ICARUS – IWRM for Climate Change Adaptation in Rural Social Ecosystems in Southern Europe Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Climate Change(coordinator), Italy.

ICARUS – IWRM for Climate Change Adaptation in Rural Social Ecosystems in Southern Europe

Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Climate Change(coordinator), Italy Universidade Atlantica, Portugal Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain

April 5, 2013

OVERVIEW

• The ICARUS project

• Research direction:–Adaptation as a continuum between

autonomous and planned–An eParticipation platform as a

powerful communication tool

• Next steps & lessons learnt

ICARUS: problems addressed

Water resource management: challenge for the development of Mediterranean populations↘Social security at risk as a consequence of water scarcity↘Increasing demand for water:

Irrigated agricultureIntensive urbanisationTourism

↘Evident signs of climatic instability and negative future projections ↘Reduced food security, agro-industrial employment at risk, damage to the ecosystem, increased desertification, biodiversity loss…↘Need for policies to increase the efficiency of water management

Case studies

Project objectives

•Designing strategies for increased water efficiency in agriculture•biophysical, social, economic, and institutional dimensions of sustainable water management•innovative adaptation strategies, practices and tools for saving water in irrigated production systems

•Introducing the principles of “policy mainstreaming” and “climate proofing” in CCA•Supporting WFD implementation

•exchange of experiences•exploration of scenarios, methods and tool for water managers

»focus on irrigation in the mid term (2025)

Project activities

Three main research streams:

1.Climatic and integrated (agronomic and socio-economic) modelling to simulate (autonomous and planned) adaptation processes: ABM Simile2.River basin modelling to simulate water balance, irrigation needs, and effects on agricultural production and the water cycle (discharge): SWAT3.Internet based platform for public participation and support to strategic assessment of adaptation strategies: multi-lingual mDSSweb platform

All based on in depth review of scenarios of change, water uses and irrigation technologies in Southern Europe, and water governance in the three case studies

Agent based model to explore adaptation strategies in agricultural water management

Farming practices

Profits

Irrigation

Crop Yield

Water consumption

Soil water balance

Crop Phys.

&Market

SoilsIrrig. Sys.

Climate Serv. Climate

Farmer

Watershed

Agent based model to explore adaptation strategies in agricultural water management

Seasonal forecasts and crop allocation

Time

Forecast_s, run 1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 60000

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Time

Alloc, run 1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 60000

0.10

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Seasonal forecast

Maizeallocation

UNCERTAINTY

RISK TAKING ATTITUDE

Distributions of water uses and incomes

Irrigation volumes Farmers’ incomes

Coupling autonomous and planned adaptation through ePartipation

Bojovic et al, 2013

first online questionnaire – summer 2011

• perception of change• autonomous adaptation

development and test of online mDSS– winter-spring 2012

• MCA• methodological

simplification

second online questionnaire – summer 2012

• evaluation of planned adaptation measures

Q1: Agriculture, irrigation, and perception of change in RV

•Collaboration with ARPAV – Bollettino AgroMeteo Informa

•16 questions, 33 indicators• Socio-economic characterisation• Perception of current /past changes• Adaptation strategies• Training opportunities

•July– September 2011

•600 answers• 350 contacts

purpose not final decision-making, but exploration of perceptions, practices, and preferences, so number of answers satisfactory

overall, 87% claim that in the near future, adaptation will be necessary

Q1: autonomous adaptation measures

From Q1 to Q2: participatory modeling, mDSSweb

Selection of strategies and criteria through results of Q1 and experts’ consultation

From mDSS a mDSSweb• online• accessible to non-expert

public• tested with some farmers• refinement

Q2: The tool mDSSweb – 4 languages, 5 pages

Q2: MCA with mDSSweb

Q2: final ranking, Veneto Region

• 170 answers + 10 IBs

• Good distribution of answers per location, farm size, irrigation typology

Concluding remarks

• Adaptation as a continuum between autonomous and planned– Continuous process of change at farm level

– Interactions between autonomous and planned enables precious information to be collected – strengthen evaluations and sectoral policies

– Barrier for policy adoption is weak communication

– High policy interest

• An eParticipation platform as a powerful communication tool– Transfer of knowledge and experience

– High number of stakeholders involved through application of online tools

– Process contributes to quality and transparency of policy-making

– Iterative dialogue between scientists, policy-makers, and end beneficiaries

GRAZIE!

[email protected]@unive.it

www.tiamasg.org/Icarus/sawENhttp://www.cmcc.it/research/research-projects/icarus-1/icarus

Q1: some results

Q1: some results

Q1: some results

Q1: analysis of farmers’ choices

• 4 adaptation packages– dependent variables• no adaptation• crop and soil management only• irrigation management only• both crop and irrigation management adaptation

• most significant variables• age, UAA, agricultural income, maize, vineyards, tree crops

(excl.wineyard), forage crops (incl. grassland and soya), market gardens, worried of future environmental changes, irrigated farm, sprinkler irrigation only, drip irrigation only, mixed irrigation system, perception of past temperature changes, perception of seasonal shifts, perception of increased flood frequency, perception of changes in biodiversity, perception of changing water availability, cca necessary in the future, information on climate change , information on new techniques

Q2: The tool mDSSweb

Q2: The tool mDSSweb

Q2: The tool mDSSweb

Q2: The tool mDSSweb

Q2: Water conservation as adaptation to climate change,An example from Italy

• Collaboration with ARPAV – Bollettino agroMeteo Informa- e VenetoAgricoltura – Bollettino colture erbacee

• July – September 2012: farmers• November 2012: Irrigation Boards

• 170 risposte + 10 Ibs

• Good distribution of answers per location, farm size, irrigation typology

Q2: some results

Q2: some results

Q2: broken-up ranking

Q3: highlighted criticalities by IBs

• Seawater intrusion• Inadequate infrastructure (storage, conveyance,

distribution)• No water saving culture• Scarce water availability in summer (few reservoirs)• Missing resources for modernisation of

irrigation network (also at the farm level)• Few extension services available • Innovation-adverse farmers

Risk attitudes and crop allocation

Farmers’ age Crop allocation

Time

Maize_alloc, run 1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 50000

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Time

age, run 1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 600030

40

50

60

70

Water use and farmers’ incomes

Water withdrawals Farmer’s incomeTime

Cum_irr, run 1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

0

1000

2000

3000

Time

Cum_Ag_income, run 1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Q2: analysis of preferences

• Strategy «high efficiency irrigation methods»• Irrigation: gravity• Trees crops

• Strategy «increasing water supply»• Less than 1 ha and more than 20 ha• Irrigation: gravity• Forage crops and market crops

• Strategy «less water demanding crops»• between 1 to 20 ha• Irrigation: gravity

• Strategies «information services (existing and new)»• Between 5 and 20 ha• Irrigation: no irrigation and drip irrigation

irrigation type and farm size influence more significantly farmers’ preferences than farm size and its location.

Q2: farmers versus IBs

PROs and CONs of the methodology

CONs• Contextual specificity• Need of established online communication channels

PROs• Enables collection of large amount of information

– Drivers and pressures

– Needs

– State of the arts of adaptation on the ground

– Identification of gaps amenable to policy interventions

• Overcoming of temporal and spatial barriers• Simplification of linguistic barriers• Transferral of knowledge and experience• Contained costs

Q2: ranking of farmers’ preferences in Jucar basin

Q1: some results

90% of participants have felt environmental changes in the past 10 years

Q1: some results

Q1: factors that influence adaptation

• CCA_irrigation_only (11%)• the smaller their farm is• if they grow no maize• if they expect further environmental change• if they do not have sprinkler or drip irrigation• If they have access to information on new technologies

• CCA_crops_only (34%)• the bigger the farm is• if they grow maize• irrigation practice (the less structured, the more likely) • perception of changes in past temperature and biodiversity• if they have access to information on climate change

• CCA_both (30%)• If they have a farm larger than 20 ha• agricultural income • tree crops (excluding vineyards) • irrigation practice (emergency and structured) • access to information on climate change and new techniques

for crop and water management