The way in which water supports the mixture of livelihoods in systems that consume it is of core interest to many. Food production systems that are inefficient, over-thirsty, unproductive or polluting can cause problems by aggravating income, water, environment or food insecurity at any scale. Hence they provide opportunities for improvement.
We need methods of evaluating the condition of specific systems. Water footprinting is one way of estimation (backwards from the final product); water productivity is another (upwards from the water); poverty analysis is another (from the livelihood system down). All look at parts of the system only and this can lead to serious mis-evaluation if the system in which they are evaluated isn’t characterized first. Input output analysis provides a more systemic evaluation but may be difficult to apply at the detail required.
We need better evaluation - to clarify exactly how improved agricultural water use will increase livelihood support. Without clearer evaluation, partial assessment can be overlooked, or worse, become hostage to rhetoric and politics.
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
Thursday, 30 July 2009
An ecological view of water productivity
An interesting view from Jorg Imberger:
Human actions have a major impact on the future sustainability of our water resources. ...Some of the most important hydrological cycles (water, carbon, nutrients and heat) show how evolution has ensured a beautiful harmony between water and nature: water cycles through nature, sustaining it. In return, organisms of nature clean the water of harmful elements. Over the last 200 years, humans have impacted physically on these hydrological cycles, venting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, denuding the surface of the earth of its natural vegetation and overloading water bodies with pollution.
Understanding Science: 13 Water- the next fifty years. (Link here). University of Cambridge, 2004.
Human actions have a major impact on the future sustainability of our water resources. ...Some of the most important hydrological cycles (water, carbon, nutrients and heat) show how evolution has ensured a beautiful harmony between water and nature: water cycles through nature, sustaining it. In return, organisms of nature clean the water of harmful elements. Over the last 200 years, humans have impacted physically on these hydrological cycles, venting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, denuding the surface of the earth of its natural vegetation and overloading water bodies with pollution.
Understanding Science: 13 Water- the next fifty years. (Link here). University of Cambridge, 2004.
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Response to Mac's question: Why do we need this?
As always, Mac poses some good, tough questions. The main one is probably this: Why is Water Productivity Plus needed?
I know David is away from his desk at the moment, so let me take the opportunity to offer my perspective. He can correct me later
Firstly, there's a need to consolidate the concept, taking account of new observations from BFPs, sometimes over very large areas. Insights of large-scale variation of water productivity from the Andes, Nile and Mekong provides a wealth of new observations that deserve review.
Secondly, there's a need to explain how to take a broader view, where this is necessary to relate water productivity of the whole system as is supports livelihoods. For example, the Nile, Karkheh and Niger BFPs are producing observations that suggest that concepts of crop water productivity (which has been the main focus so far) may need to be expanded to take account of livestock systems. In the Mekong, aquatic systems are very important. To date, these concepts have been dealt with somewhat independently. I think it woudl be helpful to bring them together.
Thirdly, I sense there's a need to consolidate the analytical framework of water productivity to account for 'multiple water productivities' and how these contribute together to well-being. Without losing sight of the value of simple measures such as kg/m, I feel it may be time to look at further valuation of water-using systems, if that can be done.
I know David is away from his desk at the moment, so let me take the opportunity to offer my perspective. He can correct me later
Firstly, there's a need to consolidate the concept, taking account of new observations from BFPs, sometimes over very large areas. Insights of large-scale variation of water productivity from the Andes, Nile and Mekong provides a wealth of new observations that deserve review.
Secondly, there's a need to explain how to take a broader view, where this is necessary to relate water productivity of the whole system as is supports livelihoods. For example, the Nile, Karkheh and Niger BFPs are producing observations that suggest that concepts of crop water productivity (which has been the main focus so far) may need to be expanded to take account of livestock systems. In the Mekong, aquatic systems are very important. To date, these concepts have been dealt with somewhat independently. I think it woudl be helpful to bring them together.
Thirdly, I sense there's a need to consolidate the analytical framework of water productivity to account for 'multiple water productivities' and how these contribute together to well-being. Without losing sight of the value of simple measures such as kg/m, I feel it may be time to look at further valuation of water-using systems, if that can be done.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Perspectives and questions
Hmmmmm.......
I think it will help (help me, at any rate) to identify what we aim to do here. "Consolidate new analysis" - OK, but to what end? How will we know when we have arrived at a meaningful end point? Is it a book or paper? An identification of knowledge gaps and a proposal for research to fill said gaps? A recipe by which third world farmers will gain more food from their water? And, if so, how will we know that the recipe works? And if the recipe is already in the literature and known to work, how does a blog help?
Because this is the CPWF, I assume we want a recipe by which third world farmers will gain more food from their water. Note that I do not imply that the farmers will necessarily be the ones to receive and implement the recipe. It might be that the recipe is for policy makers who, through the right policy, might get better land management which leads to more food from the water. Or whatever.
I assume further that a book or a paper would be an interesting by-product, but not why we are really doing this. And I assume that we think enough is known to get to a good end point without writing a new research proposal.
If we want a robust, rationale debate of stuff already known, which is presumably the reason to have a blog, have we got the best group to arrive at the end point? Many not represented here have written papers about water productivity.
If we want more food for third world farmers, do we restrict ourselves to water and water productivity? Many other things limit production and productivity - land, labour, fertiliser inputs, and so on. Would we be satisfied if we could raise land productivity by producing more from the same land, but with more water, such that the water productivity remained constant? In principle, this can be achieved in any river basin in which yield is below potential and also from which water is discharged to the sea. I assume we would be satisfied because, if not, there is a harsh counterpoint. If, in some basin, water productivity were at a maximum, and a growing population would be reduced to starvation and misery unless land productivity were raised, a disinterest in raising land producitivity would surely lead to that starvation and misery. If we don't want that, then we aren't simply talking about water productivity.
To pick up a point from an earlier post, one can give examples with fish or livestock that are equivalent to the agriculturally biased points in the previous paragraph. Fish in aquaculture can be thought in terms of fish per unit area (of land or water, it doesn't matter), or a land productivity, which we can imagine maximising without changing the water productivity. Is the spectacular rise in aquaculture production in the Mekong delta an increase in land productivity, water productivity or both?
It is interesting to think about dry and wet (semi-arid and humid) river basins. In the latter, over most of the area most of the time, food production is likely to be limited by things other than water. In NE Thailand, in the Mekong Basin, for example, we know that water is scarce in the dry season, but mostly the place is wettish. We also know that rice productivity is very low there, amongst the lowest in the Mekong - perhaps a consequence of limited water? Well, not really. Sugar production is very high, amongst the highest in the Mekong. It would seem to me that we must search for other explanations, and they are likely to be found in the different management and inputs of a subsistence crop (rice) and a commercial crop (sugar). Based on this, and the fact that rice production has been rising slowly but surely for years, I am confident to predict that it will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Water productivity of rice is increasing, as is land productivity, but I think the main factor is better management and inputs. (Incidentally, Andrew Noble disputes my analysis that rice productivity is likely to increase, and he knows much more about rice in the Mekong than I do. Notwithstanding, I'd bet him a bottle of red that, barring unforeseen disasters, wars, political upheaval, etc., it will continue to rise.)
Let's look at a dry basin. If it is closed, with no water or no water of useable quality reaching the sea, then the an increase in food production must also be an increase in water productivity. If there is irrigation in the basin, it is almost certain that there is a way to do this which is dead easy, but may not be economic. It is almost certain that current irrigation maximises production across several inputs, but especially capital, labour and land. Even in a water scarce basin, production is almost certainly not maximised with respect to water. So, the very simple way to increase water productivity is to spread the water thinner, over more land. If you use that water to add to rain, you maximise the cropping from limited rain. Something of this sort is currently occuring in the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia. After years of drought, the dams are run near dry, and rice farmers (a major irrigation crop in the southern part of the basin) are allocated much less water than they are used to, and less than they need to grow rice. So, some have turned to growing winter cereals, using their scarce water as supplmentary irrigation to finish the crop which is grown mostly on the rain.
Another perspective which offers insight is that of scale and efficiencies. A farmer might increase his water productivity and overall production through more efficient use of water, ensuring more of it gets to the crop. He has increased his irrigation efficiency. The consequence, however, is that less water flows back to the river (or groundwater) and less is available downstream. Loss of production downstream may mean that there is no gain in efficiency or water productivity at the basin scale. The efficiency argument here is well known, but we see that it might be applied to water productivity as well. Are we targetting the farmer or the basin for improvements in productivity? And are we really interested in productivity or production?
So many perspectives, so many questions!
I think it will help (help me, at any rate) to identify what we aim to do here. "Consolidate new analysis" - OK, but to what end? How will we know when we have arrived at a meaningful end point? Is it a book or paper? An identification of knowledge gaps and a proposal for research to fill said gaps? A recipe by which third world farmers will gain more food from their water? And, if so, how will we know that the recipe works? And if the recipe is already in the literature and known to work, how does a blog help?
Because this is the CPWF, I assume we want a recipe by which third world farmers will gain more food from their water. Note that I do not imply that the farmers will necessarily be the ones to receive and implement the recipe. It might be that the recipe is for policy makers who, through the right policy, might get better land management which leads to more food from the water. Or whatever.
I assume further that a book or a paper would be an interesting by-product, but not why we are really doing this. And I assume that we think enough is known to get to a good end point without writing a new research proposal.
If we want a robust, rationale debate of stuff already known, which is presumably the reason to have a blog, have we got the best group to arrive at the end point? Many not represented here have written papers about water productivity.
If we want more food for third world farmers, do we restrict ourselves to water and water productivity? Many other things limit production and productivity - land, labour, fertiliser inputs, and so on. Would we be satisfied if we could raise land productivity by producing more from the same land, but with more water, such that the water productivity remained constant? In principle, this can be achieved in any river basin in which yield is below potential and also from which water is discharged to the sea. I assume we would be satisfied because, if not, there is a harsh counterpoint. If, in some basin, water productivity were at a maximum, and a growing population would be reduced to starvation and misery unless land productivity were raised, a disinterest in raising land producitivity would surely lead to that starvation and misery. If we don't want that, then we aren't simply talking about water productivity.
To pick up a point from an earlier post, one can give examples with fish or livestock that are equivalent to the agriculturally biased points in the previous paragraph. Fish in aquaculture can be thought in terms of fish per unit area (of land or water, it doesn't matter), or a land productivity, which we can imagine maximising without changing the water productivity. Is the spectacular rise in aquaculture production in the Mekong delta an increase in land productivity, water productivity or both?
It is interesting to think about dry and wet (semi-arid and humid) river basins. In the latter, over most of the area most of the time, food production is likely to be limited by things other than water. In NE Thailand, in the Mekong Basin, for example, we know that water is scarce in the dry season, but mostly the place is wettish. We also know that rice productivity is very low there, amongst the lowest in the Mekong - perhaps a consequence of limited water? Well, not really. Sugar production is very high, amongst the highest in the Mekong. It would seem to me that we must search for other explanations, and they are likely to be found in the different management and inputs of a subsistence crop (rice) and a commercial crop (sugar). Based on this, and the fact that rice production has been rising slowly but surely for years, I am confident to predict that it will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Water productivity of rice is increasing, as is land productivity, but I think the main factor is better management and inputs. (Incidentally, Andrew Noble disputes my analysis that rice productivity is likely to increase, and he knows much more about rice in the Mekong than I do. Notwithstanding, I'd bet him a bottle of red that, barring unforeseen disasters, wars, political upheaval, etc., it will continue to rise.)
Let's look at a dry basin. If it is closed, with no water or no water of useable quality reaching the sea, then the an increase in food production must also be an increase in water productivity. If there is irrigation in the basin, it is almost certain that there is a way to do this which is dead easy, but may not be economic. It is almost certain that current irrigation maximises production across several inputs, but especially capital, labour and land. Even in a water scarce basin, production is almost certainly not maximised with respect to water. So, the very simple way to increase water productivity is to spread the water thinner, over more land. If you use that water to add to rain, you maximise the cropping from limited rain. Something of this sort is currently occuring in the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia. After years of drought, the dams are run near dry, and rice farmers (a major irrigation crop in the southern part of the basin) are allocated much less water than they are used to, and less than they need to grow rice. So, some have turned to growing winter cereals, using their scarce water as supplmentary irrigation to finish the crop which is grown mostly on the rain.
Another perspective which offers insight is that of scale and efficiencies. A farmer might increase his water productivity and overall production through more efficient use of water, ensuring more of it gets to the crop. He has increased his irrigation efficiency. The consequence, however, is that less water flows back to the river (or groundwater) and less is available downstream. Loss of production downstream may mean that there is no gain in efficiency or water productivity at the basin scale. The efficiency argument here is well known, but we see that it might be applied to water productivity as well. Are we targetting the farmer or the basin for improvements in productivity? And are we really interested in productivity or production?
So many perspectives, so many questions!
Sunday, 14 June 2009
What are we talking about?
WP has been developed for agriculture. Can we extend the use of WP to activities that relate to gathering ( as opposite to agriculture) such as wild game hunting, collecting wild fruits or cereals or fishing in natural water bodies or herding in unmanaged rangelands ?
A clear definition of WP is needed. What is the Water consumed? Do we agree that it is the water made unavailable for other uses? If we go to fisheries ( inland or marine) how do we define the water consumption?
WP has been developed for agriculture. Can we extend the use of WP to activities that relate to gathering ( as opposite to agriculture) such as wild game hunting, collecting wild fruits or cereals or fishing in natural water bodies or herding in unmanaged rangelands ?
A clear definition of WP is needed. What is the Water consumed? Do we agree that it is the water made unavailable for other uses? If we go to fisheries ( inland or marine) how do we define the water consumption?
Friday, 5 June 2009
A starting comment
New analysis needs consolidation
Water productivity is a key concept that bridges two factors: water consumption by agriculture and the livelihood support it provides. The analysis of water productivity has provided extremely useful insight, not least through the excellent work in the book Water for Food: Water for Life. The basin focal projects have drawn extensively on that work and in so doing, have realized there is a need to extend the breadth, depth and length of some key concepts. The BFPs and others provide new analysis. This is what we now aim to consolidate.
Broader, deeper, longer?
Broader: Analysis at basin scale suggests that the concept of water productivity needs to be broader so that it can provide further insight about the productivities of livestock systems, mixed livestock-cropping systems and fisheries. Furthermore, there is increasing cross-over between these users, and examination of trade-offs between agricultural and non-agricultural uses of water.
Deeper: Analysis from BFPs has also demonstrated the value of estimating water productivity over large areas, using existing and new techniques. Analysis of water productivity from experimental plots still has a place but observations of large areas, and for different seasons enables deeper analysis of variations in water productivity.
Longer: Examination of multi-facetted economic systems within basins suggests that we need to look further down the water product ‘supply chain’. The full value of production, and the reasons why farmers do what they do may be understandable only through the analysis of multi-phase systems, in which a product of one phase passes through to the next.
Water productivity is a key concept that bridges two factors: water consumption by agriculture and the livelihood support it provides. The analysis of water productivity has provided extremely useful insight, not least through the excellent work in the book Water for Food: Water for Life. The basin focal projects have drawn extensively on that work and in so doing, have realized there is a need to extend the breadth, depth and length of some key concepts. The BFPs and others provide new analysis. This is what we now aim to consolidate.
Broader, deeper, longer?
Broader: Analysis at basin scale suggests that the concept of water productivity needs to be broader so that it can provide further insight about the productivities of livestock systems, mixed livestock-cropping systems and fisheries. Furthermore, there is increasing cross-over between these users, and examination of trade-offs between agricultural and non-agricultural uses of water.
Deeper: Analysis from BFPs has also demonstrated the value of estimating water productivity over large areas, using existing and new techniques. Analysis of water productivity from experimental plots still has a place but observations of large areas, and for different seasons enables deeper analysis of variations in water productivity.
Longer: Examination of multi-facetted economic systems within basins suggests that we need to look further down the water product ‘supply chain’. The full value of production, and the reasons why farmers do what they do may be understandable only through the analysis of multi-phase systems, in which a product of one phase passes through to the next.
Water productivity plus.....
Welcome to the Wprod+ blog.
This is a site for you to discuss new aspects of water productivity that should be considered to improve its accuracy, interpretation and relevance to scientists and policy makers. For more information on the basin focal projects of the Challenge Program for Water and Food please visit here
This is a site for you to discuss new aspects of water productivity that should be considered to improve its accuracy, interpretation and relevance to scientists and policy makers. For more information on the basin focal projects of the Challenge Program for Water and Food please visit here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)