WLE in Africa Project Review Meeting Trade-offs analysis – approaches Component 1: W4F 15-17 June 2015, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso Bedru Balana IWMI WP (Activity) 3.2 Trade-offs analysis – approaches

Trade-offs: What is it? Giving up one thing to get more of something else The ‘cost’ of something forgone in exchange to enjoy something else – ‘opportunity cost’ of a choice  It can occur temporally (e.g., present vs. future consumption) or spatially (e.g., land use/allocation – e.g., food production vs. biofuel) Reduction in one ES as a consequence of increased use of another ES In the context of ES, trade-offs between ES arise from management and/or utilization choices made by humans, which can change the type, magnitude, quality & relative mix of ES provided by the ecosystems.

Multiple ES/benefits (dis-benefits from SR (Lit. review) Benefits (or Ecosystem services) Crop production (yield increase) (P) Water for livestock (P) Limit rural out-migration (C) Enhance rural income (P) Support multiple livelihood (livelihood diversification) (P) Buffer extreme weather and changing climatic patterns (R) Improved access to domestic water (drinking, Cooking) (P) Enhance women’s position within the household (P, C) Recreation (Bathing, Scenery etc.) (C) Employment creation (P, C) Limiting floods (R) Improved greenness and increased biodiversity (C, R, S) Dis-benefits (or ecosystem dis-services) Environmental deterioration (e.g., erosion of the shoreline due to upstream pumping) (– R) Decrease water quality (– R) Adverse health impacts e.g., malaria (– indirectly P. C) Water quantity (– P) Decrease in soil fertility (– R) Pests and crop disease (– P, R)  

General Approach

Assess Relative importance of ESs Use a 5-point Likert scale: 1= Not important 2= Weakly important 3=Important (moderately important) 4= Very important (more important) 5= Extremely important ES Item RELATIVE IMPORTANCE Yield increase 1 2 3 4 5 Water for livestock  

Assess the Performance of SRs Use a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = Very poor 2 = Poor 3 = Average 4 = Good 5 = Very good ES Item Performance of SR Yield increase 1 2 3 4 5 Water for livestock  

Indicators of Provisioning ES Trade-offs: community-based assessment (1) Elicit information on local people’s understanding/perception of trade-offs among various ecosystem services, e.g. irrigation use (more crop) vs. livestock water; irrigation use (more crop) vs. domestic use etc. Synthesize data and cluster results (e.g.):    Indicators of Regulating ES Indicators of Provisioning ES High-provisioning (HP) Low-provisioning (LP) High-Regulating (HR)  win-win (synergies) win-lose (trade-offs) Low-regulating (LR) lose-win lose-lose (worst outcome)

Trade-offs: Quantitative data-based (2) DATA SOURCES (1) Expert judgements: for ES indicators for which there is no data esp. changes in biophysical ES indicators e.g. indicators regulating ES services. Secondary data – published and grey sources, mainly to acquire environmental/biophysical data to supplement ‘expert judgements’ based data.

Trade-offs: Quantitative … (contd.) DATA SOURCES (2) Survey Data (econ. data): Crop yield data – major crops in the area time series (if available)– record of yield over time (SRs irrigated vs. non-irrigated) cross-sectional – survey of yield from sample of SR irrigated & non-irrigated fields Inputs data – type of inputs, quantities Price data – prices of inputs and outputs

Trade-offs: Quantitative … (contd.) Crop (Yield) Indicators: (soil erosion or env. flow or Water qual.) TC3 TC1 TC2 C A E ΔY F D B ΔTC1 ΔTC2 ΔTC3

Provisioning services MCA framework for assessment of alternative SR mgt scenarios Objective Alternatives (SR mgt. Scenarios) Criteria Indicators (Data) Objective: Max. Multiple benefits from SR Mgt.1 Provisioning services Indicator 1 Indicator 2 Indicator 3 Regulating services I-1 I-2 I-3 Cultural Services Mgt.2 Mgt.3 Mgt. (k) Other

Thanks!