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