Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Economic and environmental  related aspects of water storage in  Sub-Saharan Africa   Stefanos Xenarios, Matthew McCartney...
<ul><li>There are always trade-offs – some people benefit  and some lose  </li></ul><ul><li>Divergence of values, needs an...
The Problem of Assessment  <ul><li>Economics have tended to dominate decision-making processes </li></ul><ul><li>Cost and ...
What is needed?  <ul><li>More equitable distribution of benefits to be gained from storage </li></ul><ul><li>Inclusion of ...
What is proposed  <ul><li>A more diffused approach based on diversified qualitative-quantitative criteria and outranking m...
A simple example of prevailing (CBA) economic approach <ul><li>A is more beneficial than B  ( A>B, 10-5), A better than C ...
An alternative approach –  Borda’s rule  + weights + thresholds <ul><li>Borda’s rule through outranking and pairwise condi...
An alternative approach – Borda’s rule +  weights +   thresholds <ul><li>For distribution-equity, weighting factor attribu...
Components selected for economic efficiency: two groups <ul><li>1st Group  </li></ul><ul><li>Relation with  </li></ul><ul>...
Water Storages Cases selected in Ghana and Ethiopia <ul><li>In Ghana: small reservoirs with upstream and downstream cases,...
Some very prime results from Ethiopia  Comp. % Comp. % Comp. % Points 5 Landless Marginal 4  Landless Marginal 4  Landless...
Constraints  Response <ul><li>Potential manipulation of preference  </li></ul><ul><li>intensity for the support of specifi...
Conclusions <ul><li>Approach borrows elements from outranking Multi Criteria Decision Aid methods (MCDA) which are often d...
Acknowledgements <ul><li>The research was conducted for the project entitled:  </li></ul><ul><li>Rethinking water storage ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Economic and environmental related aspects of water storage in Sub-Saharan Africa – Dr Stefanos Xenarios, IWMI, Ethiopia

677 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Economic and environmental related aspects of water storage in Sub-Saharan Africa – Dr Stefanos Xenarios, IWMI, Ethiopia

  1. 1. Economic and environmental related aspects of water storage in Sub-Saharan Africa Stefanos Xenarios, Matthew McCartney East Africa& Nile Basin Office
  2. 2. <ul><li>There are always trade-offs – some people benefit and some lose </li></ul><ul><li>Divergence of values, needs and interests of different groups </li></ul><ul><li>Biases and subjectivity in valuations and interpretations of “facts” </li></ul><ul><li>Disagreements in which cultural, social, economic and ecological dimensions are intertwined </li></ul><ul><li>Unequal power and influence of actors </li></ul>Why decision-making about water storage is difficult
  3. 3. The Problem of Assessment <ul><li>Economics have tended to dominate decision-making processes </li></ul><ul><li>Cost and benefit like analyses (CBA) for the optimal solutions in water storage is a common principle </li></ul><ul><li>If the expected economic benefits of storage are deemed to outweigh the predicted costs the project goes ahead </li></ul><ul><li>However, often reductionism with loss of information </li></ul><ul><li>Especially problematic in developing countries where components are more heterogeneous (i.e. irrigation, poverty alleviation, environmental flows, hydro-power) </li></ul>
  4. 4. What is needed? <ul><li>More equitable distribution of benefits to be gained from storage </li></ul><ul><li>Inclusion of all stakeholders in the planning and management of storage </li></ul><ul><li>Greater consideration of social and environmental, not just economic factors </li></ul>
  5. 5. What is proposed <ul><li>A more diffused approach based on diversified qualitative-quantitative criteria and outranking methodology </li></ul><ul><li>The economic efficiency principle is still pursued but with an attempt to overcome CBA related weaknesses </li></ul><ul><li>Approach tested in selected representative water storage options in Ethiopia and Ghana </li></ul>
  6. 6. A simple example of prevailing (CBA) economic approach <ul><li>A is more beneficial than B ( A>B, 10-5), A better than C (A>C, 10-4), B better than C (B>C, 5-4) </li></ul><ul><li>The ranking of options is like A>B>C </li></ul><ul><li>Complete and transitive ranking reveals first best case </li></ul><ul><li>But although majority points Option A, an almost equal amount depicts A as worst case </li></ul>Ranking 6 Components 5 Components 4 Components 4 Components First Best A B C A Options : A= Small reservoir (pumps) , B= Dug Well + Canal, C= Shallow well+Rainfed Options : A= Small reservoir (pumps) , B= Dug Well + Canal, C= Shallow well+Rainfed A A C B Third Best A C C C Second Best 4 Components 4 Components 5 Components 6 Components Ranking
  7. 7. An alternative approach – Borda’s rule + weights + thresholds <ul><li>Borda’s rule through outranking and pairwise conditions, acknowledged in voting systems and social choice theory </li></ul><ul><li>After calculations, C (65 points) becomes first best, A follows (42 points) and far behind is B (21 points) </li></ul><ul><li>Approach follows a consensus-based ranking system, considering all values adopted </li></ul>Ranking Formula (points) 6 Components 5 Components 4 Components 4 Components First Best N A B C A Second Best n-1 C C C A Third Best n-2 B C A A Options : A= Small reservoir (pumps) , B= Dug Well + Canal, C= Shallow well+Rainfed
  8. 8. An alternative approach – Borda’s rule + weights + thresholds <ul><li>For distribution-equity, weighting factor attributes significance to selected groups (e.g landless- marginal farmers). For instance: </li></ul><ul><li>Comp 1 = component related to the costs required for irrigation purposes </li></ul><ul><li>Comp 2 = component related to willingness to pay for water quality </li></ul><ul><li>A weighting factor is introduced in subsets of selected groups as: W i Comp 1k,2k, </li></ul><ul><li>where W i is the weighting factor and K n the subset of selected weak stakeholder </li></ul><ul><li>groups </li></ul><ul><li>Irreversibility and ecosystem complexity constraints handled with introduction of veto threshold among two alternatives </li></ul><ul><li>If difference between components is bigger than veto threshold, process is halted (Comp 1 - Comp 2 >Veto = 0) </li></ul><ul><li>If difference is smaller than veto, process goes ahead (Comp 1 - Comp 2 <Veto = 1) </li></ul>
  9. 9. Components selected for economic efficiency: two groups <ul><li>1st Group </li></ul><ul><li>Relation with </li></ul><ul><li>Agricultural- </li></ul><ul><li>domestic water use </li></ul><ul><li>and water status </li></ul>2 nd Group Relation with water and soil conservation practices Revenues from Agriculture (Cultivation &Livestock) Cost from Agriculture (Cultivation &Livestock) Cost of Water Use for farming Economics of domestic water use Willingness to Pay for water quality and quantity status Economic Impact of Water Use on Health Level of Satisfaction of quantitative and qualitative water status in agricultural and domestic sectors Investment on Water Conservation Practices Investment on Soil Conservation practices Level of difficulty from applying Water and Soil Conservation practices Level of improvement from applying Water and Soil Conservation Practices Technical efficiency of water and storage types Economic efficiency of water and storage types Choice experiment on different water storage options
  10. 10. Water Storages Cases selected in Ghana and Ethiopia <ul><li>In Ghana: small reservoirs with upstream and downstream cases, deep wells </li></ul><ul><li>In Ethiopia: small and large reservoirs (upstream and downstream ), shallow wells </li></ul><ul><li>Data extraction : Questionnaire forms (500 hsds in each country), stated preference (direct market when possible- hypothetical when missing) </li></ul>Blue Nile basin watersheds Koga – Gumara – Indris Volta basin watersheds Vea (Yaragagna) – Saata – Golinga
  11. 11. Some very prime results from Ethiopia Comp. % Comp. % Comp. % Points 5 Landless Marginal 4 Landless Marginal 4 Landless Marginal C * 20 20 A 10 10 B 20 20 3 B 10 15 A 30 5 C 10 15 2 A 20 20 B 15 25 C* 15 10 1 * There is a threshold value between the Choice Experiment and WTP criteria because Low Fees Preference and High WTP bid are presented. Thus these two criteria are excluded from the counting Options : A= Small reservoir (pumps) , B= Dug Well + Canal, C= Shallow well+Rainfed Calculations 5 Components 4 Components 4 Components C 4* (3*0.6+3.1*0.2+3.05*0.2) A 4* (3*0.85+3.1*0.1+3.05*0.15) B 4* (3*0.6+3.1*0.2+3.05*0.2) B 5* (2*0.85+2.1*0.1+2.05*0.15) A 4* (2*0.6+2.1*0.2+2.05*0.2) C 4* (2*0.75+2.1*0.1+2.05*0.15) A 5* (1*0.6+1.1*0.2+1.05*0.2) B 4* (1*0.85+1.1*0.1+1.05*0.15) C 3* (1*0.85+1.1*0.15+1.05*0.1) Points 5 Components 4 Components 4 Components C 12.12 A 13.27 B 12.12 B 11.087 A 8.12 C 8.07 A 5.15 B 4.47 C 3.36 Ranking: B(27.67)> A(26.54)>C (23.55)
  12. 12. Constraints Response <ul><li>Potential manipulation of preference </li></ul><ul><li>intensity for the support of specific </li></ul><ul><li>water storage option </li></ul>No group surveying, reasoning of intensive preference, no outliers Weighting and veto thresholds, strong analyst’s intervention, subjectivity Components alleged as inappropriate or of limited applicability ; High uncertainty if applied in other sub-Saharan country Comparison of different storage types in different locations may lead to asymmetrical solutions Literature review, consulted experts, key stakeholders Attempt to design components as to be representative to Sub-Saharan context; adjustment to examined cases Attempt to harmonize results with ranking procedure and consider highly irrelevant water storage options
  13. 13. Conclusions <ul><li>Approach borrows elements from outranking Multi Criteria Decision Aid methods (MCDA) which are often deemed to be highly subjective and so produce artificial results </li></ul><ul><li>The approach still builds on economic theory and is aligned with the concept of economic efficiency </li></ul><ul><li>Further elaboration is needed to ensure that aspects of ranking-weights- thresholds are transparent </li></ul><ul><li>Learning process will be achieved through a more extensive analysis of results </li></ul><ul><li>Hope to provide evidences for a more appropriate economic assessment of water storage in developing country context </li></ul>
  14. 14. Acknowledgements <ul><li>The research was conducted for the project entitled: </li></ul><ul><li>Rethinking water storage for climate change </li></ul><ul><li>adaptation in Sub-Saharan Africa , funded by the </li></ul><ul><li>German Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit </li></ul><ul><li>(GTZ) as part of its programme on Adaptation of </li></ul><ul><li>African Agriculture to Climate Change </li></ul>

×