Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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%)