Successfully reported this slideshow.

Coping with Climate Change: Water Productivity Perspectives


Published on

Poster by Amare Haileslassie, Fitsum Hagos, Seleshi Bekele Awulachew, Tilahun Amede, Katrien Descheemaeker, Don Peden, Michael Blummel, Solomon Gebreselassie: Presented to ILRI APM, 23 March 2009

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Coping with Climate Change: Water Productivity Perspectives

  1. 1. Coping with Climate Change: Water Productivity Perspectives Amare Haileslassie*, Fitsum Hagos**, Seleshi Bekele Awulachew **, Tilahun Amede***,Katrien Descheemaeker**,Don Peden*, Michael Blummel*, Solomon Gebreselassie* * International Livestock Research Institute *** International Water Management Institute and International Livestock Research Institute Which Big Issue is addressed, ** International Water Management Institute and how? Climate change, vulnerability & coping: improved water Abstract productivity There is a growing concern that global climate change and associated water shortage will be one of the limiting factors for increased food production. Who are your partners? Several reports suggest that Africa is already vulnerable: a small rises in temperature and reductions in rainfall could 'tip the balance' and lead to severe water shortages and reductions in crop and livestock productivity. To cope with the impacts, strategies for producing more output per unit of water input have been suggested (e.g. CPWF project 37, note photo plates 1, 2, 3 and 5). This needs, however, further insight on the more vulnerable groups in the International Water management society and their capacity to cope. Similarly, outputs from CPWF 19 suggest that there are a lot of scopes for institutionalizing Payment for Environmental Institute. Services (PES), which could be used to enhance ecosystem’s resilience to climate change. In this poster relevant evidences from CPWF financed projects What else is needed to have are presented. impact? Dialog, awareness and actions Figure 1: Livestock and crop water productivity (US$ , Case 1: Smallholder Farmers’ Access to Productive Resources m3) across different wealth groups in Gumera Determine their Coping Capacity with Climate Change watershed, Blue Nile basin( LWP is Livestock Water Productivity and CWP is Crop Water Productivity) Our study on CWP and LWP (Figure 1) revealed that farmers that are endowed with more productive resources (e.g. land and draught power) have significantly higher values of LWP and CWP than the poor. Rich farmers maximize their benefits by using feed resources from communal a grazing lands by keeping more livestock. Whenever public interventions are planned to improve a communal pool resources underlining equity concerns need to be considered. Secondly, rich farmers a b seem to produce their animals’ feed (e.g. crop residues) with higher water productivity (Figure 1). In b general, the poor farmers are already vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and a slight shift in c rainfall pattern can tip the balance and worsen the current low level of agricultural productivity. Hence, policy that target poverty reduction, through agricultural intensification must be promoted. Photo1: Managing the water that livestock “eat”, Probability is based on LSD test; means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at Case 2: Immediate Area of Intervention for Adaptation to Climate p=0.05; wealth class 1 is rich, 2 is medium and 3 is Change is in Low Yielding Conditions poor as classified by participatory wealth ranking methods In many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, current extension packages to increase agricultural productivity and thereby reduce smallholders’ vulnerability to climate change, focus on “model farmers”. Figure 2: Relation between water productivity and Although there is scope to learn from the model farmer, whether “model farmers” should be the focal yield (Gumera watershed, Blue Nile basin) Photo2: Change in feeding regime: point of intervention for maximum impact is questioned. Data on water productivity across socio- addressing equity and land economic classes (Figure 2) are important to identify immediate areas of intervention that can yield 1b) degradation stronger impacts. Figure 2 suggests that the poor households had the lowest grain yields and associated CWP with negative implications for LWP in systems where residues are major feed sources, as the water depleted to grow crops is shared between grain and livestock feed. In general, the low yielding areas (Figure 2) are the areas of highest potential for water productivity gain and also to address more vulnerable groups. This warrants that policy makers must target the poor. Potential areas for interventions Case 3: Farmers Having More Livestock are Willing to Pay for Ecosystem Services Photo 3: Adding values to livestock products &improving access to institutions such as market PES is an emerging paradigm to finance conservation programs that can increase land productivity and enhances system’s resilience. We evaluated 325 sample households’, stratified into upstream and Table 1: Farmers WTP in cash and labor units (Koga downstream, willingness to pay (WTP) for improved land and water management practices (Table 1 and Gumera watersheds, Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia) and 2). About 64.9% of the households were willing to pay in cash while >90% were willing to pay in labor (Table 1). But values of mean WTP, whatever the type, fall far short of covering the Attributes Upstream Downstream Total investment and maintenance cost needed for land rehabilitation rendering a sole user-financed PES Willing Non-willing Willing Non-willing Willing Non-willing WTP (cash moth-1) 99 76 112 38 211 114 scheme infeasible in the short term ( Table 2). We suggested that PES can be linked to global targets of increasing soil carbon through land rehabilitation and multipurpose tree plantation (e.g. WTP (labor MD moth-1) 169 6 147 3 316 9 silvopasture). The analysis of the determinants of WTP reveals that asset wealth, such as livestock ownership, significantly determine farmers’ WTP. This implies that improving the poor's asset base will not only help reduce poverty but also enhance its capacity to invest. Thus, policy makers must Photo 4: Caring about livestock is focus on increasing the products and services per unit of livestock without focusing on mere increase WTP is for willingness to pay; MD is for man day caring about the owner in number of livestock. Table 2: Estimated mean WTP in cash and labor (Koga and Gumera watersheds, Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia) Mean WTP N Mean value C-I (95%) P>t MWTP ETB month-1 175 10.4 8.2 12.6 0.0029 (upstream) MWTP in ETB month-1 150 13.1 11.8 14.5 (downstream) MWTP ( in labor MD month-1 175 3.3 3.15 3.40 0.0000 (upstream) MWTP in labor MD month-1 150 3.9 3.69 4.01 (downstream) MWTP is mean willingness to pay; ETB is for Ethiopian currency = 9.6 Photo 5: Improving the quality and use of crop ETB; MD is for man day residues and focusing on food- feed crops This paper presents findings from PN 37, and 19 : projects of the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF). The authors are grateful to the CPWF and sample farm households for unreserved willingness to provide information. Our thanks also go to Shirley Tarawali for her comments on the draft of this poster. 23 March 2009 ILRI INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE