nile basin focal project
Upload: water-food-and-livelihoods-in-river-basins-basin-focal-projects
Post on 18-May-2015
1.698 views
DESCRIPTION
Presented at the Basin Focal Project workshop 'Clarifying the global picture of water, food and poverty' from 18-20th September in Chiang Mai, Thailand.TRANSCRIPT
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
IWMI
NBI
ENTRO
ILRI
WORLD FISH CENTER
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Outline
1. Background
2. WP1 Poverty analysis
3. WP2: Assessment of Water Resources
4. WP3 Assessment of Water productivity
5. WP4 Institutional analysis
6. WP5 Intervention analysis
7. Conclusions
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Nile BFP Project Objective:
To identify high potential water To identify high potential water To identify high potential water To identify high potential water management management management management interventions to reduce interventions to reduce interventions to reduce interventions to reduce poverty and increase poverty and increase poverty and increase poverty and increase water productivitywater productivitywater productivitywater productivity
1. Background assessment of the basin
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWFThe Basin is highly variable, the river is very important, various interventions
Basin is highly variable
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
• Access to water is related to poverty, not availability – need to differentiate access and availability
• Water productivity can be a key driver of wealth generation
• Issues are different between Egypt and Northern part of Sudan and the rest of the basin – access to water, productivity, institutions, etc.
• In US Basin countries water access is limited, and water productivity low – key to poverty reduction.
Key ideas:
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
• These are missed opportunities because agriculture water management for rainfed, wetland, livestock, fisheries, aquaculture tend to fall in a void.
• There are inadequate institutional arrangements to support this.
Project premise:
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
• There are numerous opportunities to manage water better for agriculture in order to improve productivity, food security and livelihoods.
• While most of the focus is on river water, we start with rainfall to look for opportunities outside of the river.
• Significant gains can be made through improving rainfed production systems through better agricultural water management
• Livestock, fisheries, aquaculture, wetlands provide opportunities, but are generally absent in Nile discourse.
Project premise:
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Agricultural Population in the Nile Basin
0
20
40
60
80
100
Burundi
Congo,
DR
Egypt
Eritre
aEth
iopi
aK
enya
Rwan
daSuda
nTan
zani
aU
ganda
Countries
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Ag
ric
ult
ura
l P
op
ula
tio
n1979-1981
1989-1991
1999-2001
2003
2004
Baseline Conditions
3451 45
32
285402
936 1050 1012
3618
1
10
100
1000
10000
Bu
run
di
Eg
yp
t
Eri
tre
a
Rw
an
da
Ug
an
da
Ke
ny
a
Eth
iop
ia
Su
da
n
Ta
nz
an
ia
D R
Co
ng
o
Pre
cip
ita
tio
n (
km
3 y
r-1)
0.15
0.28
0.40
0.53
0.65
0.78
0.90
1972 1978 1984 1990 1996 2002 2008
Year
Hum
an d
evelo
pm
ent in
dex
EgyptSudanKenyaUgandaEthiopiaTanzaniaRwandaaverage, all countries
• High poverty and low development
• High Rainfall Poor Water Distribution-high loss upstream
• Drought & flooding
• High rainfall variability
• High agriculture dependency, slow transformation
• Despite potential, low water usage
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Nile Delta
Sudd
Cattle Corridor
Lake Victoria: Ugandan Highlands
Ethiopian Highlands
Study Sites
Basin Wide
Sudan Transect
Nile Basin Study Sites:
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
#Y
%[
%[
%[
%[
%[
%[
%[
%[
%[
%[
Sio
Yala
Victoria N
ile
Ru v
uvu
Kagera
Mara
Sondu
Sim
yu
Asw
a
Nya b
oro
ngo
Albert N ile
Nzoia
Dima
Semiliki
Kafu
K at on ga
Mu zizi
Jinja
K am dini
P akwachPanyango
Mbulam uti
Laropi
Ma sindi Port
Kaseny i
Bweramule
KatweKazing a C hanne lIshango
N gamba
L. Victoria
L. AlbertL. Kyoga
L. Edward
L. Kivu
L. Tangany ika
L. George
%[
#Y
Nama sagali
Murchision Fa lls
Mongalla
Owen Falls D am
Paraa
Bugondo
But iabaBunia
N imule
Kisumu
Musom a
Bukoba
Mwanza
Kamp ala
Entebbe
Fort Po rtal
Kigali
D R C
S U D A �
Rivers
Equator ial Lake Sub- Basins
#Y Discharge Stations
%[ Towns
Falls
Scale 1:4,250,000
Case Study Sites
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
The Nile Basin
Food or environment?
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Irrigation Schemes
Country Irrig. Water Requirement, m3/ha/yr
Irrigation Potential, ha
Irrigated Area, ha
Burundi 13,000 80,000 0
DRC 10,000 10,000 0
Egypt 13,000 4,420,000 3,078,000
Eritrea 11,000 150,000 15,124
Ethiopia 9,000 2,220,000 23,160
Kenya 8,500 180,000 0
Rwanda 12,500 150,000 2,000
Sudan 14,000 2,750,000 1,935,200
Tanzania 11,000 30,000 10,000
Uganda 8,000 202,000 9,120
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Irrigation Schemes, current & future …
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Hydropower Plants,
current & future
Existing Sites
New Planned Sites
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Rain = 1745 km3
Rainfed ET – 190 km3
Irrigated ET – 67 km3
Outflow – 10 to 30 km3
Limited options to expand
irrigation – but gets attention
Ample options to upgrade
agriculture on rainfed lands –
gets little attention
A green-blue viewIrrigated
Pastoral
Rainfed
Wetlands
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
14 Ramsar Sites
All support agriculture
and/or fisheries
All sites listed as
threatened by these
activities
Image of the Sudd
Nile Wetlands
CPWF, IWMI, WorldFish, ILRI, NBI
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
The Sudd Wetland: Inundation Extent
Image courtesy of JAXA K&C
ALOS PALSAR L-band SARRED: June 2008, GREEN: September 2008, BLUE: December 2008
Image courtesy of JAXA K&C
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Jonglei Canal
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Jonglei Canal
360 km long
7 5 m wide
4 to 8m deep
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Irrigation Schemes
Country Irrig. Water Requirement, m3/ha/yr
Irrigation Potential, ha
Irrigated Area, ha
Burundi 13,000 80,000 0
DRC 10,000 10,000 0
Egypt 13,000 4,420,000 3,078,000
Eritrea 11,000 150,000 15,124
Ethiopia 9,000 2,220,000 23,160
Kenya 8,500 180,000 0
Rwanda 12,500 150,000 2,000
Sudan 14,000 2,750,000 1,935,200
Tanzania 11,000 30,000 10,000
Uganda 8,000 202,000 9,120
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Irrigation Schemes, current & future …
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
2. WP1 Poverty analysis
Objectives:
• To establish a broad understanding of poverty and how it relates to water access in production systems in the Nile
• To create an overview of poverty and vulnerability indicators relevant for the Nile basin
• To test links between water, agriculture and poverty in the Nile basin
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Research questions:
• What are the basin characteristics of water and poverty and how are they linked?
• Where are the poor and what are their water related problems?
• What are the water-related risks in crop-livestock systems?
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Methods:
• Literature review of the basin
• Mapping hotspots of poverty in agricultural systems– We use food security, poverty level and poverty inequality to map poverty in the rural agricultural production systems of the Nile Basin.
– Poverty in this case is related to household expenditure on food and non-food items.
– Poverty line is drawn from expenditure required to purchase cost of a basket of goods that allows minimum nutrition requirements
• Mapping vulnerability and water related risks
• Case study on mapping poverty indicators and water access - Uganda
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Poverty Hotspots:
0 290 580 870 1,160Kilometers
KEY
Rivers
Water bodies
Poverty level (%)
<15
15 - 25
25 - 35
35 - 45
45 - 55
>55
No data
KEY
Poverty hotspots
Production system
Agro-Pastoral
Pastoral
±
0 290 580 870 1,160145Kilometers
±
0 290 580 870 1,160145Kilometers
KEY
Rivers
Poverty hotspots
Water bodies
Mixed rainfed
Cereals
Cereals+
Legumes
Legumes+
Mixed rain 0 260 520 780 1,040130Kilometers
KEY
Rivers
Lakes
Nile Basin bnd
Poverty level > 50%
Treecrops
Rootcrops+
Treecrops+
Rootcrops
Poverty in pastoral
and agropastoral
systems
Poverty in the
basin
Poverty in cereal
and legume
systems
Poverty in tree and
root crop systems
(banana, cassava &
cotton)
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Mapping vulnerability and water
related risks
• Vulnerability as exposure to risk, ability to cope with resulting impacts and the capacity to adapt to new conditions
• Mapped several indicators of bio-physical and social risks which results into vulnerability
• The outcomes of these cluster data were combined asseverity indices ranging from 4 to 5 levels depending on the number of variables used
• Vulnerability maps indicate levels of exposure to risk. These risks ranged from very high risk, high risk, moderate risk, low risk and very low risk.
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
• hotspots of vulnerability in agricultural systems (biophysical risks estimated from cluster data classification of human and livestock population, market access, internal renewable water resources and area of crop suitability)
• population is a key driver of exposure to biophysical vulnerability especially in the intensifying crop livestock systems throughout the highlands and in the central belt of Sudan
AgropastoralRainfed cereals Rainfed tree crops Irrigated
KEY
River Nile
Water bodies
Bio-Physical risks
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
0 290 580 870 1,160145Kilometers
KEY
River Nile
Water bodies
Bio-physical risk
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high 0 290 580 870 1,160145Kilometers
KEY
River Nile
Water bodies
Bio-physical risk
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
0 290 580 870 1,160145Kilometers
KEY
River Nile
Water bodies
Bio-physical vulnerability
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high0 290 580 870 1,160145
Kilometers
Vulnerability hotspots:
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
KEY
River_Nile
Water bodies
Social risk
Low
Medium
High 0 290 580 870 1,160145Kilometers
KEY
River Nile
Water bodies
Social risk
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high0 290 580 870 1,160145
Kilometers
KEY
River Nile
Water bodies
Social risk
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
KEY
River Nile
Water bodies
Social risks
Very Low
Low
Medium
High0 290 580 870 1,160145
Kilometers
-hotspots of vulnerability in agricultural systems (social risks estimated from cluster data classification of disease prevalence; malaria HIV/AIDS and stunted growth and malnourished children below age 5)
- high vulnerability index in agropastoral areas reflects exposure and low capacity to cope with disease and food insecurity due to high poverty rates
- low vulnerability index in irrigated systems reflects better institutional capacity to cope with the impacts of disease and food insecurity
- exposure to disease and food insecurity is widespread in the rainfed agricultural systems of the basin except along the lower nile and into the delta region
Agropastoral Rainfed cereals Rainfed tree crops Irrigated
Vulnerability:
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
- hotspots of water related risks in agricultural systems (hazards estimated from cluster data classification of drought index; rainfall variability as CV rain and changes in the length of growing period; LGP)
- high risk index in agropastoral and rainfed areas reflects high variation due to rainfall and changes in the length of growing period
- low risk index in irrigated systems reflects less dependency on rainfall
KEY
River Nile
Water bodies
Risk due to water
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high 0 290 580 870 1,160145Kilometers
KEY
River Nile
Water bodies
Risk due to water
Low
Medium
High
Very high 0 290 580 870 1,160145Kilometers
±
KEY
River Nile
Water bodies
Risk due to water
Ver Low
Low
Medium
High 0 290 580 870 1,160145Kilometers
Agropastoral Rainfed cereals Rainfed tree crops Irrigated
Water related risks:
KEY
River Nile
Water bodies
Risks due to water
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high 0 290 580 870 1,160145Kilometers
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Linking water, agriculture and poverty
Where are the poor?
• in hotspots with high population densities in the mixed rainfed agricultural systems particularly those supporting cereal-legume cropping and banana/cassava systems
• These are concentrated in the highlands of east Africa (Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Ethiopia)
• In pastoral and agropastoralsystems of the central belt of Sudan, northern Uganda and the lake region of Tanzania
• Low poverty in rice, wheat and cotton systems
What are their water related problems?
• Food insecurity due to high poverty rates and dependency on rainfed agriculture
• high risk of rainfall variation and changes in length of growing season in pastoral and agropastoral systems
• high exposure to disease and malnutrition due to low institutional capacity to cope with the negative impacts
• low risk of rainfall variation and changes in length of growing season in the highlands as well as lake Victoria sub-basin but widespread poverty still unexplained by good market access
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Objectives:– Assess Nile water availability (spatio-
temporal distribution)
– Assess water demands and use
– Assess water accessibility
Methodology– Rapid Assessment through literature review
– Identify and fill in gaps of existing knowledge
– Statistical analysis (trends, frequencies)
– Water accounting
3. WP2: Assessment of Water
Availability and Access
Sudan
Egypt
Ethiopia
Uganda
Tanzania
Kenya
Eritrea
Rwanda
Burundi
Congo, DRC
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
����Flow station����rainfall station
Nile Basin Databases
• Hydrological data base
• Climate (precipitation)
database (+ grid data)
• ET, soil moisture, biomass,
etc., (WaterWatch)
• Storage systems database
(under development)
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Sample results: Data collection
Nile Database: Monthly river flow: 1910 to 2000
ASWAN QP BAHIR_DAR QP DONGOLA QP GIRBA QP HASSANAB QP J_AULIA QP JINJA QPKESSIE QP KHARTOUM QP KILO_3 QP MALAKAL QP MANGALA QP ROSEIRES QP SENNAR QPTAMANIAT QP
11-201011-200011-199011-198011-197011-196011-195011-194011-193011-192011-1910
Dis
ch
arg
e P
roce
sse
d [m
3/s
]
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
How much is the Nile
(Blue) water?
Is it 84.5 billion m3
(data from 1900 to 1950)
Long term mean: source
Sutcliffe and Parks, 1999
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Nile trends: water flows
MAIN NILE
Monthly Flows: 1871/72 -2000/01
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
160.00
1871
-72
1877
-78
1883
-84
1889
-90
1895
-96
1901
-02
1907
-08
1913
-14
1919
-20
1925
-26
1931
-32
1937
-38
1943
-44
1949
-50
1955
-56
1961
-62
1967
-68
1973
-74
1979
-80
1985
-86
1991
-92
1997
-98
Bill
ion
M3
TOTAL
5yr moving mean
Q 1900 to 1950 = 86.3
Q 1900 to 1995 = 80.8
Q 1951 to 1995 = 76.0
What are the recent trends? More
water? ����88km3
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
>1600
1400 - 1600
1200 -1400
1000 - 1200
200-400
400 - 600
600 - 800
800 - 1000
< 25
25 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 200
Mean PMean ET0
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
What is the seasonal
variability?
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Nile water accounting: Methodology
• Based on water balance principle (inflow =
outflow +∆∆∆∆S)
• Define indictors: supply, consumption,
beneficial (economical, environmental), non-
beneficial
• Boundary conditions (Inputs):
– Water Supply: Rain, River, Groundwater
– Water use: Consumptive (ET), non-
consumptive, beneficial (T), non-beneficial
(E), committed (treaties), etc.
• Scales:
– Spatial: catchment, production system,
sub-basin, basin, country
– Temporal: month, season, annual, long term
mean
• Output
– Water accounting ���� water productivity
Source: Molden, 1997
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Input: Land and water use classes
MWsaline sinks15
MWmanaged wetland14
NLnatural lakes and rivers13
MWreservoir12
MWirrigated crop11
NLdesert10
MWUrban + industustry9
MLrainfed crops8
NLnatural wetland7
NLsparse savanna6
NLopen savanna5
NLwoody savanna4
NLshrub land3
NLopen forest2
NLclosed forest1
clas
sLand useNo.
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Input: Land and water use classes
3,162,26
6Total
02132021324500%313MWSaline sinks15
01704017044500%501MWManaged wetlands14
015550155512503%88,832NLLakes & rivers13
02916029164000%5,991MWReservoir12
14758808949752502%51,493MWIrrigated crop11
3283221536030%941,604NLDesert10
57761051212273500%5,377MW
Urban and
industrial9
136721556848399107%235,526MLRainfed crops8
17447210108812996700%14,077NLNatural wetland7
874110750461268510%315,078NLSparse savannah6
1642918951069978024%764,232NLOpen savannah5
23348220699919109012%373,785NLWoody savannah4
5074651622272908%260,299NLShrub land3
173161776137919001%19,337NLOpen forest2
33818183929111313503%85,821NLClosed forest1
Productio
n
Kg/ha
E
mm
T
mm
ET
mm
Rainfall
mm
Area
%
Area
Km2
landus
e typeLanduse�o.
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
�atural land cover Managed land use Managed water use
�atural forest P, ET
Savanna P, ET
Desert P, ET
.. P, ET
Forest plantation P, ET
Rainfed crop P, ET
.. P, ET
Irrigation P, ET
Managed wetlands P, ET
Drinking water P, ET
.. P, ET
inflow
Aquifer & reservoirs
Water balance for 2007 in km3
81.4 -57.4
29.0 Outflow
5.0
0.0
0.0
Committed 9.8
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Water balance indicators for 2007
water balance components
1745 1716
76.6 57.4 29.0 9.8 19.20
500
1000
1500
2000
wat
er s
uppl
y
cons
umed
Ava
ilabl
e
dive
rted
outfl
ow
Com
mitt
ed
Exc
ess
km
3
Water Balance indicators
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Consumed Available Diverted Excess Committed
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Water consumption for 2007
water consumption
1458
189 69
1305
716 588411
0
500
1000
1500
2000
natu
ral la
nd c
...m
anage
d la
n...
man
aged
wat..
Benef
icial
Benef
icial-E
con
Benef
icial -
EnvNon-
bene
ficia
lE
T,
km
3
Water consumption indicators
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Nat
ural
LU
Man
aged
LU
Man
aged
WU
Benef
icial
ET
Ben_E
con.
ET
Ben_E
nv. E
T
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Water production for 2007
Biomass production in 109kg
0
500
1000
1500
Clo
se
dfo
res
t
Op
en
fore
st
Sh
rub
lan
d
Wo
od
ys
av
an
na
h
Op
en
sa
va
nn
ah
Sp
ars
es
av
an
na
h
Na
tura
lw
etla
nd
Ra
infe
dc
rop
s
Urb
an
an
din
du
str
ial
De
se
rt
Irri
ga
ted
cro
p
Re
se
rvo
ir
La
ke
s &
riv
ers
Ma
na
ge
dw
etla
nd
s
Sa
line
sin
ks
land and water use
an
nu
al
bio
ma
ss
in
10
^9
kg
Biomass
Food
Feed
wood
Env.
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Basin PS: Low to High Resolution
4. WP3: Production Systems &
Productivity
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Water productivity mapping:
METHODOLOGY
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
• Production data:- Countries statistic departments - FAO database in 2005
• Market prices of agricultural products
• RS images and secondary GIS data
- Waterwatch 2007 ETa and Ta maps
- Land use/land cover (LULC); GLC 2008/ Africover
- Admin and basin boundaries, road network, ecological zones
Data sources
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Standardized gross value of production
SGVP: is an index which helps to compare the economical
value of different crops regardless in which country or
region they are.
∑=
×
×=
i
i
cropbaseicrop
cropbase
icrop
crops pricenalInternatioproductionpricelocal
pricelocalSGVP
1
Wheat is the major crop in the basin and it is taken
as base crop.
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Rainfall and Water stress
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
SGVP
SGVP/ha is highly variable
across the basin.
Egypt has the highest SGVP/ha, 1830 US$/ha
Sudan has the lowest SGVP/ha, which goes down to about 20 US$/ha in Northern Darfur
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
WP – SGVP/ETa & SGVP/Ta
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Conclusions
- More than half of the basin area is under high water stress
- SGVP and Water productivity are highly variable across
the Nile basin
- While Egypt has the highest SGVP and WP, Sudan has the
lowest
- Except Gezira and northern provinces of Sudan in which
irrigated farming is common practice, WP is very low in
other parts of the country where rainfed farming is
predominant.
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Livestock Productivity: Where are the animals?
Nile BasinTropical
Livestock
Units per Km2
<1
1-10
10-20
20-30
>30
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Water productivity calculations for livestock for the Nile Basin.
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Water Productivity of Aquaculture
http://girlsoloinarabia.typepad.com/photos/egypt/water_wheel.jpg
Objective• to estimate quantities of water used
per unit biomass of fish produced in ponds in the Nile Delta
• to prepare water budgets for earthen pond aquaculture to help guide future water allocation policies
• to assess the water productivity benefits of different aquaculture technologies and incorporating aquaculture with agriculture
– production and incomes
– poverty
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Site 2
Site 1
� Estimate net water use in pond
aquaculture throughout production
season at two sites in the Nile Delta
(WorldFish Center pond farm,
Abbassa, and at a commercial fish
farm, Kafr El-Sheikh)
� Estimate water losses through
different routes (seepage,
evaporation, drainage etcL)
� Determine the amount of fish
produced
� Estimate water consumption rates
(m3) per kg fish production
Experimental plans
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Estimating water use
waterfeed + inflow = outflow + ∆S + waterfish
modified from Nath & Bolte (1998)
excluding rain, surface runoff, waterfeed, and
infiltration, inflow can be regarded as water added
excluding overflow and waterfish outflow can be regarded
as change in pond storage plus seepage and evaporation
i.e.
water consumption per kg fish production = kg fish pond-1/Ii – (E + S + Q ± ∆S)
water consumption per pond = Ii – (E + S + Q ± ∆S)
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Abbassa ponds
• 5 ponds, stocked 1 June 2008
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Routine measurements
• pond water levels determined weekly using fixed graduated tubes at three locations per pond
• water levels determined before and after water was added to compensate for losses
• fish sampled monthly to determine growth
• fortnightly water samples taken to determine DO, pH, Secchi disc depth, N and P
• monthly analysis of phytoplankton
tube to measure pond
water column height
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Fish growth in earthen ponds
over a five-month growing period
0
50
100
150
200
250
Start
mon
th 1
mon
th 2
mon
th 3
mon
th 4
mon
th 5
Groth period (month)
Avera
ge f
is w
eig
ht
(gm
)
Pond 1
Pond 5
Pond 10
Pond 13
Pond 16
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Water use – preliminary results
(Abbassa Site)
tube to measure pond water column height
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Seasonal variation in losses of
water
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Research questions
• What are the water related institutions and policies that shape agricultural outcomes in the Nile Basin?
• Do existing institutional and policy environment support beneficial use of water for poverty alleviation?
• Are basin wide priorities and nation wide institutions and policies compatible?
• What are the agriculture related outcomes in the basin?
5. WP4: Institutional Analysis of
the Nile Basin
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Research methods
• Understanding institutions and policies at multiple scales
– Basin wide analysis: (Institutional analysis of the NBI and CFA)
– Country analysis: Review of institutions and policies in selected countries (Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia)
– Micro level analysis at hotspots: Lake Victoria, Ethiopian Highlands, Gezira scheme and Sudd wetlands
• Mixed methods: Literature review and primary data collection
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Institutional analysis of NBI
• What worked?
– Promoted the culture
of dialogue between
riparian states
– Attracted large donor
funding
– Basin wide
perspective
– Shared Vision and
Subsidiary Action
Program produced
important outputs
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Institutional analysis of NBI
• What did not work as expected?– Not much evidence that power
balance between upstream and downstream riparians have indeed changed
– Absence of a clear regulatory framework even after 10 long years of negotiation
• Conclusion– The future of cooperation in the
Nile Basin is not ‘black or white’: the choice is not between, on the one hand, fully-fledged cooperation and non-cooperation on the other. On the contrary, there exists a large and diverse grey-scale and the different emerging scenarios involve their own complexities.
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Results from micro-level
institutional studies
• Insights on collective action for watershed management in Ethiopian
Highlands
–Compared successful watershed intervention with a not so successful one
–The inherent strength of local institutions & support given by implementing
agency (GTZ in this case) are the two crucial factors in success.
• Impact of institutional and policy change on productivity of Gezira
–Change in institutional regime from joint account to individual account to
economic liberalisation
–Production, productivity and cropping pattern changed with every change in
policy and institutions
–Area under cotton fell and gave away to wheat and other food crops.
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Results from micro-level
institutional studies
• Institutional mechanisms in Lake Victoria
Multiplicity of institutions and overlap of authority and responsibilities;
–Fisheries management is the best coordinated activity among the 3
eastern Nile country
–Centrality of income from fisheries leads to such cooperation
–Provides employment to 3 million people
–Generates USD 400 million worth of income of which USD 250 is export
earning
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
6. WP5 Intervention Analysis
Objectives:• To understand interventions that can have greater
impacts in the Nile Basin
• Specific objectives are to:– Inventory and characterize existing interventions in
production systems
– document success and failures of interventions and map intervention types
– detail performance analysis of existing interventions and impacts
– undertake tradeoff analysis, ranking and modeling to select and evaluate high impact interventions and implementation strategy
– Develop problem tree & impact pathways through interventions
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Key Research Questions
• What are the existing water related interventions in the basin under various production systems?
• Which interventions have succeeded and which ones failed?
• What are the technical, economic, institutional setups for successful or failed interventions under various systems?
• Which future interventions are required to bring high impact on poverty, water availability, access and productivity for various target groups?
• Note: All questions may not be answered and some will lead to future work
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Interventions Category/ Types
- Production/Farming system based• Crop Based: Field Crops, Horticulture, Forestry/ agro-ForestryQ
• Animal based: Livestock, Fisheries/Aquaculture
• Rain fed, irrigation, mixed crop-livestock, etc
– Physical based• Infrastructural interventions
• Water and land based interventions: eg watershed management
– Socio-economic based• Ag trade, virtual water
• Hydropower-generation, power trade, interconnection
• Industrial – value addition
– Institutional and policy based• Institutional innovations, basin, sub-basin institutions
• Benefit/water-sharing
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Interventions Category
Regions/zones
– 5 specific detail case study sites• Ethiopian Highlands
• Victoria Nile
• The Sudd
• Gezirra
• Delta
– One integrated basin wide analysis
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Example 1: Ethiopian Highlands Agricultural Interventions
(Agriculture - main source of livelihood)
Challenges• Extreme biophysical variations
– Elevation, soil, climate
• Population pressure and land
degradation
⇒Shortage of land
⇒Encroachment to marginal lands
⇒Exacerbating deforestation and erosion
⇒Reduced land and water productivity
• Poor infrastructural development
• Limited use of modern technologies
– Lack of site specific technologies
– Lack of integrated approach
Incr
ea
sed
po
ve
rty
, fo
od
in
secu
rity
&
Vu
lne
rab
ilit
y t
o c
lim
ate
ch
an
ge
Majo
r chale
ng
es t
o a
gricu
lture
Required: Identification +Disseminate of Site specific Technologies
Pre-requisite: identify “Homogeneous Units”
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
77
Methodology
• “Homogenous” units of farming systems (FS) have been
mapped based on:
– Agro-ecology (Elevation, Soil, LGP) (BMPS, Woody
Biomass) data
– Major crops grown (BMPS, CSA reports)
• Current crop and livestock productivity of the FS examined
(BMPS,CSA reports)
• Major productivity limiting constraints identified
• Promising technologies identified (secondary data)
• Productivity & Poverty impacts analyzed (HH consumption
data)
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
78
Results- The FS
10 F
Ss
iden
tified
Single cropping
FS the largest of
cereals
Single cropping
FS the largest of
cereals
Livestock density changes with
small cereals
Livestock density changes with
small cereals
Cereal based
system
dominate
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
79
Results- the FS: Distribution and
Productivity
• Crop productivity too low
regardless of the FS
• Average grain yield < 1 T/ha
• Maize and sorghum are high
yielding
- much less than the potential &
national average
Some reasons:• Low Soil Quality
• Lack of improved technologies
• AWM (SWC, irrigation, drainage)
• Soil fertility management
• Improved Crop varieties
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Characterization
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
The way-out: Multi-faceted
Interventions
– Agricultural water management
• Conservation, Irrigation, Drainage
– Soil and Water Conservation
• Biological + mechanical
– Soil fertility management
• Fertilizers +Liming
– Improved crop varieties
– Crop protection
• Pre +Post harvest tech.
81
Technological
Integrate
Technologies:
– S+S+W
– IWSM
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
82
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Traditional Tied ridge Traditional Tied ridge Traditional Tied ridge
Sorghum Mungbean Maize
Yield (t ha-1)
Location Variety Management practices Increment (%)
Traditional Improved
Jimma local 28.4 37.3 32
UCB 25.9 46.1 78
Beletech 26.3 39.8 51
BH_140 26.4 45.9 74
BH-660 25.8 57.6 124
kuleni 26.5 46.2 75
Adet BH-540 29.3 48.96 67
kuleni 50.6 81.8 61
Pawe BH-530 41.7 81.7 96
BH-140 41.7 76.7 84
Bako BH-140 29 34.2 18
Beletech 29 38.2 32
Cro
p v
eri
tie
s a
nd
Mg
t
Some examples of Interventions
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Inventory for AWM
In-situEx-situ
Improved planting pits
DiversionStone bunds
Trash lines
Spate irrigation
Well+motorised pump
Well + Treadle
pump + Drip kit
Micro dam + canal + furrow
Large irrigation
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
List of promising AWM technologies
Dams6.
TerracesTankers 5.
SpatePondPonds 4.
PondWellsWells 3.
River diversionMicro damsMicro dam 2.
WellsRiver diversionRiver Diversion 1.
OromiaAmharaTigrayRank
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Poverty, HFS, Institutions & Impacts
• Poverty– 22% less poverty incidence for users
of AWMT
– Treatment led to an increase in HH income - ca.ETB 670/ household
– deep wells, river diversions and micro dams have led to 50, 32 and 25 %reduction in poverty levels compared to the reference, i.e. rain fed system.
∴∴∴∴The impacts of ponds and shallow wells are relatively modest compared to deep wells, diversions and small dams.
• HH food security has significantly improved
• Institutional: – Traditional irrigators higher efficiency
– Modern irrigators have higher production frontiers
– Institutional stabilities considerably affecting performance, L.
Variables Incidence (α=0)
Depth (α=1)
Severity
(α=2)
Access to irrigation
Irrigators 0.585 0.322 0.226
Non-irrigators 0.771 0.425 0.283
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Sales of
Cattle
Sales of Small
Animals
Off-farm
Employment
Consumption
Credit
Food shortage copping strategy
% o
f sa
mple
farm
ers
report
ing
Irrigators
Non-Irrigators
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Example 2: Integrated Basin
Analysis
Integrated basin-wide modeling
to: •Assess the current and future
large-scale intervention scenarios
•Evaluate the impacts of these
scenarios on water availability,
access and productivity
•Generate biophysical indicators
of interventions for socio-
economic and environmental
assessments
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Integrated Basin Analysis
Infrastructural Interventions
• Control and
Management of
Natural Lakes (2)
• Large
Dams/Reservoirs
and Diversions (15)
• Small dams
• Ground Water
Storage and
Recharge
• Non-Conventional
Water Sources
Technologies
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
• Large-scale interventions considered:
– Water control and storage infrastructures (single or multi-purpose)
– Irrigation schemes
– Hydropower plants
– Environment and wetlands
• Simulation Scenarios:
– Current large-scale developments (Baseline)
– Medium-term intervention plans (2015)
– Long-term intervention plans (2025)
Large-scale Interventions and
Scenarios
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Modeling Framework
• WEAP water resources simulation model applied at monthly time-step
• Monthly river flows are extended from rainfall and ET using monthly water balance model
• Annual irrigation demands are disaggregated according to ET
• Wetland consumptions are treated as sinks (environmental flow requirements)
• Storage release rules are represented as stream flow requirements {Q = f(storagehead)}
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Integrated Analysis:River Schematization and Flows
Lake Tana
3,8093,920
Bosheilo
2,072Welaka
4,798Jemma
4,389
North Gojam
2,440Muger
2,187
Guder
1,719
Finchaa
5,012
South Gojam
2,355Anger
5,673
Didessa
3,874
Wonbera
Flow gauging station
Reservoir
6,246
Dabus
4,345
Beles
2,797 Dinder
1,102 Rahad
Khartoum
Border
Roseires
Sennar
Kessie
Outlet Lake Tana
Giwasi
Hawata
SUDAN
ETHIOPIA
4,345Mean annual discharge (Mm3)
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
All plans:
-Country specific
-SAP projects
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Preliminary Results – Lake Victoria
$
#
(ð
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Preliminary Results – Wetlands
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
• The topology of the basin is configured for WEAP simulation model
• Reliable information and data relevant to the integrated modeling are almost collated
• Basin-wide simulations of large-scale intervention scenarios are being conducted
• Finally, the integrated modeling experiment shall generate biophysical indicators for impact assessment and identification of potential interventions
Aggregated Basin Conclusions
and Outlook
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
WP5 Example: Capacity Building
• Tewdros : Water Resources Allocation of the Nile River Basin: A cooperative Game Theoretic Approach– Integrated economic-hydrologic-institutional modeling at the River Basin
Scale
• George: Developing Optimal Economic Incentives for Managing Transboundary Water Externalities in the Blue Nile River Basin – Application of economic instruments to review the past and present legal
documents on the Blue Nile and treaties governing the entire Nile River Basin
– Modeling optimal allocation of water for maximizing use benefits among the countries established
• Binyam: Equitable Distribution of Benefits in TransboundaryWaters– Irrigation and Hydropower Benefits Sharing
– From Water Allocation and Cost Sharing to Benefit-Sharing: Implications
for Transboundary Rivers in the Nile Basin
• M.Sc. students
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
7. Conclusions
• Poverty is prevalent in high population, rainfed, pastoral and agropstoral areas and less in irrigated systems and with access to AWM
• Temporal and spatial variability of rainfall and runoff are highand not sufficient mechanisms for improving water access
• Water productivity and productivity/ha are higher in managed water system part of the basins and significant opportunities to improve rainfed productivity
• Regional bodies such as NBI and water institutions give low focus to rainfed production systems, livestock and fisheries. Establishing relevance is important
• NBI Institutional Arrangement is progressing but the outcome is uncertain
• Multiple interventions exist to improve rain fed productivity, reduce poverty and enhance negotiations and economic integration
19/09/2009, ChaingmaiSupported by: CPWF
Thank You