WATER PRODUCTIVE AND RESILIENT LANDSCAPE …

WATER PRODUCTIVE AND RESILIENT LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND APPROACHES

Training ManualJune 2020

-

Stockholm International Water InstituteLinnégatan 87A, Box 101 87100 55 StockholmSWEDEN

Amare HaileslassieInternational Water Management Institute (IWMI)Nile Basin and East Africa O�fice, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia email: [email protected]

Wolde MekuriaInternational Water Management Institute (IWMI) Nile Basin and East Africa O�fice, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia email: [email protected]

Anna TengbergStockholm International Water Institute (SIWI)email: [email protected]

Table of ContentIntroduction .................................................................................................................................................... 7 i. Objectives of the course material .....................................................................................................7 ii. Why this course material ...............................................................................................................7 iii. Theprocess .................................................................................................................................7 iv. Target Audience ...........................................................................................................................7 v. Thestructure .............................................................................................................................. 8 vi. Thetrainingtools ........................................................................................................................ 8Module 1: Definitions of terms and concept around resilient landscape .....................................................................9 1.1. Resilience .................................................................................................................................. 9 1.2. Landscape ................................................................................................................................. 9 1.3. Waterproductiveagriculturalsystem ............................................................................................. 10Module 2: Approaches to resilient landscape and water management ...................................................................... 12 2.1. Agricultural/farming/livelihoodsystemsapproach ............................................................................ 12 2.2. Integratedandoptimizationapproach ............................................................................................ 14 2.3. Value chains .............................................................................................................................. 14 2.4. Rainfed-irrigationcontinuumandupstream–downstreaminteractions ............................................... 15 2.5. Agroforestry-integrationoftreesinagriculturallandscape ................................................................ 16Module 3: Sustainable agricultural landscape transformation - pathways development .............................................17 3.1. Agricultural sustainability in context .............................................................................................. 17 3.2. Measuring sustainability .............................................................................................................. 18 3.2.1. Conceptualpathwaysforsustainableagriculturalintensificationinlandscapes ............................. 19 3.2.2. Designingsustainableintensificationpathways:understandingperformance and targeting changes needed ............................................................................................. 19 3.3.3. Systematicidentificationofactionsrequired..........................................................................20Module 4: Water efficient and resilient landscape management technologies ........................................................... 23 4.1. In-situwaterharvestingandsoilandwaterconservationtechnologies .................................................. 23 4.2. Ex-situwaterharvestingtechnologies ............................................................................................ 26 4.3. Estimatingrunoffforsurfacewaterharvesting ................................................................................. 26Module 5: Lifting, conveyance, and on-farm water application ................................................................................ 28 5.1. Solarpumps ..............................................................................................................................28 5.1.1 Whysolarpumps .............................................................................................................28 5.1.2. ExampleofdemonstrationofsolarpumpinEthiopia ............................................................... 29 5.2. Dripsystem ..............................................................................................................................30 5.2.1. General .............................................................................................................................30 5.2.2. Familydripsystem ........................................................................................................... 31 5.2.3.CropWaterRequirements,ETc .............................................................................................. 31Module 6: Productive use of water .......................................................................................................................... 34 6.1 Productiveuseofwaterforcropandlivestock .................................................................................. 34 6.1.1. Improvingwaterproductivityofcropandfeed ....................................................................... 34 6.1.2. Improvingfeedingandfeedsourcingregimes ........................................................................ 36Module 7: Socio-economic considerations .............................................................................................................. 38 7.1. Governanceofnaturalresourcesatlandscapescale ............................................................................ 38 7.2. Governance–IrrigationWaterUserAssociation(IWUA)focused ........................................................ 38 7.3. RelationsofIWUAswithotherstakeholders ..................................................................................... 39 7.3.1. IWUAssupervisingbody .................................................................................................... 39 7.3.2. RelationofIWUAswiththelocalgovernment ......................................................................... 39 7.3.3. TransferinuseofirrigationinfrastructurestoIWUAs .............................................................. 39 7.4. RolesandresponsibilitiesofIWUAs ...............................................................................................40 7.4.1. TasksofIWUAs ................................................................................................................408. Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 429 References .................................................................................................................................................. 43

STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL WATER INSTITUTE

4

List of TablesTable 1: Genericindicatorsandindicesproposedforunderstandingperformanceofsustainability domain and targeting changes ...................................................................................................... 21Table 2: Examplesofinsitu-watermanagementtechnologies. ....................................................................... 24Table 3: AverageCropFactorforseasonalcrops,Kc. ...................................................................................... 33Table 4: ListofIWUAsactivities ............................................................................................................... 41

5

List of figures Figure 1: Schematicflowandlogicallinksofthetrainingmodules. ..................................................................... 8Figure 2: Illustratestheprocessandoutcomeofresilience. ............................................................................... 9Figure 3: PartialviewofLakeHawassacatchmentwithpeoplesettlement,theiragriculturallandanddifferent agriculturalpractices(Photocredit:AmareHaileslassie). .................................................................... 10Figure 4: Watershedsnestedinanagriculturallandscape ................................................................................ 10Figure 5: Frameworkforproductionandlivelihoodsystem. ............................................................................. 13Figure 6: Frameworkforintegratedagriculturalsystemillustratingopensystem,structure,function, materialflowandstateandfeedbackloops ...................................................................................... 13Figure 7: Illustratinghowintegrationofinputssavewaterandthushelpinbuildingresilientagriculturallandscapes. . 14Figure 8: Illustrationofagronomicandeconomicoptimuminputrateforproductiveuseofwater. .......................... 14Figure 9: valuechainnodesandvaluechainacceleratorsasappliedtoirrigation. ................................................. 15Figure 10: Graphicillustrationoftherainfedandirrigationcontinuumacrosslandscapes. ...................................... 15Figure 11: Proportions(%)ofecosystemservicesthatincreaseanddecreasebytreesin Sub-SaharanAfrica(Shemetal.,2016). ........................................................................................... 16Figure 12: Sustainableagriculturepracticesandoutcomes. ............................................................................... 17Figure 13: Conceptualpathwaysforsustainableagriculturalintensification. ......................................................... 19Figure 14: Methodologicalframeworktoassessintensificationanddevelopsustainableagricultural intensificationpathways. .............................................................................................................20Figure 15: Schematicdiagramillustratinghowtheprocessoffarmtypology/indifferentlandscape positionscanbetargetedbydifferentinterventions ...........................................................................22Figure 16: Sourcesofwater,modeofstorageandprincipaluseofwaterfordifferentwatermanagementtechnologies. . 23Figure 17: EffectsoftrenchonsoilmoisturedynamicsacrossthecroppingseasoninupperAwashbasin. ................... 24Figure 18: Setsofexperimentsonhowdifferentdepthoftillageandbreakingofthehardpanaffects soilpenetrationresistance,infiltration,runoff,erosionandbiomassyield. ............................................. 24Figure 19: Penetrationresistanceunderdifferentdepthoftillage(BTisforberkentillage,DTis ................................ 25Figure 20: Effectsofdifferentdepthoftillageoninfiltration,runoffandsoilloss. .................................................. 25Figure 21: Effectsofdifferentdepthoftillageonrootlengthofplant,biomassandcropyield ................................... 25Figure 22: RoofwaterharvestingforsupplementalirrigationofAlfalfaandropeandwasherpump appliedforliftingofgroundwatertoirrigateAlfalfa(SNNPR)-PhotocreditAmareHaileslassie. ................ 26Figure 23: SCSrunoffcurvenumber ............................................................................................................ 27Figure 24: Solarpumplinkedtodripsystemincentralriftvalley(Photocredit:AmareHaileslassie). ..........................28Figure 25: LifecycleassessmentofcostofdieselpumpandPVPbytheirpower. ..................................................... 29Figure 26: Waterapplicationsystemtested,forsolarpumpillustratedinFigure25(leftoverheadapplication, middlefurrowandleftdripsystem)(Photocredit:AmareHaileslassie). ................................................. 29Figure 27: Profitabilityanalysisofsolarpumps. ..............................................................................................30Figure 28: Modelfamilysurfacedripsystem. .................................................................................................. 31Figure 29: ClassApan. .............................................................................................................................. 31Figure 30: Cropcoefficientcurve. ................................................................................................................. 32Figure 31: Targetingandintegratinginterventionsandengagingthecommunityinmanaginglandscapes(Photo credit:AmareHaileslassie). .......................................................................................................... 35


6

ASEAN AssociationofSoutheastAsianNationsASP AsiaSoilPartnershipBP BestPracticesCACILM Central Asian Countries Initi-

ative in Land ManagementCBD ConventiononBiologicalDiversityCBO CommunityBasedOrganisationCBP CarbonBenefitsProjectCBT CarbonBenefitToolCCA ClimateChangeAdaptationCDE CentreforDevelopmentandEnvironment

attheUniversityofBernCESRA Centre of Excellence for Soil Research in AsiaCFH SwissFrancCI Conservation InternationalCIAT CenterforTropicalAgricultureCOP Conference of the PartiesCRIC CommitteefortheReviewofImple-

mentationoftheUNCCDCSIR CouncilforScientificandIndus-

trialResearch(SouthAfrica)DS-SLM DecisionSupportforSustainable

Land ManagementFAO Food and Agricultural Organi-

zationoftheUnitedNationsFREG Farmer-ResearchExtensionGroupGCF Green Climate FundGEF Global Environment Facility GEFSEC Global Environment Facility SecretariatGIZ GesellschaftfürInternationaleZusamme-

narbeit(GermanDevelopmentCooperation)HIMCAT WOCATfortheHimalayanRegionICARDA Science for Resilient Livelihoods in Dry AreasICIMOD International Centre for Integrated

MountainDevelopmentIFAD International Fund for Agricul-

turalDevelopmentIKI International Climate InitiativeIPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform

onBiodiversityandEcosystemServices

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeISRIC World Soil InformationLAC Latin America and the CaribbeanLADA Land Degradation Assessment in DrylandsLDN LandDegradationNeutralityLLPA LocalLevelParticipatoryPlanningMOU MemorandumofUnderstandingMSP Medium-SizedProjectNARO NationalAgriculturalResearch

Organisation(Uganda)NDVI NormalizedDifferenceVegetationIndexNEPAD NewPartnershipforAfrica’sDevelopmentOH OutcomeHarvestingPRAIS PerformanceReviewandAssessment

ofImplementationofPracticesQA QuestionnaireonSLMApproachesQCCA QuestionnaireonClimateChangeAdaptationQM QuestionnaireonMappingQT Questionnaire on SLM TechnologiesRNE NearEastandNorthAfricaSDC SwissAgencyforDevelopmentCooperationSDG SustainableDevelopmentGoalSES Social Ecological SystemSLM Sustainable Land ManagementSPI SciencePolicyInterface(OftheUNCCD)SWC Soil and Water ConservationTE Terminal EvaluationTOR Terms of ReferenceUNCCD UnitedNationsConventionto

CombatDesertificationUNDP UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgrammeUNEP UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgrammeUNFCCC UnitedNationsFramework

Convention on Climate ChangeUSD UnitedStatesDollarsWOCAT WorldOverviewofConservation

ApproachesandTechnologies

7

IntroductionEfficient use of water and building landscape resilienceto system shocks, particularly to climate change, hasbecomeoneofthepriorityareasforaction.Climatechangeprimarilydisruptsthewatercyclethroughevaporativelosses(increased temperature), increasedprecipitation (flooding)and reduced precipitation (drought). Disruption in thewatercycleinturnaffectsresilienceoflandscapestostressbothintermsofstructure(e.g.landusechange),ecosystemfunctions (productivity, biodiversity, supply of cleandrinkingwater) anddynamics (change in timeandspace).This training manual presents 7 sets of modules and 15associatedsessionswhichcouldbedeliveredinthreetofivedays.The content and scopeof eachof themodules variesdepending on the practical usefulness to the trainees.Themanualcovers: 1)Definitionsof termsandconceptaroundresilient landscapes; 2) Approaches to resilient landscapeand water management; 3) Sustainable landscape trans-formation - pathways development; 4) Water Efficientand Resilient Landscape Management Technologies; 5)Lifting, conveyance and on-farm water application; 6)Productive use of water; 7) Socio-economic considera-tions -with a focus on IrrigationWaterUserAssociations(IWUAs).ManyoftheexamplespresentedarefrompubliclyavailableresourcesandtheworksofCGIARcenters (Inter-national Water Management Institute, InternationalLivestock Research Institute, International Crop ResearchInstitute for Arid and Semi-Arid Tropics and Interna-tional Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas. The manual covers both individual and group exercisesand discussion points for analyzing problems andsuggesting solutions.The differentmodules are presentedas independent chapters, but links between differenttopics are discussed. The learning method will involvelectures,smallgroupdiscussions,examples,andfieldwork.

i. Objectives of the course material The primary objectives of the manual are to elaboratethe modules and associated sessions on technologies and approaches for water productive and resilientlandscapes through examples supported by scientificfindings. Secondly, it provides a reference materialto the trainees which can be used as a practical guideduring their day-to-day activities. The manual is a livingdocument that can be used as a basis for exchange of opinions among trainees and non-trainees and thusindirectlycontributetowidertechnologyandskilltransfer.

ii. Why this course materialAchieving water productive and resilient landscapesrequiresacombinationofmeasures,rangingfrombuildingcapacitiesofpractitioners,throughplanningtoimplemen-tation and adaptivemanagement.Thismanual focuses onbuildingthecapacitiesofpractitionersforachievingwaterefficient and resilient landscapes. First, itwill ensure thatthe trainees better understand the technical details of target technologies, and how andwhy theywork. Second, it willenable the trainees to understand and match the technol-ogieswiththecontextandtargetedlandscape.Third,itwillensure thepracticalityofapplying the innovationbyusingdatafromactionresearch.Finally,matchingthescopeofthesciencetotheneedsoftheaudienceandmakingthelearningandteachingprocessmorepracticalareimportantaspects.

iii. The processThistrainingmanualwaspreparedusingmultiplesteps.Theinitial idea came from observation and understanding of the lingeringlandandwaterdegradationproblemsinEthiopia.Thismakesthelandscapeandpeopleincreasinglyvulnerabletoclimatechangerelatedsystemshocks.Observationsweremadeattargetsites(particularlythecentralriftvalleysystem)anddiscussionswereheldwithkeystakeholdersandaneedsassessmentwas conducted. Following this, a course guidecapturing the skills and capacity gap of the stakeholderswasprepared.Thiscoursematerialisacombinationoftheseprocesswith: (a)examplesofactionresearchbytheCGIARcenters and their partners, (b) national and global experi-ences on productive use of water and building landscaperesilience,and(c)end-usersortargetaudienceconsultation.

iv. Target AudienceThe training is designed for the operational leveland targets agricultural, soil and water conser-vation and irrigation experts, extension workersand development agents with a good understandingof landscape and agricultural water management.


8

v. The structureThemanual is organized into 7 chapters or modules andseveral sub-chapters. Given the complexity of severalconcepts around landscapes, resilience, agriculturalsystems, integrated systems and efficient water use, themanual starts with definitions and illustrations of theseconcepts using practical examples (Module 1). This isfollowed by Module 2 which exemplifies approaches toresilientlandscapeandwatermanagement.Hereexamplesofconceptualandpracticalapproaches,suchastheagricul-turalsystemapproach,thelandscapeapproach,therainfedandirrigationcontinuumandthevaluechainapproach,arediscussed.Thethirdchapter(Module3)isaboutsustainablelandscape transformation and pathways development.This focuses on the dynamic (space and time) nature oflandscapesandhowwemaintainandenhancesustainabilityin understanding, planning and implementing practices.The fourth chapter (Module 4) is about interventions andtechnologies for water-efficient and resilient landscapemanagement. The examples of technologies here includein-situandex-situwaterharvestingandthushaveadirectconnection with water lifting, conveyance and on-farmwater application practices presented under chapter 5(Module5).Forwaterefficientandresilientlandscapes,thecriticalpoint ishowscarcewater resourcescouldbeused.In this regard,module 6 of themanual demonstrates theconcepts and practices of productive use of water usingexamples of livestock and crop interactionswhich are the

majorconsumersof freshwaterresourcesglobally. Insteadofindividualsectors(crop,livestock),thetrainingwillfocuson complementarity between the two major sectors forefficientagriculturalsystemslevelwateruse.Foralltechnol-ogiestobesustainable,understandingwaterandlandscapegovernance is critical (Module 7). Since this topic is toobroadandcomplex to cover comprehensively,we focusonIrrigationWaterUserAssociationsincontextofEthiopia.ThestructureandflowofthemodulesissummarizedinFigure1.

vi. The training tools Thetraining isprimelybasedon thismanual and lecturesand additional practical examples which could not beincluded here because of size limitation. Secondly, groupwork anddiscussionswill be facilitated andguidedbasedon critical thinking and discussion points presented inthe manual. Thirdly, following group discussions/groupwork, shortgrouppresentationswill be an important toolto cross-fertilize opinions and understanding betweenthe trainees.The traineeswill go out of their class duringthefirstdaytohaveageneraloverviewofthesurroundinglandscape. More specific technical tools such as cropwater requirement estimation tools; runoff estimationtools and; water productivity estimation tools will bedemonstrated and used for various exercises. Station-eries such as flipchart and markers will be provided.

UnderstandingLandscapes

Approachesto water

productive & resilient

landscapes

LandscapesTransformation

pathways

Technologyoptions

Productiveuse of water in landscape

Examples of Water lifting

Examples ofwater

harvesting

Gov

erna

nce

Figure 1: Schematic flow and logical links of the training modules.

9

Figure 2 : Illustration of the process and outcome of resilience.

Module 1: Definitions of terms and concept around resilient landscapes

1.1. Resilience Resiliencehasbeendescribedanddefinedas(Walkeretal.,2004; United Nations International Strategy for DisasterReduction, 2005; Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange,2007):1) Thecapacityofasystemtoabsorbdisturbance

andreorganizewhileundergoingchange’.2) Thecapacityofasystem,communityorsociety

potentiallyexposedtohazardstoadaptbyresisting or changing to reach and maintain an acceptableleveloffunctioningandstructure’.

3) ‘Theabilityofasocialecologicalsystemtoabsorbdisturbanceswhileretainingthesamebasicstructureandwaysoffunctioning,thecapacityforself-organization,andthecapacitytoadapttostressandchange’(Figure2).

Disruption

RecoverImpact

Resilience

Time

Yiel

d pe

rfom

ance

Resilience is thus an inherentpropertyof a complex systemand “landscape resilience”may not always be desirable (e.g.poverty trap), but desirable resilience helps landscapesadapt to change in the face of external drivers of change,such as climate change (Liao et al., 2020). A functioninghydrology in landscapes contributes to desirable resilienceto external pressures and ensures provision of ecosystemservicesimportantforhumanwell-being(Falkenmark,2020).

Forestsandtreeshavekeyfunctionsinmaintainingresilientand productive landscapes, communities, and ecosystems.They ensure water supply and provide high quality waterresources through numerous physical mechanisms, e.g.

interceptionof atmosphericmoisture, contribution to cloudand rain formation, reduction of erosion and recharging ofgroundwater. In fact, around 75% of the world’s accessiblefreshwater foragricultural,domestic,urban, industrial,andenvironmentalusesdependonforests(Eberhardtetal.,2019).

DCritical thinking and discussion points: system, absorb, disturbance, system structures, functions

1.2. Landscape Despitethewealthofliteratureonlandscapesandlandscapeapproaches,theideasofhowtodefineandoperationalisetheseconceptsarediverseandvague(Freemanetal.,2015).Oneofthepremisesfortakingalandscapeapproachisthatintegratedapproachesareneededtoaddresscomplexchallengesrelatedto sustainabledevelopmentand so called“wickedproblems”(Balintetal.,2011).Moreover,landscapeapproachescanbeamechanismaroundwhichcivilsocietyandotherkeyusersofthenaturalresourcesprovidedorproducedinthe landscapecan discuss trade-offs and be mobilized to achieve betterland use and water resource outcomes (Sayer et al., 2014).

Differentapproachesperceiveagriculturallandscapeprocess,boundary, and scale differently. In ecological approaches,the main characteristics to define agricultural landscapesare spatiality, heterogeneity, and relationship betweenelements, including people or not. A unified landscapeconcept can be defined as a heterogeneous space portionwhere relationships between natural and cultural processesoccur.Apopularconceptionof landscapehasbeenaportionoflandorterritorythattheeyecancatchinaglance,orareaorsceneryasseenbyahumanobserver (Figure3).Althoughthis could be valid in drawing a boundary around specificagricultural landscapes, it misses some key attributes(structure and functionality) of landscapes. Alternatively,Karadağ (2003)proposes theuseof ahydrological boundary[watershed or Hydrological Response Units (HRU)] asproxy to delineate the landscape boundary (Figure 4).


10

Generally, many watersheds or HRUs could be included in a landscape, and a landscape boundary may or not corre-spond to anHRU but the sum ofHRUs in a landscape canprovide an option to define the boundary of the landscape.Agricultural landscapes’ structural components canalso provide options for a boundary. Figure 4 illustrateswatersheds nested in agricultural landscapes verifyingthe proposal of heterogeneous space portion whererelationship between natural and cultural processes occurs.

Figure 3: Partial view of Lake Hawassa catchment with human settlement, agricultural land and different agricul-tural practices (Photo credit: Amare Haileslassie).

Figure 4: Watersheds nested in an agricultural landscape

A landscape can vary in size fromameter to tensof kilom-eters. The heterogeneity could be expressed as physicallyidentifiable structures and could be a cluster of severalfarming/farm systems. For example, Figure 3 illustrates thedifferent activities in different portions of a landscape (e.g.valley bottom farming, open grazing land in the upland).Landscapes do not exist in isolation and interactions occurwithcontiguous landscapesandwithina landscapebetweensystemcomponents (e.g.peopleand livestock).Peoplemoveand water flows facilitating material fluxes (e.g. nutrient,products,energy(Granitetal.,2017;Haileslassieetal.,2005).Agricultural landscapes could also be conceptualized aslayers of landscapes and systems. Smaller landscapesare nested in a larger one and so forth. In other words,

DCritical thinking and discussion points: layers of landscapes, systems in landscapes, HRU, multi-functional landscapes, open system/landscape

each landscape has a context or regional setting,regardless of scale and how the landscape is defined.Because of space limitations and pressure from externalfactors, such as population growth and climate change,building resilient landscapes is increasingly important.There is a need to transform agricultural landscapestowards multifunctional landscapes. The strength ofmultifunctional landscapes is their ability to meet theneeds of diverse uses and deliver multiple ecosystemservices, including economic, environmental, and social.

1.3. Water productive agricultural systems

When freshwater resources are scarce, improving waterefficiency and productivity is advocated globally. The factthat agriculture (crop and livestock) consumes the largestproportion of freshwater resources, developing a waterefficient and water productive agricultural system isimportant.Theapplicationsofconceptsofirrigationefficiency(IE),wateruseefficiency(WUE)andwaterproductivity(WP)arecomplicated.Efficiencyandproductivityaretwodifferentbut interconnected indicatorsofperformanceofwateruses.

Water use efficiency (WUE): Referstotheratioofwaterusedin the plant metabolism to water lost by the plant throughtranspiration. From an irrigation engineering perspective,efficient water use is defined as the ratio between theactual volume of water used for a specific purpose andthe volume extracted or derived from a supply source forthat same purpose. WUE is a dimensionless ratio of totalamountofwaterused to the total amountofwaterapplied.

Water Productivity (WP): The term WP plays a crucialrole in modern agriculture which aims to increase yieldproduction per unit of water used, both under rainfedand irrigated conditions. It refers to the ratio of biomass produced to the rate of transpiration.This can be achievedeither by 1) increasing themarketable yield of the crops foreach unit of water transpired, 2) reducing the outflows/losses, or 3) enhancing the effective use of rainfall, of thewater stored in the soil, and of themarginal quality water.Evaluating water productivity efficiency for agriculturallandscapes requires disaggregating the entire landscape to

11

Critical thinking and discussion points: We propose a process for designing multifunc-tional landscapes, guided by ecological principles in the following steps:

DBriefly go out of classes and see around for a typical landscape.

DDraw the landscape.

Define landscape context and analyze landscape structures and functions - gaps in terms of multifunctional landscape.

lowerlevels(e.g.farm,farmsystem,community,watershed).Awaterproductivesystemisthentheratiosumofwaterinputto the system (precipitation or irrigation) to the beneficialoutputsdeliveredbysystemcomponents [livestockproductsand services, crop production (Haileslassie et al., 2009)].All these definitions or concepts indicate that in a waterproductive agricultural system, unproductive depletion(evaporative lossesandpollution) isminimizedandtranspi-ration loss,which correlatewith biomass yield,maximized.The principle in enhancement of system water produc-tivity is to conserve and channel water to when and whereit is most needed, enhance plant water uptake capacityand, conversion to beneficial outputs. The two (i.e. WUEand WP) are interconnected and increase of WUE wouldlead to better WP. Details are provided in later sections.


12

Module 2: Approaches to resilient landscape and water managementAs part of resilient landscape and water managementapproaches, this section discusses five selectedapproaches: 1) the agriculture/farming/livelihood systemapproach; 2) the integrated and optimization approach;3) the value chain approach; 4) the irrigation-rainfedcontinuum and upstream-downstream interactions;and 5) the integration of trees in agricultural landscapes.

2.1. Agricultural/farming/ livelihood systems approach

In the context of Ethiopia and specifically in the rift valleysystem, there are several reasons to bring agriculture andlivelihood considerations together. Agriculture is a major source of livelihood and user of freshwater resources. Theagriculture/farming/livelihoodsystemapproachfocusesontheunderstandingof the interactionsbetween livelihoodassets,agriculturalactivitiesandwaterresourcesmanagement(Fig.5).Each individual farm has its own specific characteristics,which arise from variations in resource endowments andfamilycircumstances(Clementetal.,2011;Haileslassieetal.,2016,).The household, its resources, and the resource flowsand interactions at individual farm level are together referred toasafarmsystem.Itisthelevelofendowmentoflivelihoodassetsthatdeterminesefficientuseofwaterandenhancementofproductivity(e.g.Haileslassieetal.,2009a).AsillustratedinFigure6,theapproachischaracterizingandtargetinginter-ventions for farms, communities, and production systemsthatcanbuildaresilientlandscape(Haileslassieetal.,2009a)

Water is an interface between different system compo-nents and therefore efforts of intensification couldbe water centered. Tang et al. (2013) showed howlivelihood assets, livelihood outcomes and vulnera-bility interact in the space of agricultural landscapes.

� Livelihood assets are interconnected and have syner-geticeffects.

� Livelihoodstrategiesareabouttransformationbetweencapitals, and enable both accumulation and transferbetween capitals to meet livelihood outcomes andenhanceadoptionandresilience.

Considering linkages between different assets andexisting structures and processes (policy, institu-tions) is important in building resilient landscapes

Afarmingsystemisdefinedasapopulationofindividualfarmsystems thathavebroadly similar resourcebases,enterprisepatterns,householdlivelihoodsandconstraints,andforwhichsimilar development strategies and interventions would beappropriate(Haileslassieetal.,2009b;Haileslassieetal.,2012).

Inordertoanalyzefarming systemsandtheirfuturedevel-opment trajectories, key biophysical and socio-economicdeterminantscouldbegroupedintothreecategories(Fig.6):1) naturalresourcesandclimate-greencolored(also

thesystemstructurefunctionisunderthiscluster),2) pressureonthesystemincludingfromscienceand

technology(managementsystem)anddemographicforcessystemandchangeasaresult(bluecolor),and

3) livelihoodoutcomesandfeedbacks(Haileslassieetal.,2013a).

Itisonlythroughinclusionofthesecomponentsinthesystemanalysis that a comprehensive understanding of the systemdynamics and its design of future trajectories are possible.

Critical thinking and discussion points:

D Identify different livelihood assets and discuss how they influence the production process and landscape resil-ience to climate change shocks

DDiscuss livelihood assets, capital transformation and improved wellbeing as a pathway to resilience of individuals, communities, systems, and agricul-tural landscapes

DDiscuss examples of changing production systems and feedbacks

13

Human Landscapes

Temporalvariation

Spe

cial

var

iatio

n

Major production systems& agro ecology

Communities

Households

Vulnerability

Resilience

System boundary Regions

Cha

ract

eris

atio

n &

Tar

getin

g of

inte

ract

ionsLivelihood

assets orcapitals

Social

Natural

Physical

Financial

Figure 5: Framework for production and livelihood system

Figure 6 : Framework for integrated agricultural system illustrating open system, structure, function, material flow and state and feedback loops

Different Crops

Trees

External Forces(Climate change, International

Market, Migration)ManagementSystem

ChangingProduction

System

DemographicForce

MaterialOutputs &

Diversification

EnvironmentalHealth

Agricultural Production System Boundary

T I M E

SP

AC

E

Feedbacks

ChangingProduction

System

LivestockSoecies &Breeds

Interactions


14

2.2. Integrated and optimization approach

Oneofthemajorchallengesinriftvalleyproductionsystems(and landscapes) is the huge yield gap. The myth amongfarming communities is that more water application willincrease yield and implicitly close the yield gap. However,closing the yield gap and improving the productivity ofscarce water resources requires an integrated approach.For example, Smith et al. (2001) illustrated that with thesame amount of water, farmers can produce more if theyintegrate different agricultural inputs (e.g., high yieldingvarieties, use of organic and inorganic fertilizers, Fig. 7).Water can be saved through better integration or use of different yield-limiting factors at a time. This means morewater will be available for another use or expansion ofproduction areas and thus livelihoods and landscapes willbe resilient to climate change. For the same water input(e.g. at 5000m3 ha-1), different levels of production can beobtained (Fig. 7).The challenge is identifyingwhich combi-nationsfitwhichenvironment.Theeconomicandagronomicoptimum level (Fig. 8), is an important tipping point.Further, improving the demand and supply side of watermanagement and establishing longer-term data bases and improving surveillances of system dynamics is important.

8000 High yieldingvarieties,high inputs

This graph shows the yield response of crops to water availability. High yielding varieties produce more than rainfed varieties only when provided with adequate amount of water. Source: Smith et al, 2001

High yieldingvarieties,low inputs

Traditionalvarieties,high inputs

Traditionalvarieties,low inputs

7000

6000

5000

Cer

eal P

rodu

ctio

n (k

g/ha

)

Water availability (m2/ha)

4000

3000

2000

1000

10000

2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Figure 7: Illustrating how integration of inputs save water and thus help in building resilient agricultural landscapes.

Figure 8: Illustration of agronomic and economic optimum input rate for productive use of water.

Tota

l Out

put

Total Output

(Ove

ral q

ualit

y of

wor

k, to

tal w

ork

crea

ted,

etc

)

(Time effort resources invested)

DiminishingReturns

NegativeReturns

Point ofDiminishing

Returns

Point ofMaximum Yield

Each added input leads toa decreasing rate of

output. It’s best to stopsomewhere within this

phase

Never get here.Not only do younot get a returnfor your effort,you decreaseyour overalloutput

Most Productive

Here, your input leads toproductive returns. It paysto invest more time, effort

2.3. Value chains Thevaluechainconcepthasbeenaroundforsometime.Butadoptionandapplication toagriculturalwatermanagement(e.g.irrigation,rainfedsystem)israrelyobservedinEthiopia.Irrigation is capital, input and knowledge intensive. Anexample of timely supply of inputs of seed and fertilizerswould enable integrated approaches and facilitate theproduction process. There are sequential and intercon-nected value-chain nodes ranging from input supply toconsumption, and service provision is linked to each valuechain node (Fig. 9). A value chain node, in its simple form,isastepacrossavaluechainwhereclustersofactivitiesareinterconnected,andvaluecreated.Forexample,theirrigationsectorneedscloserserviceprovisions(creditservice,capacitybuilding, swift maintenance of motor pumps or privatesector involvement in water marketing). In summary:

� Thevaluechainsystemcomprisesthevaluechainactors,service providers and the institutional environment inwhich the value chain operators and service providersoperate.

� The institutional environment incudes formal andinformal institutions, policies, laws, regulations, tradeagreements,customs,norms,traditionsthatgoverntheactionsandinteractionsofvaluechainactors.Therefore,value-chaindevelopmentrequiressystemsthinking.

� Effective operationalization of value chains may needvalue chain accelerators. Value chain accelerators are interventions across value chain nodes to ensure sustainableandeffectivefunctioningofthevaluechainprocess. The accelerators involve capacity building,knowledge management and research and documen-tation(Fig.9Haileslassieetal.,2014).

Critical thinking and discussion points:

DGive examples of an irrigation commodity value chain and identify the different value chain nodes and key challenges at each node in the rift valley context.

DDiscuss how the value chain approach and its implemen-tation helps in developing efficient use of water and devel-oping resilient landscapes (link to integration and optimization).

15

InputSupply

Selected VC nodes

Inputs and services

Production

Research &documentation

Knowledge management(infras...) & promotion & (IP)

Harvesting &processing &

marketing

Capacity building(formal, coaching...)

Value Chain accelerators

Production

Fodd

er, F

ruits

and

Veg

etab

les

Hai

lesl

assi

e et

al,

2014

Post-harvesthandling Trading Processing Trading Consumption

SERVICES

Figure 9: value chain nodes and value chain accelerators as applied to irrigation.

2.4. Rainfed-irrigation continuum and upstream – downstream interactions

Rainfedand irrigationsystemsata landscapeorwatershedscale are interdependent units, although we give themdifferent names to simplifymanagement (Fig. 10) (Moldenatal., 2007). In the central rift valley, rainfedagriculture isthemostvulnerableproductionsystemtoclimatevariabilityandextremes (e.g.highlyvariable rainfall, longdry season,recurrentdrought,floods).Also,theserainfedsystemsinmanycasesaredegradedandwaterstressed.Thisindicatestheneedtoimprovewatermanagementtobuildresilientlandscapes.Currently thedryland systems, including the valley floorofthe rift valley, are confronting several unprecedented risksand uncertainties. This involves risks related to climatechangeorrisksrelatedtoflooding.Inprinciplefarmersarenot passive observers of change in their environment.Thisis demonstrated through emerging accelerated farm-level irrigation development through pumps. Farm-waterharvesting is continuously encouraged through devel-opment agents. Small to large-scale industrial invest-ments are emerging in many landscapes of the rift valley.These incur competing uses and users of water. Ethiopian

water resources policy mainly focuses on the economicvalue of water and this could make irrecoverable damageto ecosystems and social values. Enforcement requirescarful exercise of water allocation and policy frameworks.

Fully irrigatedPurely rainfed

Source: IWMI (2007)

Drainage

Surface water irrigaton

Groundwater irrigation

Water Harvesting

Supplemental irrigationconservationpractices

Figure 10: Graphic illustration of the rainfed and irrigation continuum across landscapes.


16

An integrated in-situ and ex-situ agricultural watermanagement approach could be an option to minimizingsurface runoff and increasing soil moisture (Haileslassieet al., 2013b). Moreover, better management of agricul-tural water in a landscape context supports recharge ofshallow groundwater and would open an opportunity topractice irrigated agriculture at the middle and lowerpart of a landscape (Molden 2007). This is an example ofintegrating/ ensuring a rainfed irrigation continuum for sustainable agricultural production in landscapes (Fig. 10).

2.5. Agroforestry - integration of trees in agricultural landscape

Anthony(1997),describesagroforestryasacollectivenameforland-use systems and technologieswherewoody perennialsare deliberately integrated on the same land-management unitsasagriculturalcropsand/oranimals.Ithassomeformofspatialarrangementortemporalsequence.Shemetal.(2016),suggest that there are both ecological and economical inter-actions between the different components of agroforestrysystems (tree, crop and animal). Agroforestry is a dynamicecological-based natural resources management system. Agroforestry systems are multifunctional systems that can provideawiderangeofeconomic,sociocultural,andenviron-mental benefits. Through the integration of trees, agricul-tural landscape production will be sustained, livelihoodswill be diversified, and income will be increased (Fig. 11).

Thereare threemain typesofagroforestrysystems: i)agris-ilvicultural systems are a combination of crops and trees,such as alley cropping or home gardens; ii) silvopastoral systems combine forestry and grazing of domesticatedanimals on pastures, rangelands or on-farm; and iii) thethree elements, namely trees, animals and crops, can beintegrated inwhatarecalledagrosylvopastoral systems and are illustratedbyhomegardens involvinganimalsaswellasscatteredtreesoncroplandsusedforgrazingafterharvests.

Food

Pest Control

Soil Fertility

70

60

50

40

30

20

0

Water regulation Microclimate

Nutrient cycling

Increase (%)

Decrease (%)

Neutral

10

Figure 11: Proportions (%) of ecosystem services that increase and decrease by trees in Sub-Saharan Africa (Shem et al., 2016).

Shem et al. (2016) and Anthony (1997) illustrated that whiletrees affected some ecosystem services positively, theyaffectedothersnegatively. Competitionfornutrients,waterand light are the most reported tradeoffs. But the effectdependsontreemanagementasaffectedby themulti-func-tionality of tree species, their resource use efficiency andability to favorably modify the microclimate for crops.

Critical thinking and discussion points: DGo back to your landscape in the

previous module or draw a new

one after better understanding

from previous exercises and

feedback and follow the steps.

DDefine your boundary of a

landscape as in previous exercise

DDraw your faming system clusters

within the landscape (use your

knowledge of altitude, rainfall

temperature and availability of

water). Make the boundary open.

DWithin each of the faming

systems, draw a hypothetical

farm cluster assuming diversity in

livelihood assets (e.g. high input

intensive farms, off farm-based

income farms, extensive farms)

D Show the rainfed and irrigation

systems of your landscape

which you might have mapped

as interactive or independent

systems. Show the continuum of

the two systems and elaborate

how maintaining the continuum

would help building resilient

agricultural landscape.

D Show the role of value chains in

influencing the productive use

of water landscape resilience

between the different approaches.

17

Module 3: Sustainable agricultural landscape transformation - pathways development3.1. Agricultural sustainability

in contextSustainable agriculture focuses on increasing agricultural productionwhilehavingminimaleffectsontheenvironment.Thistypeofagriculturetries tofindagoodbalancebetweenthe need for food production and the preservation of theecological system within the environment. In addition toproducingfood,thereareseveraloverallgoalsassociatedwithsustainableagriculture,includingconservingwater,reducingtheuseoffertilizersandpesticides,andpromotingbiodiversity

1 Extracted from manuscript under development on sustainable agricultural intensification pathway (Haileslassie et al., unpublished)

Sustainable Agriculture

Increase

Environmentallyenhancing

SociallyJustifiable

Interlinks

Functionallyfeasible

Resourceoptimal

Economicallyviable

High-yieldpolyculture

Soil erosion

Soil salinization

Aquifer depletion

Overgrazing

Overfishing

Loss ofbiodiversity

Loss of primecropland

Food waste

Population growth

Poverty

Organic Fertilizers

Biological pestcontrol

Integrated pestmanagement

Irrigation effieciency

Perennial crops

Crop rotation

Use of more waterefficient crops

Soil conservation

Subsidies for moresustainable farming

and fishing

Decrease Farm ith

Farm 1

Sustainableagriculture

Subsidies for unsustainablefarming and fishing

Figure 12: Sustainable agriculture practices and outcomes

incropsgrownandintheecosystem.Sustainableagriculturealso focuses on maintaining economic stability of farms and helpingfarmersimprovetheirtechniquesandqualityoflife.Therearemanyfarmingstrategiesthathelpmakeagriculturemoresustainable.SomeofthemostcommontechniquesareincludedinFigure12(Teyetal.,2012),bothintermsofwhattodoandwhatnottodo,includingtheoutcomesandtheirinteractions.


18

Critical thinking and discussion points: Dwhat are the different practices

(good and bad), and indicators,

in the context of the different

agricultural system in the rift

valley – disentangle system

by irrigation, rainfed etc.

Dwhat are the different sustaina-

bility pillars and their respective

indicators and metrics in

context of your landscape?

D Elaborate gender empow-

erment as one of the proxies to

measure social sustainability

3.2. Measuring sustainability1 Sustainable agricultural intensification (SAI) requiresindicators and associated metrics to track progress,assess trade-offs and identify synergies (Haileslassie etal. 2016; Smith et al. 2017). In this regard, Smith et al.(2017) organized indicators into five domains. These areproductivity, economic sustainability, environmentalsustainability, social sustainability and human wellbeing.Examples of each of these indicators are provided below:1) Productivityisusuallyexpressedinavarietyof

indicatorsandmetricsincludingyield,inputefficiency,waterefficiency,andanimalhealth.

2) Indicatorsforeconomicsustainabilityincludeagriculturalincomeandcropvalue.Metricsofagriculturalincomeatthefieldlevelincludenetincomefromagriculture,disposableincomelossesof agricultural income due to natural disaster or changes in total agricultural income.

3) Humanwellbeingdomainsarefoodandnutritionsecurity.Thisistheabilityofsmallholderstomeettheirownfoodneedsandcanbemeasuredintermsofthenetproductionofnutrientsonthefarm relative to the food needs of the farming household(TheMontpelierPanel2013).

4) Environmentalsustainabilityincludesbiodi-versity,carbonsequestration,soilerosion,nutrientdynamics,soilbiologicalactivity,andsoilqualityandinmanycasesproductiveusesofwater(e.g.Haileslassieetal.2016).

5) Exampleofindicatorsforsocialsustainabilityincludeinformationaccessandgenderequity(Raietal.;2011;TheMontpelierPanel,2013).

Although the five domains of SAI indicators (productivity,economic sustainability, environmental sustainability, socialsustainability, and human wellbeing) could potentially beadopted across scales, there is no such a consensus on typeof indicators to use and monitor. Sustainability matrices and indicatorsarefunctionsoftime,spaceandthesocialdimension,makingitdifficulttohaveonecommonindicatoracrosstimeand space. Indicator selection needs to be contextualized.

19

Figure 13. Conceptual pathways for sustainable agricultural intensification.

Critical thinking and discussion points: D Can you identify and assign

attributes that best explain farms

or communities or systems or

landscapes in each of the quadrants

3.2.1. Conceptual pathways for sustainable agricultural intensification in landscapes

Increasing population and concurrent demand for morefood,fiberandotheragriculturalproductsisoneoftheglobalchallenges.Sustainableagriculturalintensificationcanbeanoptiontoaddressthisglobalchallenge.However,areviewofliterature(e.g.Haileslassieetal.,2016;Mutyasiraetal.,2018;Kumaretal.,2019)revealedthattherecouldbeseveralpathwaysforsustainableintensificationwithina landscapebecauseofdifferencesamongfarmsandfarmingsystemsintermsoftheirfarmstructureandfunction(Fig.13).Also,farmsinalandscapediffer invaluesandresources theyshare, forexamplewater,land,market, climate and commonproperty resources (Fig.13).Theseresourcesdefinetheireconomicandenvironmentalsustainability dimension, while the social value they share(e.g. level of access to resources and wealth accumulation)is linked to their social sustainability dimension.Therefore,finding a common pathway that brings together interestsof all actors in a system or landscape is usually difficult.

Substitute

Substitutes

Complement

ComplementsLow sustainabilityLow intensification

Sustainability

Land

scap

e at

tribu

tes

cont

ribut

ing

to a

nd a

ffect

ed b

y in

tens

ifica

tion

and

sust

aina

bilit

y

High sustainabilityLow intensification

Inte

nsifi

catio

n

High sustainabilityHigh intensification

Low sustainabilityHigh intensification

3.2.2. Designing sustainable intensification pathways: understanding performance and targeting changes needed

Thissectionfocusesondeliveringmethodologicalframeworksto understand the context of sustainability assessment and to developtheintensificationpathways.Oursystemicapproachoutlines how to move from sustainability assessment perse to sustainable intensification pathways development bycouplingthelatertoprinciplesandapproacheswhichenablescomplementaritiesandsynergiesofinterventions.Theoverallframeworkproposedhere(Fig.14)aimsatensuringcompre-hensiveness and robustness of the evaluation and planningand supporting the decision-making process. The overallstructureoftheframeworkisconstructedfromfourbuildingblocks:(a)sustainableintensificationindicators(Fig.14a),(b)understandingperformanceofsustainableagriculturalinten-sificationmeasures(ormetricsofsustainableintensification,Fig. 14b), (c) defining sustainable intensification pathwaysto bring the desired changes and managing trade-offs(Fig. 14 c), and (d) principles and approaches enablingsynergiesandcomplementaritiesofinterventions(Fig.14d).

When developing indicators of sustainable intensification(SI)ofagriculturallandscapes,itisimportanttofirstunder-stand the existing landscape of indicators, indices, anddatasets at the nexus of agricultural landscape componentsand addressing the target domains and scales of interest. Here important guidingquestions could be: a)what indicesand indicators exists aboutSI of agricultural landscapes? b)howimportantaretheyandcantheyreflectlocalcommunityperception? c) What appropriate datasets already exist? d)whatcanbelearnedandleveragedfromtheseexistingindices,indicators,anddatasets?ande)whatistheavailableresources?

Literature including Smith et al. (2017) and Haileslassieet al. (2016) can be used to identify generic indicators andmatricescontributingtoeachofthesedomains.Thekeystepis to contextualize thisbasedondeskwork,key stakeholderconsultationandexpertknowledgeofthesite(Fig.14B).Table1 depicts generic indicators proposed to understand systemsustainabilityandchangesneeded.Thelistisdevelopedbasedon generic indicators suggested by Smith et al. (2017) andHaileslassieetal. (2016).Thiscanbesubstantiatedbyexpertknowledgeofkeyopportunitiesandchallenges.Thereisspacetoinvolvefarmers.Duringthefirstsite-tour,farmerswillbeaskedtosuggestadditionalindicatorsandundertakepairwiseranking. In efforts of understanding changes needed,the next step is to answer question on status of sustaina-bility indicators by exploring deeper the performances ofeach of these indicators under current practices (Fig. 14B).

Alandscapeisdiversebothbiophysicallyandsociallyandsoarefarmandfamingsystems(Haileslassieetal.,2016).Thefirstapproachinhandlingthisheterogeneityandmakingrecom-mendationscontextspecificistoclusterfarmsandlandscapesto homogeneous groups. Different techniques are available


20

to deal with the heterogeneity of farmers: for example, aqualitative participatory typology based on informal groupsessionsandinterviewswith localstakeholders.A landscapetypology can be developed using traditional altitudinalbelts or alternatively farming systems as proxy indicators(highland, midland, lowland; rainfed based highland, irrigation based lowland farming). Farms nested in the landscape canbe clustered using a participatory method [resources better off, medium or poor (Participatory Learning and Action)].Theadvantageofparticipatorymethods is that theyalso includeadditionalgroupsoffemalesand“landless”farmers,whoareimportantinthecommunities.Wemayuseradarchartsandsimilar techniques to display the relative importance of thedifferent SIs across landscape position and farmers’ group.

For poor performing indicators we will explore furtherthrough consultations with stakeholders. Literature reviewcan also enrich this component on the potential and actualperformancesofeachofthe indicator, forexampleyieldgapeitherwithin the system and frompractices elsewherewithsimilarsystemsettingandpractices.

Critical thinking and discussion points: D Can you identify indicators

in the context of your earlier

landscape and faming systems?

D Can you undertake pairwise

ranking exercises?

D C B APrinciples and Approaches Enabling Synergies and Complementarities of Interventions (SIP)

Sustainable Intensification Pathways

Understanding Perfomance of sustainable agricultural intensification measures (or metrics)

Domains of Sustainability(Smith et al., 2017)

EconomicSustainability

Productivity

Identify key interventions or their combination by focusing on these with weak performance

Land productivity, labor productivity, yield gaps

Income, income sources diversity

Food security, nutrition

Gender equality

Social security

Conflict, competition

Collective action

Productive use of water

Water quality; pollution; land degradation

Etc

Integrated-genetic social and ecological interventions

Value chain and linkage tofood system

Irrigation rain fed continuum

Multiple scale-nested approach

Water system and water allocation

Cluster interventions as immediate, medium, and longer term

Contextualize interventions for different farm typologies in landscapes

Identify tradeoffs and management options

Engage local community

Identify monitoring and attributes to monitor

EnvironmentalSustainability

Socialsustainability

HumanWellbeing

Figure 14. Methodological framework to assess intensification and develop sustainable agricultural intensification pathways.

3.2.3. Systematic identification of actions required

Oncethetypeandimportanceofconstraintsandtheircausesareunderstood,itisimportanttosystematicallyidentifyinter-ventionstoturnaroundthecurrentperformanceoftheselectedindicators(Fig.14c).Thissectionwillenhancetheunderstandingof the spatial (plot, farm, system, watershed, landscape)and temporal (immediate, midterm and longer term) scaleswhere interventions to address the constraints are required.Overall an important aspect is to look at how thesecontext-specific interventions would improve the perfor-mance of the different indicators and how they individually

andasagroupbringaboutthedesiredchangesinthetargetindicators and the sustainability pillars (Fig. 14 C). Liter-ature review could provide insight of how these differentinterventions contribute to one or more indicators and understanding their trade-offs. The base for selection ofthedifferent interventions is the currentpractices, the levelof resource endowment andpeople’s choice (Fig. 15). In thisline, consultations with key stakeholders could support thecombination of different intervention and their time scale(Fig.15).Other importantaspects includetocheckthepolicypriorityandinstitutionsinplacetohelpachievingthetargets.

21

Tabl

e 1: G

ener

ic in

dica

tors

and

indi

ces p

ropo

sed

for u

nder

stand

ing p

erfo

rman

ce of

susta

inab

ility

dom

ain

and

targ

etin

g cha

nges

Targe

t dom

ains

Gene

ric in

dicato

rsUn

itsIm

porta

nce*

Pairw

ise

comp

ariso

nSc

aleSo

urces

of in

forma

tion

Econ

omic

sust

aina

bilit

yAg

ricu

ltura

l inc

ome

Cropvalue

Inco

me

sour

ces d

iver

sity

Inco

me

stab

ility

USD/Head

USD/kg

#incsources/HH

%changesbetweenyears

H M M H

? ? ? ?

Farm

Farm

Farm

Farm

Surv

eySu

rvey

Surv

eySu

rvey

Prod

ucti

vity

Yiel

d Wateruseefficiency

Inputefficiency

Croppingintensity

Yieldgaps

(kg/ha)

kgm-3

Kginput/kgreturn

#crop/yr.

%deviationfrom

potential

H L L H L

? ? ? ? ?

Farm

Farm

Farm

Farm

Farm

/LS

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Envi

ronm

enta

l sus

tain

abili

tyBiodiversity

Agrochem

icalinputs

Eros

ion

Levelofwaterpollution

Nutrientdynam

ics

Land

use

cha

nge

#cropsonfarm

kg/ha

ton/

haLevelofpollutionrisks

%manurerecycled

%changetoagriculture

L L H H H M

? ? ? ? ? ?

Farm

/LS

farm

Farm

/LS

LS Farm

Farm

/LS

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Soci

al su

stai

nabi

lity

Info

rmat

ion

acce

ssGenderequity/socialsecurity

Acce

ss to

cre

dit

Levelofpoverty

Conflictoverresources

Radi

o/TV

/Mob

ileAccesstoresources,decisionmaking

%havingaccesstocredit

Aboveorbelowpovertyline

Frequencyandnatureofconflict

M H H H H

? ? ? ? ?

Farm

Farm

Farm

Farm

LS

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Hum

anwellbeing

Food

and

nut

riti

on se

curi

tyRisk

# of

food

inse

cure

mon

ths

Scaleofwaterrelated

risks(drought,flood)

H H? ?

Farm

Farm

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

Surv

ey/li

tera

ture

*Rele

vanc

e is i

ndica

ted

base

d on

expe

rt’s

know

ledge

: L st

ands

for l

ow, M

for m

ediu

m a

nd H

for h

igh.

Und

er sc

ale L

S sta

nds f

or la

ndsc

ape (

Afte

r Sm

ith et

al.,

201

7).


22

Critical thinking and discussion points: Dwhat type of innovation would be principally required to

address the constraints and how would these innovations be

integrated and implemented in a farm or landscape.

Dwhat are the points of linking of these interventions to the overall food system.

Dwhat are the potential trade-offs and how can

they be managed (scenarios); and

D understanding farmers ‘choice’ or interest.

ToolsApproaches to typologyLandscape, farming and farmsystem heterogeneity

1). Statistical approach

ii). Participatory approach

Selection of discriminating criteriato explain farm diversity

Household survey, fieldobservation and focuse group

discussion

Selection of key variables toexplain farm diversity

Multi variate analysis

Participatory analysis

Intentions and options

Short term

Medium

Long term

Short term

Medium

Long term

A

B

A

B

Intentions and options

Understanding perfomance of sustainability indicators andtargeting interventions needed

Farm types in landscape

Figure 15: Schematic diagram illustrating how the process of farm typology/in different landscape positions can be targeted by different interventions

23

Module 4: Water efficient and resilient landscape management technologies

Figure 16: Sources of water, mode of storage and principal use of water for different water management technologies.

There are several in-situ and ex-situ agricultural watermanagement technologies tested for Ethiopian conditions.Figure 16 illustrates sources of water, mode of storage andprincipal use of water. Water lifting technologies enabletapping into ground water resources and help to mitigateclimatechange.FromexperimentsconductedbyIWMIusing10setsofsolarpumpsintheEthiopiandrylandsystem(RiftValley) it was concluded that solar pumps attached to dripsystemshavesignificantlyhighernetpresentvaluecomparedtoothertechnologies.Giventhewatersavingsfromtheliftingand application techniques, the technology would also helpto save water which provides opportunity to irrigate moreareas and thus build climate change resilient landscapes.

Waterharvestingisanimportantentrypointtoimprovetheproductivity of dryland systems. This could take the formof in-situ or ex-situ. Use of several technologies includingsubsurfacesoilhardpanbreakingtechnologieshaveshowedpromising results in terms of reducing runoff and soil lossandincreasinginfiltrationandtheoverallcropyield.Technol-ogiessuchashillsidemicro-basinshaveprovedtoworkwell,particularly on rangelands (https://wocatpedia.net/wiki).

Source of Water

Mode of storage

Principalwater use

Domestic,public

commercialLivestock

aquacultureCrop

productionForestry

Soil storage Subsurfacedam, well

Dam, pondtank, cisterm

Manmade/impermeable

surfacesEx-situ

technologiesIn-situ

technologies

Farm ponds and several micro-dams, despite positiveimpacts have several challenges, including siltation(Gebremedhin et al., 2016). For example, seepage loss onthe net harvested water is very high and the irrigated areacan be increased considerably if proper water saving andutilization measures and mechanisms are implemented.The current situation illustrates thediversity of the impacts

and the need to improve water harvesting efforts, particu-larly related tomacro-ponds andmicro-dams.These effortsmust also take future water demand into account andmicro-watershed level water allocation is an importantingredient of the planning process. While initiating farmponds in dryland systems (for example in the rift valley),techniques to alleviate these hurdles must be in place.

4.1. In-situ water harvesting and soil and water conservation technologies

Rainwater harvesting for infiltration, also known as in-situwaterharvesting, is apractice inwhich rainwateruptake insoilsisincreasedthroughthesoilsurface,rootingsystem,andgroundwater. The soil effectively acts as the storage agent,which improves water holding capacity and fertility andreduces risksof soil loss anderosion.Commonexamplesofwaterharvestingpracticesincludetrenches,terracing,pittingand conservation tillage. Due to variable and unpredictableweatherpatternsthesetechnologieshaveservedasimportantwater sources for agriculture for centuries (Shibeshi etal., 2016). They play an important role in climate changeadaptationduetoincreasesinunpredictableweatherpatterns.Apartfromtheirpredominantfunctionofimprovingcroplandand vegetation, they can also help ensure sustainablewatersupplies for livestock or domestic use through improvedrechargeofnearbywater-flowsorponds,aswellasground-water. More specifically, the benefits of in-situ watermanagement includes increased infiltration and recharge[Erkossaetal.,2020(Fig.17)],soilfertilityandwaterholdingcapacity of soils and reduced risk of soil erosion and loss(Fig. 17). Table 2 indicates types, purpose, andmanagementoptions of in-situ water management technologies.

Continuous cultivation of land acceleratesmigration offineclayparticlesdowntheprofilewhichaccumulatesandcreatesanimpenetrablelayercalledhardpan.Hardpanslimitperco-lationofwaterintothesoilsystem,thewateristhususuallylostassurfacerunoff.Thiscouldalsocontributetotopsoilerosionandlimitedavailabilityofshallowgroundwaterdownstream.


24

200

180

b. 30-60 cmWilting point

27-Jun. 24-Jul. 9-Aug. 27-Aug. 19-Aug. 28-Oct. 27-Oct. 22-Nov 13-Dec. 29-Dec. 11-Jan 25-Jan.

With trench

Field Capacity

Without trench

160

140

120

100

Figure 17: Effects of trenches on soil moisture dynamics across the cropping season in upper Awash basin.

Table 2: Examples of in situ-water management technologies.

Soil-water management strategy

Purpose Management Options Management type

In-situwaterharvesting systems

Maximizeinfiltrationcapacityofthesoil

Improvetopsoilconditions • Protectivesurfacecover:covercrops,residue,mulchesagainstdisruptiveactionofraindrops

•Noorreducedsoildisturbancebytillage• Conservation agriculture• Soil amendments•Fallowingundercovercrops

or natural vegetation•Temporaryclosureofgrazinglandandsubsequentprotection

Improvesubsoilconditions •Deeptillage:subsoilerorparaploughtobreak-upwaterrestrictinglayers

Slowdownand/orimpederunoff

Increase surface roughness •Surfacecover:covercrops,residue,mulches,geotextiles

• Conservation agriculture

Applyphysicalstructuresacrossslopeoralongcountour

•Terracing:levelterraces,benchterraces,Zingg,fanyajuu,murundum,contourbund,gradedchannelterrace,orchardterrace

Figure 18: Sets of experiments on how different depth of tillage and breaking of the hard pan affects soil penetration resistance, infiltration, runoff, erosion and biomass yield.

Berken tillageBiological treatment Deep tillage No tillage Conventional tillage

The experiment was set out to compare different optionsof breaking hard pans. The options involve the use of(i) no-till (NT), no ploughing; (ii) conventional tillage(CT), plots tilled three times using oxen driven Maresha(Ethiopian traditional plough) , (iii) deep tillage (DT),manualdiggingupto60cmusingamattockand(iv)Berkentillage (BT), plots tilled three times using an oxen drivenBerken plough [ locally innovated plough type and Bi-T forbiological treatment using pigeon pea (Muche et al., 2017).The penetration resistance as indicated on Figure 19 has

25

Figure 20: Effects of different depth of tillage on infiltration, run off and soil loss

Figure 21: Effects of different depth of tillage on root length of plant, biomass and crop yield

Figure 19: Penetration resistance under different depth of tillage (BT is for berken tillage, DT is

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

NT CT DT BT Bi-T

Before

After

ab

b

aa

a

20-40

PR (

Mpa

)0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

NT CT DT BT Bi-T

Before

After

abb

aa

a

40-60

PR (

Mpa

)0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

NT CT DT BT Bi-T

Before

After

ab

b

aa

a

20-40

PR (

Mpa

)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

NT CT DT BT Bi-T

Before

After

abb

aa

a

40-60

PR (

Mpa

)

Runoff (mm)

Treatments (T)NT 6.7±1.1a98.8±27.6a

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

NT CT DT BT Bi-T

Before

After

5.5±1.0b

2.6±0.6c

2.6±0.6c

3.8±0.7bc

71.4±13.6a

Treatment

IC (

mm

/hr)

28.5±4.9b

33.5±6.2b

47.6±8.4ab

CT

DT

BT

Bi-T

Soil loss (t ha-1)

Runoff (mm)

Treatments (T)NT 6.7±1.1a98.8±27.6a

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

NT CT DT BT Bi-T

Before

After

5.5±1.0b

2.6±0.6c

2.6±0.6c

3.8±0.7bc

71.4±13.6a

Treatment

IC (

mm

/hr)

28.5±4.9b

33.5±6.2b

47.6±8.4ab

CT

DT

BT

Bi-T

Soil loss (t ha-1)

significantly dropped for the 20-40 cm depth and infil-trationcapacitywassignificantly improvedby50%,46%and30% due to the application of deep, Berken and biologicalsystems, respectively (Fig. 19). As indicated in Figure 20,the trend in infiltration capacity was similar to the gain ininfiltration, andDT andBT showedmorepromising values.

Theexample(Fig.18-21)illustratestheexperimentallayout(fromtheworkofIWMIandpartners),andhowdeeptillagebreaksthehardpancreatedandhowitincreasesinfiltration.


26

In summary: � Application of deep and Berken tillage systems onfarmlandsareeffective in termsof increasing the infil-tration rate.

� Reductionofsurfacerunofffromdeepandberkentillagesystems reduce soil loss.

� Improved tillage systems have positive impact on rootlength and grain yield.

� Therefore, proper implementation of berken and deeptillage system will have a far-reaching impact on landproductivity.

4.2. Ex-situ water harvesting technologies

In ex-situ systems, water is not collected in the soil as thestoragemedium.Waterisstoredinnaturalorartificialreser-voirswithdifferentdimensions,i.e.wells,pondsorcisterns,forirrigationpurposesorfordomesticuse.Incontrasttothein-situsystems,thesurfaceofstorageinfrastructurehaslittleorno infiltrationcapacity (Fig.22).Small-scalebasinsoronrooftopsarecommonmethodsofcollectionofrainwater.Thelatterismainlycollectedfordomesticpurposesbutcanalsobeusedforsmallkitchengardens.Ex-siturainwaterharvestingcanreducepressureonsurroundingsurfacewaterandground-water resources, as well as peak flows and flow durations.

Figure 22: Roof water harvesting for supplemental irrigation of Alfalfa and rope and washer pump applied for lifting of ground water to irrigate Alfalfa (SNNPR) - Photo credit Amare Haileslassie.

It is commonly agreed that water harvesting systems arebeneficial. Experiences suggest that sustainable and locallyadaptedrainwaterharvestingsystemscancontributetofoodsecurity and adaptation to climate change and improve thelivelihoodof farmers.Rainwaterharvesting canbe an alter-native and/or complementary method to large-scale waterwithdrawals and reduce negative impacts on ecosystemservices, such as erosion. In addition, small-scale rainwaterharvestingsystemscanyieldahigheramountofcollectedwaterthanlargedams,asevaporationandwaterlossesarereduced.

4.3. Estimating runoff for surface water harvesting

Estimatingharvestablerunoffisanimportantstepinex-situwatercapturingtechniques.Thereareanumberofmethodsavailabledependingonwatersources(e.g.roof,roadandsurface)andlevelofprecisionrequired.Herewewillfocusonthesourcerunoffandthemostcommonlyappliedcalculationmethods.One of the most applied technique is the soil conservation

service (SCS) runoffcurvenumbermethod (Yongping,2001)

A) The soil conservation service (SCS) Runoff Curve Number (CN) method:TheSCSrunoffequationcanbeillustratedasgiveninEq1

…………………………….(Eq 1)Q =P-Ia+S(P-Ia)2

whereQ=runoff(in)P=rainfall(in)S=potentialmaximumretentionafterrunoffbegins(in)andIa=initialabstraction(in).Initialabstraction(Ia)isalllossesbeforerunoffbegins.Itincludeswaterretainedinsurfacedepressions,waterinterceptedbyvegetation,evaporation,andinfil-tration. Ia is highly variable but generally is correlated withsoilandcoverparameters.Throughstudiesofmanysmallagriculturalwatersheds,Iawasfoundtobeapproximatedbythefollowingempiricalequation:

Ia=0.2S…………………………….(Eq 2)

27

By removing Ia as an independent parameter, this approxi-mationallowsuseofacombinationofSandPtoproduceauniquerunoffamount.Substitutingequation2intoequation1gives:

…………………………….(Eq 3)Q =P+0.8S(P-0.2s)2

S is related to the soil and cover conditions of thewatershedthroughtheCN(Fig.23).

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 2 4 6 8 10

(P-0.25)2

P+0.85SQ=

Q(c

m)

P(cm)12

4045

50556065707580859095

CN=100

14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Figure 23: SCS run off curve number

CNhasarangeof0to100,andSisrelatedtoCNby:

B) Rational Method:Anotherverysimplifiedmethodofestimatingrunoffistherationalmethod.TheRational Methodcanbeillustratedbythefollowingequationandcanbeappliedindatascarcesystemandwhenlesslevelofprecisionrequired

Q=CIA…………………………………Eq 5

Where:Q=peakflow(m3/hr)C=runoffcoeffi-cient(dimensionless)I=precipitationintensity(m/hr)A=effectivedrainagearea(m2)

c) Roof water harvesting method:Thisisthemostcommonpracticeinurbanareasforhouseholdwatersupplyandsmallfamilygarden.TherunoffestimationisillustratedbyEq6

Q = PA

Where:Qisaharvestablewater,averageannualP(m)andAisroofareainM2

Critical thinking and discussion points: DAssume a rainfall value of

500 mm on micro catchment

of 1000 m2. Estimate the total

annually harvestable run off

and discuss options to use.

DAssume a rainfall of the same

magnitude as above and roof

area of 40 m2. Estimate the

harvestable water and discuss

best and effecting way to use.

D If all farm households in a

catchment /landscape would be

able to harvest all drop of rainfall

what would happen? Remember

systems as open and material

flows in a system. remember

upstream downstream issues

and rainfed irrigation continuum

we discussed earlier. In view of

this, critically discuss why system

management in isolation is a risk.


28

Module 5: Lifting, conveyance, and on-farm water application

5.1. Solar pumps5.1.1 Why solar pumps Improved supply of and access to clean water is one of theSDG 6 targets. Supply of water for drinking or irrigationpurposesalsoremainsan issuetobesolved inmanyremoteareas of Ethiopia. Under the current status of access tosafe drinking water and water for domestic consumption,even addressing COVID-19 pandemic would be a challenge.This requires a reliable source of energy that can pumpwater to usable heights. Currently, diesel generators arecommonly used to provide pumping power. However, theyhave several disadvantages involving pollution and theenergy sources; oil, is not a renewable resource and as theglobal reserves diminish the price is increasing. Secondly,there is a continued complaint of adulteration by farmersinremote locationsandthis isposingasignificant threat toa consistent water supply. Finally, diesel generators requireregularoperationandmaintenanceaswellasareplacement.

Figure 24: Solar pump linked to drip system in central rift valley (Photo credit: Amare Haileslassie).

PV-powered water pumps (PVP) (Fig. 24) offer a promisingalternative in relation to the drawback of diesel pumps.Poweredbyrenewablesolarenergy,theyarenotsubjecttopricehikes.Whilesupplycanvaryduetocloudyperiods,long-termconsistencyofsupplyisensuredasthetimeofgreatestwaterdemandusuallycoincideswiththemaximumavailablesolarenergy. Furthermore, the absence of moving parts offershighreliabilityat littlemaintenancerequirements.Ethiopia,locatedinthetropics,hashighsolarradiationwhichmakesthetechnologyveryrelevant.DespitetheseadvantagestheuptakeofPVPremainslowmainlybecauseofcostandmarketaccess.Bothtechnologyoptionsrequireareplacementofthepumpafter10years.Thecostsforreplacingthedieselgeneratorarenearly equal to the cost of an inverter. In terms ofmainte-nance, diesel systems are more expensive with an approx-imate6%ofinstalledhardwarecostsp.a.comparedto1%for

29

PV-powered pumps due to repairs and auxiliary materials.Figure25illustratestheresultoflifecycleassessmentofthetwotechnologies.Thekeydifferenceinlife-cycle-costs,however,isduetooperatingcosts.Theseconsistofcostsforpersonnel(3timeshigherforDPPcomparedtoPVP)andfuel.ThecostsofthelatterforDPPoutweighPVP-relatedoperatingcostsbyafactor of 20 despite amoderate diesel price at 0.61 €/L andprice-escalation calculated at 2%. Annualized, the life cycleofthedifferenttechnologychoicesispresentedinFigure25.

3kW PVP

1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Years

100.000 €

0 €

200.000 €

300.000 €

Life

-Cyc

le C

osts

2

3kW DPP

15kW PVP

15kW DPP

45kW PVP

45kW DPP

Figure 25: Life cycle assessment of cost of diesel pump and PVP by their power.

Figure 26: Water application system tested, for solar pump illustrated in Figure 25 (left over head appli-cation, middle furrow and left drip system) (Photo credit: Amare Haileslassie).

5.1.2. Example of demonstration of solar pump in Ethiopia

The International Water Management Institute (IWMI),throughtheLivestockandIrrigationValueChain(LIVES)andAfrica Research In Sustainable Intensification for the NextGeneration (AfricaRISING ) projects has piloted eight solarpumps, forsmallholder irrigationwithselectedfarmhouse-holdsinOromiaandtheSNNPregionsintheriftvalleybasin.The aim of the pilot was to demonstrate and testwhether solar pumps can provide smallholder farmerswith an affordable and sustainable irrigation waterpumping. Solar pump panels capture the sunlightand convert it into electricity which drives the pump.

As the amount of water supplied and other costs (suchas, labor, agronomic practices and related costs) differ byirrigation method, it helps to do a comparative analysisbetween the different water application methods. Forexample, the drip system would provide precision inwater application leading to a decreased water loss fromwind and evaporation, hence the long-term advantageswould be lower energy, operating costs and water savings.

Results /Evidence: The overall result shows that investmentinsolarpumpsisprofitable,giventhataminimumlandsizeis available. As solar energy is a clean (zero-carbon) energy,the technology is very much consistent with the EthiopianGovernment Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE)strategy. The profitability of the technology depends oncrop type andwater delivery systemwhere the drip systemwas found superior to the furrow and overhead systems.Our data also shows that land sizematters implying that aminimum land size is required for a viable investment insolar pump irrigation, but theminimum required land sizeitself depends on different factors, including type of waterapplication system, crop type, discount rate and location.Because access to affordable financing is crucial for small-holderfarmers,microfinanceinstitutionscanserveasamore

reliablesourceoffinancethantheformalbankingsystem.Althoughhigh initial investmentcost isapotentialbarrierfor smallholder farmers to adopt the technology, costsharingcanbeasolution,especiallyifadditionalinvestmentis made in drip systems where land size can increase toabout half a hectare.Moreover, partnerships between keyactors including rural financial institutions are essentialfor a positive outcome of investment in solar pumps.While one can argue that commercialization is essentialfor sustainable market growth, targeted subsidies areneededatearlystagesuntilcompetitivepricesarereached.In general, a solar pumping system hasmany advantagesincludingitsnegligibleoperatingcost.Becausethereisnofuelrequiredforthepump,suchaselectricityordiesel,theoperatingcostisminimal.Awell-designedsolarpumprequireslittlemaintenancebeyondcleaningofthepanelsonceaweek.


30

However,thetechnologyhassomelimitationsincluding:i)thetechnologypiloted isnotsuitable for largescalecommercialirrigated farms unless the capacity is augmented by addingmore panels which in turn increases the investment cost,ii) the water yield of the solar pump changes according tothe sunlight. It is highest around noon and least in the early morning and evening. However, for countries like Ethiopialocatedontheequatorwithlong(about10)hoursofsunlightper day, this problem is less likely to be a limiting factor.We recommend that attention should be given to the system of irrigation water distribution and application tothe crops. For example, our pilot experiment shows thatwhen solar pumps are supplemented with a drip system,the size of irrigable land is almost doubled as compared tofurrow and overhead irrigation and minimizes water lossand thus show higher net present value (Fig. 27). Equallyimportant is its effect of reduced labor use per hectare.

250,000

200,000

Discount rate (15%)

Drip-pepper

NPV

s

221294 30323 27061 16889 25817 4626

191100 25532 22464 13587 21378 2885

145670 18375 15619 8696 14772 354

Furrow-pepper

Overhead-pepper

Overhead-Cabbage

Overhead-Carrot

Overhead-fodder

Discount rate (15%)

Discount rate (15%)

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

Figure 27: Profitability analysis of solar pumps.

Critical thinking and discussion points: DDiscuss the different advan-

tages and disadvantages of

different water lifting systems.

DDiscuss each of the different

water application techniques (

drip, furrow and overhead) .

5.2. Drip system5.2.1. General Drip irrigation is one of the most efficient methods ofirrigation today. It delivers water at the plant location,frequently and at a volume of water approaching theconsumptive use of the plant. The unproductive depletion(evaporativeloss)isminimalasdripsystemwaterapplicationis at the root zoneand frequent, and it thereforemaintainsanoptimummoisturelevelinthesoil.Theterm“trickle”and“drip”areinterchangeablyusedtodescribesuchasystem.Thesystemdeliverswaterbyapipedistributionnetworkunderlowpressure(usuallylessthan40mhead).Waterdistributionandapplicationinthefieldisbyasmalldiameterflexibleplasticlateralpipes(LDPE)withdevicescalled‘emitters’or‘drippers’connected at selected spacings. Drip systems are usually,most suitable in areas where water is scarce. It is also thepreferredwaterapplicationtechniqueunderhigh-valuecropsor inareaswhere topographical andother conditionsmightprecludethesuccessfuluseofothertypesofirrigationsystems.

Some of the advantages of drip irrigation systems are thattheysavewater, fertilizers,operatingcostsandreduceweedinfestation due to wetting of lesser soil volume. They alsoenhanceplantgrowthandyield as the soil volume is alwaysin near optimum conditions. As water is only applied atlocalized places, it is a suitable system for irrigating leafyvegetables. Further, as the application is at or near to theplant location, there ismorecontrolofwaterby thesystem;itavoidssensitivitytowind,evaporationfromsoilandplantcanopy, and leafdiseases and leafburns.Drip systemshavealso several agronomical and agro-technical advantages. Due topartialwettingofthesoil, itsuppressesweedgrowthandreduces compaction of the soil.The system can be operatedwith less energy and operating cost. The system enablesapplication of liquid fertilier and pesticides with water.

Disadvantagesofdrip systems include that the emitters areprone to clogging unless the water is filtered before it getsinto the system. The lateral pipes are prone to mechanicaland rodents’ damages.The system has no influence on themicroclimateunlikethesprinklersystem.Astheapplicationismore frequent, cropdamage ismore likely if irrigation isinterrupted. For optimum crop growth, drip irrigation issuitableunderthefollowingconditions.

� Drip irrigation is adaptable to any farmable slope,whether uniform or undulating. The lateral pipessupplying water to the drippers should always be laidoutalongthelandcontourwheneverpossible.Thiswillminimize the pressure variation among drippers andprovideuniformirrigation.

� A good clean supply of water, free of suspendedsediments,isrequiredtoavoidcloggigofdrippers.

� Dripirrigationissuitedformostrowandtreecrops.

31

� Thedrip system isbest suited to sandysoilswithhighinfiltration rates although it is adaptable tomost soilsdue to possibility of a more frequent application ofwaterthansurfaceandsprinklersystems.

5.2.2. Family drip system Drip irrigation systems are classified into surface systems,subsurface systems, overhead systemsandbubbler systems.The most used system in sub-Saharan Africa is the familydrip system and it is usually of surface type. A surface dripsystem is a system in which drippers and laterals are laidon thesoil surface (Figure28).Thecommonlyuseddrippersin this system are online drippers (pressure compensatingor non-compensating), in-line drippers and microtubes.The choice of these drippers depends on the type of crop,topography, availablity of labour, and soil type.This systemis the most poular and therefore discussed in this guide.To support adoption of drip systems by the small farmers,a surface system that is low-cost, low-tech, low-pressure(gravity)dripsystemsareintroducedbyNGOsliketheInterna-tionalDevelopmentEnetrprice(iDE)indevelopingcountriesinAfricaandAsia.Theyarefamilydripsystemsthatcomewithacompletekitforirrigatingareasupto500m2.Apumpisnotrequired.Thewatersourceisanelevatedwatertank(reservoir)thatservesasapressureregulatorandfertilizerinjectionpoint.

Figure 28: Model family surface drip system.

Subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) is the irrigation of cropsthrough buried lateral pipes containing embedded emitterslocated at regular spacings. There are a wide variety ofconfigurations and equipment used, however, drip tubesare typically located 15 to 25 cm below the soil surface. SDIis most widely used for the irrigation of both annual rowcrops, and field crops in the USA and permanent crops inIsrael. Due to the high initial cost and intensive management requirement, its adoption has, however, proceeded slowly.

5.2.3. Crop Water Requirements, ETcThe amount of water which evaporates from wet soils andplantsurfacestogetherwiththeplanttranspiration iscalledevapotranspiration (ET). Its value is largely determinedby climate factors, such as solar radiation, temperature,humidityandwind,andbytheenvironment.Outofthetotal

ET, evaporation accounts for about 10 percent and planttranspiration for the remaining 90 percent. Crop waterrequirements encompass the total amount ofwater used inevapotranspiration. Alternative approaches for estimatingthe evapotranspiration include the radiation, Penman andpan methods. Reference evapotranspiration (ETo) repre-sents the rate of evapotranspiration of green grass underideal conditions, 8-15 cm tall, with extensive vegetativecover completely shading the ground. It is expressed asamean value inmmperday over a periodof 10 to 30days.The most practical method for determining ETo is the panevaporation method. Although there are computer-basedestimationsofETo,becauseofitspracticality,inthismanual,we focus only on the pan evaporation method (Fig. 29).Thisapproachcombinestheeffectsoftemperature,humidity,windspeedandsunshine.OneofthebestknownpansaretheClassAevaporationpan (circular-Fig. 30 ).Theevaporationfromthepan isverynear to theevapotranspirationofgrassthatistakenasanindexofEToforcalculationpurposes.Thepan direct readings (Epan) are related to the ETo with theaidofthepancoefficient(Kp),whichdependsonthetypeofpan,itslocation(surroundingswithorwithoutgroundcovervegetation)andtheclimate(humidityandwindspeed).Hence,

Where, ETo=Referenceevapotranspiration,mm Ep=Panevaporation,mm kp=Pancoefficient

Figure 29: Class A pan.

FortheClassApan,theaveragekpanis0.70.InordertorelateETotocropwaterrequirements(ETc),thespecificcropcoefficient(kc)mustbedetermined:

Where, ETc = Evapotranspirationdemandofthecrop,mm kc= Cropcoefficient


32

Thecropcoefficient(kc)dependsonthecropleafareaanditsroughness, the stageofgrowth, thegrowingseasonand theprevailingweatherconditions(Fig.30).Therearenormallyfourstagesofplantgrowth–theinitialstage,thedevelopmentstage,themid-seasonstageandthelateseasonstage.Table3presentsthe kc values for different crops at various growth stages.

InitialStage

Dev’tStage

Mid-seasonstage

Late-seasonstage

Growing Period, days

Kc

Figure 30: Crop coefficient curve.

Critical thinking and discussion points: D From local class A weather

station, you have an average

pan evaporation reading

of 1500 mm. Estimate the

ETo for the circular pan.

D Estimate the crop water

requirement of young

bananas and repeat the

same exercise for lettuce.

DWhat should be the size

of your water harvesting

pond under exercise (ex-situ

water harvesting) to grow

bananas on 10m2? Repeat

the same excise for lettuce

33

Table 3: kc values for different crops at various growth stages.

Crop Initial Crop development Mid-season Late and harvestBean(green) 0.35 0.70 1.0 0.9

Bean(dry) 0.35 0.75 1.1 0.5

Cabbage 0.45 0.75 1.05 0.9

Carrot 0.45 0.75 1.05 0.9

Cotton 0.45 0.75 1.15 0.75

Cucumber 0.45 0.70 0.90 0.75

Eggplant 0.45 0.75 1.15 0.80

Groundnut 0.45 0.75 1.0 0.75

Lettuce 0.45 0.60 1.0 0.90

Maize(sweet) 0.40 0.80 1.15 1.0

Maize(grain) 0.40 0.75 1.15 0.70

Melon 0.45 0.75 1.0 0.75

Onion(green) 0.50 0.70 1.0 1.0

Onion(dry) 0.50 0.75 1.05 0.85

Pea(fresh) 0.45 0.80 1.15 1.05

Pepper 0.35 0.75 1.05 0.90

Potato 0.45 0.75 1.15 0.75

Spinach 0.45 0.60 1.0 0.90

Squash 0.45 0.70 0.90 0.75

Sorghum 0.35 0.75 1.10 0.65

Sugar beet 0.45 0.80 1.15 0.80

Sugar cane 0.45 0.85 1.15 0.65

Sunflower 0.35 0.75 1.15 0.55

Tomato 0.45 0.75 1.15 0.80

Crop Young MatureBanana 0.50 1.10

Citrus 0.30 0.65

Apple,cherry,walnut 0.45 0.85

Almond,apricot,pear,peach,pecan,plum 0.40 0.75

Grape,palmtree 0.70 0.70

Kiwi 0.90 0.90

Olive 0.55 0.55

Alfalfa 0.35 1.1


34

6.1 Productive use of water for crop and livestock

With increasing population, change in diets and climatechange, the challenge of shrinking freshwater resourceswill persist. By 2030 Ethiopia will be one of the countriesin the world where physical water scarcity dominates.Obviously, with agriculture (combined crop and livestock)withdrawing thebulkof freshwater, targeting thepracticesof efficient use of fresh water would benefit agricultureand other sectors competing for the same water resources.This saving could be lowerwhenwe target single commod-ities (e.g. crop or livestock). In Ethiopia, livestock andcrops are highly integrated (at least formajor highland andmid-highland areas (Haileslassie et al., 2015). A significantproportion of crop residues are used for animal feed andmanureinputsintothecropsystem,whichenhancesnutrientrecycling. With expansion of irrigation into the pastoralsystem, there is increasingly high-level complementarity.In view of these arguments, in this module, wepresent efficient use of water in crop-livestocksystems to show complementarities and system-level productive use of water at the landscape level.Rockström andBarron (2007) suggested that the challengesto improve water productivity (WP) of crops in rainfedsystems are: i) to increase plantwater uptake capacity; andii) to increase plant water availability. However, in effortsto improve mixed-crop livestock systems WP, this is onlyonepart of the equation. Integrating livestock into farmingsystemwatermanagement strategies and following awaterproductive livestock management practice is importantfor maximizing WP (Peden et al., (2007); Descheemaekeret al., (2010); Haileslassie et al., (2009)). According to theseauthors: i) following a feed sourcing and feeding regimethat can positively impact the livestock feed demand-supply side and that can regulate the contact betweenlivestock and the environment ii) improving theWP of thefeed and; iii) improving the productivity of livestock, arean important trajectory to improve the WP of a system.The following sections give details of these interventions.

6.1.1. Improving water productivity of crop and feed

a) Increasing plant water availability: increasing wateravailabilityisthefirststepinefficientuseofwater.Techniquesforincreasingplantwateravailabilityinvolvessoilandwaterconservationandwaterharvestingandimproveddrainage(pleaseseetheprevioussectiononin-situandex-situwaterharvestingtechniques).Thesepracticesimproveplantwateravailabilitythroughreducingrunoff,increasinginfiltration,anddistributingwateracrossspaceandtime(Alemayehuetal.,2008;Erkossaetal.,2020).Particularly,improveddrainagecreatesopportunitiesforproductiveusesofexcesswaterandreducesstress(duetowaterloggedconditionsandlimitationonoxygenavailability)andthusenhancesvigorousplantgrowthandassociatedwateruptake.ManyEthiopiansmallholdershavebenefitedfromtheBroadBedMaker(BBM)technologies.

ILRI’sandIWMIexperienceinsemi-aridpartsofEthiopiashowthatintegratingex-situwaterharvestingandproductivelivestockbreedsprovidefarmerswithaprolongedgreenfoddersupplyfortheirlivestock(Figure31).Thisinvolves,plantingmultiple-cut,highqualityforagespecies.Overtimethisinterventionhasincreasedfarmers’incomesandland-waterproductivityvaluemanifold.Lessonscanthusbelearntfrompreviouseffortstoenhanceperformanceandadoptionofrainwaterharvestingtechnologies.

b) Enhancing plant water uptake: Plantwateruptakecapacitycan,toalargeextent,beimprovedthroughcropandsoilmanagement(RockströmandBarron,2007).Thetargetistooptimizedepthanddensityofrootsanddevelopmentofcanopytoincreasetheproportionofwaterflowingasproductivetranspi-ration.Inthisregard,forfoodcrops,numerous

Module - 6: Productive use of water 2

2 Extracted from Haileslassie et al., (20015).

35

Figure 31: Targeting and integrating interventions and engaging the community in managing landscapes (Photo credit: Amare Haileslassie).

agronomicpracticesarefeasible:improvedtillage,croprotations,cropchoice,intercropping,weedsandpestmanagement,plantbreedingandgeneticdevelopment(comparetheintegratedandoptimi-zationapproachhighlightedearlier).Thepointhereiswhetherfarmersinyourfarmingsystemshaveadoptedsuchpracticesandhowfarthesepracticeswouldberelevanttofoddercropsandgrazinglandsinrainfedsmallholdersystems.Thereareseveralanimalfeedmanagementtechnologiesthataretestedandproventoaffectplantwateruptakecapacity.Theseinclude:

i) Improving species diversity and composition: Differentplantspeciesvaryintheirverticalandhorizontalleavesandrootstructures.Plantsonspeciesdiversegrazinglandsandcroplandshavedifferentwaterdepletionzonesandthuslesscompetitionforwater.Thus,grazinglandmanagementactivitiesthatinvolvefrequency,seasonality,andselectivityofgrazingaffectspeciesdiversityandtherebyplantwateruptakecapacity.

ii) Grazing land management: From three years of on-farmexperiments,inthecentralhighlandsofEthiopia(Ginchi,closertoJeldu),Mewandraetal.,(1997)showedthatgrazingintensityiskeyinaffectingplantspeciescompositionandbiomass.Thissamestudyfurtherelaboratedthatmediumgrazedplotsdisplayedabetterplantcompositionandproductivity.However,community-managedgrazinglandinEthiopiadoesnotseemtofollowtheseprinciples,andmechanismsfordealingwiththisascommonpoolresourcesislacking.

3 Metabolizable Energy (ME) is the net energy remaining after fecal and urinary energy loss, and represents the energy available for growth or reproduction and for supporting metabolic processes such as work (locomotion) and respiration (thermoregulation, maintenance metabolism, HIF)

Other relevant questions include whether animal speciesdiversity,whichincreasestheprobabilityofselectivefeedingondifferentplantspecies,could increasetheoverallgrazinglandandwaterproductivity.Anumberofmechanismshavebeen proposed to explain observations of enhanced DryMatter(DM)productivityunderdiverseplantspecies:diversespecies could be complementary in resources uptake (e.g.water)eitherinspaceorintime.Theyalsohaveahigherproba-bility of containingmore competitive andhighly productivespecies and thus would enhance community biomass.

Desheemeaker et al., (2010) has indicated that grazing landenclosures significantly improved the biomass yield andthereforethelivestockwaterproductivity.Butsuchpracticesmayincreasespeciesrichnesstoacertainlevelandenclosedgrazing lands may experience decline in species diversitywith age.Thismay question the long-term sustainability ofsuchpracticesonsystemWPingeneralandLivestockwaterproductivity(LWP)inparticular.

iii) Productive and more nutritive species: If the target ofincreasingplantwateruptakeistoimproveLWP,speciesselection(fordiversity)mustconsidertheirproductivityandfeedvaluesascriterion.InthisregardHaileslassieetal.(2011)suggestedthatMetabolizableEnergy(ME)3 denser feed sourcingcansaveasignificantvolumeofwater.

In the past decades considerable efforts have beenmade toimproveDM yields and quality of forage species of grazinglands in Ethiopia: by testing the adaptability of differentspecies of pasture and fodder crops under varying environ-mentalconditions.Asaresult,manyusefulspecieshavebeenselected for the different altitudinal belts and production


36

systems in Ethiopia (Lulseged et al., 1985). In additionto the feed quality traits, these forage species could bemulti-cutand thegrowingperiod is longer,and thiscreatesopportunities for betterwater uptake and thus converts theevaporative green water losses to productive transpiration.Amongtheselectedgrassspecies,Rodesgrass(Chlorisgayana)Guineagrass (Panicummaximum)andNapiergrass (Penni-setum purpureum) are highly productive, their annual DMyieldsrangingbetween10and15Mgha-1.Moreover,insuitableareas,yieldsofoat-vetchmixturesarecommonlymorethan8Mg ha-1 and that of fodder beet ranged from 15-20 Mg ha-1 (Lulsegedetal.,1985).AlthoughwedonothaveactualfiguresonDMyieldsofoat,intheteffsystemofJeldu,weobserveda poor crop performance. Focusing on those high yieldingvarietiescanreducecompetitionforspacewiththefoodcrops.

Among the selected forage legumes, spurred butterfly pea(Centrosema virginianum) and cowpeas (Vigna unguic-ulata) have been identified as potential species for cutand carry systems of feeding. These are good to planton farm boundaries and also on physical conservationstructures. Species recommended for under-sowing inperennial cash crops (e.g. coffee) or cereals (e.g.maize andsorghum) are Desmondium (Desmodium intortum, andDesmodium uncinatum) and Rhodes grass (Lazier, 1987).

In addition to the grasses and legumes, useful browsespecies including pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan), glricidia(Glricidia sepium) and, sesbania (Sesbainia susba) andleucena (Leucena leucocephala), have also been selectedfor the purpose of hedge planting (Lazier, 1987; Lulseged,et al., 1985). In one of the study areas, Descheemakeret al., (2010) illustrated an improvement in LWP as aresult of on farm integration of shrubs like pigeon pea.

iv) Soil fertility management:Thisisanimportantinterventionbeitoncroplandorgrazingland.Soilfertilitymanagementincludesphysical,chemicalandbiologicalmanagement.Itisarequirementtohaveavigorousplantgrowthandthusbetterwateruptake.Inmanyfarmingsystemssoilacidity,alkalinityandnutrientdepletionareuniversalissue.

While fertilizer trials are common for crop land, its appli-cationandresearchongrazinglandisrarelyobserved.Amajorargumentiswhetherfertilizerongrazinglandwouldpayoffundercurrentlevelsofanimalproductivity.ThereispromisingresultsoneffectsofstagesofharvestingandapplicationofNfertilizeronDMyieldofnaturalpastureinFogera.FertilizerapplicationincreasedtheDMyieldby36%andCPby11.89%.Inthisrespect,therelationbetweennutrientsupplyandwateruptake are related. For example under low-nutrient condi-tions,pearlmilletevapotranspirationefficienciesareroughlyone-third of those obtained under higher nutrient input,suggesting that transpiration efficiency is also reduced byenvironmentalstressincludingpoorsoilfertilityandacidity.

Mewandraetal.,(1997)suggestedthatapplicationofmanure

improvedtheDMyield.ButinmanyareasofEthiopia,thereis strong competition for manure (for household energy).However, as part of plant diversity enrichment, oppor-tunity for silvo-pastoral interventions can be explored.Research evidence suggests that integration of legume and cereal fodder crops will have multiple effects: it improvesthe feed quality (e.g. CP) and also increases the DM yieldsthrough improved nutrient inputs and better water uptake.

6.1.2. Improving feeding and feed sourcing regimes Improvedfeedmanagementinvolvesthefollowingkeyaspects:

i) Improving feed quality and practicing supplementary feeding:ForimprovedLWP,bothquantityandqualityoflivestockfeedisimportant.Suchactivitiesmayinvolveselection,intercropping,chemicaltreatmentandchoppingofcoarseresidues.Thehigherthefeedqualitythelessisthetotaldrymatterdemandbylivestock(e.g.Haileslassieetal.,2011)andbyimplicationthisreducesthecompetitionforspaceandwater.Forexample,Haileslassieetal.,(2011)illustratedthatbyimprovingfeedquality(from7to8.5MJkg-1)asmuch120m-3ofwatercow-1yr-1canbesaved.Assuming1.09kgm-3grainWP(e.g.inrice-basedsystem(Descheemaekeretal.,2010)),feedingapoor-qualityfeedhasanopportunitycostof130kgofgrain.Descheemaekeretal.,(2010)alsoreported,forthericesysteminFogera,improvementinLWPwhencropresiduesweretreatedwithurea.

Currently,grazing landfeedquality isdeterioratingbecauseofovergrazingandflooding.Experimentsshowthatthroughenclosureandmanagedgrazing lands,DMproductivityandspecies diversity can be improved. Except during the wetseason of active growth, pasture plants are of low nutritivevalue. Production gains made during pasture growth aretotallyorpartiallylostduringthedryseasonasfeedsuppliesand quality declines. This will obviously affect the value ofLWP.Thus, inadditiontophysicalandchemical treatments,propertimingofharvestingandfeedstoragewillcontributeto maintaining the quality of feed in all study systems.

NormallyCrudeProtein(CP)contentoflessthan90g/kgDMofdietswillresultinreducedrumen’smicrobialactivitywhichleadstoareductionindegradationofcellwallsandloweredfeedintake.MostoftheEthiopiandryforagescanonlygiveabout62.09gCPkg-1DMofdiet,whichisfarbelowtherequirement.Thus, when dry forages are used without supplements, themicrobial requirements are rarely met. However, there isa potential for supplementing low quality feeds by locallyavailable protein-rich forage legumes (e.g. compare speciesdiversification of grazing land and intercropping proposed)andagro-industrialby-products.Thiswillimprovethedigest-

37

ibilityandassociatedDMintakeandthushelpstheanimaltoperformtoitsgeneticpotentialandtherewithincreasesLWP.

ii) Limiting animal movement: Limiting animal movementhelpstoreducetheamountofenergylivestockrequireandthusthetotalDMintake.Thisinturn,reducesthewaterinvestmentinlivestockfeedandthusincreasesLWP.Inthericesystem,Descheemaekeretal.,(2010)andHaileslassieetal.,(2010)reported~12%oftheMetabolizableEnergy(ME)consumedbylivestockareusedforwalkinginsearchoffeedandwater.IfweassumetheaverageMEdensityoffeedresources(teff8,sorghum7.4,chickpea,6.6,maize6.8MJkg-1(Descheemaekeretal.,2010)),theenergyneededforwalkingisequivalentto1kgDM.TakingafeedWPof0.89kgm-3andalivestockholdingof3.2TropicalLivestockUnits(TLU)perhouseholdintoaccount,thewaterinvestedinwalkingwouldbe1230m3perhouseholdperyearorequivalenttoanopportunitycostof1340kgofgrain.Thescenariocanbeevenmorewatersavinginthehighlandareasastheterrainissteeperandtheclimateiscoolerandcropwaterproductivity(CWP)couldbehigher,ifthesoilisnotalimitingfactor.Althoughthepracticeofcutandcarrysystemhelpstoimplementtheconceptoflimitinganimalmovement,ithasatradeoff(e.g.laborrequirement).

4 TLUisreferenceunitwhichfacilitatestheaggregationoflivestockfromvariousspeciesandageasperconvention,viatheuseofspecificcoefficientsestablishedinitiallyonthebasisofthenutritionalorfeedrequirementofeachtypeofanimal.1TLUisequivalentto250kgofliveweightofanimal

iii) Quality drinking water supply: Waterisanimportantbutoftenoverlookednutrientforlivestock.Inallstudysystems,livestockmustmovelongdistancestoreachdrinkingwaterandinmostcasesthedistributionisunsystematicandnotsynchronizedwithfeedavaila-bility.Inadditiontothenegativeinfluencesonanimalproductivity,suchcircumstancesincreasedailyMEdemandofthelivestockandthusreduceLWP.Forexample,acowweighing250kgandwalking5kmona5%slopemayneed3MJMEd1whichisequivalentto0.5kgfeedor0.5m-3ofwaterperday.Intermsofthecurrentlivestockholdingperhousehold,thisisasignif-icantvolumewhichcouldbeusedforotherlivelihoodorecosystemservices.Inviewofthis,drinkingwatersupplies(e.g.communitypondscompareex-situwaterharvesting)couldhavemultiplebeneficialeffects:increasing assimilation of ingested feed and reducing overallfeeddemand(Descheemaekeretal.,2011)).

In addition to the demand side, feed supply managementthrough enhancing virtual water transfer and optimumfeedingareimportantfeedmanagementstrategiestoimproveLWPinlandscapes.


38

Module 7: Socio-economic considerations

7.1. Governance of natural resources at landscape scale

Governance,fromanaturalresourceperspective,referstothenorms,institutionsandprocessesthatdeterminehowpowerand responsibilities over natural resources are exercised(Clementetal.,2011).Itisabouthowmen,women,indigenouspeople,andlocalcommunitiesparticipateindecisionmakingandbenefitfromnaturalresourcesmanagement(NRM).Rulesandnormscouldbebothformalandinformal.Unwrittensocialnorms,customsortraditionsthatshapethoughtandbehavioris referred to as informal rules and norms. Written constitu-tions,laws,policies,rights,andregulationsandformalrulesandnorms.Thesearenormallyenforcedbyofficialauthorities.

In many instances, formal and informal rules and normscan be complementary, competing or overlapping. Undermany circumstance development practitioners tend toprioritize formal institutions, viewing informal ones asseparate and often detrimental to development outcomes.Whether they are relatively strong/weak or inclusive/discriminatoryislikelytodependoncontext.Insomecases,informal institutionsundermine formalones; inothers theysubstitute for them. Informal social norms often shape thedesign and implementation of formal state institutions.

In the context to Ethiopia the major challengesrelated to governance of NRM at landscape scale arerelated to common property resources (CPR). LocalCPR include grazing lands, threshing grounds, landstemporarily taken out of cultivation, inland fisheries,irrigation systems, woodlands, forests, tanks, ponds etc.

Theneed forgreater levelsof integration, coordination,andattention tomulti-scalar (spatial and temporal) phenomenaare among the characteristics of environmental and natural resourcepolicy regimes thatnecessitate thedevelopment ofnew governance arrangements. Some of the principles thatneed to be considered in good governance of NRM involve:

� Refers to the validity of an organization’s authority togovern.

� Transparency refers to: (i) the visibility of decision-making processes; (ii) the clarity with which thereasoning behind decisions is communicated; and (iii)the ready availability of relevant information about governanceandperformanceinanorganization.

� Accountabilityreferstotheallocationandacceptanceof

responsibilityfordecisionsandactions;andthedemon-strationofwhetherandhowtheseresponsibilitieshavebeen met.

� Inclusivenessreferstoopportunitiesavailableforstake-holderstoparticipateinandinfluencedecision-makingprocessesandactions.

� Fairness refers to (i) the respect and attention givento stakeholders’ views; (ii) consistency and absence ofpersonal bias in decisionmaking; and (iii) the consid-eration given to distribution of costs and benefits ofdecisions.

� Integration refers to (i) the connection between, andcoordination across, different governance levels; (ii)the connection between, and coordination across,organizationsat thesame levelofgovernance;and (iii)the alignment of priorities, plans and activities acrossgovernanceorganizations.

� Capabilityreferstothesystems,plans,resources,skills,leadership, knowledge and experiences that enableorganizations,andthe individualswhodirect,manageandworkforthem,toeffectivelydeliverontheirrespon-sibilities

� Adaptability refers to: (i) the incorporation of newknowledge and learning into decision-making andimplementation; (ii) anticipation and management ofthreats, opportunities, and associated risks; and (iii)systematicreflectiononindividual,organizationalandsystemperformance

InthecontexttolandscapesthereareagreatdealofCPRsthatdirectlyandindirectlyrelatestoproductiveuseofwater.Thisinvolvesforexamplewaterresourcesandirrigationschemesmanagement.Sincedetailisprovidedincoursenumberoneonnaturalresourcesgovernance,thissectionwillrefertoirrigationschemeandwateruserassociationinthecontexttoEthiopia.

7.2. Governance – Irrigation Water User Association (IWUA) focused

Irrigationhasincreasinglybecomeanimportantcomponentof agricultural system in Ethiopian agricultural landscapes.Bothformalandinformalnormsandinstitutionsexistinthisregard. In terms of formal institutions, the IWUA procla-mationcreatesaspecific legalbasisfortheestablishmentof

5 ThisisextractedandshortenedfromLempériereetal.,(2014).Moredetailcanbeaccessedonhttp://www.iwmi.cgiar.org

39

IrrigationWaterUsers’Associations(IWUAs)asalegalentityfor operation and management of irrigation and drainagesystems. The pre-existing legal framework in Ethiopia (i.e.cooperatives and associations proclamations) does notprovide an appropriate legal basis for IWUA establishment.

The mandate of IWUAs is the provision of irrigation water to its members for agricultural purposes. It has a publicinterestnaturebecause(1)IWUAsprovideirrigationwatertoa largenumberofpeople–communities - and (2) theyveryoftenuse public irrigation infrastructure, i.e. infrastructurebuilt with public money and owned by the government.

Public law is the body of legal rules that regulates the conduct of state bodies including central and local government as well as bodies that undertake specific public functions suchas public agencies, universities, hospitals, etc. based onspecific laws. Therefore, IWUAs are situated between the public and the private sector. They are self-governing, setting their own tariffs and making their own decisions as well as their operating rules. In accordance with their mandate, the tasks of IWUAs are strictly limited to management, operation and maintenance of an irrigation and drainage system and watershed management / protection. IWUAsare not permitted to undertake any other activities suchas the procurement of agricultural inputs or marketing ofthe commodities produced within the irrigation systemtheymanage.Suchactivitiesareofaprivatenature.It isupto each farmer to decide how to procure inputs or marketcrops.Thismay be done individually or collectively througha marketing cooperative (or more than one cooperative, ifneeded).Thesupplyof irrigationwater isdifferent:onlyoneIWUA can operate within an individual irrigation system.WaterisprovidedbytheIWUAandnootherbodyoragency.

IWUAs operate within a precisely delimited service area. It shallcompriseadistincthydraulicunitsuchasthecommandarea of an irrigation system, part of the command area(secondary or tertiary unit) of a large irrigation scheme orpartofawatershed.InmostcasestheserviceareawillbethecommandareaoftheirrigationsystemthatanIWUAoperatesandpossibly thewatershedupstreamof thecommandarea.

Compulsory IWUA membership: Every person who, on the basis of a land right, uses land located within the service area of an IWUA is a member of the IWUA.Compulsorymembershipis essential to ensure IWUA sustainability. With surfaceirrigation it is difficult in practice to prevent non-membersfrom“free-riding”orbenefitingfromirrigationwater(andevenmore so fromdrainage orwatershedmanagement services)withoutpaying.Compulsorymembershipisamajordifferencebetween IWUAs and cooperatives or ordinary associations.

Membership is permanently linked to the land plots located within the Service Area of an IWUA. In other words, themembership obligation is not personal to the land holderor user as such; it is linked to the land which he/she uses.

IWUAs are non-profit organizations: In many aspects, IWUAs are service providers; they provide irrigation water to their members who pay for this service (irrigationservice fee). For economic sustainability, it is essentialand compulsory by law that each IWUA carries a financialsurplus to build up a reserve fund to cover emergencyrepairs, replacement costs etc.Tobe clearon thenon-profitnature of IWUAs, the Proclamation prohibits the distri-bution to members of any surplus income accruing to theIWUA; all surplus income must be paid into the reservefund for uses limited to the irrigation and drainage systems.

7.3. Relations of IWUAs with other stakeholders

7.3.1. IWUAs supervising bodyTheStatehas the right (and theduty) toensure that IWUAsoperate lawfully and correctly in the public interest. Tothis end, the Proclamation requires each Regional State toestablishanIWUASupervisingBody.Theregionalsupervisingbodies are tasked to be the entities in charge of irrigation.The supervising bodies will undertake two categories ofactivities: (1) extension activities and (2) legal and financialsupervision. Certain extension activities may be delegatedto other public or private entities or persons including:

� ProvidingtrainingandawarenesscreationinconnectionwiththeestablishmentofIWUAs.

� Providing technical assistance and support to IWUAsincluding that related to water management, mainte-nance,financialmanagementandgenderissues.

7.3.2. Relation of IWUAs with the local governmentLocalgovernments(kebeleorworedaadministration)haveanimportantroleinsupportingtheestablishmentandoperationof IWUAs. For instance, the local government can assist anIWUA in sanctioning wrongdoers, recovering outstandingpayments of the irrigation service fee, or preventingunauthorizedencroachmentontheirrigationinfrastructure.However, those actions are limited to support provided onthe request of theManagement Committee of an IWUA. Itis very important that local government does not becomeintimately involved in the functioning of IWUAs and thatit does not try to interfere or influence decision-making toprotect the non-political nature of irrigation and drainage.

7.3.3. Transfer in use of irrigation infrastructures to IWUAsIn Ethiopia, like many other countries, the main justi-fication of the transfer of irrigation infrastructure tousers is to limit government budget expenditure and toinstitutionalize irrigation cost recovery by water users.It is also generally expected that transfer of irrigationmanagement will contribute to improving the performance


40

and increasing the sustainability of irrigation systems. However, international experience has shown a numberof constraints to achieving the ideals; Ethiopia is not anexception.Thetransferapproachdoesnotapplytotraditionalirrigation schemes entirely built and managed by farmers.

7.4. Roles and responsibilities of IWUAs

7.4.1. Tasks of IWUAsThe IWUA tasks are all related to operation and mainte-nance of the irrigation and drainage system located within its service area. IWUAs cannot engage in any otheractivity such as marketing products or the provision ofagricultural inputs. Roles and related tasks of IWUAscan be sorted into three categories: (1) governance,(2) operation and maintenance, and (3) management:1. Governance(orsocialmanagement):Thisrolerelatesto

theroleandresponsibilitiesoftheGeneralAssembly:electionofmembersofgoverningbodies,approvalofbudgets,actionplanning,andpreparingannualreports,andadoptionandamendmentofregulationsthatgoverndaytodayactivitiesofanIWUA.Examples

ofoperationalrulesincluderulesrelatedtowaterdistribution,maintenanceofirrigationinfrastructures,typeandlevelofsanctionsforviolationoftherules,anddefaultsofpaymentoftheirrigationservicefee.

2. Operationandmaintenance(O&M):Thisroleincludeallactivitiesthatdealwithplanning,imple-mentationandmonitoringofwaterdistributionandmaintenanceworks,controllingsoilerosionandsoilfertility,andtrainingIWUAmembersinirrigationtechniquesand/orwatersavingmethods.

3. Management relates to the administration of theIWUAandthefinancialmanagement.

Confusion between governance and management activitiesmustbeavoided.Forinstance,theIWUAbudgetisapprovedby the General Assembly (governance) and then imple-mented by the Management Committee (management). Anextensive listof IWUAactivities is found in the tablebelow.

ThemainmanagementtoolsofIWUAstoplan,implementandmonitor their activities are (1)maintenance plans, (2)waterdistributionplanand(3)budgets.Otherfactorsthatneedtobe considered when establishing IWUAs include sources ofrevenue, operating principles, gender aspects and inclusionof women, as well as by-laws and internal regulations.

41

Table 4: List of IWUAs activities

Category Activities

Governance (or social management)

1SetuptheobjectivesoftheIWUAtakingintoaccountmembersneedsandinterests2FormulatestrategiestoreachtheIWUA’s.objectives3 Set and/or modify internal regulations4AmendIWUAby-laws5 Elect the members of the General Assembly and the governing bodies6Approveannual/seasonalactionplanandcorrespondingbudget7Approveannual/seasonalfinancialandactivitiesreport8InternalauditoftheIWUAfinance9SolveconflictsbetweentheIWUAandit’smembers10ArbitrateconflictsamongIWUAmembers11Approvecontractswithexternalserviceproviders12ApprovechangeoftheIWUAservicearea13ApprovethereorganizationordissolutionoftheIWUA

Operation & maintenance

14Regularinspectionsofirrigationinfrastructuresandequipment(i.e.pumps)15Preparetheannual/seasonalactionplanformaintenanceofinfrastructuresandequipments16Makesurethatbuildingmaterialandsparepartsformaintenanceactivitiesareavailable17Carryoutroutine,seasonalandemergencymaintenanceworks18 Monitor maintenance activities19Ifneedbe,monitormodernizationorrehabilitationworksandreplacementofwornoutequipment20Prepareanannual/seasonalplanforwaterdistribution21Monitortheimplementationoftheannual/seasonalwaterdistributionplan22Measureandmonitorirrigationwateruse23Prepareannual/seasonalactctivitiesreport24AdoptanduseindicatorsformonitoringO&M2SIdentifyandmitigatetheriskofdamagett:oirrigationinfrastructuresandequipment26Identifyandmitigatetheriskofsoilerosion,soilsalinity27Trainmemberinirrigationtechniques

Management 28EnforceIWUAby-lawsandoperationalrules29Prepareannual/seasonalbudgetincludingtheamountoftheirrigationfee30Bookkeeping(accounting)31Makeregularinventoryandmanagestocksofbuildingmaterials,machineryandspareparts,fuel32Recoverirrigationfeesandapplysanctionfornonorlatepayment33Prepareannual/seasonalfinancialreports34Hire,superviseandpayIIWUAemployees3SPassandmonitorcontractswithexternalserviceproviders36ImplementcommunicationprocedureswithintheIWUA37KeepIWUAarchives38 Any other activites assigned by the Genral Assembly or the Management Committee


42

8. Summary

Increasingpopulationandclimatechangeareputtingpressureon scarce freshwater resources.Predictions show thatmanyAfricancountrieswillbeundereconomicandphysicalwaterscarcityby2030.Productiveuseofwaterandlandisadvocatedtobuildaresilientlandscape.Productiveuseofwaterisaprocesswhich combines different steps of adaptive management.

The different modules in the course are organized system-atically and in logical order to enable cross-fertilization ofides across the modules. One of the major challenges for practitioners are the number of concepts, approaches andassociated scientific jargon that have emerged over time.The conceptual understanding of agricultural landscapes,systems, and watersheds, which is the starting point forthis manual, is an important foundation for the trainingprocess. It helps to linkday-to-day activities of the traineesto science and brings the class to the same level of under-standing and makes the teaching learning process simpler.

Approaches to water productive and resilient landscape arediverse and can be very complicated. In many cases, theyare context specific and choosing approaches relevant tothe context of the trainee and relevant forwater productivelandscapes is an important step in the training. Thus, thistraining manual focuses on approaches that complementeach other where water is a production input (e.g. system/livelihood) and appears as an interface and medium ofmaterial flows between landscapes (rainfed, irrigationcontinuum) components (upstream, downstream, upper

slope,mid-slope and valley bottom) and keep the landscapecomponents connected. It could also be these approachesthat facilitate landscape connectivity (e.g. value chain).

Planning and developing landscapes are a complex processbecause of the diversity of landscapes (both socially andbio-physically).This emerges from the heterogenous natureof the resource endowments and the livelihood expectationof thepeople ina landscape.Thus, anunderstandingof thelandscape intensificationpathway is required. In viewof itsheterogeneitytherecouldbediversepathways,forbetteroff,medium,andpoorfarmers,orforupstreamanddownstreamfarmers who have different access to water. These devel-opment pathway clusters are closely linked to technologyoptions. Governance is cross-cutting and influences (policywise)thedevelopmentpathwaysandtechnologyoptions.Thisiswhere inclusivenessand transparency indecisionmakingandbenefitsfromcollectivewatermanagementareensured.

Acriticalpoint tokeep inmind is that this trainingmanualandthecourseitsupportscannotsolveeveryproblemrelatedto landscapewater productivity and resilience. It is just thebeginningofthelongandrecurringjourney.Itseffectivenessdepends not only on how we design and offer the trainingbut also on follow-up (particularly coaching andmentoringof the practical applications), monitoring of impacts anduseofdocumentedevidencetoshapefuturedirections.Thiswill enable evidence-based decision making and adaptivelearning for sustainable management of landscapes.

43

References

Alemayehu,M.,Peden,D.,Taddese,G.,HaileselassieA.,Ayalneh,W.(2008).Livestockwaterproductivityinrelation to natural resource management in mixed crop-livestockproductionsystemsoftheBlueNileRiverBasin,Ethiopia.In:Humphreys,E.,Bayot,R.S.,vanBrakel,M.,Gichuki,F.,Svendsen,M.,White,D.,Wester,P.,Huber-Lee,A.,Cook,S.,Douthwaite,B.,Hoanh,C.T.,Johnson,N.,Nguyen-Khoa,S.,Vidal,A.,MacIntyre,I.,andMacIntyre,R.(Editors)2008.FightingPovertythroughSustainableWaterUse:Volumes II. Proceedings of the CGIAR Challenge ProgramonWaterandFood,2ndInternationalForumonWaterandFood,AddisAbaba,Ethiopia,November10-14,2008.TheCGIARChallengeProgramonWaterandFood,Colombo.297pp.Balint,P.J.,Stewart,R.E.,Desai,A.&Walter,L.C.,2011.WickedEnvironmentalProblems:ManagingUncertaintyandConflict.IslandPress,WashingtonD.C.

Anthony,Y1997.Agroforestryforsoilmanagement.Cabi-PublishingNewYork,USA.

AybikeAyferKaradağ(2003)AdvancesinLandscapeArchitecture-UseofWatershedsBound-ariesintheLandscapePlanning,http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0.

Clement,F.,Haileslassie,A.,Ishaq,S.,Blümmel,M.,M.V.RMurty,Samad,M.,DeySanjiib,D.andM.A.Khan(2011).Enhancingwaterproductivityforpovertyalleviation:roleofcapitalsandinstitutionsintheGangabasin.ExplAgric47.133–151.

Descheemaeker,K.,Haileslassie,A.,Amede,T.,Bossio,D.andTarawali,T.(2010).Assessmentofwaterproductivityandentrypointsforimprovementinmixedcrop-livestocksystemsoftheEthiopianhighlands.AdvancesinAnimalBiosciences,1,pp491-492doi:10.1017/S204047001000110X.

Descheemaeker,K.,Bossio,D.,Amede,T.,Ayalneh,W.,Haileslassie,A.,MapedzaE.,(2011).AnalysisofgapsandpossibleinterventionsforimprovingwaterproductivityincroplivestocksystemsofEthiopia.ExplAgricvolume47:21–38.

Eberhardt,U.,Springgay,E.,Gutierrez,V.,Casal-las-Ramirez,S.andCohen,R.2019.Advancingtheforestandwaternexus:Acapacitydevel-opmentfacilitationguide.Rome,FAO.

Erkossa,T.,Haileslassie,A.,&MacAlister,C.(2014).EnhancingfarmingsystemwaterproductivitythroughalternativelanduseandwatermanagementinvertisolareasofEthiopianBlueNileBasin(Abay).

AgriculturalWaterManagement,132,120–128.Erkossa,T.,Geleti,D.,Williams,T.,Laekemariam,

F.,&Haileslassie,A.(2020).RestorationofgrazinglandtoincreasebiomassproductionandimprovesoilpropertiesintheBlueNilebasin:EffectsofinfiltrationtrenchesandChlorisGayanareseeding.RenewableAgricultureandFoodSystems,1-9.doi:10.1017/S1742170519000425.

Falkenmark,M.,Wang-Erlandsson,L.,&Rockström,J.,2020.UnderstandingofwaterresilienceintheAnthropocene.JournalofHydrology.X(2).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydroa.2018.100009.

Freeman,O.E.,Duguma,L.A.&Minag,P.A.,2015.Operationalizingtheintegratedlandscapeapproachinpractice.EcologyandSociety(20(1):24.

GebremedhinB.;TesfamichaelG.;KristineM.;WalraevensK.2016.Overviewofmicro-damreservoirs(MDR)inTigray(northernEthiopia):Challengesandbenefits.JournalofAfricanEarthSciences123:210–222.

Granit,J,LissLymer,B.,Olsen,S.B.,Tengberg,A.,Nõmmann,S.,&Clausen,T.J.,2017:Aconceptualframeworkforgoverningandmanagingkeyflowsinasource-to-seaContinuum.WaterPolicy,00(2017)1–19.doi:10.2166/wp.2017.126.

Haileslassie,A.,Priess,J.,Veldkamp,E.,Teketay,D.andLesschen,J.P.,(2005).Assessmentofsoilnutrientdepletionanditsspatialvariabilityonsmall-holders’mixedfarmingsystemsinEthiopiausingpartialversusfullnutrientbalances.Agriculture,EcosystemsandEnvironment.108(1),1-16.

Haileslassie,AandCraufurd,P(2012)ChallengesinthedrylandagriculturalproductionsystemsofsouthAsia:researchprioritiesandstrategies.AnnalsofAridZone,51(3&4).pp.1-8.

Haileslassie,Amare&Duncan,Alan&Peden,Don.(2015).Strategiestointegratelivestockintoagriculturalrainwatermanagement:anexamplefrommixedcroplivestocksystemsintheBlueNileBasin.10.13140/RG.2.1.2304.5841.

HaileslassieA.,BlümmelM.,MurthyM.V.R.,SamadM.,ClementF.,AnandanS.,SreedharN.A.RadhaA.V.andIshaq,S.(2011).Assessmentoflivestockfeedandwaternexusacrossmixedcroplivestocksystem’sintensificationgradient:anexamplefromtheIndo‐GanagaBasin.ExplAgric.47:113–132.

Haileslassie,A.,Descheemaeker,K.Blummel,M.,Craufurd,P.,ErganoK.,(2013a)EntryPointstoImproveLivestockWaterProductivityin


44

SelectedForageBasedLivestockSystems.Inter-nationalGrassLandcongress,Sydney2013.

Haileslassie,A.,Blümmel,M.,Wani,S.P.,Sahrawat,K.L.,Pardhasaradhi,G.,&Samireddypalle,A.(2013b).Extractablesoilnutrienteffectsonfeedqualitytraitsofcropresiduesinthesemiaridrainfedmixedcrop–livestockfarmingsystemsofSouthernIndia.Environment,Devel-opmentandSustainability,15:723–741.

Haileslassie,A.,Peden,D.,Gebreselassie,S.,Amede,T.,Descheemaeker,D,(2009a)Livestockwaterproductivityinmixedcrop–livestockfarmingsystemsoftheBlueNilebasin:Assessingvariabilityandprospectsforimprovement.AgriculturalsystemVolume102,Issues1-3,October2009,Pages33-40.

Haileslassie,A.,Peden,D.,Gebreselassie,S.,Amede,T.,Wagnew,A.Taddesse,G.,(2009b).LivestockwaterproductivityintheBlueNileBasin:assessmentoffarmscaleheterogeneity.TheRangelandJournal31:213-222.

Haileslassie,AandCraufurd,PandThiagarajah,RandKumar,SandWhitbread,AandRathor,AandBlummel,MandEricsson,PandKakumanu,K(2016)Empiricalevaluationofsustainabilityofdivergent farms in the dryland farming systems of India.EcologicalIndicators,60.pp.710-723.ISSN.

IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(2007)FourthAssessmentReport:ClimateChange2007,GlossaryofSynthesisReport,http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_appendix.pdf.

Lempériere,P.;Hagos,F.;Lefore,N.;Haileslassie,A.;Langan,S.2014.Establishingandstrength-eningirrigationwaterusersassociations(IWUAs)inEthiopia:amanualfortrainers.Colombo,SriLanka:InternationalWaterManagementInstitute(IWMI).76p.doi:10.5337/2014.232.

Liao,C.,Qui,J.,Chen,B.,Chen,D.etal.2020.Advancinglandscapesustainabilityscience:theoreticalfoundationandsynergieswithinnovationsinmethodology,designandapplication.LandscapeEcol(2020),35:1-9.

LulsegedG.HiwotandTadesse,A.(1985).PastureResearchandDevelopmentinEthiopia.In:Kategile1985(ed.).PastureImprovementResearchin Eastern and Southern Africa. Proceedings of aWorkshopheldinHarare,Zimbabwe,17–21September1984.Ottawa,Ont.,IDRC,1985.508p.

Molden,D.;Oweis,T.Y.;Steduto,P.;Kijne,J.W.;Hanjara,M.A.;Bindrban,P.S.,2007.Pathwaysforincreasingagriculturalwaterproductivity.In:Waterforfood,waterforlife:Acomprehensiveassessmentofwatermanagementinagriculture,Molden,D.(ed.).London:Earthscan.pp280-310.

Muche,Habtamu&Abdela,Misba&Schmitter,Petra&Nakawuka,Prossie&Tilahun,Seifu&Steenhuis,Tammo&Langan,Simon(2017).Applicationof

DeeptillageandBerkenMareshaforhardpansitestoimproveinfiltrationandcropproductivity.

Mutyasira,V.;Hoag,D.;Pendell,D.;Manning,D.T.;Berhe,M.2018.Assessingtherelativesustainability of smallholder farming systems in Ethiopianhighlands.Agric.Syst.167:83–91.

Mwendera,E.J.,MohamedSaleemM.A.,andWoldu,Z.,(1997).VegetationresponsetocattlegrazingintheEthiopianhighlandsAgriculture,Ecosystems&Environment

Volume64(1):43-51.Peden,D.;Tadesse,G.;Misra,A.(2007).Waterand

livestockforhumandevelopment.In:WaterforFood,WaterforLife:AComprehensiveAssessmentofWaterManagementinAgriculture.London,UK:Earthscan,andColombo,SriLanka:InternationalWaterManagementInstitute.Pp.485-514.

Rockström,J.·BarronJ.(2007).Waterproduc-tivityinrainfedsystems:overviewofchallengesandanalysisofoprtunitiesinwaterscarcitypronesavannahs.IrrigSci25:299–311.

Sayer,J.A.,Margules,C.,Boedhihartono,A.K.,Dale,A.,Sunderland,T.,Supriatna,J.&Saryanthi,R.2014.LandscapeApproaches:whatarethepreconditionsforsuccess?SustainabilityScience,1862-4057.

Shalander,K.,Craufurd,P.,Haileslassie,P.,Ramilan,TRathore,A.,WhitbreadA.,2019.Farmtypologyanalysisandtechnologyassessment:AnapplicationinanaridregionofSouthAsia.Landusepolicy,8:104-149.

ShemKuyah,IngridÖborn,MattiasJonsson,ASigrunDahlin,EdmundoBarrios,CatherineMuthuri,AndersMalmer,JohnNyaga,ChristineMagaju,SaraNamirembe,YlvaNyberg&FergusLSinclair(2016)TreesinagriculturallandscapesenhanceprovisionofecosystemservicesinSub-SaharanAfrica,InternationalJournalofBiodiversityScience,EcosystemServices&Management,12:4,255-273,DOI:10.1080/21513732.2016.1214178.

ShibeshiAssefaBirhanuBiazinAlemayehuMulunehFantawYimerAmareHaileslassie(2016)RainwaterharvestingforsupplementalirrigationofonionsinthesoutherndrylandsofEthiopia,Agricul-turalWaterManagement178:325-334.

RaiM.,ReevesT.G.,PandeyS.,ColletteL.2011.SaveandGrow:APolicymaker’sGuidetoSustainableIntensificationofSmallholderCropProduction.FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,Rome,(Report).

SmithA.,SnappS.,ChikowoR.,ThorneP.,BekundaM.,Glover,J.2017.Measuringsustainableintensificationinsmallholderagroecosystems:Areview.GlobalFoodSecurity12:127-138.

Tang,Q.,SeanJ.Bennett,Xu,Y.,Li,Y.,(2013)Agriculturalpracticesandsustainableliveli-

45

hoods:RuraltransformationwithintheLoessPlateau,ChinaAppliedGeography,41:15-23.

Tey,YeongSheng&Li,Elton&Bruwer,Johan&Abdullah,Amin&Cummins,Jay&Radam,Alias&Ismail,Mohd&Darham,Suryani.(2012).RefiningtheDefinitionofSustainableAgriculture:AnInclusivePerspectivefromtheMalaysianVegetableSector.MaejoInternationalJournalofScienceandTechnology. 6. 379-396. 10.14456/mijst.2012.2.

TheMontpellierPanel.Sustainableintensification:anewparadigmforAfricanagriculture.(AgricultureforImpact,ImperialCollege,London,2013).

UnitedNationsInternationalStrategyforDisasterReduction(2005)HyogoFrameworkforAction2005–2015:BuildingtheResilienceofNationsandCommunitiestoDisasters;ExtractfromtheFinalReportoftheWorldConferenceonDisasterReduction,http://www.unisdr.org/files/1037_hyogoframeworkforactionenglish.pdf.

Walker,B.,C.S.Holling,S.R.Carpenter,andA.Kinzig.2004.AdaptabilityandTransformabilityinSocial-EcologicalSystems.EcologyandSociety9:5.

Yuan,Yongping.(2001).ModifiedSCSCurveNumberMethodforEvaluatingSubsurfaceDrainageFlow.TransactionsoftheASABE(AmericanSocietyofAgriculturalandBiologicalEngineers).

ZONNEVELD,I.S.Landecology:anintroductiontolandscapeecologyasabaseforLandEvaluation,LandManagementandConservation.Amsterdam:SPBAcademicPublishing,1995.199p.

Goal

Sub s

trateg

ies an

d key

prac

tices

Impa

ctsTra

de-off

s and

risks

Liveli

hood

capit

alEc

osyst

em se

rvice

sImprovingwater

productivityofcrops

andlivestockfeed

Soil

and

wat

er co

nser

vati

on:

integratedin-situphysicaland

biol

ogic

al so

il co

nser

vati

on m

easu

res

suchasbundsofdifferenttypes;

fanyajuu;terracing;mulching;

conservationtillage;grassstripalong

thecontour;activitiesthatenhance

waterinfiltration(e.g.frequency,

stockingdensity,timingofgrazing)

ongrazinglandsandfallowlands

�

Naturalcapital(e.g.soilconser-

vation);

�

Socialcapital(

e.g.health

sedimentfreedrinkingwater;

lessvulnerabletoerraticrain);

�

Financialcapital(e.g.benefit

from

increasedbiom

assforfeed;

increasedcropyieldandless

inorganicfertilizercost

�

More

productiveecosystem

services;

�

Conservedwaterandlandcan

be u

sed

for

othe

r ec

osys

tem

serviceslikecarbonseques -

tration;

�

Lesscompetitionbetween

system

elementsforwater(

e.g.termite)

�

Downstreamwaterflowreduced

�

Requiresmorelaborinput

�

LimitsopenaccesstoCPRand

thusthelandlesspoormaybe

affected

Wat

er h

arve

stin

g: in

clud

es e

x-si

tu

waterharvesting(e.g.underground

tanks,roofwaterharvesting;

percolationpit;farmdam

;tiedridge;

communityponds;farmponds;zai&

plantingpitsystem

;largehalfm

oons;

diversionweir;microbasinsfortree).

�

Naturalcapital(e.g.soilconser-

vation);

�

Socialcapital(

e.g.health

sedimentfreedrinkingwater;

less

vul

nera

ble

to e

rrat

ic ra

in a

nd

lesstimecosttocollectdrinking

waterforanimalandhum

an);

�

Financialcapital(e.g.benefit

from

increasedbiom

assforfeed;

increasedcropyieldandlivestock

productivityandlessinorganic

fertilizercost)

�

Longergrowingperiodand

thusmore

carbonseques

-tration;

�

Improvedregulatoryservices(

e.g.runoff;sedimentcontrol)

�

Downstream

water

flow

reduced;

�

Moremosquitoinfestation;

�

Cost

of

co

nstr

ucti

on

and

maintenanceforfarmpond

Impr

oved

dra

inag

e: th

is co

uld

be

oncroplandstousethedrained

waterforsecondcropping,or

supplementaryirrigation(e.g.

BBM;Cutoffdrains;gradedfanya

juu)anddrainageofgrazingland

onvalleybottom

.Thedrained

watercanbeusedfordrinking

watersupplyforlivestock.

�

Socialcapital(e.g.betterhealth

lessmalaria)

�

Financialcapital(e.g.better

productivityandproductionof

crop

�

Naturalcapital(productiveuseof

water)

Mayincreaseplantand

diversitythusincreaseN

fixationandpollination

�

Wetlanddrainagem

ayaffect

waterlovingspecies

Strate

gy I:

Increa

sing s

patia

l and

temp

oral p

lant w

ater a

vaila

bility

Annex 1 strategies to improve water productivity of crops and livestock

Goal

Sub s

trateg

ies an

d key

prac

tices

Impa

ctsTra

de-off

s and

risks

Liveli

hood

capit

alEc

osyst

em se

rvice

sImprovingwater

productivitylivestockfeed

Impr

ovin

g sp

ecie

s div

ersi

ty,

com

posi

tion

: man

agem

ent

offrequency,seasonalityand

selectivityofgrazing;over

sawing;enclosureofdegraded

grazinglands(alsoonCPR)

andintercroppingncropland

�

Naturalcapital(e.g.protecting

degradedlands);

�

Financialcapital(e.g.feedfrom

rehabilitatedlands)

�

Betterpollinationservices;

�

Betterplant

cover

and

thusbetterprotectiveand

productiveservice

�

Morelaborcost;

�

Lim

its

acce

ss t

o C

PR a

nd t

hus

the

land

lesspoorm

aybeaffected

�

Incurscostsofinputslikeseed

Inte

grat

ing

prod

ucti

ve a

nd

nutr

itiv

e sp

ecie

s: in

ter-

cropping;undersawingof

selectedannualandperennial

legumesoncropland,farm

boundariesandfallowlands;

controlofinvasivespecies

(e.g.grazinglands)

�

Naturalcapital(e.g.increased

nitrogenstock);

�

Financial

capital

(e.g.

feed

producedonfarmboundaries

�

Nutrientcycling;

�

Betterproductiveservices

�

Reducesw

orkabilityoffield;

�

Someinvasivespecieshasculturalvalue

andpreferredbysomelivestockgroup;

�

Mor

e la

bor c

ost

Soil

fert

ility

man

agem

ent:

efficientuseofm

anure;better

inorganicfertilizerapplication

oncropland;incorporating

legumetreesandcropsas

agro-silvo-pastureandsilvo-

pasture;limingforacidity

�

Naturalcapital(e.g.improved

nutrientstock);

�

Financialcapital(e.g.increased

cropandfeedyield)

�

Clo

se n

utri

ent

cycl

ing

and

thuslessnutrientm

ining;

�

Better

productive

and

protectiveservices(e.g.

erosioncontrol)

�

Competitionwith

household

energy

supply;

�

Morefertilizerandlim

ecosts;

�

Limitsopengrazing;

�

Iftreesnotmanagedtreecompetesfor

water

Strate

gy II:

Incre

asing

plan

t wate

r upta

ke

Goal

Sub s

trateg

ies an

d key

prac

tices

Impa

ctsTra

de-off

s and

risks

Liveli

hood

capit

alEc

osyst

em se

rvice

sImprovedfeeddemand-

supplymanagem

ent

Impr

ovin

g fe

ed q

ualit

y an

d pr

acti

cing

supp

lem

enta

ry

feed

ing:

this

incl

udes

sele

ctio

n ofhigherM

Efeed,inter

-cropping,ureatreatment,

choppingofcourseresidues;

improvedharvestingtime,

storageandsupplementary

feeding(e.g.concentratesif

available,legumesincorpo-

rationinfeed,greenfodder

from

fodderbank…)

�

Naturalcapital(e.g.saveswater

thusland);

�

Financial

capital

(e.g.

from

improvedanimalproductivity);

�

Socialcapital(e.g.betteravaila

-bilityofmilkandnutritionforthe

children;

�

Creates

opportunity

for

feed

trad

ing

�

Feedsupplemented

with

legumeshaslowerC:Nratio

and

thusallowsorganic

matterdecompositionand

fasternutrientturnover;

�

Higherqualityfeedsaves

waterwhichcanbeusedfor

othe

r ec

osys

tem

se

rvic

es

(e.g.carbonsequestration)

�

Useofresiduesaffectssoil

fertility

managem

ent;

�

Poorfarmersmaynotaffordhigher

qualityfeed;

�

Requiresm

orelaborinputandcostof

input

Virt

ual w

ater

tran

sfer

to m

ore

wat

er p

rodu

ctiv

e us

e: in

sti-

tutionalsupportandcreation

of in

cent

ive

mec

hani

sms f

or

localinitiatives(e.g.land

leasing,feedtransferfrom

surplustodeficitsystem

,feedmarketingoption.

�

Socialcapital(e.g.createsmarket

linkage,poorfarmerscankeep

livestockifthereisaccesstofeed

market);

�

Finicalcapital(e.g.openoppor -

tunitiestotradevirtualwaterto

generateincome);

�

Naturalcapital(mitigate

feed

scar

city

and

thu

s m

itig

ates

ove

r grazing

�

Cancreateopportunitiesfor

upstream

anddownstream

communitylinkage;

�

Improvedregionaland

system

swaterproductivity

�

Leasedlandscouldbepoorlymanaged

andthusmaydegradeinlongterm;

�

On

leas

ed la

nd f

arm

ers

can

be h

esit

ant

topracticelongtermlandandwater

man

agem

ent i

nter

vent

ions

Mat

chin

g liv

esto

ck a

ctiv

ity

and

prod

ucti

on le

vel t

o av

aila

ble

feed

: can

be

a fo

rm

ofawarenesscreationon

howtomatchcycleofanimal

production(activity,production

level)withchangingavailability

of so

urce

s of n

utri

ent o

ver t

ime

�

Hunan

capital

(improved

knowledgeandskills)

�

Difficulttoforecastfeedsourcesfrom

sociallinkageandCPR

Lim

itin

g an

imal

mov

emen

t: throughcutandcarry;nearby

drinkingwatersupply

�

Naturalcapital

(e.g.

reduced

compactionofsoil

�

Treeplantingonfarm

boun

dary

an

d th

us

all

asso

ciat

ed

ecos

yste

m

servicesbenefits

�

Mor

e la

bor d

eman

ding

Strate

gy III

: Impro

ving l

ivesto

ck fe

ed so

urcing

and f

eedin

g

Goal

Sub s

trateg

ies an

d key

prac

tices

Impa

ctsTra

de-off

s and

risks

Liveli

hood

capit

alEc

osyst

em se

rvice

sImprovinglivestock

productivity

Sele

ctiv

e an

d cr

oss b

reed

ing:

Thisinvolvesselectionof

productivelocalbreeds;

cros

s bre

edin

g lo

cal b

reed

s withexoticbreeds

�

Naturalcapital(betterproductive

animal)

�

Financialcapital(betterreturnper

unitofinvestment?)

Higherm

ilkyieldingrequires

lesswaterperunitofm

ilkand

thusarewaterproductive

�

Loss

of i

ndig

enou

s bre

ed

�

Mayaffectfarmerspreferredtraits(e.g.

humpcoloretc...)

�

May

los

res

ista

nce

to h

arsh

env

iron

-mentalanddisease(e.g.trypanosomes)

Impr

ovin

g gr

ass r

oot l

evel

AI

and

vet

erin

ary

serv

ice:

policyincentivestoinvolve

moreprivateservices;Para-vet

trainingforlocalpeople

�

Naturalcapital:

(e.g.

reduced

animalmortality)

�

Hum

an

capital

(improved

knowledgeandskills)

�

Redu

ced

mor

talit

y sa

ves

waterw

hichcanbeused

forecosystemservices(e.g.

carbonsequestration)

�

Cost

of t

he se

rvic

es

Impr

ovin

g pr

opor

tion

of

prod

ucti

ve a

nim

al in

the

herd

: destocking;m

atchingtraction

needandoxenowned;multiple

useoflivestock;timelycalling

agedandsterilecows,timely

heat

det

ecti

on m

echa

nism

s

�

Financialcapital(e.g.higher

returnperanimal)

�

Naturalcapital(lessgrazingarea

andlessfeed)

�

HigherLWPatherdscale

�

Affectsherddiversityandriskmitigation

stra

tegi

es o

f far

mer

s �

Lossofculturalvaluesoflivestock

Qua

lity

drin

king

wat

er

supp

ly: waterharvesting;and

developinglivestockwatering

pointsonirrigationcanals;

�

Financialcapital(e.g.highermilk

yield)

�

Socialcapital(e.g.lesstimeneeded

totreklivestocktowateringpoints)

�

Naturalcapital(drinkingpoints

synchronizedwithfeedavailability

andthuslessovergrazing)

�

Redu

ced

eros

ion

arou

nd

waterpoints

�

Highercostofproductionandneeds

fewerandproductiveanimal;

�

Thepoorm

aynothaveaccesstofarm

pond(landforrunoff?)

Strate

gy IV

: Impro

ving l

ivesto

ck m

anag

emen

t

Documents

WATER PRODUCTIVE AND RESILIENT LANDSCAPE …