1 / 41

Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Climate Change(coordinator), Italy

ICARUS – I WRM for C limate Change A daptation in Ru ral Social Ecosystems in S outhern Europe. April 5, 2013. Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Climate Change(coordinator), Italy Universidade Atlantica, Portugal Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain. OVERVIEW. The ICARUS project

deepak
Download Presentation

Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Climate Change(coordinator), Italy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ICARUS – IWRM for Climate Change Adaptation in Rural Social Ecosystems in Southern Europe April 5, 2013 Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Climate Change(coordinator), Italy Universidade Atlantica, Portugal Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain

  2. 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

  3. 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 agriculture • Intensive urbanisation • Tourism • 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

  4. Case studies

  5. 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)

  6. Project activities • Three main research streams: • Climatic and integrated (agronomic and socio-economic) modelling to simulate (autonomous and planned) adaptation processes: ABM Simile • River basin modelling to simulate water balance, irrigation needs, and effects on agricultural production and the water cycle (discharge): SWAT • 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

  7. Agent based model to explore adaptation strategies in agricultural water management Climate Serv. Climate Soils Irrig. Sys. Crop Phys. & Market Farmer Farming practices Water consumption Profits Irrigation Soil water balance Crop Yield Watershed

  8. Agent based model to explore adaptation strategies in agricultural water management

  9. Seasonal forecasts and crop allocation Seasonal forecast UNCERTAINTY RISK TAKING ATTITUDE Maize allocation

  10. Distributions of water uses and incomes Irrigation volumes Farmers’ incomes

  11. Coupling autonomous and planned adaptation through ePartipation • 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 • Bojovic et al, 2013

  12. 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

  13. Q1: autonomous adaptation measures • overall, 87% claim that in the near future, adaptation will be necessary

  14. 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

  15. Q2: The tool mDSSweb – 4 languages, 5 pages

  16. Q2: MCA with mDSSweb

  17. Q2: final ranking, Veneto Region • 170 answers + 10 IBs • Good distribution of answers per location, farm size, irrigation typology

  18. 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

  19. GRAZIE! laura.bonzanigo@cmcc.it cgiupponi@unive.it www.tiamasg.org/Icarus/sawEN http://www.cmcc.it/research/research-projects/icarus-1/icarus

  20. Q1: some results

  21. Q1: some results

  22. Q1: some results

  23. 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

  24. Q2: The tool mDSSweb

  25. Q2: The tool mDSSweb

  26. Q2: The tool mDSSweb

  27. Q2: The tool mDSSweb

  28. 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

  29. Q2: some results

  30. Q2: some results

  31. Q2: broken-up ranking

  32. 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

  33. Risk attitudes and crop allocation Farmers’ age Crop allocation

  34. Water use and farmers’ incomes Farmer’s income Water withdrawals

  35. 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.

  36. Q2: farmers versus IBs

  37. 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

  38. Q2: ranking of farmers’ preferences in Jucar basin

  39. Q1: some results 90% of participants have felt environmental changes in the past 10 years

  40. Q1: some results

  41. 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

More Related