Simulating potential water grabbing from large-scale land acquisitions in Africa

Transcription

1 Simulating potential water grabbing from large-scale land acquisitions in Africa Emma Li Johansson, Marianela Fader, Jonathan W. Seaquist, Kimberly A. Nicholas

2 The rush for foreign land and water at global level Large-scale land acquisitions (>200 ha) at global scale: 47 million ha globally (Land Matrix) = deals At least one public or private transnational investor in each Smallholder or community use -> commercial use of land and water Drivers: Food and energy crisis 2007/08 Globalization and market liberalization Commodification of land Support from international donors M. Fader, EGU

3 Expectation versus reality Promises to targeted countries: Improved infrastructure, Technological transfer, Job opportunities, Financial benefits and rural development. NGOs and research report Deals rarely benefit local people, Proposed infrastructure is often not developed, Environmental degradation. Photo: Sugarcane plantation by Addax Bioenergy, Sierra Leone, This man shows how the swamp has been destroyed since the arrival of the company, where they used to go for fishing and washing. By E. Johansson. M. Fader, EGU

4 Situation in Africa The continent with most contracted land: 22 million ha, 747 deals Cheap land and labor costs Potentials to boost yields with irrigation and modern techniques Only ~3% contracted deals are currently in production: 0.7 million ha, 121 deals Contracts: rarely indicate limits to water use -> investors might choose cheap and inefficient irrigation How much water do the deals in production grab from local users? M. Fader, EGU

5 Methods and simulation protocol Process-based agroecosystem and hydrology model LPJmL: Simulation of agricultural production and water requirements using Land Matrix area and crop patters as inputs Missing information about irrigation systems -> seven scenarios: 1. Rainfed: Deals are not irrigated 2. Drip irrigation. 3. Sprinkler irrigation. 4. Surface irrigation. 5. Mixed irrigation (surface and sprinklers). 6. Current irrigation efficiencies: deals irrigated with the average irrigation system in the given country. 7. One step-improvement from #6. 12 Baseline scenarios: staple crops (maize, wheat, rice, sorghum, and cassava), with current irrigation efficiencies, and only rainfed conditions. M. Fader, EGU

6 Results Rice plantation, Kilombero Valley, Tanzania Company name Kilombero Plantations Ltd. Photo by E. Johansson.

7 Results: differences between irrigation scenarios M. Fader, EGU

8 Results: differences between irrigation scenarios Irrigation increases production from 17 to 28 tons. Range of water use: 5.4 (rainfed) to 8.5 km 3 water per year (0 to 3.5 km 3 blue). Drip irrigation is the most efficient: 255 m 3 per ton versus 315 m 3 per ton (rainfed). M. Fader, EGU

9 Many crops planted in deals are water-intensive M. Fader, EGU

10 Many crops planted in deals are water-intensive Lower water demand: sorghum, soybean, wheat, maize, rice. Higher water demand: cotton, eucalyptus, jatropha, oil palm, pine, rubber, sugarcane, teak, trees. Type of water depends on the country and crop. M. Fader, EGU

11 Deals consume more water than traditional farming Baseline scenarios (5 staple crops): Green water use 2-4 km 3 /year + Blue water use km 3 /year Most efficient scenario (drip): Green ~5 km 3 /year + Blue ~3 km 3 /year Least efficient scenario (surface) Green ~5 km 3 /year + Blue ~4 km 3 /year Sugarcane plantation by Addax Bioenergy, Sierra Leone, Photo by E. Johansson. -> Green and blue water use is larger than before M. Fader, EGU

12 Results: Blue Water Index Blue Water Index = Gross Blue Water Consumption Gross Blue+Green Water Consumption With current national irrigation efficiencies M. Fader, EGU

13 Results: Hotspots Hotspot-deals = where blue water use is more than 50% of crop demand. Drip irrigation = Red, 22 locations Size of the circles = total water demand (green + gross blue). M. Fader, EGU

14 Take home messages 1. Many deals are for forestry or biofuel -> trade-offs with food production. 2. Planted crops consume more water than traditional crops. 3. It would be preferable for the deals to use efficient irrigation systems (drippers and pressurized pipes). 4. But even when they do so, in at least 22 deals there are indications of potential threats to water availability. M. Fader, EGU

15 Further reading M. Fader, EGU

16 Thank you for your attention! Questions? Teak plantation, Kilombero Valley, Tanzania Company name: Kilombero Valley Teak Company (KVTC).