GECAFS IGB Basin Focal Project Grant Meeting-2

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. Environmental Security / Natural Capital • Ecosystems stocks, flows • Ecosystem services • Access to natural capital • Social Welfare • Income • Employment • Wealth • Social & political capital • Human capital • Infrastructure • Peace • Insurance Food Security FOOD UTILISATION FOOD ACCESS • Nutritional Value • Social Value • Food Safety • Affordability • Allocation • Preference FOOD AVAILABILITY • Production • Distribution • Exchange Food Systems Research integrates Food System Activities and Outcomes Food System ACTIVITIES Producing food: natural resources, inputs, technology Processing & packagingfood: raw materials, standards, consumer demand Distributing & retailingfood: marketing, advertising, trade Consumingfood: 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

14. Environmental Security / Natural Capital • Ecosystems stocks, flows • Ecosystem services • Access to natural capital • Social Welfare • Income • Employment • Wealth • Social & political capital • Human capital • Infrastructure • Peace • Insurance Food Security FOOD UTILISATION FOOD ACCESS • Nutritional Value • Social Value • Food Safety • Affordability • Allocation • Preference FOOD AVAILABILITY • Production • Distribution • Exchange Food Systems Research integrates Food System Activities and Outcomes Food System ACTIVITIES Producing food: natural resources, inputs, technology Processing & packagingfood: raw materials, standards, consumer demand Distributing & retailingfood: marketing, advertising, trade Consumingfood: 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 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 Exp. to GEC Exp. to GEC FS VULNERABILITY RE FOOD DIVERSITY HIGH FS VULNERABILITY RE PRINCIPAL PROTEIN LOW 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.

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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?

23. 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.

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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?

28. 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

29. 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