WLE – Presentation for Discussion with Donors and Partners – June 2013

775 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
775
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

WLE – Presentation for Discussion with Donors and Partners – June 2013

  1. 1. The CGIAR Research Program onWater, Land and Ecosystems (WLE)Led by IWMI
  2. 2. The challenges facing our global foodproduction systemsFood security . . . Exploitation of resources . . .
  3. 3. The challengeschange . . . climatic, demographic, economic
  4. 4. We have exceeded three of the nine Planetaryboundaries – danger of greater risks anduncertainty emerging.Agriculture is the dominant contributing factorand the solution.
  5. 5. The paradigm shift that WLE seeks – sustainableintensification that places people and natureupfrontThe status quo: ecosystems andnatural capital are whollyowned subsidiaries of ouragricultural productionsystems.The paradigm shift: agriculturalproduction systems are a whollyowned subsidiary of theecosystems and natural capitalthey are dependent upon.Agricultural production will besustained provided we do notover-allocate or destroyecosystems, associated servicesand natural capital.
  6. 6. Benefit sharing mechanisms in the AndesFuquene, ColombiaSAnnual net income:US$ 2,183/haAnnual net income:US$ 1,870/haConservationagriculture andparamorestorationsupported byrevolving fundRevolving fund credit:+180 farmers /yearPotato cropping,grazing pressure,degradation of paramo
  7. 7. Our vision:A world in which agriculture thrives withinvibrant ecosystems, where communitieshave higher incomes, improved foodsecurity and the ability to continuouslyimprove their lives
  8. 8. The Game Changers ……..• What if smallholder farmers in the EasternGangetic Plain were able to grow crops all yearround?• What if we could prevent degradation andrestore degraded lands?• What if wastes and used water could have asecond life in agriculture?• What if excess water during floods could bestored in natural and man made systems andused during droughts?• What if women had equal access to land, waterand ecosystem services?
  9. 9. The Water, Land and Ecosystem Program
  10. 10. . . . with targeted interventions in 6 - 7 focal regions.
  11. 11. 1. Irrigated farming systems
  12. 12. Irrigated Systems SRPSolutions:• Enhancing success ofIrrigation in sub-SaharanAfrica (SSA).• Revitalizing public irrigationsystems.• Water management in theEastern Gangetic Basin.• Combating and convalescingirrigation induced salinity atfield and regional scales.Photo: Tom Van Cakenberghe/IWMI
  13. 13. 2. Rainfed farming systems
  14. 14. Rainfed Systems SRPSolutions:• Reducing land degradation inrainfed landscapes.• Sustaining productive landscapesby increasing biodiversity.• Reducing risk and tacklingproductivity/environmentchallenges in farming landscapes.Photo:AkicaBahri/IWMI
  15. 15. 3. Resource recovery and reuse
  16. 16. Resource, Recovery and Reuse SRPSolutions:• Business opportunities forresource recovery and reuse.• Safe wastewater and excretareuse.• Efficient water and landmanagement in peri-urban areas.Photo:AndreaSilverman/IWMI
  17. 17. 4. River basins
  18. 18. Basins SRPSolutions:• Managing water resources’variability and re-thinkingstorage in basins.• Resource allocation andsharing for the benefit of all• Water and energy for food(WE4FOOD).• Water data and accountingin basins.
  19. 19. WLE IDOs• Improved land, water and energy productivity in rainfed andirrigated agro-ecosystems.• Increased and more equitable income from agricultural andnatural resources management and ecosystem services inrural and peri-urban areas.• Women and marginalized groups have decision making powerover and increased benefits derived from agriculture andnatural resources.• Increased ability of low income communities to adapt toenvironmental and economic variability, demographic shifts,shocks and long term changes.• Increased resilience of communities through enhancedecosystem services in agricultural landscapes.
  20. 20. Indicative Impact Metrics• % of household (femaleheaded) below poverty line.• % of households (femaleheaded) affected by flood ordrought.• Average yield.• Soil degradation rate.• IRR on investments.Indicative Research OutcomeMetrics• Value of projects andinvestments (in US$).• Number of national policiesdeveloped / changed.• Number of internationalguidelines developed /changed.• Number of organizationsusing informationmanagement tools.
  21. 21. Gender, Poverty andInstitutions
  22. 22. How?Content and structure• Equity triangle• Gender integration in SRPsand gender specificArchitecture:– Embedded: not just one approach– Budget - working towards full accounting– Voting member of the management committee– Growing with partnersPovertyInstitutionsGender
  23. 23. What?Towards:• More equitable access to water, land and ecosystemsservices.• Improved decision making - inclusion in resourcemanagementResearch questions:• The African farmer and her husband: Feminization ofagriculture• Mother and earth: Replenishing and fostering agricultureDevelop:Investable options for women
  24. 24. Ecosystem Services andResilience
  25. 25. Ecosystem Conservation asa result ofpoverty alleviation
  26. 26. Ecosystem Conservation asmeans topoverty alleviation
  27. 27. Principles• People are fundamental• Human and Natural systems are tightly coupled.• Ecological processes in the portfolio of options.• Multifunctionality: Complex Adaptive Systems• Resilience: shocks will occur.• Recognize we might have to modify ecosystems• Large scale: basin as maximum extent (CPR)
  28. 28. 0204060801001-Oct-801-Nov-801-Dec-801-Jan-811-Feb-811-Mar-811-Apr-811-May-811-Jun-811-Jul-811-Aug-811-Sep-81Flow(m3s-1)Daily flow with and without floodplainWithout floodplain (simulated) With floodplain (observed)Flow Regulation in the Luswishi FloodplainUnderstanding how ecosystemsaffect livelihoodsM. McCartney (IMWI)
  29. 29. Ecosystem Services bywhom and for whom?Rainfallless than 900 mmyr-1Greaterthan 900 mmyr-1F. Kizito (CIAT)
  30. 30. Facilitating intervention decisions: what and where?
  31. 31. Recognizing the value of Ecosystem Services Providedby Farming CommunitiesM.Quintero(CIAT);W.Zhang(IFPRI);F.DeClerck(Bioversity)My farm participates in theManagement of theReventazonRiver Watershed (ICE)
  32. 32. Growing Partnerships….
  33. 33. Information
  34. 34. Information for Decision MakingStrategic objectives• Systematically identify whatinformation will improveproductivity, reduce risks andimprove lives the most.• Build stakeholder capacity inhow to design and implementcost-effective measurementand information systems thattarget critical uncertainties indevelopment decisions.
  35. 35. Backgroundhttp://www.dfid.gov.uk/R4D/Output/192446/Default.aspxReview of the Evidenceon Indicators, Metricsand MonitoringSystemsProcess• 103 monitoring initiatives screened.• 24 initiatives evaluated against 34criteria• Monitoring experience in other fields:public health, industry and publicservices.• Investments in monitoring systems have had little impact ondecision making“Land resource monitoring in Australia has never provided the right informationfor decision making” (Neil McKenzie, Chief CSIRO).
  36. 36. A Survey and Analysis of the Data Requirementsfor Stakeholders in African Agriculture• Poor alignment between perceived needs, perceiveduncertainty, data gathering efforts, and actual decisions• Measurement inversion – most effort spent where noinformation value
  37. 37. Decisions-under-uncertainty analytic framework• 6 Intervention casesin progress with WLEteams: Rainfed,Irrigation, Basins,Agrobiodiversity,Reuse, PESValue of Information AnalysisIntervention Decision Model
  38. 38. Outcomes•Information products target key uncertainties in stakeholder decisiondilemmas•Stakeholder decisions use best available evidence to increase reducerisks, increase security and improve lives•Decision tools and stakeholder capacity to:•Prioritize and improve interventions considering uncertainty•Efficiently measure the impact of interventions on developmentoutcomes•Quantify the value of the research itself.•Applications across WLE + other CRPs(CCAFS, Humid, Drylands, A4NH, Wheat) +CGIAR
  39. 39. 4. Variabilitymanagement3. Addressingdegradation1. EasternGangetic Plains2. Businessmodels
  40. 40. What if smallholder farmers inthe Eastern Gangetic Plainwere able to grow crops allyear round?
  41. 41. A region rich in Culture, Physiography and Wild life, andwhere water, sunshine and fertile soils are in abundance,is also the home to the poorest of the poor!WLE, CCAFS, CSIRO, USQ, NUSNARS & NGOs in Bangladesh, India, NepalBudget: 10 M USDEasternGangeticPlains
  42. 42. Southern Monsoon forfour monthsA highly variable hydrologyProne to drought and floodafter Don BlackmoreWhy?
  43. 43. •Is therea wayout?YES• Sustainably usegroundwaterduring summerand winterseasons.Run theGangesWaterMachine• Rains andfloods shallfill them upProductivity increasedDroughts mitigatedFloods moderated.
  44. 44. Availability224 BCMwatermanaged tominimizetemporalvariabilityAccessEquitablyimproved for300 mpeopleAchievementsProductivityincreasedfrom 2.5 t/hato improvefood securityand nutritionWe will work on the three pillars of Water Management
  45. 45. • Access to Energy• Arsenic in Groundwater• Feminization due tomigration• Gender inequity• Land holdings & tenure• Land fragmentation• Micro financingResearch under the EGPshall create the requiredknowledge and publicpolicy support for thesebig-ticket items.Putting EGP on the takeoff trajectory needsevidence based public policy shifts!!
  46. 46. What if wastes and used water couldhave a second life in agriculture and therenaissance is actually safe and viable?
  47. 47. Agro-industrial waste - EnergyWastewater – Water (irrigation,aquaculture)MSW, Faecal sludge - Nutrients (ag. production)Innovative RRR initiatives – to close waterand nutrient cycles
  48. 48. Reuse is not new . . .• Technical knowledge is largely available.• But hardly any project can recover costs orsurvives its subsidized pilot stage.• RRR brings a paradigm shift into the sanitation-agriculture interface by studying and testingBusiness Models for RRR with dueconsideration of safety aspects and culturalperceptions.
  49. 49. Solutions Applying a business perspective to the recovery of nutrients,water and energy from domestic and agro-industrial wastestreams. Analyzing existing successes across low-income countries fortheir set-up, history and business models. Testing most promising business models for replication andeconomic feasibility for city investment plans at largest possiblescale. Addressing health concerns through the development ofSanitation Safety Plans with WHO.
  50. 50. Feasibility testing of business models indifferent citiesCurrent status:• Existing Database of 150+ business cases acrossAsia, Africa and Latin America• Selection of 60 cases for in-depth analysis• Development of 20 business models• Testing their feasibility in 10 cities
  51. 51. Action research on reuse guidelines andpolicy recommendations.Compost valorization trials (from faecalsludge to safe fertilizer pellets)Monitoring Business Model Implementationthrough PPP.Selected strategic partners:
  52. 52. International Partnerships• Technical expertise:• Health risk mitigation:• Business school curricula development:• National partners: NARS, Min. Of Health, Private sector, ...• Donors:
  53. 53. Take home messages1. The RRR research portfolio targets private sectorengagement, PPP, donors and business schools.2. A team of economists, business developers, engineersand environmental scientists works closely together.3. Analyzing business models and returns on investmentare building blocks of the research program.4. The program has so far received significant feedbackand there are many avenues to apply the samebusiness approach to other WLE research portfolios.
  54. 54. What if we could prevent degradationand restore degraded lands?
  55. 55. Now is an excitingtime for renewedcoordinated effortstowards a ‘landdegradation neutral(or better!) world’More than 95 million has of arable land,or 75% of the total in SSA has degraded orhighly degraded soil and farmers loseeight million tons of soil nutrients eachyear, estimated to be worth $4 billion...Land Degradation is a Classic ‘WickedProblem”
  56. 56. 1. Advances in researchSocial ScienceCIRADIWMI, CPWF, CIAT, WRIInclusion of the people’s voicewithin the scientific researchframework at many scales Wet season Dry season
  57. 57. 1. Advances in researchSoil Science RS/GISCIAT, ICRAF, CU, ISRIC, Purdue, FAO-GSP, countries in sub-Saharan Africaand Latin AmericaDiagnosing,assessing andmappingErosionprevalenceSoil pHVolta BasinSoil CarbonDigital Soil Map
  58. 58. 1. Advances in researchEcosystem ServicesTrade-off AnalysisEnvironmental EconomicsIFPRI, Bioversity, CIAT, IWMI, CPWF, ELDCosts of Action vs. Cost of InactionInVEST FrameworkSupply Demand
  59. 59. 2. Alignment of global initiatives• Rio+20 ‘The future we want’ Land Degradation Neutral’• UN Sustainable Development Goals• FAO’s Global Soil Partnership3. Drivers of change as opportunities• Public and Private Investment, CAADP and GrowAfrica• Urbanization, feminization of agriculture• Increased price of food• Investments in hydropower and mining
  60. 60. Study Landscapes in Focal Regions+/-10 StudyLandscapes Tanzania,Malawi, Kenya, Ethiopia,Ghana, Burkina Faso, Niger,Lao PDR, Cambodia,Myanmar, Nicaragua, ElSalvadorBuilding on CPWFand other ProgramsWorking withFTACCAFSHumidtropicsDryland Systems
  61. 61. Research Outputs• Assessments of land degradation, ecosystem services impacts and tradeoffs, andeconomic valuation of societal costs• Evaluations of institutional and policy contexts and constraints that hindersustainable practice and women’s access to resources• Co-created and spatially-explicit strategies to recuperate degraded lands, andmanage landscapes for ecosystem services and equity• Incentives designed for institutional change to support adoption• Stakeholder engagement processes, adaptation of participatory tools• National, local and NGO capacity built for soil and land assessment, ecosystemsservices evaluation, participatory approaches• Engagement in international initiatives and conventions, FAO GSP, ELD, UNCCD, andconservation NGO’s, TNC, CI, EAP, and the Future Earth Initiative.
  62. 62. Partnership for OutcomesLANDSCAPENATIONALREGIONALGLOBALDELIVER RESEARCH OUTCOMES – impact multiplies through partnersPotential beneficiaries 10’s of thousands0–6years3–6years6–9years• Global initiatives informed and inspired by research,support national and landscape investments• New investments made by IFAD, GIZ, GEF• Public and private• Policy, Regulation, Incentives support adoptionStrategies adopted that aresite specific, gender & equitysensitiveFAO, GSP, UNCCD,ELD, GEF, UNEP,UNDPNational Agricultureand NRM policy CAADP,IFAD, GIZ, SDCCommunities, civilsociety, NGO’s,national extension,ARI’s, IFAD, SDC100’s of thousands Millions
  63. 63. Take home messages• We have a global enabling environment for addressingland degradation – we want to make the localenvironment also enabling• Part of the story is making the value proposition forthe big investors – ‘costs of action vs. inaction’• Partnership with, and support to, the ‘big players’ ishow we propose to get to scale
  64. 64. What if floods could be stored in naturaland man made systems and used duringdroughts?
  65. 65. Background & Suggested Metrics• Moving from a focus on water scarcity to an era ofincreased uncertainty and water variability• Reducing adverse impacts of variability and improvingpositive outcomes can impact millions of lives• Developing science-based evidence to developunderstanding, options, tools and policies to reduceadverse and improve positive impacts of water variabilityM&E indicators1. Share of households affected by floods and droughts2. Number of organizations using information and toolsdeveloped3. Number of policies developed / changed
  66. 66. Flood Hotspots and MappingAGRICULTURE;PAGE (2005)POPULATIONCIESIN - 2010FLOOD EXPOSEDGDPWB, 2010• Globally - 90 grid cells of 100 km with catastrophic flood occurrence > 5,during 1900-2010; Damage analysis
  67. 67. Water Storage Continuum
  68. 68. Conjunctive Flood and Drought ManagementChao Phraya basin, ThailandSource: DFOLand Use Regular Flooding Alluvium aquifers
  69. 69. Partnerships• International Association of Hydrological Sciences,FAO, Global Water Systems Project, UNEP,International Union for Conservation of Nature,WWF, and many others.• At national level—work with disaster managementagencies (CSO & public), water and agriculturalagencies, basin authorities• Regional disaster management and basinorganizations• Private sector: insurance companies

×