Upload
leif
View
30
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
GECAFS IGB Basin Focal Project Grant Meeting-2. Kathmandu, Nepal 27-28 June 2006. Meeting Objectives. Presentation and review of food system descriptions for five IGB sites Preliminary evaluation of food system vulnerability to water stresses (and GEC) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
GECAFS IGB Basin Focal Project Grant Meeting-2
Kathmandu, Nepal
27-28 June 2006
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
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”.
GECAFS Objectives- BFP grant
1. Improve understanding of vulnerability of food systems to the stresses induced by GEC
2. Document food systems and analyze interactions w/ water stress and management
3. Develop methodology for basin-scale analysis based on five diverse case studies
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
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
Gujarat, Punjab, Pakistan:
wheat dominates, food self-sufficient, mixed irrigation, high level of infrastructure, moderate income, policies
function somewhat.
Ludihana, Central Punjab, India: wheat and rice predominate, slow to
stagnant productivity growth, groundwater dependent, lots of investment, high income
levels, functional policy support.
Vaisahali District, Bihar, India:
rice preferred, low infrastructure investment, flooding, low income
levels, out migration, little government policy support.
Greater Faridpur, Bangladesh: rice dominates, flooding and concern over salt water intrusion, low income levels, government institutions fail.
GECAFS Research Sitesin the IGP
Ruhani Basin, Terai of Nepal: rice preferred, transition zone, seasonal flooding, out-migration, sharecropping
dominates, urbanization increasing.
Objective 2.1
• describe food systems and analyse their vulnerability to water stress induced by GEC and other factors, including water management
GEC – Food System Interactions
Food System ACTIVITIESProducing
Processing & PackagingDistributing & Retailing
Consuming
SocioeconomicDRIVERS
Changes in:Demography, Economics,
Socio-political context, Cultural context
Science & Technology
Food System OUTCOMESContributing to: Food Security, Environmental
Security, and other societal interests
FoodAvailability
FoodUtilisation
FoodAccess
Environm.Security
Social Interests
DRIVERSInteractions
GEC DRIVERSChanges in:
Land cover & soils, Atmospheric Comp., Climate variability & means,
Water availability & quality, Nutrient availability & cycling,
Biodiversity, Sea currents & salinity,Sea level
ÔNaturalÕDRIVERS
e.g. VolcanoesSolar cycles
Socio-economic feedbacks
Environmental feedbacks
Food Security
FOOD UTILISATION
FOOD ACCESS
• Affordability• Allocation• Preference
• Nutritional Value• Social Value• Food Safety
FOOD AVAILABILITY
• Production• Distribution• Exchange
Environmental Security /
Natural Capital• Ecosystems
stocks, flows• Ecosystem
services• Access to
natural capital
Food Systems Researchintegrates Food System Activities and Outcomes
Social Welfare• Income• Employment • Wealth• Social & political
capital• Human capital• Infrastructure• Peace• Insurance
Food System OUTCOMES Contributing to:
Food System ACTIVITIES Producing food: natural resources, inputs, technology
Processing & packaging food: raw materials, standards, consumer demandDistributing & retailing food: marketing, advertising, trade
Consuming food: preparation, consumption
Source: Ericksen, P. (2006) Conceptualizing Food Systems for GEC Research (in prep for Food Policy)
Food Systems Conceptsquestions defined
1. What parameters describe food systems so as to facilitate GECAFS research?
2. Within given food systems, which parameters are most sensitive to GEC?
3. Who are the agents within each major food system, what are their roles, and how do they interact?
Outputs from FS descriptions
• Key activities and ACTORS
• Key outcomes and determinants– Policy and institutional links
• Linkages among activities
Food Security
FOOD UTILISATION
FOOD ACCESS
• Affordability• Allocation• Preference
• Nutritional Value• Social Value• Food Safety
FOOD AVAILABILITY
• Production• Distribution• Exchange
Environmental Security /
Natural Capital• Ecosystems
stocks, flows• Ecosystem
services• Access to
natural capital
Food Systems Researchintegrates Food System Activities and Outcomes
Social Welfare• Income• Employment • Wealth• Social & political
capital• Human capital• Infrastructure• Peace• Insurance
Food System OUTCOMES Contributing to:
Food System ACTIVITIES Producing food: natural resources, inputs, technology
Processing & packaging food: raw materials, standards, consumer demandDistributing & retailing food: marketing, advertising, trade
Consuming food: preparation, consumption
Source: Ericksen, P. (2006) Conceptualizing Food Systems for GEC Research (in prep for Food Policy)
Linking outcomes to activities and determinants– District level
Food security outcome - affordability
Major Determinants of food security outcome
Linked to FS Activity? Or Other Outcome?
Staple grains are cheap if imported; expensive if local.
Costs of local production higher than foreign.
Determined primarily by the activities under Producing.
Fruits and vegetables cheap and available in rural areas.
Increasing numbers of farmers moving into horticulture so is surplus.
Determined primarily by the activities under Producing.
Fish and beef are luxury foods. Chicken is every day food in urban areas.
Fish increasingly scarce because waters over-fished.
Beef is for the export market.
Poultry is a new growth sector and so is available everywhere. Processing centered near urban areas.
Incomes differences between urban and rural areas important (social welfare).Aquatic systems reaching their threshold (natural capital).Beef and chicken price and availability determined by Producing, Processing and Retailing.
Group exerciseFood Security outcome
Determinant characteristics
Which if any food system activities contribute to this determinant?
Which other drivers contribute (social welfare, environmental)?
Major actors
Availability•Affordability
•Allocation
•Preference
Already reported
Access
---Already reported
Utilization
---Already reported
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
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE (GEC)
Change in type, frequency & magnitude of
environmental threats
FOOD SYSTEMSECURITY / VULNERABILITY
SOCIETAL CHANGE
Change in institutions, resource accessibility,
economic conditions, etc.
Capacity to cope
with &/or recover
from GEC
Exposureto GEC
GEC Issue
Increased incidence of
drought
FS VULNERABILITY RE FOOD DIVERSITY
HIGH
Socec. Issue
Weak dairy market
Cap. to
cope
Exp.to
GEC
FS VULNERABILITY RE PRINCIPAL PROTEIN
LOW
Integrating FS & Vulnerability Researchin the IGP: example for Nutritional Value component of
Food Utilisation
Determinant: food diversitymilk
Determinant: principal proteinlentil
Cap. to
cope
Exp.to
GEC
GEC Issue
Increased incidence of
drought
Socec. Issue
Strong lentil market
Source: Multi-authored analysis of IGP food system vulnerability to GEC. GECAFS Report. In prep.
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
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
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?
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.
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
IGP General Characteristics
Gujarat, Punjab, Pakistan:
wheat dominates, food self-sufficient, mixed irrigation, high level of infrastructure, moderate income, policies
function somewhat.
Ludihana, Central Punjab, India: wheat and rice predominate, slow to
stagnant productivity growth, groundwater dependent, lots of investment, high income
levels, functional policy support.
Vaisahali District, Bihar, India:
rice preferred, low infrastructure investment, flooding, low income
levels, out migration, little government policy support.
Greater Faridpur, Bangladesh: rice dominates, flooding and concern over salt water intrusion, low income levels, government institutions fail.
GECAFS Research Sitesin the IGP
Ruhani Basin, Terai of Nepal: rice preferred, transition zone, seasonal flooding, out-migration, sharecropping
dominates, urbanization increasing.
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.
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?
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
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