Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "ICARUS – IWRM for Climate Change Adaptation in Rural Social Ecosystems in Southern Europe Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Climate Change(coordinator), Italy."— Presentation transcript:

1 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

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: 1.Climatic and integrated (agronomic and socio-economic) modelling to simulate (autonomous and planned) adaptation processes: ABM Simile 2.River basin modelling to simulate water balance, irrigation needs, and effects on agricultural production and the water cycle (discharge): SWAT 3.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 Farming practices Profits Irrigation Crop Yield Water consumption Soil water balance Crop Phys. & Market Soils Irrig. Sys. Climate Serv. Climate Farmer Watershed

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

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

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

11 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

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 answers 350 contacts  purpose not final decision-making, but exploration of perceptions, practices, and preferences, so number of answers satisfactory

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

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 case studies ITAESPT strategies Increasing the capacity of water reservoirs (building new ones, restoring old ones);xxx Production system's reorganisation towards less water demanding crops;xxx Improvement of irrigation efficiency at the farm level (pluvioirrigation, microirrigation);xxx Enhancement of existing information services for farmers (Agrometeo bulletins, seasonal forecasts,....). xxx New information system, i.e. seasonal forecast, to support crop choice on an annual basis x Wastewater treatment and reuse for agriculture; x criteria Contribution to farmers' income all Economic benefits for society against investments costs Technical effectiveness for improving adaptation to climate change Containment of conflicts over water resources between agriculture and other sectors Overall contribution to rural development Contribution to environmental protection Practical feasibility

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!

20 Q1: some results

21

22

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

26

27

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

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 Water withdrawals Farmer’s income

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


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

Similar presentations


Ads by Google