View
215
Download
3
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
The Council Study:
Socio-Economic Assessment
Dr John Ward (MERFI)
Overview of the socio-economic assessment
Council Study
Development
scenarios (2007,
2020, 2040)
Confirm Thematic
(Sector) indicators
Irrigation
Agriculture and
Land use
Domestic and
Industrial use
Flood protection
Hydropower
Transportation
Assessment
indicators
pre-development, M1-
M3, sub-scenarios
Water security
Food security
Income security
Health security
Employment
Gender
Step 1 Step 2
Discipline teams
Hydrodynamic
modelling
BioRA
Climate Change
Thematic indicators: SIMVA
analysis and calibration
National data calibrated to
SIMVA sub-zones and
Corridor Provinces
Distributional
equity
Cross indicator
effects
Transboundary
influences
Steps 3 and 4 Step 5
Links to Thematic
teams, Economic
and Cumulative
impact
assessments
Changes in the
Hydrologic regime
and Ecosystem
services
Discipline indicators:
Formulate impact
relationships
With Water development
Without water development
M1 through M3 and sub-
scenarios
Combined
assessment
indicators:
evaluation of
changes at corridor
zone and Province
level
Step 6
Baseline (SIMVA 2011,
2014): pre
development,
2007 trend analysis
Population, Spatial
boundaries, Land use,
Potential Mitigation
measures and
recommendations
Objectives of the socio-economic assessment
Water security
Food security
Income security
Health security
Employment
Gender
Estimate the changes in Livelihoods and Wellbeing in response to changes in hydrology and ecology; and non-water developments.
ResponseCS Development
Scenarios
Social Assessment
indicators
Hydrological and
ecological change
Pre-development,
2007, 2020 and
2040
Isolate water development changes from non-water changes. For provinces and
Corridor zones
Steps 1 and 2 Steps 3 and 4 Step 5
Step 6
Spatial scope: 13 Corridor zones and Provinces
SIMVA (2011, 2014) and
EMRF:
Sampling error = ±1.5%-
2.7%
Sampling extended to non-
sampled households
Assessment indicator
Discipline specific indicators Data source
Water security
% of HHs with access to safe water SIMVA2011
% of HHs whose primary domestic water sources runs dry for more than x weeks
SIMVA2011
% of HHs reporting water shortages that resulted in crop damage in the last 12 months
SIMVA2011
% of HHs reporting water excess that resulted in crop damage in the last 12 months
SIMVA2011
Food security
Per capita /day (Kcal, protein and fat (% RDI) Calculated FAO
Production of catch fish and OAAs (t) BioRA
Production of rice, maize, cassava, riverbank gardens aquaculture, livestock (yield, ha and yield/ha)
ALU, IRR, BioRA
Poverty level SIMVA2011, FAO
Assessment indicators:
Assessment indicator
Discipline specific indicatorsData source
Income security
Monthly income SIMVA 2011
Poverty rate MRC SEDB
Diversity (#) of income sources (fish/OAAs/river bank/non-aquatic resource)
SIMVA 2011
Income source from agriculture AIP
HHs income SIMVA 2011
HHs expenditure
Health security
Number of HHs access to potable water SIMVA 2011
Number of HHs access to sanitation MRC SEDB
List of communities that have health facilities SIMVA 2014
Assessment Indicators:
Main water development scenarios
ALU = Agric/Landuse Change; DIW = Domestic and Industrial Water Use; FPF = flood protection infrastructure;
HPP = hydropower; IRR = irrigation; and NAV = Navigation
Scenario
Level of Development for water-
related sectors Climate
Flood-
plain
s’mtALU DIW FPF HPP IRR NAV
M1 Early
Development
Scenario 2007
2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 1985-
2008
2007
M2 Definite Future
Scenario 2020
2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 1985-
2008
2020
M3 Planned
Development
Scenario 2040
2040 2040 2040 2040 2040 2040 Mean
warmer
& wetter
2040
Scenario and sub-scenario comparison
Comparison
Sub-scenarios are a key part of the design of the assessment
To understand impacts the CS compares sub-scenarios with and without sector change
Effects testedScenario
ComparisonsSocio-economic
Overall water resources developmentM3 vs M2
M2 vs M1
X
X
Climate change
C1 vs C2
C1 vs C3
M3 vs C1
X
X
Irrigation developmentM3 vs I1
M3 vs I2X
Hydropower development
M3 vs H1
M3 vs H2
M3 vs H3
X
Navigation developmentM3 vs N1 X
Domestic & Industry water use M3 vs D1 X
Agriculture & land-use developmentM3 vs A1
M3 vs A2X
Flood protection infrastructure development
M3 vs F1
M3 vs F2
M3 vs F3
X
The analytical value of scenarios comes from their comparison
Developments- water related and
“exogenous”
Isolate where possible
exogenous trends
from water related
social consequences
•Urbanisation
•Overfishing
•Deforestation
•Dietary changes
•Roads and transport
•Population growth
Assessment indicator Δ Water security Δ Food security
Discipline specific indicators
HH
s w
ith
acc
ess
to s
afe
wat
er
sup
ply
sys
tem
HH
s w
ith
sec
ure
su
pp
ly f
or
do
mes
tic
use
HH
s w
ith
sec
ure
su
pp
ly f
or
agri
cult
ura
l use
HH
s ex
po
sed
to
fl
oo
d d
amag
e ri
sk
Kca
l/d
ay/c
apit
a
Tota
l pro
tein
p
rod
uct
ion
(f
ish
, liv
esto
ck
etc)
Pove
rty
(HH
ex
pen
dit
ure
on
)f
oo
d
CS themes information requirements
Change in Discipline indicators (Δ)
Sectors (e.g.IrrigationTheme)
Change in Thematic Indicators (Δ)
Irrigation area and location
Δ Δ
Irrigated agricultural production
Δ
Irrigated agricultural production
Δ
Irrigated agriculture employment
Δ
Development Scenarios
CONNECTING DEVELOPMENT CHANGES TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC
ASSESSMENT INDICATORS
Spatially explicit assessments eg Food
security
% change
-2: < -10%;-1: -2 to -10%; 0: ±2%; 1: +2 to 10%2: > 10%
Country Province District Sub-zone area (km2)
Population Bio Zone
(,000) Kcal/day
Protein
(g/day) Fat (g/day) Kcal/day
Protein
(g/day)
Fat
(g/day) Total
A AA AAA BZ-1 xxx 2430 2100 47 52 -2 -1 -2 -5
A AA AAB BZ-1 xxx 600 2400 50 45 0 0 -2 -2
A AA AAC BZ-2 xxx 2234 1960 50 56 -2 0 -2 -4
A AA AAD BZ-2 xxx 1325 2200 45 45 -1 -1 -2 -4
A AA AAE BZ-2 xxx 670 2340 50 55 -1 0 -2 -3
A AA AAF BZ-3 xxx 550 2450 34 65 1 -2 0 -1
A AA AAG BZ-3 xxx 2567 2400 56 65 0 2 0 2
A AA AAH BZ-3 xxx 356 1970 45 50 -2 -1 -2 -5
Country Province District Sub-zone area (km2)
Population Bio Zone
(,000) Kcal/day
Protein
(g/day) Fat (g/day) Kcal/day
Protein
(g/day)
Fat
(g/day) Total
A AA AAA BZ-1 xxx 2430 2400 50 50 0 0 -2 -2
A AA AAB BZ-1 xxx 600 2400 50 65 0 0 0 0
A AA AAC BZ-2 xxx 2234 1980 35 40 -2 -2 -2 -6
A AA AAD BZ-2 xxx 1325 2400 50 45 0 0 -2 -2
A AA AAE BZ-2 xxx 670 2100 42 45 -2 -2 -2 -6
A AA AAF BZ-3 xxx 550 2200 45 47 -1 -1 -2 -4
A AA AAG BZ-3 xxx 2567 2350 48 57 -1 -1 -2 -4
A AA AAH BZ-3 xxx 356 2100 48 52 -2 -1 -2 -5
Food Security (Likert scale: -2 to +2 )
Baseline
Development Scenario xx
Food Balance Food Security (Likert scale: -2 to +2 )Location
Location Food Balance
Food Secure if Total
score >=0
Assessment compares total and percentage
changes between scenarios, by country,
zone and province
Discipline specific indicators
from SIMVA and National
data sets
Food Balance indicators
from Thematic team
indicator relationships Sub-zone 2007 M1 Trend
Zone 1a -5 -2
Zone 1b -2 0
Zone 2a -4 -6
Zone 2b -4 -2
Zone 2c -3 -6
Zone 3a -1 -4
Zone 3b 2 -4
Zone 3c -5 -5
Vision of the main
report
Chapters
Executive Summary
1 Introduction
2 Design
3 Key Message 1: Most important benefits and opportunities
4 Key Message 2: Most significant negative impacts and risks
5 Key Message 3: Key trade-offs and synergies
6 Key Message 4: Implications for planning and policy
7 Key Message 5: Knowledge gaps
8 Key Message 6: Main recommendations
• Report organized
around key messages
• Concise: a report you would want to read
• Supported by graphics
13
Looking ahead
Summary
• Addressed data constraints
• Calibrated Province and National data to SIMVA (2011
and 2014)
• Hydrological responses estimated from Thematic
teams, expert panels (Delphi) and Likert scales
• A few reliable indicators are better than many
unreliable ones (e.g. Food security Kcal/day/capita)
• Exploring cross indicator interactions
Recommended