1 / 10

SAGCOT Corridor (224K km 2 )

Informing irrigation investments in Tanzania: A Spatially Explicit Analysis Jawoo Koo, Hua Xie, Liangzhi You, Zhe Guo, Jeffrey Dickinson , and Cindy Cox International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. SAGCOT Corridor (224K km 2 ). MOTIVATION

spyridon-galen
Download Presentation

SAGCOT Corridor (224K km 2 )

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. Informing irrigation investments in Tanzania: A Spatially Explicit AnalysisJawoo Koo, Hua Xie, Liangzhi You, Zhe Guo, Jeffrey Dickinson, and Cindy CoxInternational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC SAGCOT Corridor (224K km2)

  2. MOTIVATION NEW ALLIANCE FOR FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION: TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM Providing technical support to the New Alliance partners: • Setting priorities for national commodity value chains and their targets • Geospatial targeting and ex-ante impact analysis to optimize investments • Designing of the Technology Platform components and developing their prototypes

  3. DEMAND TANZANIA AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECURITY INVESTMENT PLAN (2010-2020) • WHAT ARE THE KEY CHALLENGES? • Limited institutional capacity • Inadequate hydrological resource database • Reliance on gravity-fed irrigation schemes • Inadequate investment in water infrastructure • Inadequate capacity of farmers to invest in infrastructure • Low level of funding available by the government • Low rate of investment by the private sector • Inadequate capacity of the private sector • Absence of law which protects irrigation potential and irrigation developed areas • Increased malaria incidences • Inadequate integration of water resources management systems .95M ha land area .44M ha suitable for agriculture .07M ha suitable for irrigation 0.3M ha currently irrigated

  4. RESEARCH CHALLENGE WHY IRRIGATION POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT IS CHALLENGING? • Biophysical • Socioeconomic • Cost-benefit analysis on production of irrigated crops • Values in livestock production, water supply and other social benefits • Institutional • Synergy with other agricultural technologies DIFFICULT TO ANSWER “WHERE” QUESTIONS: • What crops are under irrigation? • Where does irrigation occur? • When (In which season) are irrigation applied? • How do farmers cultivate irrigated crops?

  5. EARLIER STUDIES IRRIGATION POTENTIAL ASSESSMENTS STUDIES AT IFPRI: FINDINGS (2010) • Potential of large-scale irrigation is location-bound • Small-scale irrigation can be more readily profitable, but sensitive to cost • Need to keep investment costs low to improve viability Potential increase in gross revenue per hectare from small-scale irrigation You et al. (2010)

  6. Fixed Geographies of Analysis Flexible Geographies/Units of Analysis Investment/Policy Analysis MACRO SCALE Aggregate, market-scale (geo-political) units e.g., IMPACT/WATER, GTAP derivatives e.g., DREAM, MM models Change (e.g., climate, technologies) Change (e.g., policy) Infrastructure/Market Access Production System Production System & Market Access Analysis MESO SCALE Pixels as Units of Analysis Ecosystem Services Household Characterization MICRO SCALE Region Urban/Rural Income tercile Consumption Production Inputs Aggregation By Commodity

  7. RESEARCH QUESTION WHERE IN SAGCOT HAS THE MOST POTENTIAL OF IRRIGATION EXPANSION FOR RICE? INDICATORS TO CONSIDER (10 km grids) • Mapping of current extent of irrigation (GMIA v5)* • Profitability of existing irrigation (You et al., 2011) • Cropland extent (IIASA, 2014) • Subnational poverty mapping (HarvestChoice, 2014)* • Current geography and productivity of rice (HarvestChoice, 2014)* • Groundwater availability (British Geological Survey) • Slope (Derived from SRTM 90m, CGIAR-CSI) • Accessibility to surface water (Authors) • Technology adoption rate (Authors, based on Agricultural Census, 2007)

  8. TOOL DEMONSTRATION Demo – Tableauhttps://public.tableausoftware.com/profile/ifpri.td.hc#!/vizhome/tanzania_sagcot_rice_irrigation/dashboard

  9. CONCLUDING REMARKS CAN YOU, RESEARCHERS, (REALLY) STAND BY YOUR DATA? • New datasets with GEOSHARE’s co-sponsorship improved quality and relevance at sub-national investment analysis. Plus, helped to take research data out of researchers’ black box (?) and bring the research processes under the microscope of community. Peer-review for the publication goes only so far; it takes a community-involvement (More on this at the SPAM session). • Practicality of geospatial research dataset – much more than publications. Being used as the evidences of policy making process. Implications on the national agricultural investment planning and development projects. Doing one’s best may not be enough. • Balance between robust research framework and flexibility/user-friendliness for capacity building and clear interpretation – not easy!

More Related