Rainwater Management for Food Security and Environmental Services in Ethiopia

International Conference on Ecosystem Conservation and Sustainable Development, Ambo, Ethiopia, 10-12 February 2011

Tilahun Amede and Team Nile Basin Coordinator, CGIAR Challenge Program Water for Food

CPWF aims to increase water productivity and resilience of social and ecological systems

Through its broad partnerships, it conducts research that leads to local impact and political change

AREO

CPWF Consortium Members

Phase 2

Basin Development Challenges (BDCs)

Andes – Benefit sharing mechanisms Ganges – intensification in coastal areas Limpopo – rainwater management and water access Mekong – dams, reservoirs and livelihoods Nile – rainwater management in landscapes Volta – rainwater management and small reservoirs

To improve rural livelihoods and their resilience through a landscape approach to rainwater

management

Make Choices : Scenarios to 2050

Based on WaterSim analysis for the CA

Today

CA Scenario

Without productivity improvements

CA Scenario: Policies for productivity gains, upgrading rainfed, revitalized irrigation, trade

Dependence on rainwater or irrigation agriculture

Water Scarcity by 2020

Cereal Yields (MT/Ha)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

MT

/Ha

DevelopedCountries

Asia andPacific

LatinAmerica andCarribean

Sub-SaharanAfrica

Stagnant food productivity

Rainwater management– Rainwater collection and storage in soils,

micro-basins, ponds, dams; – Rainwater management; distribution,

access, use• Watershed management• Upstream-downstream interaction• Multiple use of water

– Water productivity of crops, livestock and systems; Kg or $ produced per unit of water consumed

Rainfall –Runoff distribution

High rainfall variability & unreliability; significant runoff variability

Considerable spatial and temporal redistribution is needed for meaningful development

Rainfall variability affecting economies

Impact of rainfall variability on GDP and Agricultural GDP growth

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

year

%

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

rainfall variability

GDP growth

Ag GDP growth

Ethiopia

CC IMPACTS on RAINFED AGRICULTURE

Climate variability will increase: Recurrent & severe floods and droughts

Droughts may decrease yields / productivity Floods may damage crops and infrastructure Fluctuations in farmers’ income: poor farmers may lack

means to buffer extreme years Impact on national economy

14

What has been done in Ethiopia to reverse and degradation, drought effects and food insecurity?

WHAT WE DID, HOW WE DID IT

• Synthesize existing knowledge, lessons, gaps as foundation for NBDC projects;

• Study is based on review of policy & project documents, research as reported in Ph.D. theses, journal articles, workshop papers, etc;

• Database of nearly 400 references;• Discussions and interviews with researchers, policy

makers at early phase;• Developed detailed data tables on policies,

programs, interventions, inventory of organizations, & references 15

Over past 10-15 years, increasingly detailed & coherent policy framework developed for agriculture, water, natural resources, poverty reduction, climate change adaptation, etc.

Recently: “National SLM Framework” to guide SLM planning & investments in coherent way to address linkages of poverty and land degradation– Influence of TerrAfrica, CAADP on program design– Shift conservation to livelihood improvement focus – CPWF’s NBDC program can directly support this

Issues: Insufficient attention to integrating water with land management– Need for “green water” policy integrated with SLM &

“blue” water resources policy16

Key findings -1

Long-running projects (e.g. MERET of WFP), combining support to food-insecure people with promoting natural resources management– Changed over time based on lessons– Evolution from “coerced” to “bribed” participation: Food for Work

(FfW), Cash for Work (CfW)– Developed participatory methodologies now used in newer

programs, “Community-Based Participatory Watershed Development” Guidelines

– Added income-generation to meet households’ short-term needs – important innovation

– Strong influence on Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) & new SLM Program;

Moving towards community supported initiatives, beyond handouts 17

Key findings -2

• Strong bias towards land management (i.e., reversing degradation)

• Neglect of improving productivity of water in agriculture – though land management is a means to improve WP

• Failure to recognize and build on farmers’ knowledge and indigenous practices• Farmer scepticism about introduced packages often well-

founded; • Awareness, knowledge not sufficient condition for adoption

• Farmer risk aversion in context of binding consumption, finance constraints

18

Key findings -3

Comparision of Per capita Storage Capacity

4 43746

1287 1406

2486

3255

4729

6150

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Kenya Ethiopia SouthAfrica

Thailand Laos China Brazil Australia NorthAmerica

Countries

Per

Capita

Sto

rage (

m^3

)

Key findings -4 : Low storage capacity

Evidence on RWH ponds, shallow wells, terraces & bunds [fanya juu, stone & soil bunds, ditches];—high potential but often not achieved:

serious implementation problems; targeting; unanticipated impacts; lack of extension advice, Incentives; market access, water lifting technologies

– Shallow wells perform better but aquifer depletion threat

20

….Key findings 4

Early (1970s-1980s) highly coercive, based on standardized packages, no regard for peoples’ views;

Evolution to participatory community-driven approach at policy level, & increasing reality locally;

Recently: shift to systematic approach to targeting small watersheds in larger planning context, & enhancing farmers’ incomes

But: evidence of coercion locally; use of quotas continues; FfW raises questions on ownership of infrastructure; high staff turnover & disruptive institutional re-structuring and loss of capacity21

Key findings -5

Key findings -6 Re-orientation of government from centralized

authoritarian implementation to decentralized service-provision.– Problems continue: overlapping mandates &

communication-coordination issues; lack of systematic M&E & use in management; de facto continuation of command & control through top-down quotas, etc

Need to build more effective collective action capacity on watersheds & aquifers, building on indigenous institutions;

Need for nested watershed & basin institutional arrangements for effective integrated management;22

RECOMMENDATIONS

Moving from ‘reversing degradation’ as a goal to sustainably improving productivity and livelihoods through integrated RWM programs

From a negative to a positive goal Integration of landscape components to improve

production and productivity; Replace ‘packages’ [“best practices”] with a

menu of possible interventions and let clients “mix and match” & adapt according to their needs

Link research to stakeholders needs23

GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE

What are the potential and means to improve productivity of water used by crops, livestock, agro forests; social & economic outcomes?– How to improve water productivity in crop

livestock systems? – How to optimize productivity &

sustainability of investments (e.g., water harvesting ponds, shallow wells, etc)?

– What is nature of interactions & synergies among RWM technologies & practices? 24

Increasing water productivity

Water productivity refers to the amount or value of product over volume or value of water depleted/diverted

E.g. CWP refers to economic (grain, fruit, lint, fiber, feed..) yield divided by the volume of water consumed (evapo-transpiration) in the production of the total yield

Physical or economic terms

WP = ∑(Net beneficial outputs)» -----------------------------------

∑(Depleted water)

Improved water productivity of Irrigation Investments

Weak institutional arrangements

Poor extension services

Limited flow of information &

technologies

Limited market access & information

Lack of collective action

Weak enforcement mechanisms

27

Canal water losses due to water surface evaporation and

seepage from Guanta small-scale irrigation

Canal type N

Average

flow rate

(l/s)

Loss

(l/s/100m)

% loss

per

100m*

% loss/

100m/30l/s

Main canal 121 43.21a 2.58a 6.46a 4.49b

Secondary canal 57 33.03b 1.59b 4.40b 4.00b

Field canal 49 2.88c 0.39c 2.49c 25.94a

Building on traditional innovations (water management)

Photo Courtesy: Mr Admasu

SWC affecting land and water productivity

Treatments OM (%)

Control (no conservation) 1.5

6-yrs soil bund + lucerne 2.4

9-yrs soil bund + lucerne 5.0

9-yrs soil bund + vetiver 3.3

9-yrs soil bund 5.5

CV (%) 12.8

SEX 0.23

Nitrogen (%)

0.12

0.17

0.28

0.22

0.28

14.17

0.03 (Yihenew etal, 2008)

Grain Kg/ha

561.3

1284.3

1878.7

1187.5

1712.5

8.1

53.89

Micro dose

Zai

Rehabilitated farm lands in Areka, Southern Ethiopia

Year 1

Year 3Year 2

Increased water infiltration

Concentration of resources (OM, nutrients, water)

Effects of Zai on productivity of potato, 2005.

Tu

ber y

ield

(t/

ha)

0

4

8

124050607080

Control With ZaiWithout Zai

Tu

ber y

ield

(t/

ha)

0123430

4050607080

Tu

ber y

ield

(t/

ha)

01234

1215182124

Farm A

Farm B

Farm C

0 30 60 0 30 60 0 30 60

Crop

wat

er P

rodu

ctivi

ty (k

g m

-3)

0

1

3

4

5

6

Control Manure Zai + Manure

Potato

Identifying where water saving could be at farm and landscape scales?

High unproductive water losses = indicator of productivity gap

Lenche Dima - all cropland

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

evap

orat

ion

trans

pirat

ion runo

ff

deep

perc

olat

ion

flow

s pe

r HH

(m3)

livestock

crops

Kuhar Michael - all cropland

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

evap

orat

ion

trans

pira

tion

runo

ff

deep

perc

olat

ion

flow

s pe

r HH

(m3)

livestock

crops

maintenancewalkinggrowthfeedinglactationpregnancydraught powertransport

12%

7%

4%

3%

2%1%1%

70%

~ ¾ of energy spent on maintenance

Livestock energy budget

crop residuesgreen foragegrazinghayweedstree fodder

67% 1%

17%

7%

3%5%

67% of feed from crop residues low quality: 5.8 – 7.4 MJ ME kg-1

Productivity gaps and losses..

E.g. Watering Points for Improved Livestock Production

Energy for walking is reduced from 1956 MJ ME / TLU to 584 MJ ME / TLU per year (Milk equivalent of 252 litre)

Survey: milk production increased from 343 liter to 463 liter per lactation per cow

Water: no change in water depleted for feed production

Milk water productivity per cow improves by 35% (survey)

Herd Parameter

SpeciesCattle Sheep Goat

Incoming

% Births 92 84 86

% Purchases 3 8 8

% Others 5 8 6

Outgoing

% Deaths 25 44 52

% Sales 66 22 34

% Others 9 34 14

Source: Asfaw and Jabar, 2007

Reducing Livestock Mortality (diseases)

Building on local experiences ..

Building on local wisdom; Water User Associations

Facilitated flow of information & technologies using local channels

Strong collective action spirits: Upstream-downstream

Favourable support from local authorities and policy makers

Home gardens

Political change

Women’s empowerment

Good Leadership

Institutional changes

Feed management

Water management

Animal productivity

1.Technologies 2. Institutions

More grain and livestock product per unitof investment of labour, waterand land

Community Innovation &empowerment

Impact•Poverty•Environment•Resilience

Targeting and

dissemination

WP

3. Supportive policy

Amede et al., 2009

Towards Water Productivity

Challenges in Rainwater Mangement

Competing and increasing demands

Low water productivity: incentives to use

inputs; fluctuating markets

Weak institutional linkages

Moving into non-conventional frontiers

Dealing with diversity & land use complexity

Communities taking charge slowly

Forming and maintaining partnership for

efficient use

Weak research in water mangnt

More information Livestock Water Productivity The Rangeland J ournal Special I ssue Volume 31 Number 2

Edited by: Tilahun Amede Brien E. (Ben) Norton Deborah Bossio

100 pages Publisher: CSIRO PUBLISHING J une 2009

http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/20/pid/6106.htm

Thank you !