationship. I mean, related to that, a popular issue these days that is featured in a number of prominent recent reports is this issue of sustainable intensification and especially in relation to markets. Can you elaborate a bit on how that relates to what CPWF is doing and the science that's there? Yeah, thanks. That's a very good question. One of the lessons from phase one and something we've carried over into phase two is that when you're dealing with water and food and livelihoods, it turns out that a lot of the food and water related livelihoods strategies have something to do with stabilizing rainy season cropping or increasing post rainy season livestock fisheries or high-value crop production. And if that's not market driven, of course it goes nowhere, then the farmers will have to learn to be agile to explain to the changing market conditions that you've all been complaining about so much this morning. We've seen this in all of the bases that we're working in. Even in the Ganges, we're finding that the real opportunities is in the post rainy season, border rights for fish, with vegetables for market. In the Andes, it's the same thing. It's competition for water and water quality, but it comes down to getting water for small irrigation for up in communities for the dairy or for their export crops, their asparagus or so. We're finding this time and time again that water is most valuable when you have high value off season production, maybe even for example dry season fodder for dairy cows. If we look at the CPWF goal, it also talks about resilience, resilience of social and ecological systems. How relevant is this issue of resilience? Because isn't it the case that farmers are really much more concerned about food on the table today or money in the pocket today? This issue of resilience is not in the picture. Well there's a lot of truth to that. The notion of resilience in the programme came along from that very worry that what are we doing about it, what can we do about it? And we became acquainted with those people that work on the theoretical side of resilience. And they were very theoretical. They were looking for opportunities to apply these theories to realise situations, especially in developing countries. Now I personally wouldn't know resilience if I tripped over it. But what we'd like to do is to see from your projects what kind of additional data collection or analysis could we do so that we could anticipate when it is that you're going to fall off a cliff, or when it is that things will break apart in such a way that you can't put them back together again. This gives us a wonderful example to see how in fact you can integrate this into a research development programme. That should be a major lesson of the phase here at the CPWF. So having touched on some of those science issues, one of the things that we've also come across in relation to CPWF and how it works is the topic working groups. Can you tell us a bit about what these are and how they work? Sure. The topic working groups were inspired by a problem with phase one. In phase one you might have five or six projects all working on very similar things, rainwater management of some kind in Africa. None of these people ever had a chance to talk to each other or compare notes while making a workshop at the end or something. And we said we can do better than that. And for certain topics which people are either very excited about or have a lot of common factors, we'd like to encourage cross-basic learning, cross-basic exchanges, where there's real value. One of the things that I'd like to see that we haven't done yet is for people from some of the bases who are working on multiple uses in their projects to go to one of the homes of multiple use learning in Southern Africa and in the Poco and see just what it is that they do there. I think that would be very, very instructive. At present we have a topic working group on resilience. And this is as we apply resilience concepts to projects, what are we learning? Sharing notes on what are we learning? We have one on learning to innovate. This cold phase two is an experiment in learning how to innovate. How do you innovate efficiently to accelerate this process? Of course things along more quickly. Why don't we share notes across bases about that? What lessons are we learning that would be of use for other people? Also on global drivers. All of the basins are facing situations of rapid change. How do you shoot at a moving target? What do you need to know now so that what you produce will be relevant then as opposed to yesterday? We have another one on modeling spatial analysis, which is a bottom-up one, which we have local champions here in the Nile Basin that help driving more and more on a global basis. And there's opportunities to open up more of these actually. This is just the first floor. So, exactly that. How do we, if we see an opportunity, we've got people from the Volta here, as well as the Nile, we've got other people who've visited the local public sector. What do we see a new opportunity for some cross-base and topic group that we like to pursue? What should we do? My suggestion would be just to tell us that. Contact people in other basins with similar interests. If you don't know who they are, we can help you contact them. And if there's a body of small, even a small number of people from two or three basins even, that are really quite keen to leave this to carry it forward and have an agenda, all the management team would need would be a request, a small work plan, and a budget, and we're open to improving more of these as time goes on in a dynamic way. So it's really not that intensive. That sounds good. It's a good opportunity. Perhaps what we can think about even under these discussions this week. One more topic I'd like to explore briefly is around the new CGIR research programmes. Those of us who are with Illerie or uni or associated with another CGIR centre, we know that the whole system is undergoing change at the moment. And I understand that the CPWF work is going to be fully integrated into one of these new research programmes that's number five on water, land and ecosystems, and it's led by Amy. So what does this mean for CPWF? You know, this gives me such a feeling of nostalgia, because this is my fourth run of CG4. The criteria and the reasons that Russia know for doing it are of course always the same, but this time we're going to get it right. The CP is already fully integrated into CRP5. CRP5 is well on its way for approval, and the CP is written into certain parts of the CRP5 proposal. There will be strategic platforms of research on particular topics like irrigation and groundwater or ecosystem services. But there's also going to be a regionalisation, a regional or basin level dimension to the programme, which could end up looking very similar to the basin development challenges and the research for development that you have going on here. So the basis we have now could be kernels of future CRP5 basins or regions with more added on according to the priorities of the regions and the opportunities that we see to help solve problems. So I think it's a good future for the CP in the context of the CRP5. And how would we go about linking that to other CRPs that are relevant, for example the systems CRPs where we've got issues that are very much related to the systems work that's going on here? How do we make that thing? I'm going to try and avoid a throw away answer, and just to say that I don't think that there's been enough thought given to that across any of the CRPs or even within the CG secretariat or the fund. As the CRPs come up, it's something that we're going to have to spend much greater attention to, especially if CRP5 has a regional dimension and the systems work also has a regional dimension, we have to figure out how we can reinforce and help each other in not studying on each other's toes just like the centres used to in regions. So yeah, it needs more work and there's no good answer to it as yet. So it's something we need to be proactive about, but who needs to be proactive to whom to make that work? It should be part of the negotiation process of CRP proposal development, but that's unfolded very much within the context of individual CRPs. Scientists working in the development, but certainly the leaders of the CRP5, all CRPs, will have to find an early opportunity to negotiate complementarities and the opportunities for mutual assistance and to streamline this so that the regional work takes advantage of all the tools and all of the weapons to help improve things from all of the CRPs and get those working in a coordinated, coherent manner with a coherent research program, which I think the BBC in this case has a nice coherent research program with multiple partners, remaining multiple CRPs, but still those engaged in a region have to look at how they can create a coherent research program. If this is done at the regional level, a basin level, or a global level, it's not fair yet. Finally, the recent e-letter that I'm sure many of us received referred to the reflection workshops that have already taken place in the Andes and the Nikon, and the remark there was both workshops were successful despite marked differences in style and structure. I suspect you found the one here in denial to be different again. So how are we going to learn if they're all so different and do you already see some key lessons emerging? The idea of a reflection workshop is quite simple. Once in a while you stop and think, what have I done? Where am I? And where am I going? It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. Now, how you do that can be adjusted to the circumstances of the basin. The reason that the Mekong reflection workshop was relatively brief, and not as much as focused on the projects as such, is that they had very influential and important conferences before and afterwards. And it was a good opportunity to have feedback and communication between the major conferences with the Mekong River Commission and so on, and the BDC projects. So that was really the emphasis. Whereas in the Andes, the emphasis was on getting the projects to know each other in detail. And in detail I made an 8-day filter covering a thousand miles in four countries. And, believe me, after that everyone knew each other very, very well. And not just personally, but also the projects. And what the projects were doing, where the differences were, where the similarities were. It allowed that BDC and the different teams to take their basin level, coherent program, up to a whole new level. So I think in both cases they were successful, but in different ways. And in relation to what you've seen here in the line? I think that this is, again, a very different structure, well adapted to what you want to do. You know me, I always wish it was accompanied by a filter. That's what I've seen to learn way too much. But since you've not focused on the projects, but rather getting cross-project dialogue on particular topics and themes, I think it's a brilliant idea in something other basins have to look at as they organize their own workshops. So differences across the board and how these are done have been all very fruitful. And they have served their function of having people stop and think, what have I done? Where am I? What are we doing together? And how am I going? So congratulations to the group that's going very well. Thank you very much. Larry, thank you for taking time to have this discussion. I think you've articulated the science as well as some opportunities and challenges. And that will be very useful for all of us. Thank you for joining me on curtsies. Thank you very much.