Presented by IWMI's Bedru B. Balana at the TropiLakes2015 Conference, September 23-29, 2015, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.

1. Trade-offs or synergies? Assessment of Ecosystem Services
in Multi-purpose Small Reservoirs in Burkina Faso
EU-IFAD (W4F) project
Bedru B. Balana, Marloes Mul, Olufunke Cofie, & Jennie Barron
IWMI
TropiLakes2015 Conference
23-29 Sept 2015, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

2. Photo:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:TomvanCakenberghe/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMI
BF & Small Reservoirs
Burkina Faso
• Land area 274, 000 km
• Estimated population17.3 million (2014)
• Land-locked country (surrounded by Mali,
Niger, Benin, Togo, Ghana and Ivory Coast).
• > 90% of territory falls in 2 River Basins –
63.1% in Volta Basin & 30.5% in Niger
Basin.
• Volta Basin in BF comprises of two large
watersheds, 47% White Volta & 53% Black
Volta.

3. Photo:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:TomvanCakenberghe/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMI

4. Photo:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:TomvanCakenberghe/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMI
BF&SRs (contd.)
Small Reservoirs
 Context: Large spatiotemporal rainfall variability, climate-related
stress, gradual trend of increased aridity, and decrease in the
growing season [Av. annual 750 mm; N-S d/ce: Sahelian-North < 600 mm;
Sudano-Sahelian 600 & 900 mm; Sudanian zone (south) 900 and 1200 mm].
 Small reservoirs as a viable option for water and food security
 Estimates No. SRs 1400 - 1700 reservoirs in the country
(Boelee, et al., 2009; Cecchi et al., 2011). (cf.110 in Tigray)
 Small reservoirs and dams retain an estimated 36% of the
annual surface water flow in BF (Boelee et al., 2009).
 Current main consumptive uses: irrigation (64%), domestic
(21%), livestock (14%) (MAHRH, 2003)

5. Photo:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:TomvanCakenberghe/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMI
Distribution of SR in BF
nn

6. Photo:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:TomvanCakenberghe/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMI
No. of SR in BF
10
12
65
108
523
335
143
198
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
<1910
1912-1939
1940-1956
1957-1973
1974-1987
1988-2001
2002-2007
>2007 (estimate)
Number of Reservoirs
Period(Years)

7. Photo:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:TomvanCakenberghe/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMI
Ecosystem Services: ‘benefits people obtain from ecosystems’
(MA, 2005).

8. Multiple ES/benefits (dis-benefits from SR (Lit. review)
Benefits (or Ecosystem services)
 Crop production (yield increase) (P)
 Water for livestock (P)
 Limit rural out-migration (C)
 Enhance rural income (P)
 Support multiple livelihood (livelihood
diversification) (P)
 Buffer extreme weather and changing
climatic patterns (R)
 Improved access to domestic water
(drinking, Cooking) (P)
 Enhance women’s position within the
household (P, C)
 Recreation (Bathing, Scenery etc.) (C)
 Employment creation (P, C)
 Limiting floods (R)
 Improved greenness and increased
biodiversity (C, R, S)
Dis-benefits (or ecosystem dis-
services)
 Environmental deterioration (e.g.,
erosion of the shoreline due to
upstream pumping) (– R)
 Decrease water quality (– R)
 Adverse health impacts e.g.,
malaria (– indirectly P, C)
 Water quantity (– P)
 Decrease in soil fertility (– R)
 Pests and crop disease (– P, R)

9. Seasonal distributions of use of SR in Goinre (Augustine et al.)

10. Trade-offs: What is it?
 Giving up one thing to get more of something else
 The ‘cost’ of something forgone in exchange to enjoy something else –
‘opportunity cost’ of a choice
 It can occur temporally (e.g., present vs. future consumption) or
spatially (e.g., land use/allocation – e.g., food production vs. biofuel)
 Reduction in one ES as a consequence of increased use of another ES
 In the context of ES, trade-offs between ES arise from management
and/or utilization choices made by humans, which can change the type,
magnitude, quality & relative mix of ES provided by the ecosystems.

11. Photo:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:TomvanCakenberghe/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMI
ToA approaches (SR)
nn1. Characterize SR: Main uses, Management, water extracting
technologies, etc.)
2. Participatory identification of key multiple uses/benefits
of the SRs
4. Assess level of provision/changes (+ve or -ve)
5. Analysis of the trade-offs/synergies - current SR
management/use regimes
6. Analysis of alternative management scenarios
3. Develop indicators of ES linked to SRs

12. Indicator 1. Crop Yield (economic)
Cash crop (vegetables)
• Double cropping (cropping intensities of ca.200%)
Staple crops (Rice)
• Enhance food security
Fish
• Fishery yield of about 80 kg/hectare for the Bagré reservoir
(Villanueva et al. (2006)
• Annual productivity of 5,280 tons, involving 2,000 to 5,000
fishermen -this corresponds to an annual 2 m Euros – (2002).
• Source of Protein/ nutrition
Livestock Watering

13. Indicator 2. Water (environmental)
A reservoir in Burkina Faso with excessive phytoplankton and algal blooms
growth from eutrophication (March 2011)

14. Indicator 3. Human Health (social)
 SRs provides breeding condition for disease vectors like mosquitoes
 1/2 million people (mainly rural) at risk from water-related diseases
(McCartney et al. 2007).
Malaria (example)
 3 SRs around Ouagadougou increased malaria risk during the rainy
season.
 A resident living near the reservoirs receives ave. 3-4 Anopheles
bites/night against a single bite for those living further away.
 The infection rate in children decreases with increasing distance
from the reservoir from 51 to 23%.
 The parasite load of Plasmodium falciparum in the blood diminishes
from 46 parasites/ml at 100 m to only 4/ml at 800-1,000 m from
the reservoir.

15. Photo:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:TomvanCakenberghe/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMI
Human Health (contd.): Schistosomiasis

16. Photo:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:TomvanCakenberghe/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMI
Social conflict (Korsimoro reservoir 70km NE Ouagadougou)
• Upstream veg. growers Vs. downstream rice farmers
• Fishers vs. agrichemicals & and other pollutants from veg.
growers.
• Pastoralists claim blocking passage of their cattle to the water
• Signs of over-use and conflicts are emerging among users as a
result of the increase in the upstream area under irrigation and
growing environmental problems.

17. Photo:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:TomvanCakenberghe/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMIPhoto:DavidBrazier/IWMI
Empirical work to be
undertaken

18. MCA framework for assessment of alternative SR mgt scenarios
Objective:
Max. Multiple
benefits from SR
Mgt.1
Provisioning
services
Indicator 1
Indicator 2
Indicator 3
Regulating
services I-1
I-2
I-3
Cultural
Services
Mgt.2
Mgt.3
Mgt. (k)
Other
Objective Alternatives
(SR mgt. Scenarios)
Criteria Indicators
(Data)

19. Assess the Performance of SRs (community-based)
Use a 5-point Likert scale:
1 = Very poor
2 = Poor
3 = Average
4 = Good
5 = Very good
ES Item Performance of SR
Yield increase 1 2 3 4 5
Water for livestock

20. More DATA
 Secondary sources/experiment judgements
 Survey Data (econ. data):
 Crop yield data – major crops in the area
o time series (if available)– record of yield over time (SRs
irrigated vs. non-irrigated)
o cross-sectional – survey of yield from sample of SR irrigated
& non-irrigated fields
 Inputs data – type of inputs, quantities
 Price data – prices of inputs and outputs

21. Trade-offs curves (Quant.)
Crop
(Yield)
Water quality
TC3
A
TC1 TC2
B
D
C
F
E
ΔY
ΔTC1
ΔTC2
ΔTC3

22. Trade-offs: community-based assessment
Elicit information on local people’s understanding/perception of
trade-offs among various ecosystem services, e.g. irrigation use
(more crop) vs. livestock water; irrigation use (more crop) vs.
domestic use etc. Synthesize data and cluster results (e.g.):
Indicators of
Regulating ES
Indicators of Provisioning ES
High-provisioning (HP) Low-provisioning (LP)
 High-Regulating
(HR)
win-win
(synergies)
win-lose
(trade-offs)
 Low-regulating
(LR)
lose-win
(trade-offs)
lose-lose
(worst outcome)

23. Thank You!