Download from the webinar - IWRM-net

ICARUS – IWRM for Climate Change
Adaptation in Rural Social Ecosystems
in Southern Europe
April 5, 2013
Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Climate Change(coordinator), Italy
Universidade Atlantica, Portugal
Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain
OVERVIEW
• The ICARUS project
• Research direction:
–Adaptation as a continuum between
autonomous and planned
–An eParticipation platform as a
powerful communication tool
• Next steps & lessons learnt
ICARUS: problems addressed
Water resource management: challenge for the development of
Mediterranean populations
↘Social security at risk as a consequence of water scarcity
↘Increasing demand for water:
Irrigated agriculture
Intensive urbanisation
Tourism
↘Evident signs of climatic instability and negative future
projections
↘Reduced food security, agro-industrial employment at risk,
damage to the ecosystem, increased desertification, biodiversity
loss…
↘Need for policies to increase the efficiency of water
management
Case studies
Project objectives
•Designing strategies for increased water efficiency in agriculture
•biophysical, social, economic, and institutional dimensions of
sustainable water management
•innovative adaptation strategies, practices and tools for
saving water in irrigated production systems
•Introducing the principles of “policy mainstreaming” and “climate
proofing” in CCA
•Supporting WFD implementation
•exchange of experiences
•exploration of scenarios, methods and tool for water
managers
»focus on irrigation in the mid term (2025)
Project activities
Three main research streams:
1.Climatic and integrated (agronomic and socio-economic)
modelling to simulate (autonomous and planned)
adaptation processes: ABM Simile
2.River basin modelling to simulate water balance,
irrigation needs, and effects on agricultural production and
the water cycle (discharge): SWAT
3.Internet based platform for public participation and
support to strategic assessment of adaptation strategies:
multi-lingual mDSSweb platform
 All based on in depth review of scenarios of change, water uses
and irrigation technologies in Southern Europe, and water governance
in the three case studies
Agent based model to explore adaptation
strategies in agricultural water management
Climate
Serv.
Irrig.
Sys.
Climate
Soils
Farming practices
Farmer
Water
consumption
Profits
Irrigation
Soil water
balance
Watershed
Crop Yield
Crop
Phys.
&
Market
Agent based model to explore adaptation
strategies in agricultural water management
Seasonal forecasts and crop allocation
Forecast_s, run 1
180
160
140
Seasonal
forecast
120
100
80
60
40
UNCERTAINTY
20
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Time
RISK TAKING
ATTITUDE
Alloc, run 1
0.6
0.5
0.4
Maize
allocation
0.3
0.2
0.10
0
0
1000
2000
3000
Time
4000
5000
6000
Distributions of water uses and incomes
Irrigation volumes
Farmers’ incomes
Coupling autonomous and planned adaptation through
ePartipation
first online questionnaire –
summer 2011
• perception of change
• autonomous adaptation
development and test of online
mDSS– winter-spring 2012
• MCA
• methodological
simplification
second online questionnaire –
summer 2012
• evaluation of planned
adaptation measures
Bojovic et al, 2013
Q1: Agriculture, irrigation, and perception of
change in RV
•Collaboration with ARPAV – Bollettino AgroMeteo Informa
•16 questions, 33 indicators
• Socio-economic characterisation
• Perception of current /past changes
• Adaptation strategies
• Training opportunities
•July– September 2011
•600 answers
• 350 contacts
purpose not final decision-making, but exploration of
perceptions, practices, and preferences, so number of
answers satisfactory
Q1: autonomous adaptation measures
crop and soil management changes
60%
50%
40%
others did it
30%
I did it
20%
necessary in the future
not needed
10%
0%
crop change
crop
diversification
soil
management
sowing time
weed control
integrated pest
control
changes in irrigation management
35%
30%
overall, 87% claim
that in the near
future, adaptation
will be necessary
25%
20%
by the IB
by the farm
15%
necessary in the future
10%
5%
0%
irrigation frequency
irrigation volumes
irrigation system
From Q1 to Q2: participatory modeling, mDSSweb
Selection of strategies and
criteria through results of Q1
and experts’ consultation
From mDSS a mDSSweb
• online
• accessible to non-expert
public
• tested with some farmers
• refinement
Q2: The tool mDSSweb – 4 languages, 5 pages
Q2: MCA with mDSSweb
strategies
case studies
ITA
ES
PT
Increasing the capacity of water reservoirs (building new ones, restoring old ones);
x
x
x
Production system's reorganisation towards less water demanding crops;
x
x
x
Improvement of irrigation efficiency at the farm level (pluvioirrigation, microirrigation);
x
x
x
x
x
x
Enhancement of existing information services for farmers (Agrometeo bulletins,
seasonal forecasts, ....).
New information system, i.e. seasonal forecast, to support crop choice on an annual
basis
x
Wastewater treatment and reuse for agriculture;
x
Contribution to farmers' income
criteria
Economic benefits for society against investments costs
Technical effectiveness for improving adaptation to climate change
all
Containment of conflicts over water resources between agriculture and other sectors
Overall contribution to rural development
Contribution to environmental protection
Practical feasibility
all
all
Q2: final ranking, Veneto Region
• 170
answers +
10 IBs
• Good
distribution
of answers
per
location,
farm size,
irrigation
typology
Concluding remarks
• Adaptation as a continuum between autonomous and
planned
– Continuous process of change at farm level
– Interactions between autonomous and planned enables precious
information to be collected – strengthen evaluations and sectoral
policies
– Barrier for policy adoption is weak communication
– High policy interest
• An eParticipation platform as a powerful communication tool
– Transfer of knowledge and experience
– High number of stakeholders involved through application of online
tools
– Process contributes to quality and transparency of policy-making
– Iterative dialogue between scientists, policy-makers, and end
beneficiaries
GRAZIE!
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.tiamasg.org/Icarus/sawEN
http://www.cmcc.it/research/research-projects/icarus-1/icarus
Q1: some results
Age
60.0%
47.8%
50.0%
40.0%
27.7%
30.0%
20.0%
14.7%
9.8%
10.0%
0.0%
<35
35-45
46-60
>60
Education %
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
57.8
18.1
0.2
nessuno
1.8
Licenza Licenza media Diploma di
elementare
scuola media
superiore
14.5
6.0
1.6
laurea
laurea
postalurea
triennale o
vecchio
diploma
ordinamento
universitario
o laurea
magistrale
Q1: some results
UAA
38.0
40.0
35.0
29.7
30.0
23.9
%
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
8.4
5.0
0.0
<1
1 to 5
5 to 20
>20
Income share deriving from
agriculture
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
46%
33%
11%
<25
25-50
9%
50-75
>75
Q1: some results
irrigated farm
45%
40%
40%
34%
35%
30%
25%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
no irrigation
emergency irrigation
irrigation system
structured irrigation
35.0%
30.0%
28.7%
25.0%
21.3%
20.0%
15.9%
15.0%
8.6%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
sprinkler_only
drip_only
gravity_only
mixed_irr
Q1: analysis of farmers’ choices
• 4 adaptation packages– dependent variables
• no adaptation
• crop and soil management only
• irrigation management only
• both crop and irrigation management adaptation
• most significant variables
• age, UAA, agricultural income, maize, vineyards, tree crops
(excl.wineyard), forage crops (incl. grassland and soya),
market gardens, worried of future environmental changes,
irrigated farm, sprinkler irrigation only, drip irrigation only,
mixed irrigation system, perception of past temperature
changes, perception of seasonal shifts, perception of
increased flood frequency, perception of changes in
biodiversity, perception of changing water availability, cca
necessary in the future, information on climate change ,
information on new techniques
Q2: The tool mDSSweb
Q2: The tool mDSSweb
Q2: The tool mDSSweb
Q2: The tool mDSSweb
Q2: Water conservation as adaptation to climate change,
An example from Italy
• Collaboration with ARPAV – Bollettino agroMeteo
Informa- e VenetoAgricoltura – Bollettino colture
erbacee
• July – September 2012: farmers
• November 2012: Irrigation Boards
• 170 risposte + 10 Ibs
• Good distribution of answers per location, farm
size, irrigation typology
Q2: some results
risposte per consorzi di bonifica
adige euganeo
adige po
35
31
29
numero risposte
30
alta pianura veneta
25
20
bacchiglione
20
15
15
10
5
acque risorgive
27
brenta
12
11
11
9
delta po
2
0
piave
veneto orientale
consorzi di bonifica
veronese
Q2: some results
UAA
35%
31%
30%
5<ha<=20
>20 ha
30%
25%
25%
%
20%
15%
14%
10%
5%
0%
<=1 ha
1<ha<=5
Q2: broken-up ranking
Q3: highlighted criticalities by IBs
• Seawater intrusion
• Inadequate infrastructure (storage, conveyance,
distribution)
• No water saving culture
• Scarce water availability in summer (few reservoirs)
• Missing resources for modernisation of
irrigation network (also at the farm level)
• Few extension services available
• Innovation-adverse farmers
Risk attitudes and crop allocation
age, run 1
Maize_alloc, run 1
1.0
70
0.8
60
0.6
50
0.4
40
0.2
30
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time
Farmers’ age
5000
6000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time
Crop allocation
5000
Water use and farmers’ incomes
Cum_irr, run 1
Cum_Ag_income, run 1
3000
6000
5000
2000
4000
3000
1000
2000
1000
0
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time
Water withdrawals
5000
6000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time
Farmer’s income
5000
6000
Q2: analysis of preferences
• Strategy «high efficiency irrigation methods»
• Irrigation: gravity
• Trees crops
• Strategy «increasing water supply»
• Less than 1 ha and more than 20 ha
• Irrigation: gravity
• Forage crops and market crops
• Strategy «less water demanding crops»
• between 1 to 20 ha
• Irrigation: gravity
• Strategies «information services (existing and new)»
• Between 5 and 20 ha
• Irrigation: no irrigation and drip irrigation
irrigation type and farm size influence more significantly farmers’
preferences than farm size and its location.
Q2: farmers versus IBs
IB1- farmers
IB1- IB
E
B
D
A
D
strategie
strategies
B
E
C
C
A
score
score
IB2- IB
IB2- farmers
E
D
A
E
A
strategies
strategies
B
D
B
C
C
score
score
PROs and CONs of the methodology
CONs
• Contextual specificity
• Need of established online communication channels
PROs
• Enables collection of large amount of information
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
Drivers and pressures
Needs
State of the arts of adaptation on the ground
Identification of gaps amenable to policy interventions
Overcoming of temporal and spatial barriers
Simplification of linguistic barriers
Transferral of knowledge and experience
Contained costs
Q2: ranking of farmers’ preferences in Jucar basin
Júcar farmers' ranking of preferences
low water demanding crops
information systems
water reservoirs
more efficient irrigation
Q1: some results
Have you noticed environmental changes that
influenced your farm practice in last 10 years?
5%
4%
23%
P
18%
T
season
flood_fr
drought_fr
water_ava
biodiv
7%
90% of participants
have
felt environmental
changes
in the past 10 years
19%
24%
Q1: some results
Q1: factors that influence adaptation
• CCA_irrigation_only (11%)
•
•
•
•
•
the smaller their farm is
if they grow no maize
if they expect further environmental change
if they do not have sprinkler or drip irrigation
If they have access to information on new technologies
•
•
•
•
•
the bigger the farm is
if they grow maize
irrigation practice (the less structured, the more likely)
perception of changes in past temperature and biodiversity
if they have access to information on climate change
•
•
•
•
•
If they have a farm larger than 20 ha
agricultural income
tree crops (excluding vineyards)
irrigation practice (emergency and structured)
access to information on climate change and new techniques
for crop and water management
• CCA_crops_only (34%)
• CCA_both (30%)