GECAFS IGB Basin Focal Project Grant Meeting2

1
GECAFS IGB Basin Focal Project Grant Meeting-2

• Kathmandu, Nepal
• 27-28 June 2006

2
Meeting Objectives

• Presentation and review of food system
  descriptions for five IGB sites
• Preliminary evaluation of food system
  vulnerability to water stresses (and GEC)
• Discussion of generic and regional conclusions
• Outline and begin report to CPWF BFP management,
  end July 2006

3
Overview of GECAFS BFP grant

• Challenge Program for Water and Food
• Basin Focal Projects designed to (i) provide an
  integrated framework for assessing the
  relationships among water and poverty at a basin
  scale
• (ii) help develop appropriate interventions to
  alleviate poverty and vulnerability to
  water-related stress or problems.

4
GECAFS Objectives- BFP grant

• Improve understanding of vulnerability of food
  systems to the stresses induced by GEC
• Document food systems and analyze interactions w/
  water stress and management
• Develop methodology for basin-scale analysis
  based on five diverse case studies

5
BFP grant outputs

• 1.1 Literature review
• 1.2 conceptual framework
• 2.1 five case studies
• 3.1 analysis of diversity across regional sites
  
• Two regional workshops December 2005, June 2006

6
BFP grant - deliverables

• October 2006 site descriptions GECAFS
  participation in BFP method meeting in China
• November 2005 (delayed) Literature review
• February 2006 mid-term report
• August 2006 final report

7
GECAFS Research Sites in the IGP
Ludihana, Central Punjab, India wheat and rice
predominate, slow to stagnant productivity
growth, groundwater dependent, lots of
investment, high income levels, functional policy
support.
Ruhani Basin, Terai of Nepal rice preferred,
transition zone, seasonal flooding,
out-migration, sharecropping dominates,
urbanization increasing.
Gujarat, Punjab, Pakistan wheat dominates,
food self-sufficient, mixed irrigation, high
level of infrastructure, moderate income,
policies function somewhat.
Greater Faridpur, Bangladesh rice dominates,
flooding and concern over salt water intrusion,
low income levels, government institutions fail.
Vaisahali District, Bihar, India rice
preferred, low infrastructure investment,
flooding, low income levels, out migration,
little government policy support.
8
Objective 2.1

• describe food systems and analyse their
  vulnerability to water stress induced by GEC and
  other factors, including water management

9
GEC Food System Interactions
10
Food Systems Research integrates Food System
Activities and Outcomes
Food System ACTIVITIES Producing food natural
resources, inputs, technology Processing
packaging food raw materials, standards,
consumer demand Distributing retailing food
marketing, advertising, trade Consuming food
preparation, consumption
Food System OUTCOMES Contributing to
Source Ericksen, P. (2006) Conceptualizing Food
Systems for GEC Research (in prep for Food Policy)
11
Food Systems Concepts questions defined

• What parameters describe food systems so as to
  facilitate GECAFS research?
• Within given food systems, which parameters are
  most sensitive to GEC?
• Who are the agents within each major food system,
  what are their roles, and how do they interact?

12
Outputs from FS descriptions

• Key activities and ACTORS
• Key outcomes and determinants
• Policy and institutional links
• Linkages among activities

13
(No Transcript)
14
Food Systems Research integrates Food System
Activities and Outcomes
Food System ACTIVITIES Producing food natural
resources, inputs, technology Processing
packaging food raw materials, standards,
consumer demand Distributing retailing food
marketing, advertising, trade Consuming food
preparation, consumption
Food System OUTCOMES Contributing to
Source Ericksen, P. (2006) Conceptualizing Food
Systems for GEC Research (in prep for Food Policy)
15
Linking outcomes to activities and determinants
District level
16
Group exercise
17
Vulnerability of food systems

• Vulnerability implies HARM or a negative
  consequence from which is difficult to recover
  food insecurity
• Is a function of exposure to hazards, sensitivity
  AND coping capacity (internal and external)
• Arises from multiple stresses

18
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE (GEC) Change in type,
frequency magnitude of environmental threats
Capacity to cope with /or recover from GEC
FOOD SYSTEM SECURITY / VULNERABILITY
Exposure to GEC
SOCIETAL CHANGE Change in institutions, resource
accessibility, economic conditions, etc.
19
Integrating FS Vulnerability Research examples
for food utilisation water availability
20
Integrating FS Vulnerability Research in the
IGP example for Nutritional Value component of
Food Utilisation
Determinant food diversity milk
Determinant principal protein lentil
GEC Issue Increased incidence of drought
GEC Issue Increased incidence of drought
FS VULNERABILITY RE FOOD DIVERSITY HIGH
Exp. to GEC
FS VULNERABILITY RE PRINCIPAL PROTEIN LOW
Exp. to GEC
Cap. to cope
Cap. to cope
Socec. Issue Strong lentil market
Socec. Issue Weak dairy market
Source Multi-authored analysis of IGP food
system vulnerability to GEC. GECAFS Report. In
prep.
21
Vulnerability of IGP food systems

• Function of
• The vulnerable parameter
• Stress
• Exposure
• Sensitivity
• Coping capacity or resilience
• In context of multiple stressors
• Results in disrupted outcome

22
Task

• For each food system activity or outcome
  determinant,
• List
• Type of water-related stress that threatens
• Sensitivity to water-related stress
• Coping or adaptive capacity
• Overall vulnerability CURRENTLY
• Tomorrow will assess the implications for whole
  system
• Tomorrow will look at future possible
  vulnerability

23
System vulnerability

• Does the vulnerability of the activity or outcome
  determinant affect any outcomes?
• Is this true across the district?
• Is it true all of the time?
• Or is the shock severe enough that has long term
  effect?

24
BFP grant Objective 3

• Understand relationships of water and food
  systems at multiple scales and integrate across
  sample sites
• Trends in vulnerability
• Connections among the five sites and importance
  to food systems.

25
IGP General Characteristics

• Western Region (1, 2 3)
• high productivity food surplus
• high investment in infrastructure
• major use of fertilisers and ground-water for
  irrigation
• in-migration of labour

• Eastern Region (4 5)
• low productivity food deficit
• poor infrastructure and low inputs of fertilizer
  and water
• high risk of flooding
• out-migration of labour

26
GECAFS Research Sites in the IGP
Ludihana, Central Punjab, India wheat and rice
predominate, slow to stagnant productivity
growth, groundwater dependent, lots of
investment, high income levels, functional policy
support.
Ruhani Basin, Terai of Nepal rice preferred,
transition zone, seasonal flooding,
out-migration, sharecropping dominates,
urbanization increasing.
Gujarat, Punjab, Pakistan wheat dominates,
food self-sufficient, mixed irrigation, high
level of infrastructure, moderate income,
policies function somewhat.
Greater Faridpur, Bangladesh rice dominates,
flooding and concern over salt water intrusion,
low income levels, government institutions fail.
Vaisahali District, Bihar, India rice
preferred, low infrastructure investment,
flooding, low income levels, out migration,
little government policy support.
27
Contrasting and integrating across sampling sites

• Using standard characterization techniques at
  each site to understand commonalities and
  differences among the five food systems and their
  vulnerability to water stress and management.
• Assessing trends or gradients in vulnerability,
  resulting in a set of parameters which
  collectively describe the links between food
  systems and water stress for the basin as a
  whole.
• Looking for the presence or absence of
  connections among the five sites and evaluate
  their importance to the food systems.

28
Basin-wide questions

• Which food system drivers are common to all
  sites?
• Which vary by case study site?
• Which water stresses are common?
• Which water stresses vary?
• Are there connections between the water stresses
  across the basin?
• Are there connections in the food systems across
  the basin?

29
Format/ outline for CPWF report

• Methodology
• Conceptual framework-- POLLY
• Site selection process POLLY and you
• Site descriptions
• Standard data-- YOU
• Food system description
• Nine determinants of food security outcomes YOU
  then VARSHA and POLLY
• Try to link activities and outcomes YOU then
  VARSHA and POLLY

30
Report (2)

• Vulnerability assessment POLLY to introduce
• determinants per food security element (assess
  the intra-element importance) YOU
• Exposure, sensitivity, coping capacity,
  vulnerability YOU
• Basin findings
• Food system and vulnerability compare POLLY then
  YOU
• Connections YOU
• Generic approaches JOHN POLLY then YOU