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

Exceptions to the norm

As part of an assignment in the GEOG3038 module, I have been looking at water and agriculture in Nigeria. Unlike arid and some poor parts of Africa, Nigeria is one of the most populous countries in the world, with a thriving economy and is also a tropical country blessed with blue water resources. 

In this post, I will take a wider look at the country's economy, demographics and regional situation to show and also talk about challenges that still remain for agriculture, despite Nigeria's inherent advantages.

Nigeria is a tropical climate with a strong and distinct wet season. Source: World Bank

Nigeria straddles the boundaries between a tropical and semi-arid country. Northern and Central Nigera receive 500-1000mm of rainfall annually, much less than for instance the East Coast (4000mm) and West Coast (18000mm). So far so good for domestic and even agriculture. While high evaporation makes the amount of rainfall insufficient for growing crops like rice, Nigeria has an extensive drainage system that runs into hundreds of wetlands and out to lakes like Lake Chad. If timed rightly, natural flooding in the rainy season can provide the amount of water needed to grow wildrice.

However, as with many countries, Nigeria has been experiencing climate change. Since 1960, mean rainfall has decreased 1.8% per decade, or 3.5mm per month, calling into question long term availability of water in this rapidly growing and very youthful nation. The construction of many dam projects has reduced wetland flooding, and the traditional flood cycle that many farmers and rice cultivators relied on.

Before the expansion of the oil industry in Nigeria, agriculture was the highest earning export, and Nigeria exported valuable commodities like cocoa and rubber. The present decline in Nigeria's agricultural sector might not only reflect industrialisation, but also a reduction in water available for traditional wetland farmers.

Along with reduced water availability, grass and water for animals have also become scarcer, while demand for grazing has increased. Traditional cultures have little concern for the modern concept of borders, and herds from drier countries like Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, as well as the Fulani tribe are seeking refuge in Nigeria during the dry season, as they have for decades. Unfortunately, this puts declining water resources and natural resources at further stress. Nigeria itself also has the largest cattle herd in Africa, and demand for beef  in the middle-income country is likely to multiply four-fold by 2050.

With industrial wealth and oil money, Nigeria can afford to buy food if water resources are limiting agricultural production. However, this hardly addresses the question of equity. Increased usage of water for commercial and irrigation farming projects may starve traditional small farmers in the wetland systems into poverty, or drive them out of those areas and into cities as wage laborers. While irrigated farms do use water efficiently on-site, irrigation channels and the dams that feed them are subject to high water losses through groundwater seepage and evaporation. Studies have shown that natural resources provided by wetlands are productive and valuable, and more so than wasteful and low water efficiency irrigation projects.

Whether the current management of water in Nigeria is equitable or not, a route of livelihood improvement should be provided to traditional wetland farmers who are displaced because of heavy upstream water usage. If not, it would be a huge loss and a shame.

What also seems interesting to me is that countries with relatively more water than others are still subject to water stress and questions of sustainability continue to arise, especially as populations grow larger, richer and consume greater amounts of resources.



Mr. Cassava

Greenhouses for the desert?

Newsweek recently wrote an article about the future of farming. I came across some thought provoking claims that I will summarise.

1. The world has focused on rice, wheat and corn in calorie production, but a few other crops produce more calories (and nutrients) per unit of land, such as potatoes and sweet potatoes.
2. The Tabernas desert in Spain grows more than half of Europe's fresh vegetables and fruit with the help of greenhouse controlled environment. 
3. Plants grown in controlled environments using artificial light (so-called pinkhouses) grow 20% quicker than outdoor grown plants, and require fewer resource inputs.
4. Crop rotation practices not only help lands recover nitrogen naturally, but also serve to diversify rural diets and thus provide more complete mixes of nutrients (something I tried to echo in a previous post).

Now I know why the cherry tomatoes I eat come from Spain!

Greenhouses have been around for a long time now, and it should come as no surprise that high-tech controlled environment farming has been seriously considered and implemented in land-starved cities. 

Unfortunately hurdles to be faced are large. Newsweek reported that controlled-greenhouses are far less suitable for growing staple crops like rice, corn and wheat, given that their prices are so cheap, that additional costs from investment may be impossible to recover. According to farmers they've interviewed, even farmers in developed countries worry about making ends meet despite all the increased yields and efficiency brought about by technology. If crop yields across the world increase, food prices may tumble. This may be a good thing for some of the world's poor, but many farmers may themselves may be priced out of the business, and the global poor who rely on cash crops and employment on farms may also suffer greatly. In Africa as well, it may be impossible to transplant the exact same technologies used in the west due to costs, lack of transport networks, or lack of electricity and water.


Perhaps one possible solution may be to gradually encourage Africans to produce more higher value cash crops using technology grants and collective practices to increase their market power and ensure that their crops are sold quickly whilst they are fresh.

What is really interesting about these greenhouses to me is not the faster rate of growth per se, but the input savings that may be had! According to Newsweek, pinkhouse plants "need 91 percent less water, negligible fertilizer and no treatment with herbicides or pesticides".

It may just be me, but I expect resource savings to be compounded when applied to desert or semi-arid climates in Sahelian or Sub-Saharan Africa. Less growth time obviously means that  plants stay planted for shorter lengths of time and lose less water to evapo-transpiration. A greenhouse environment can mean that high yielding, expensive varieties can be grown without associated costs in protecting them or wastage of fertilisers.

Controlled environments could mean that plants can be grown throughout the year. We may not need large, industrial scale warehouses, perhaps plastic, aquarium sized containers with rollers can be pushed into the open during the day and kept watered with low yielding wells. Perhaps the evaporated water within the greenhouse may be somehow gathered and used as filtered water?  

While high-tech farming has generally been thought to be the domain of rich countries only, I suspect that high-tech doesn't necessarily need to remain high-cost. I will be sure to follow up with a more in depth post about technologies that may potentially play a role in the future of African farming.



Stay starchy,
Mr Cassava

A proper diet?

People who know me in person tell me I can be a little food obsessed. Maybe that's why I own this blog now? Anyways, thinking about food can be very different from worrying about agricultural issues. But it is a close relationship, as top chefs will tell you... or maybe an African farmer?

Many farmers consume some of their produce, it won't constitute the main bulk of their meals. Specialists may grow a cash crop or herd livestock, rather than farm different crops as a source of food for the family. In Africa and other developing nations though, there is more subsistence farming, where the bulk of crops grown is for private consumption, and only the surplus sold to markets. No working means no food (very literally).

Could this put them at risk of nutritional deficiency? African farmers already diversify their crop to cope with climate risks, but could even more diversity in their food supply help build a more nutritious diet?

Everything in moderation.

In terms of protein, plant proteins are usually comparatively lacking in one or more essential amino acids (so called incomplete protein). Research finds that the quantity required of food pairs (for consumption) to meet recommended nutritional intakes is lower than the quantity required from single foods. Apparently, you should have your tomatoes with sweet corn (Mexican food anyone?). And who could have guessed sweet corn and cherry were an item.

Hey I didn't know food pairing was something useful to me. I mean, I'm not a gourmet chef.

Africans tend to grow a selection of hardy crops, or whatever the soils permit, and may not always have the resources to consume meat proteins. Insect protein however, can be a major, or at least complementary source of nutrition. Did you know that (wait, hang on to your seats) 2 billion people around the world regularly eat bugs.

          "Markets in Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, boast an abundant            year-round supply of caterpillars, and the average household in Kinshasa eats approximately              300 g of caterpillars per week"

- Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (2013)

Cool things have already popped up in the world of food research. Apparently, Indian food tastes good because it actually combines ingredients and spices that have conflicting flavours. Perhaps it would be nice to actually have someone study food pairings and nutrition in real case studies and contexts.

Personally, I think that when times get tough and crops fail, the last thing on the minds of most people would be food pairing. Could ethical issues be raised if farmers were encouraged to grow a more a balanced and nutritionally complete diet at the expense of calories? What could we do if water availability limits the type of crops grown (see my previous post)? As always, we find no simple answers, even if ideas themselves are at hand.

So there we have it, we need diversity in food, not just for taste, but for health as well. If you thought that was cool let me know in the comments section.



Stay Starchy,
Mr. Cassava


Images used:
Original USDA food pyramid (1992), http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/Fpyr/pyramid.gif
Michael Durr (2009) http://upcomingdiscs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/oryl-owl-ya-rly.jpg

Hello readers, Mr. Cassava is here with an inaugural blog article about:

The water problem in African agriculture

Many people might have think of Africa as a dry and arid continent with yellowing grass in the savannas. In fact, an estimated 83% of freshwater withdrawals in Africa is used on agriculture according to Wada et al. (2011) a figure matched only in Asian countries. In some countries, such as Egypt, Sudan and Zambia, even intensive levels of farming are achieved with the use of fertilizer and irrigation (basically large quantities of water sprayed onto the crops, especially on dry days).

This high percentage of water used on agriculture is largely because African nations are, on the whole, not as industrialised nor as urbanised as elsewhere in the world. The rural people especially survive on agriculture (and animal husbandry or fishing) for cash or food while working on small scale farms. We can tell that agriculture is indeed important for the basic sustenance of many Africans, and to a smaller extent, the people elsewhere around the world who import African food, coffee and cocoa.

The thing is, Wada and his co-authors also wrote that the amount of water used by Africans is barely 30% that of Asians, per person. There are some negative implications for hygiene and health. To give some perspective, in the dry seasons, some rural poor may use the equivalent of a normal 500ml bottle of water for hygiene per day. Why do so many rural Africans need to compromise so heavily on hygiene and health? 

Hygiene in dry parts of the world does not involve facial cleansing with pimple cream after.  

They simply needed the water for growing and cooking food. To be forced to make such compromises may be a way of life for many, but it highlights a few things.

1. In times of drought or low water supply, crops or animals must be given priority presumably because households have almost no spare cash or food supplies, and can't afford to lose their crops. 
2.  If households are barely making enough profits or growing enough food while operating at the limit of their water supplies, then they will be vulnerable to shocks in water availability.

I find the warnings of vulnerability faced by many rural Africans which are echoed by the IFAD (2011) and independent researchers highly appropriate. Combine No.2 with climate change, which may have unpredictable effects on weather and rainfall, as well as direct effects on crops in terms of heat, and we begin to see some of the difficulties of farming in Africa. Add on knowledge that rainfall and river discharge in Africa vary greatly from year to year, and we have the makings of a water problem in African agriculture.

  

The water problem in African agriculture does not end here though, so you have to stay with me, Mr. Cassava, for the next installments of the blog. As for what topics they may be on, well, I don't know yet, because I'm learning with you guys.

Stay starchy,

Mr. Cassava

Links and pictures used

1. http://www.betcheslovethis.com/files/uploads/slideshow/tap2.gif