IWMI at World Water Week 2020

Financial inclusion is recognized as a vital driver of sustainable development and serves as a fundamental pillar of climate action. It is crucial to enhance the climate resilience of smallholder farmers in the face of severe and unpredictable climate shocks, which disproportionately affect them. However, the level of financial inclusion in Ethiopia remains low, and its impact on the climate resilience of smallholder farmers has not been thoroughly examined using rigorous model and comprehensive dataset. This study investigates the impact of financial inclusion on the climate resilience of rural households, using a large data set from the Ethiopian Socio-Economic Survey. The principal component analysis was applied to construct a climate resilience index. The financial inclusion was measured using an index that encompasses three dimensions: penetration, availability, and usage. In order to address the endogenous nature of financial inclusion, an instrumental variable approach was employed, using the distance to the nearest financial institution and religion as instrumental variables. The results demonstrated a positive and significant impact of financial inclusion on the climate resilience of rural households. Therefore, the government should strengthen the provision of essential financial and related infrastructures in rural Ethiopia to improve access to financial products and services. Furthermore, it is essential for policymakers to initiate and implement financial sector reforms that ensure the availability of affordable and tailored financial services. These reforms should also prioritize the development of climate-resilient agricultural finance, thereby contributing to the achievement of climate action goal of sustainable development.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission from tropical large hydropower reservoirs (LHRs) is the highest among all climatic zones due to the combinatory effect of elevated content of flooded organic matter and high temperatures. Traditional methods for GHG emission estimation involve extensive fieldwork, topographic surveys, hydrological analyses, and environmental assessments with high-end instrument requirements. In a country like India, where the hydropower sector is mushrooming rapidly, implementing these techniques on such a large scale is challenging. Alternatively, cloud-based tools like Google Earth Engine (GEE), G-res, and Earth Observation (EO) data related to biophysical and climatic conditions with in-situ reservoir water levels provide an opportunity to quantify GHG emissions from LHRs efficiently. In the present study, Maithon, one of the oldest LHRs in India, situated in a tropical climatic zone, has been studied by integrating site-specific parameters to estimate GHG emissions. The results from this study, which show that at the mean operating level (146.31 m) of the reservoir, net GHG emission is 1,024 - 1,271 gCO2e/m2/yr (with a 95% confidence interval), are of significant importance. This study highlights the GHG emissions varying greatly between the full reservoir level (786 gCO2e/m2/yr) and near the dead storage level (3,855 gCO2e/m2/yr), indicating the role of reservoir operating level in mitigating GHG emissions to achieve global goals like net zero emissions. There has been limited work globally using the G-res tool, and this is the first comprehensive study of initial GHG emission estimation of a tropical reservoir using G-res and GEE incorporating updated high-resolution land use land cover and Sentinel-1 images.

Climate change remains a significant threat to farm households, especially in developing countries. It exacerbates their vulnerability to food insecurity by reducing agricultural productivity and raising agricultural production costs. Adoption of climate smart-agricultural (CSA) practices is a promising alternative to build resilient farm households. In this study, we assessed the impacts of adopting CSA practices on climate resilience and vulnerability among farm households in Bale-Eco Region, Ethiopia. A power calculation was used to determine the sample size, and 404 farm households were randomly selected to collect data using structured questionnaire. We estimated household climate resilience index using categorical principal component analysis, and vulnerability index using vulnerability as expected poverty approach. Endogenous switching regression model, which is conditional on the adoption of multiple CSA practices and used to control selection bias and unobserved heterogeneity, was used to assess the impacts of CSA practices on household climate resilience and vulnerability. We employed counterfactual approaches to assess the impacts. The results show that the average treatment effects for most CSA practices are statistically significant and positive for resilience, but negative for vulnerability. This provides empirical support for interventions in climate-smart agriculture, which can help farm households build resilience and reduce vulnerability. We, therefore, suggest that agricultural policies should encourage the adoption of CSA practices and provide incentive packages to farm households that promote this.

1. Successful adaptation often involves changes to the decision context to enable new ways of thinking and acting on climate change. Using 16 adaptation initiatives the authors were engaged with, we analysed how and why decision contexts changed to identify ways to improve adaptation as a process of collective deliberation and social learning. 2. We used the scope of the adaptation issue and governance arrangements to classify initiatives into four types and scored changes in the decision context using three frameworks: (1) the values, rules and knowledge (VRK) perspective to identify changes to adaptation decision-making; (2) the five dimensions of futures consciousness to identify the building of adaptation capabilities and (3) the social learning cycle to reveal evidence of reflexive learning. 3. Initiatives using novel governance arrangements for discrete problems (‘problem governance’) or complex, systemic issues (‘systems governance’) scored highest for influences of VRK, futures consciousness and the social learning cycle on the decision context. Initiatives using existing management for discrete problems (‘problem management’) scored moderately for change in the decision context, while those using existing management for systemic issues (‘systems management’) scored low because change was often impeded by existing rules. 4. All three frameworks influenced decision contexts in systems governance initiatives. Problem governance initiatives revealed interactions of VRK and futures consciousness but limited influence of VRK on the social learning cycle. Scope and governance arrangements differ with the adaptation issue and initiatives adapt over time: some small-scale ones became more systemic, developed novel governance arrangements and changed the decision context. 5. Our findings do not show that some adaptation initiatives are better or more transformative than others; just that their scope and appropriate governance arrangements are different. This questions the notion that successful adaptation requires building generic transformative adaptation approaches and capabilities. There is a diversity of arrangements that work. What is important is to align the approach to the adaptation problem. We suggest two directions for improving adaptation initiatives: first, by influencing how they can shift between problem and systems focus and between standard management and novel governance, and secondly, by using methods to diagnose and direct change in the decision context.

According to the United Nations (n.d.), climate change is the long-term shift in temperatures and weather patterns due to natural changes, such as the sun’s activity and significant volcanic eruptions, or human activities, such as burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas. The effects of and challenges caused by climate change on farmers’ ability to manage mixed farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa are well documented in the literature. However, the synergies among mixed farming systems’ components and farmers’ innovation demands and responses to climate change impacts remain fragmented. Using a case of mixed crop-livestock-tree (MCLT) systems in northern Ghana, this paper examined farmers’ responses, their innovation needs, and how these innovations can be catalyzed to enable more farmers to adopt similar climate change adaptations. Our findings show that climate change impacts mixed farming systems in several domains, with these impacts being more visible in some domains. Significant productivity declines are observed in crops, livestock, and the whole mixed farming system. Productivity declines lead to decreased incomes, food availability, and household food security. Female farmers’ access to production factors, resource management, and market participation is reduced. Farmers make technical, managerial, and business changes in response to climate change impacts. Such changes are dominated by technical changes, including using highyielding, disease-resistant, and early-maturing crop varieties, crop and animal pest and disease management, agricultural water and land management, and wind and bush fire control. Interconnections between the MCLT system components include cross-component investments, additional income generation, animal feeding and healthcare improvement, nutrition exchanges, and family nutrition improvement. These interconnections generate income and cash flow and support food and nutrition security, enabling farmers’ adaptation. Climate-resilient innovation bundles to enable farmers’ adaptation include good agricultural practices, circular farming techniques, irrigation packages, information services, and value-chain linkages. Scaling climate-resilient innovations in northern Ghana and other sub-Saharan African contexts require multiple pathways, including innovation platforms, innovation bundling, multi-actor partnerships, inclusive finance, and multistakeholder dialogues to support farmers’ adaptation to climate change.

Despite substantial contemporary research and a growing trend in exploring the water-energy-food (WEF) nexus, most research efforts have been invested in macro-level supply-side infrastructure and policies. However, prioritizing demand-side management policies can provide new opportunities and untapped potential for addressing interconnected resource challenges. Demand management inherently encompasses users’ consumption patterns, behaviors, socio-economic conditions, and choices, thereby necessitating active engagement and participation. Understanding household-level demands is fundamental to assess the demand for and consumption of water, energy, and food, as well as to inform policy decisions. In this context, our study investigated household consumption patterns within the interconnected WEF nexus, including daily practices such as cooking and washing, conservation measures, household governance, and their cross-cutting relationships with climate change. As a case study, we conducted our research in the Jabal Al Natheef neighborhood of Amman City, Jordan. Our findings reveal that households can propose and enact climate-friendly decisions. Significant gender-related differences were also observed in decisions made across WEF household practices. Additionally, households’ perspectives highlighted governance issues and revealed gaps in policy implementation along with the need for more inclusive decision-making processes. Our results underscore the importance of understanding household-level WEF nexus dynamics and daily practices in informing environmental policies, particularly those related to climate action. Such policies are best developed from the bottom-up by incorporating household insights, rather than relying solely on top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions.

Most African countries rely on food imports and cannot feed their populations. The most vulnerable region to chronic food insecurity is sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where agriculture is mainly rainfed and therefore threatened by climate change and variability. Irrigation is one of the main solutions for stabilizing yields and reinforcing food security, yet it is underdeveloped in most parts of Africa. However, irrigation consumes the largest amount of water than the other sectors; thus, exploring and implementing ways of producing more yield per unit volume of water is necessary. To counter food insecurity and improve agricultural water management, the African Union (AU) developed a framework for irrigation development and agricultural water management (IDAWM) to be adopted in all the member states in the continent. This framework is premised on four development pathways, namely, improved water control and watershed management in rainfed farming, farmer-led irrigation development (FLID), irrigation scheme development and modernization and the use of unconventional water for irrigation. Therefore, this review sought to assess the status, challenges, and opportunities of IDAWM in Rwanda. The systematic review adopted the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols). The results indicated that Rwanda has adopted various strategies such as terraces, contour bunds, and water harvesting to address soil erosion and improve water storage. Irrigation is practised in three ways: marshland, hillside, and small-scale irrigation technologies, which are faced with several challenges, such as land use policy and inadequate participation, which hinder progress in FLID. Inadequate private sector involvement hinders investment in the modernization of irrigation schemes in Rwanda. Inadequate sewerage and wastewater treatment infrastructure limits wastewater reuse in irrigation. The bright spots are anchored in sound and progressive agricultural policy, abundant water resources, favourable climatic and ecological conditions and a ready regional market.

Wastes, including biomass and wastewater, have valuable resource recovery and reuse (RRR) potential. However, previous work has paid limited attention to the climate change adaptation and mitigation potential of RRR. This chapter reviews the linkages between climate change and business models of RRR innovations in building sustainable food systems. The review demonstrates that RRR can help societies adapt to climate change mitigation strategies by providing an additional value and sustainable source of nutrients—food, water, and energy. Water reuse as a mitigation strategy has demonstrated resource recovery more than technical challenges. Engineered but simple treatment systems with great cost-effectiveness and higher change of cost recovery, if integrated into an RRR concept, can help mitigate climate change. Effective adaptive measures require nature-based solutions to treat wastewater. The International Water Management Institute (IWMI) documented innovative business models with a focus on circular economy principles and sustainable food systems and has the potential to mitigate climate change impacts. Policies on reducing GHG emissions and achieving a more circular economy with wastewater use options that can mitigate negative climate change impacts are discussed in this chapter.

This chapter assesses the variations and options for improving water productivity to address water risks and insecurity in South Asian countries. The water productivity indicators of focus are physical water productivity (PWP)—the production per unit of water use, and economic water productivity (EWP), the value of production per unit of water use. A significant potential exists to increase PWP in many South Asian countries and regions with no water scarcity. These regions require increased access to water. However, increasing EWP should take precedence under water-scarce conditions. The latter may require reducing water-intensive crop areas and diversifying to less water-intensive crops.

Mixed farming systems are a sustainable closed-loop model for crop–livestock systems, focusing on structure, practices, logic, social, cultural, economic, climatic, and institutional capital interactions. However, literature on crop–livestock–soil–water interactions is scarce, with few separating crop and livestock water productivity in mixed systems. Crop–livestock water productivity is influenced by land management, biophysical, and socioeconomic factors. Integrating thinking in space and time can help understand these interrelationships and analyse their influence on crop–livestock production. Improving livestock water productivity (LWP) is crucial due to rising consumer demand, competition for global freshwater, and water rivalry. Strategies include promoting livestock production, managing grazing, water, livestock marketing, animal health, and minimizing environmental effects.