Aucune remarque pour cette diapositive
Comparing the performance of agricultural systems between river basins, based on the production in kg per m3 of water consumed or water productivity.
With few exceptions, water productivity of cereals is very low (between 0.2 and 0.5 kg/m3).
Efficient farmers achieve water productivity of 2.0 kg/m3, but in most basins it is only a fraction of this level.
Climate change and increased disaster risks being mostly felt through alterations in the hydrological cycle, impacting on water availability, communities access to water and sanitation, and ultimately affecting people’s health, nutrition and food security.
When considering water as an engine of development, need to move from river basin management (typically IWRM) to consider other factors playing a role in development scenarios.
----- Notes de la réunion (04/08/12 10:26) -----
Ag related statement would make more sense
Huge potential to continue to increase production in areas where levels are currently low, if proper access to water and markets is given to communities. This, in turn, could create the right incentives for &apos;sustainable intensification’.
There is a need to go beyond concepts of &apos;transfers&apos;, such as Payment for Environmental Service schemes, to more nuanced agreements that promote collaboration and &apos;win-win&apos; situations where benefits are shared between different groups. Benefits (and risks) need to be shared in order for all of the diverse actor groups that make up society to be able to develop.
While globally there is enough water to sustain human development and environmental needs, water-related conflicts will continue if we do not manage our resources well. A radical reform of how water is managed and used is necessary. This includes reform of the institutions that govern water resources. For the most part, there is a complete fragmentation of how water is managed amongst different actors, and even countries, where the water needs of different sectors—agriculture, industry, environment, mining—are considered separately, rather than as interrelated and interdependent. Institutions must develop a holistic approach to address the issues of unequal development that lead to unequal sharing of resources and benefits.
Partage de l’eau = jeu à somme nulle
Partage des bénéfices = jeu à somme positive
Raisons de l’échec des PES (Jarvis, 2009)
Haut taux d’échecs de PES, quoique l’Amérique Latine reste un banc d’essais
Attentes irréalisables des PES
Manque d’équité dans le partage de bénéfices
Des structures de gestion peu dotées ou inapropriées
Seulement un petit impact perçu en termes de bénéfices des PES
Risques de conflits augmentés
The Fuquene Lake collects the water of the Rio Ubate, about 150 km North of Bogota, capital of Colombia.. Communities managing a range of high altitude Andean production systems including multiple cropping and livestock (from about 2000 to 3500 masl) affect the water quality by producing high levels of sediments along with Nitrates and Phosphates that are deposited in the lake. This has deteriorated extensively the lake accelerating its eutrophication and therefore, reducing the surface covered by water. The downstream municipalities, whose aqueducts depend partially or totally on waters from the Suarez River, which begins at the outlet of the lake, and navigators are concerned about the future of the lake..
Agriculture and cattle raising have degraded the ecosystem specially the paramo (the high Andean alpine-like ecological zone, composed of high altitude wetlands) because of the expansion of the agricultural frontier. Changing from traditional agriculture methods to conservation agriculture, especially for potato production, was selected as a mechanism to decrease the sediment and nutrient flows.Research findings showed that conservation agriculture practices have contributed to restore paramos soils, especially those characteristics that determined the original capacity ofbuffering and filtering water in the upstream part of the basin. Moreover, these practices were found to be an extraordinary way to increase the soil carbon stock and to reduce the net greenhouse gas emissions produced by the conventional crop-livestock system.
A new local revolving fund, financed so far by donations from organizations interested on financing activities delivering ecosystem services, has invested in conservation agriculture by upland farmers. Revolving fund is managed directly by farmer’s organizations and the technical assistance (to ensure practices are correctly implemented) is provided by the CAR-the environmental authority.
Conservation tillage result in an increase in social benefits, but the expected gains will be modest. In the same sense a 17% of increase in net revenues in Fuquene farms could be not enough to overcome the possible aversion to risk of farmers (or other adoption barriers) and to encourage them to make an additional investment to cover initial extra costs of conservation agriculture (ie. cultivation of oat as cover crop). This fact may explain why this practice is not widely adopted in the Fuquene watershed (Currently there are about 1800 ha implementing these practices of 16933 ha under potato production in the watershed. JW mentions that even when interest rates are low most traditional farmers need at least 15- 20% or more advantage to make a change worthwhile (Byerlee et al.)
Therefore the revolving fund provides credits to farmers willing to implement conservation tillage in their potato-based production systems, and since 2005 it has incorporated about 180 small farmers every year and now uses the capital of the fund at its maximum capacity.