By Michael Victor, Martin van Brakel, Craig Meisner and Benoy Barman. At Ganges Regional Research Workshop of the Challenge Program on Water and Food/Water Land and Ecosystems (CPWF/WLE), May 2014
1. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
Water, Land and Ecosystems
in the Ganges
May2014
2. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
Overview
• Overview of WLE – what we are? - Michael
• Focus on ESS/R – martin and Benoy
• Focus on WLE’s R4D Approach - Michael
• Ganges Focal Region - Craig
• Take home messages – Michael
3. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
CPWF External Review on Ganges
“Collectively, the evidence-based science within
local livelihood practices conducted by CPWF has
built up essential political and institutional
capital…..”
“it is the assessment of this review that the CPWF
partners have demonstrably brought scientific-
based evidence, and the accompanying
engagement process into tangible advances in
opportunities for food security within the
distinctive characteristics of the Ganges polders.
4. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
Shifting how we think of food
production and research
Productivity
enhancement while
reducing
environmental
impacts
Management of healthy
ecosystems are an entry point
for sustainable intensification.
Governance & equity are a pre-
requisite
Development
challenge approach
Outcome based R4D
Problem and client driven
Engage in development and
establish alliances
5. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
CGIAR Research Program on Water
Land and Ecosystem (WLE) Vision:
A world in which agriculture thrives within
vibrant ecosystems, where communities
have higher incomes, improved food
security and the ability to continuously
improve their lives
6. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
WLE Theory of Change
• In order to sustain food production we need to manage our natural
ecosystem.
• Complement technolgy and system approach by influencing how
decisions are made in relation to food production and its impact on
ecosystems.
• Shift in thinking is about changing behaviour/changing decision
making patterns – need to work with broad alliances
• Need to work at multiple scales – farm to basin
• Key targets:
• Communities
• local governments
• Investors (donors, private sector)
• Policy makers (influence national policies, investments, plans)
• NGOs, Development/implementing agencies
7. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
Partner driven program
Looking for wider range of partners
who can support working with those
engage and can reach different end
targets
9. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
Gender
Three over-arching strategies:
• Research on on women as stewards of natural
resources
• Gender responsive research – strengthening
gender within WLE projects
• Gender in Focal regions – gender profiling
10. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
WLE Approach to work in Focal
Regions
• Goal is to stimulate well-targeted investments in
agriculture taking full account of possible costs
and benefits associated with ecosystem services
and resilience that ensure sustainability.
• Objectives:
• Better define and geographically target through
appropriate landscape and water resources
analysis and planning sustainable agricultural
investments
• Value and better manage ecosystem services to
deliver improved and sustainable land use under
increasing demands on water, food and energy
11. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
WLE Focal Regions
WLE challenge is to bring a sustainability agenda to existing and evolving processes and
investments to achieve green, resilient and equitable growth to the countries of the
Ganges Basin.
12. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
WLE
research
outputs
WLE
research
outcomes
WLE
Intermediate
Development
Outcomes
Opportunity
identification
Client analysis
Decision
analysis
Partner
engagement
Levers and
incentives
WLE uptake strategy: significant focus
on the research client
System
Level
Outcomes
13. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
Risk analysis: major decisions
affecting agro-ecosystems that support
large numbers of people
Opportunity analysis: research needed to
provide alternatives that improve ecosystem
services for human development
Client analysis: decision
makers demand research
Niche analysis: limited research
available
WLE
opportunity
space
In each focal region, WLE is identifying the “opportunity
space” for research to support client decision making
WLE
integrated
portfolio of
research is
designed to
capitalize on
this
opportunity
14. Example of client focus: WLE resource recovery
and reuse
Issue: Urban areas are growing and consuming more resources. How do we recover nutrients
and water at scale? Technical knowledge is available, but few projects go to scale. WLE seeks to
change this by analyzing business models and returns on investment.
Clear client focus: the private sector, public private partnerships, and business schools
The research portfolio is designed for the client: analyze successes and test promising
business models for replication at scale
Multi-disciplinary research team includes economists, business developers, and
environmental scientists
Faecal sludge Nutrients for
agricultural production
15. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
WLE
research
outputs
WLE
research
outcomes
WLE
Intermediate
Development
Outcomes
Opportunity
identification
Client analysis
Decision
analysis
Partner
engagement
Levers and
incentives
Supporting research client decision making through
decision analysis
System
Level
Outcomes
16. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
Example: the decision analysis process
Northeast Kenya: Tap the Merti aquifer to pump water > 100 km to town of Waiir?
Identify risks and uncertainties in
decision of interest
Engage decision makers
Make probabilistic cost/benefit
impacts on different stakeholder
groups of likely outcomes of
decision
Compute value of additional
information (uncertain variables with
high information value = priorities for
measurement)
Probabilistic outcomes (benefits/negative
impacts) for different stakeholder groupsApplied Information Economics D. Hubbard,
“How to Measure Anything”, 2010
17. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
WLE
research
outputs
WLE
research
outcomes
WLE
Intermediate
Development
Outcomes
Opportunity
identification
Client
analysis
Decision
analysis
Partner
engagement
Levers and
incentives
Focused partner engagement, levers and incentives
System
Level
Outcomes
18. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
Banking on Groundwater: How policies can
lever change in India
• Agricultural growth in West
Bengal had slumped by more
than half.
• Research identified a major
block to agricultural
productivity was getting
access to groundwater
• Policies recommended by
IWMI were adopted to
improve groundwater access
for smallholder farmers.
• Estimated rise in irrigated
area from 3 to 4.8 mill ha &
additional 4.6 mill tons of
paddy per year.
19. Take Home Messages
• There are no magic
bullets or quick fixes to
the challenges we face.
• It will require greater
perseverance, hard
decisions and political
will.
• We can achieve this
together.
20. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
Thank You
wle.cgiar.org
wle.cgiar.org/blogs
Editor's Notes
-- Excited as we have spent last two years reviewing research results, engaging with research users. The challenge now is how do we move this forward. How do we start to engage in processes and influence large scale developments in the polders.
--- WLE I believe offers a spring board to adapt and use the momentum here but it will be challenge and stretch us. Present a bit of where WLE is also going.
Martin and I will do a bit of a song and dance
Thought I would take some quotes here which I think sum up the challenge.
Two challenge that I think we have:
how do we start addressing the complexity that was brought up a lot yesterday in terms of the sub-polders development
How do we take the reearch and not just hand it over but engage in processes. Example of G1 or even governance issues brought up by G3 – how can we ensure that the research is embedded into development processes. We will need different partnerships and ways to go about doing this.
I got a sense from the end of yesterday that we cannot just hand over results but find ways to engage more in processes.
WLE builds upon CPWF but it doesn’t necessarily follow it directly. There are slight changes which I think bring what Ganges team is doing to another level.
WLE Theory of Change is not crop, commodity or value chain driven but focused on decision-makers and how large scale investments. For instance, our focus is not necessarily on the communities/local farmers but looking at decision-makers (policy makers, investors, NGO development parnters, even other CRPs such as AAS which have a more community focused approached. Can we
Partnerships and partners are key to this. WLE is complex because it is has a range of partners and is looking at very complex integrated issues.
In Laos, IWMI through CPWF/WLE has been working with the Theun Hinboun hydropower company to find ways to improve the livelihoods options for impacted communities.
For a resilient future gender and social inclusion needs to be placed at the forefront: To understand the impacts of different interventions women, men, poor and socially excluded groups have to be included in the decision-making process.
The study on gendered decision making in relation to sustainable hydropower demonstrated that decisions result in benefits or costs. These are social (relational), cultural (relational/subjective), emotional (subjective) as well as economic (material)
In changing or replacing livelihoods in the context of hydropower development, it is necessary to disaggregate the costs and benefits to women and men, as well as ethnic groups separately. These costs and benefits need to be assessed not only in material, but in relational and subjective terms as well.
In the resettlement site, men and women had to adapt to a new area and lifestyle where traditional livelihood activities have been significantly changed and the new livelihood options had different implications to men and women. For example;
Upland rice - men’s control limited by new land use patterns (material, relational and subjective costs)
Fishing – men’s control has increased (material benefits)
Riverbank gardening – women’s control has decreased (material costs)
NTFP – women’s control has decreased (material costs)
Weaving – women’s control has increased (material and subjective benefits)
Livestock – women’s control unchanged; men’s control over cattle decreased (material costs)
Education – men’s control unchanged but women have increased participation in decisions (relational and subjective benefits)
Therefore in changing or replacing livelihoods in the context of hydropower development, it is necessary to disaggregate the costs and benefits to women and men, as well as ethnic groups separately. These costs and benefits need to be assessed not only in material, but in relational and subjective terms as well. This provides insights into why some household members may accept and others reject livelihood options offered by hydropower development.
A combination of material, relational and subjective factors contribute to decisions made by women and men. Hydropower companies generally focus on the material aspects of wellbeing within their resettlement and livelihood packages. Ensuring joint assets and equity in capabilities (education and health) can contribute to maintaining and/or enhancing joint decision making.
Work in Bangladesh on this.
With BRAC, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programme, NGO Forum on Public Health
Policy barriers to adoption – changes needed in policy and/or licensing of new fertiliser/ compost product likely to take longer than project period
Producers – not well organised as yet, particularly around ‘organic’ production (no representation of compost manufacturers in Chamber of Commerce)
Users –user satisfaction likely to be dependent on targeting to specific crops – need for additional work to look at effectiveness in various cropping scenarios
The Merti project has engaged an eclectic group of policy-makers, hydrogeologists, agricultural scientists, representatives of local groups and several other stakeholder groups. It also engages research partners at a university and a water consulting firm in Europe.
Convening stakeholders and engaging them in model building has shown potential to overcome some of the controversy surrounding the Merti aquifer project. While the process has not yet been finalized, the positive disposition of all stakeholders towards the probabilistic impact modelling process was very encouraging. For all decision-makers present, a group that included the senator of the affected county, the process of being explicit about their mental models of impact pathways, uncertainties and desired outcomes of the intervention, appeared to be novel and eye-opening.
We found that, after showing high growth in the mid 1980s and early 1990s, West Bengal’s agricultural economy had slowed down with an adverse impact on farmers’ incomes and livelihoods. In recent years, it has barely registered 1% annual growth. The groundwater economy contracted too. For example, according to the Minor Irrigation Census, the number of groundwater wells declined by over 100,000 from 2001 to 2007 – entirely unprecedented in India. This is a paradox given that the same minor irrigation census shows that in 80% of the villages, groundwater is available within less than 10 metres and that groundwater levels recover sufficiently after the monsoon season due to high rainfall (1,500-3,000 mm per year) and the alluvial nature of the aquifer [underground layer of water-bearing rock]. Yet, farmers found it difficult to pump water from aquifers for their crops. Why was this so?
We discovered that the reason was that farmers were facing high energy costs for pumping groundwater because of their dependence on diesel pumps and the fact that diesel prices have been increasing quite rapidly since the early 2000s. In West Bengal, only 17% of all pumps are electrified, compared to a national average of over 60%. The electrification of pumps would have been an easy solution, especially since West Bengal has been an electricity surplus state for a long time now. However, we found that farmers faced two difficulties in connecting their pumps to the electricity grid. First was the Groundwater Act of 2005 which required all farmers to procure a permit from the groundwater authority before they could apply for a connection. This process of getting a permit was fraught with red tape and corruption and often led to harassment of farmers by unscrupulous officials. And then, even if a farmer managed to get a permit from the groundwater authorities he then had to pay the full capital cost of electrification of tube wells which was often much beyond the capacity of small and marginal farmers owning less than half a hectare of land.
In 2011, West Bengal State Government accepted IWMI’s propositions to scrap small pump licences and introduce a flat connection fee. As a result, demand for electric pumps has increased significantly from 170,000 to 250,000 in 2012. Assuming that each electric pump owner serves ten water buyers, the number of new water buyers will be 4.7 million.