1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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)

4. General Approach

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. Thanks!