Migration adaptations to water scarcity

It must be recognised that sometimes, the smart choice is to retreat, rather than fighting against the odds. In Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, rural out-migration has been a trend for decades, as families send members to cities in search of work and supplementary income. Other families have moved entirely, because of expectations of better prospects and livelihoods.

Previously, migration has been driven more by war and economic hardship, but in the face of climate change and increasing difficulty in growing crops, many security-minded academics, think tanks, and countries expect climate migrants, or even climate refugees to increase in number. These migrations will occur not only in Africa, but in India and Africa, contributing to geopolitical, economic and cultural tensions.

In Ghana and Nigeria, there is moderate evidence that crop losses in bad weather encourages out-migration of rural farmers, as compared to rural families not engaged primarily in farming. Migration does not have to be rural-urban either; some farmers in Ghana have chosen to move to wetter areas in the south of their country to re-establish their livelihoods as farmers.

Of course, migration is never easy or cheap. In the Ghanaian and Nigerian cases, migration is often a considered after less costly and risky farming adaptations have already been tried, such as diversification of income.

The same study is extremely interesting to me, because it cited another study which highlights a paradox. Ironically, the poorest families who suffer the most from crop failures and water scarcity cannot afford to migrate or send any person out to work. Migration is undertaken by relatively better-off families, while the poorest are stuck in a poverty trap. Climate change induced crop failures will understandably reduce the wealth and capital of families, putting more poor farmers into this poverty trap.

How does migration fare as an option in the eyes of aid organisations or national policy? Collier and Dercon in a recent review of the African smallholder farming situation briefly mention that migration is a viable solution to helping smallholders, but is ill supported policy wise. Other adaptations are much better promoted and supported in Africa to combat poverty, meaning that migrants take on all costs and risks by themselves.

One reason I can offer for this is that migration is not an end, but a means. A policy that promotes migration for its own sake cannot solve the problems of poverty, but merely transplant problems elsewhere into already congested urban areas. I imagine that this is not a scenario that policy makers want to play out.

I think this short post about migration as an adaptation to water scarcity rounds up the adaptations to water scarcity series nicely. While migration does not technically combat water scarcity, it managed to avoid the problem. Sometimes it also is the most sensible and least-painful option for poor and water-stressed farmers.

Stay starchy,

Mr. Cassava

Crop adaptations to water scarcity

In the previous posts I spoke about farming adaptations, but now I'll be writing about how farmers select crops to grow.

The environmental preferences of crops can be also complex. For example, tomatoes grow well in hot climates, but require a lot of water. In Africa, farmers need crops that tolerate hot and dry conditions. But at the same time, they also need crops that respond well to unpredictable precipitation timings and amounts.

For example, the cassava plant reduces leaf formation and growth under water stress rather than induces leaf-fall, helping it recover and begin growth if the water shortage ends. This makes the plant comparatively more efficient than others in surviving under stress conditions. It was also found that different cultivars of cassava performed differently in response to the water stress, with one cultivar recovering so well that it performed as well as the control plot after the stimulated drought.

The cassava or tapioca is a starchy, high calorie crop which is an important in the diet of many urban dwellers as well, and has many industrial uses. A study conducted in Nigeria found that cassava has potential to employ large numbers of people, due to high industrial demand. This means that the crop is also useful as a crop that can be sold to urban markets, something like a dual cash-subsistence crop! I imagine that this advantage could be useful in specific scenarios. If market prices are bad, a cash crop growing family may suffer more than a subsistence crop growing family, which can survive on their own harvest.

Other important staple food crops that grow well in the driest areas are sorghum, millets, groundnuts and beans. Traditionally, millets were also important crops in the Americas, but in modern times, widespread irrigation and application of water has enabled commercial scale growing of corn and wheat instead. Personally, I imagine that certain crops are grown and consumed more than others because of preference or cultural tradition, and not because of cost/water-efficiency. However water shortages in the arid areas of the United States have revived some interest in millets.

Other considerations

But of course, it is important to bear in mind that chasing water-efficiency is merely one solution, born out of looking at the agriculture problem in one way. The ultimate goal of farming is not to "be water-efficient". Being water-efficient is a means to an end. Profit, quantity, quality and perhaps risk-minimalisation are goals that actually make more sense and incentivise farmers. A study in northern Germany brought to my attention the idea that farmers choose risk-efficient strategies in the face of water quotas or price hikes.

We have to keep in mind that the choice of crop sown and grown by farmers is influenced by many other factors. For example, easy access to markets makes cash crops viable to grow, but many rural farmers have to grow crops for subsistence, and cannot sell surplus crops due to lack of market access.

Role of crops

Understanding how certain crops are more water efficient than others could potentially inform policy on development or water resource management. For example, in the absence of regulation on water use, or in cases where charging for water is not possible, local governments could instead tax water-inefficient crops to discourage production. 

Or perhaps, governments and aid organisations could distribute more drought-resistant crops and cultivars to rural farmers. Farmers in Africa have already adapted to water shortages are grow many hardy, water-sipping crops, but this information could be relevant to farmers in other countries hit by climate change/water stress.

More research needed?

While this post talks about water efficient crops as an adaptation strategy to climate change, this is very much a widely adopted adaptation already, and nothing new to Africans. Neither does this post does not offer details about which crop is the most efficient. I have found studies determining the water efficiency for biofuel production, but biofuel energy is rather different from consumable energy. If anyone has some information on this, I would like to hear about it in the comments below!

Thanks guys, and Stay starchy,

Mr. Cassava

Farming adaptations to water scarcity

Agriculture in arid areas faces natural barriers; that is a lack of water or nutrients in degraded soil. Without understating the importance of the latter, my next few posts will be a short series on adaptations to water scarcity made by farmers

In arid areas, not only is water lacking, but water use efficiency is also poorer. For example, rangelands in arid South Africa generally produce very little biomass per unit of water input, especially degraded lands. High evaporative demand in the dry and hot climate means that farmers are able to grow less with any particular amount of water. Stroosnijder et al. (2012) estimate that in common situations, non-productive losses of water can be as high as 85%.

This may necessitate farming adaptations, crop choice adaptations, or may drive abandonment of farming and/or diversification of income sources to non-farm labour.


Farming adaptations

Through various techniques which are based on various mechanisms, farmers can compensate for lack of water. In the years of the Green Revolution and after, use of large scale water diversion and storage projects spread from the developed west to other places across the world. Abstraction and transportation of "blue-water" resources from places of surplus to places of drought

However, smaller scale innovations can also play a significant role by changing the amount of evaporative loss of their farmland, or drawing water from other zones of the subsurface.

A few examples of farming adaptations that I'm refer to are no-tillage of fields to sow seeds and the spreading of crop residues atop soils as "mulch" to reduce evaporation losses. Mulching is considered and effective way to reduce soil evaporation in both semi-humid and arid climates, and is thus widely used to increase moisture content below soil surfaces. A mulch layer not only shades soil and slows evaporation, but prevents water from being drawn directly to the surface through capillary action. This means that evaporation potential is decreased

Cover crops, or crops that help soils retain water or draw water from deeper layers may also be planted in mixed fields. In Senegal, experiments have indicated that shrubs with deeper root systems are able to hydraulically 'lift' water for shallow rooted food crops to use.

Farmers in Ghana for example, have been found to diversify to non-farming activities or animal raising, especially in the poorest and driest areas. Other practices adopted include changing planting and harvesting dates as necessary.

Corbeels et al. (2014) also argued that while water saving adaptations have had mixed results, micro-scale rainwater harvesting projects can make a significant difference in crop yields for farms reliant on rainwater.

Better education of farmers can help farmers adapt the ways they use existing tools and resources. Reindeers et al. (2013) highlight how irrigation efficiency has to be addressed on a multi-scalar framework. from source and transport, to farm and application. For instance, the timing, rate, and amount of water used for irrigation is important, as only a certain amount of water is "beneficial" (absorb-able by plants). Farmers performing simple adaptations such as irrigation at night can increase water use efficiency by reducing evaporation. Drip irrigation techniques that supply small amounts of water constantly to the soil have also been shown to increase water use efficiency significantly.


Where and when are these small scale innovations important? 

In poorer places? In places of high population density relative to land carrying capacity? In places lacking infrastructure and networks of marketing and farming? One way to look at this question is to evaluate the actual usefulness and implementation of farming adaptations


Evaluating farming adaptations

One should note that the farming adaptations mentioned above are not hippie, experimental, nor overly optimistic solutions. For instance, no-till farming is widely used in arid areas of the Americas. 

Why is it then, that many studies (1) (2), have reported poor or less-than-good rates of uptake of irrigation and other small scale adaptations? The answer given by many of those studies point to both upfront costs and opportunity costs. Upfront costs are simple to understand, as farmers find it difficult to raise capital or borrow money to invest in new technology or seed/fertiliser inputs. Understanding opportunity costs however, has also been crucial in informing us about the decisions made by small scale African farms.

Often, academics underestimate the value of labour and time for small farmers. This is crucial, because while small farmers do not have the resources to hire help, many new adaptations require more work on the part of farmers, such as spreading of mulch. In fact, African smallholders prioritise their labour hours well and are highly efficient. Efforts that prove to be inefficient or unprofitable will not be taken up.

The value of seemingly insignificant items, like crop residue also plays a part in decision making. Crop residue has value in the form of livestock feed, and this opportunity has to forgone when used for mulch. Farms with livestock, or villages that share a communal livestock pool with everyone contributing to that pool are thus less likely to use practices such as mulching when feed prices are high. Corbeels et al. (2014) make the important point that adaptations take time to implement and yield results, resulting in a period of no income. The period of perceived income loss causes many farmers to abandon their trial plots. And at the end, they argue that adaptations can force trade-offs that result in no increase in net-income.

Finally, it should be obvious that not all strategies can be easily applied in every circumstance. studies find that no-tillage can only be considered efficient and profitable when used properly in suitable circumstances. Orr (2003) and Orr and Richie (2004) show convincingly that seemingly big problems like pest management can sometimes be small compared to bigger controls on yields such as soil fertility. It would be worrisome if the same issues of over-focusing exist in the water arena.

The good news is that small-scale or in-situ application of rainwater harvesting is more widespread than large scale dam and reservoir projects. Many of the presently commonly applied adaptations are traditional, or adapted from traditional practices but newer small-scale or in-situ adaptations can further increase crop yields by up to 50%. Farms which have had little adaptations, and have relied the most on natural rainfall have the most to benefit.


Conclusions

I believe that farming adaptations are essential to increasing productivity on marginal crop producing areas and increasing farmers' resilience to bad weather. However, given the nature of tradeoffs involved, introduction of adaptations made in the presence of solid education and advice, to avoid dashing the hopes of farmers.


Here's wishing readers a Happy New Year this 2016. Until next time.
Mr. Cassava

Integrated approaches to water scarcity

Hi guys, I'm writing this post because I am interested in what exactly are the benefits and principles behind integrated water management. Why does this idea, which seems fairly simple and commonsense command such a big chuck of academic words and interest? As such, this post seems to be rather long, but I hope it is at least interesting! Apologies!

What is integrated water management?

What is integrated water resource management? IWRM is commonly believed to maximise economic and social benefits with great consideration for ecological benefits and long-term sustainability in the usage of water resources. It goes without saying, that such concepts were developed in anticipation or response to increasing pressure on global freshwater resources, a resource that is key to almost all human societies, and also for natural life.

As illustrated, integrated management attempts to bring together as many elements and aspects as possible, often in consultative and participatory means, so as to increase potential for learning and knowledge transfer. (Image)

At the same time, institutions facilitating integrated management can serve to strengthen authority and increase efficiency of command and control structures. This will ultimately enable more optimal decision-making regarding the management of water, land, and natural resources.

Questions of scale

To start with, an area of interest must be properly defined. A local authority's version of water management would likely differ greatly from a country's version. A country's version of water management may not sit well with other countries who share the same river basin system either. Beyond the scale of space, integrated water management must also consider time and opportunity. 

A view that accounts for many resources and uses, but not the source of river waters in mountains. (Image source)

River basin management, while having the disadvantage of not addressing political boundaries, has the distinct advantage of grouping all water users and water resources available in a hydrologically "contained" area. By doing so, all water users which may be impacted by consumption of other users in this "contained" area are managed together, such that authorities are forced to justify any unequal(or equal) distribution of water. This has positive implications for decision making conflict resolution, as I will elaborate.

Non-technical sides

·    "A future water management plan should reshape global demands rather than trying to increase supply" - Kedziora and Kundzewicz (2013)

If anything, integrated, wide scale water management highlights the impossibility of getting more out of nothing. Any increase in water usage upstream will consume more water and impact users downstream. This is why in water scarce regions, managers must also deal with demand side factors, given limits of increasing supply.

Methods to influence demand may be simple, such as charging higher prices for water and also reducing the ability of private users to take their own water (through private wells, etc.). It is also possible to encourage growth of less-water intensive crops by subsidising their production, or by increasing imports of water intensive crops to an area. Of course, a caveat is that the suitability of methods must be assessed in context.

Conditions that support integrated management are also a well studied field. It is commonly agreed that supportive institution and mechanisms need to be in place before any such management can be successful. Cultural belief in the system and cultural knowledge are essential to support and inform the system, while managers must develop common goals together with all stakeholders  Additionally, regulation which gives authorities some formal or legal power, and regulation which can help incentivise integrated management through market mechanisms play another large role in the success or failure of integrated management. This groundwork setting has to be done with care and some amount of guesswork, as overly heavy focuses on economic concerns tend to introduce inefficient frameworks that cannot balance social and ecological concerns.

Application in Africa

Mehta and Movik write that IWRM has been the hype of the past two decades, and is strongly supported by global initiatives and organisations like the World Bank and the African Development Bank. I would argue that integrated water management offers a good starting point for resolving difficult conflicts among stakeholders. In South Africa, researchers argue that public participation can nudge existing conflicts in more positive directions.

In south Africa (Tanzania), Rockstrom et al. argue that IWRM can potentially identify areas most in need of increased water security, so that limited water resources may be diverted to those areas without affecting areas which are already better off. They also write that IWRM has important flow on benefits, such as increased focus on a more holistic assessment of successes of various  development and water projects, rather than a small scale and insular assessment.

Despite this, Mehta and Movik continue to write that in Africa, implementation has not been easy nor amazingly successful. Many formal and informal legal systems and/or customs conflict, and further complicate the already complex natural boundaries of water networks. This shows the gap between the potential of these recommended systems, and the actual reality. 

The fact that institution building efforts are hampered means that the basic building blocks of IWRM are unstable. When institutions do not have sufficient authority, it may be difficult to come to  any consensus, despite participation and consultation. I think that more needs to be done to fulfill the promises of IWRM in Africa (and maybe elsewhere too), particularly in trust and authority building. While public participation may be a cornerstone of IWRM, it may have also sabotaged it in Africa. The consultative process increases time and effort spent to reach conclusions (just look at global climate negotiations for an example). In a complex socio-cultural environment such as most African nations, it may be impossible to politely please everyone. 

The above paragraph was my own reflection on the subject, and I especially welcome any feedback in the comments section! 

Stay starchy

Mr. Cassava

Competitive responses to water scarcity

Dear readers how are all of you?

Recently I've been talking quite about the use of greenhouses as water saving technology. The next couple of posts will be a little different, more of a birds-eye-view which will highlight some of the ideas behind large scale water management in Africa and other places.

While water saving adaptation and technology can change the playing field and enable more to be achieved with the same resources, country or river basin management ideology can often dictate ground conditions and make certain small adaptations feasible or unfeasible. Government policy aims and management policies are just as, or more important than small technologies.

Competitive usage of water

We start off with some competitive scenarios of water resource utilisation. Water resources are over-extracted and over-used in many parts of the world where agriculture is important, but rainfall is inadequate. Dam and irrigation projects, as well as groundwater abstraction projects can help meet some of the water shortfall, but there also exists competition over these resources.

In African irrigation projects, large dams and leaky channels which cause water loss to the ground and atmosphere have increased focus on water efficiency (producing more crop per water). However, this has diluted attention from an equally problematic issue; of how water is distributed in time and space. It is hardly equitable for downstream users of river water when upstream users consume most of the available resources, no matter how efficient they are. Competition for water between farmers of irrigation projects also occur during times of water stress.

Click for image source                                       

Many blue-water stressed areas have turned to groundwater abstraction to support intensive agriculture where the geology is favourable. In Africa, this includes parts of countries like Senegal and Zambia. However, in face of high demand, groundwater can also turn into an unsustainable and polluted source. In southern India, this undesirable scenario has played out; but insights offered by a more comprehensive view of water management have shed light on potential solutions.

In south India, farmers have been encouraged to intensively grow rice since the Green Revolution. This has stressed water supplies, but instead of reducing or moderating use, researchers found farmers competitively acquiring water for private use (using private groundwater sources) as a response to water stress.

Suggested solutions to solve overuse of groundwater in southern India include improving farmers' usage efficiency, promoting crops with lower water requirements, and institutionalising a price mechanism for groundwater. While the desire to provide water for rice cultivation is socially and politically motivated (i.e. avoid encroaching upon the rights of farmers), a wider scale, integrated water management approach highlights the impossibility of getting something out of nothing. 

Attempts to resolve groundwater shortages by using supply from rivers would decrease amounts available for downstream users, and does not do anything to stop demand from increasing in the future. As in the case of irrigation competition in Africa, efficient use of local water in one place doesn't exactly justify cutting water off for other places. Usage of ground or river water for large scale farming may cause economic losses for more vulnerable groups and farmers.

Consideration of external factors, (other than just local situation) has enabled academics to advise policy makers to take alternative action, instead of blindly increasing water supply. I'll write more about what I think integrated water management is about in another post, so till then.

Stay starchy people.

Mr. Cassava

Greenhouses for the desert 2

In my last post and one further back, I talked about greenhouses and how they might be used to grow food in desert climates.

This time, I will write about three different applications of high-tech greenhouses in wealthy nations to show what potential this rather old and familiar technology can reach, and also to discuss some potential problems related to mass implementation.


Spanish greens

I had already written about how some desert areas of Spain have helped it become one of the largest producers of certain crops in Europe, despite the difficulties. According to this article, 100,000 acres of greenhouse covered land grow more than US$1 billion worth of produce annually.

Surprisingly, its not high-end and fancy crops, and much of the produce is destined for budget german supermarkets like Lidl and Aldi. To me, this shows that costs of technology can be reasonably controlled and useful in farming lower margin crops, and is not only viable at high market prices for premium products.

Spanish greenhouses: an aerial view. (link to source)

This Spanish spectacle is not without controversy however. Despite the improved efficiency of greenhouses in retaining water, such farms have depended on groundwater abstraction because of the sheer scale of commercialised production in the region. Locals have enjoyed the jobs and the revival of the region's economic prospects, but the Spanish government has had to deal with a future water problem, as well as build costly desalination plants to deal with current problems of seawater intrusion into groundwater supplies.

I do worry that cheap vegetables are being grown and sold below the true costs of production if companies are exploiting groundwater resources for free or little cost. Such large scale usage definitely calls into question long term sustainability, and the answer is not not likely to be optimistic.


Tomatoes in Texas

Greenhouse temperature regulation is a challenge in deserts, because the internal temperatures of the greenhouse may rise to damaging levels, and much water is used to cool off the plants. However, Village Farms, an enterprise in Texas doesn't release that water vapour into the atmosphere. Instead it recycles all water inputs up to 5 times to achieve 87% water savings compared to field grown tomatoes.

Growing in controlled environments also enables the firm to control every aspect of the environment. Insects are kept out, except bees which aid pollination. Even the soil used for growing tomatoes is not conventional soil, but "coco peat", which is apparently selected for superior properties.

While I believe that it would be simpler and potentially more efficient to grow tomatoes in more suitable climates, questions of jobs and self-sufficiency (food security on national scales) may drive people to do agriculture in such inhospitable climates and may incentive governments to provide subsidies and aid to farmers in such regions. Certainly in rural Sub-Saharan Africa, families and youths have little mobility and security in their lives, and subsistence agriculture may be a large portion of their food and income.


Veggies AND Water in Doha

Probably one of the more innovative ideas is the seawater greenhouse project called the Sahara Forest Project. Sound impossible? Qatar has done it by utilising the power of the sun in deserts to evaporate and desalinate seawater, while also cooling greenhouses for growing crops. The testbed facility was only 1 hectare in size, but managed to produce cucumbers, arugala and barley. Although developed in Europe, the project has global ambitions.

The seawater greenhouse concept (link to source)

While this is unlikely to be relevant to farmers across most of Africa, particularly the driest landlocked areas, implementing such projects may increase water availability for coastal nations, My speculation is that there might even be opportunities for water export to inland nations, for use in large scale commercial farms or municipal use.


Summary of Greenhouses in agriculture

Not all greenhouses are created equal of course, and the lists of benefits and cautionary points would vary from project to project. However, in general it seems that most greenhouse projects exhibit the following characteristics.

Pros:
Protection of crops from pests, enabling higher yields and better appearances
Potential to costs save on resource inputs like fertiliser, and pesticides
Potential to recycle water inputs

Cons:
Many concepts are designed assuming access to electricity and other high-tech equipment
Need a method of heat and air regulation, as greenhouses trap gases and heat
Requires high capital investment
Requires expertise in regulating the greenhouse and growing crops under new conditions


Hope you enjoyed this stuff and as always, stay starchy

Mr. Cassava

Smartholders

Smartholders - I

Hi guys, today I'm writing a little post about technologies that can help small-scale farmers (smallholders). This was inspired by a cool video about setting up a greenhouse, made by a Kenyan organisation, to promote the benefits of technologies in agriculture.

Other than financial, resource input, advice or informational assistance, one possible role of organisations interested in development is to sponsor scientific research or programs (such as the Gates and Melinda Foundation in the health sector) or assist in bringing innovations to the field.


Why focus on smallholders?

Collier and Dercon argued in an article that development economists generally focus on helping the rural poor, and largely on smallholders. A variety of logic has been used to support this stance, such as promoting sectoral development (growth pole model), or the idea that the quickest way to ensure trade benefits the poor is to enable them to improve their productivity.

Some have questioned the methods used to assist smallholders, while others have questioned the focus on smallholders itself for instance, the Collier and Dercon (2014) article. Personally, I believe that agencies promoting development should look closely at what investments smallholders in low-income countries have found successful and profitable, even by themselves.

Some problems in this approach may be that smallholders have imperfect information, or that necessary services and technologies are not available locally and thus would have not been used, even if they were desirable. This is not to mention that the majority of learning done by smallholders is based on following examples or trials, perhaps due to the risky nature of agriculture and the need for evidence and trust.


Friendly neighbourhood heroes?

That's why local help groups that understand the demands of smallholders, and yet have the ability and expertise needed to advise farmers on technologies seem very important to me. In the video that follows, what struck me was the attention to detail in construction, as well as to the needs of farmers involved in the project. When watching the video, it also becomes obvious that specialist knowledge and experience would be required to successfully operate a greenhouse agriculture project.

There are many barriers to technology implementation, especially if smallholders themselves are not ready to adopt new practices, and are themselves unwilling to invest time to learn about new technologies.

Are the help groups and community support provided altruistically? I think that there is a relatively strong sense of community, aid and co-operation in Africa, and successful individuals do want to contribute back to their rural communities. But businesses can make good profits off selling technology, and that is also a large incentive for them to provide education and support. And if farmers make profits using technology and have access to capital, then that would be nice too.

Whatever it is, I think its cool that technology and community intersect in such ways. It also blows away the idea that technology is a "big" thing that requires lots of money.


Stay starchy,
Mr Cassava