IWRM-the way forward?

The posts dated 18/11, 19/11, 24/11, 9/12 and 3/12 have focused on understanding the relationships between climate change and human behaviour/socio-economic systems (e.g. land use), which Ostrom (2007) contends is necessary for water management that meets basic needs while being ecologically sustainable. The need for a holistic, integrated approach to water management has also been established. To better understand integrated water management and explore its feasibility, I have chosen two articles—by Herrfahrdt-Pahle (2013) and Ludwig et al. (2013)—for my final post, on Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) and the alternative of climate change adaptation.

IWRM can be broadly defined as a form of water governance and management that seeks ‘integrated, economically, socially and environmentally sustainable use of water resources’ (Herrfahrdt-Pahle 2013: 552), ideally involving cross-sectoral coordination. Strategies are designed based on the extrapolation of current or past issues/data into the future, even though climate variability is unlikely to remain the same, especially with climate change (Ludwig et al. 2013). On the other hand, climate change adaptation often employs the use of climate models to produce long-term climate projections (Herrfahrdt-Pahle 2013), which is problematic due to the high degree of uncertainties propagated in the use of modelling chains. Yet, a more bottom-up approach geared towards reducing socio-economic vulnerabilities on a local scale to increase climate change resilience, may neglect much-needed technical solutions.

It seems then, there is no one optimal approach that is able to fully address the complexities of the issue of water management. As Ludwig et al. (2013) saliently point out, a single problem is framed differently by different stakeholders who have different interests, experience, and knowledge (Dewulf et al. 2015), such that no ‘optimal’ solution will be able to meet the demands of all. That said, the shortcomings of IWRM and climate change adaptation may be addressed, first and foremost through research. Ludwig et al. (2013) proposes a risk-oriented approach where a number of adaptation strategies are defined and then assessed using a wide range of projected climate scenarios. This appears to be more profitable, as it allows the relative severity of vulnerabilities under different climatic conditions to be assessed, as well as the combination of top-down and bottom-up strategies. The actual feasibility and usefulness of this approach, nonetheless would require further evaluation through concrete case studies.

Adapting to climate change through land use management and integrated development

In the previous post, I reviewed an article that explained the how land use change/poor land management may set up positive feedback mechanisms that exacerbate drought conditions which are part of the effects of climate change. The paper by the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (2014) titled ‘Adapting to climate change through land and watermanagement in Eastern Africa’ details the food and water situation in relation to climate change and land use in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania as well as the results of pilot integrated management projects that have been implemented in some parts of these countries.

The implemented projects focus on enabling small-scale farmers to adapt to climate change by identifying, testing and replicating soil and water management, as well as water harvesting techniques (FAO 2014). The key goal of better soil management is to improve soil health, given the abundance of organisms in soil and the integral roles they have to play in the regulation of basic ecosystem services such as nutrient, water and carbon cycles, and the prevalent problem of soil degradation due to the lack of fallow periods between rounds of cultivation.

Studies and surveys undertaken in Ethiopia during the initial stages of the project identified several widespread problems, in particular inappropriate cultivation, overgrazing and deforestation, resulting in soil erosion, reduced moisture-holding capacity of the soil and fertility decline. This is exacerbated by increasing weather variability and climate change such that existing land management practices are no longer sufficient in maintaining resource quality (Malo et al. 2012). Apart from declining agricultural productivity of the land, poor land use practices have also affected wider ecological functions such as fewer opportunities for water harvesting and management. As such, sustainable land management (SLM) was the key management strategy employed to increase climate change resilience of the communities in the chosen project sites of Wurba watershed, Shoa Robit Woreda, Ethiopia and Hari Jila watershed, Sebeta Woreda, Ethiopia.

Integrated watershed management has been implemented in both watersheds to improve the adaptability of smallholder farmers, with the strategies that include rainwater harvesting technologies, encouraging the adoption of rotational/zero-grazing.

My thoughts on the paper:

The paper emphasised the need for prudent and sustainable land use to increase the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers to climate change, in line with the discussion in the previous post on the close relationship between land use and climate change. Although it stopped short of explicitly stating that land use mismanagement can reinforce the effects of climate change, I think the case studies in the paper demonstrated how a holistic approach may be taken in addressing the challenges posed climate change. Both quantitative data with regards to the physical aspects of the problem, such as average rainfall and crop productivity, as well as qualitative data, such as the farmers’ awareness of land degradation, were employed in the analysis of the problems and in the implementation of new strategies. Moreover, social, economic and cultural considerations were made by the project leaders in seeking to address the root causes of various issues faced by these countries, and a range of measures were applied accordingly. For example, in Hari Jila watershed, Sebeta Woreda, Ethiopia, the issue of deforestation was addressed not by imposing strict bans on the use of the forests, but by supplying farmers with energy-saving stoves that require less fuelwood. The paper confirmed that this measure has been relatively successful in reducing the need for farmers to carry out deforestation for fuelwood collection. The issue of water scarcity in the same watershed has also been rather effectively addressed, with a total of 380 households no longer facing water scarcity through the use of rainwater harvesting techniques.

Overall, the paper brings together the sub-themes that were explored previously on the relationships between climate change and human behaviour/land use. The pilot projects presented in the paper are closely aligned with my view that increasing climate change adaptability requires a good understanding of the prevailing socio-economic and cultural circumstances of the community involved. At times, this could simply mean installing basic infrastructure necessary for the provision of safe and clean water, which would in turn go a long way in improving public health and agricultural productivity though other factors such as the lack of finances may hinder this process. An integrated watershed management approach is therefore, in my opinion, a promising solution to the complex issue involving climate change challenges, the lack of sufficient and safe water, land use mismanagement and possibly political inertia.