The Council Study: Socio-Economic Assessment. Dr John Ward (MERFI)

Transcription

1 The Council Study: Socio-Economic Assessment Dr John Ward (MERFI)

2 Overview of the socio-economic assessment Council Study Development scenarios (2007, 2020, 2040) Discipline teams Hydrodynamic modelling BioRA Climate Change Changes in the Hydrologic regime and Ecosystem services Confirm Thematic (Sector) indicators Irrigation Agriculture and Land use Domestic and Industrial use Flood protection Hydropower Transportation Step 1 Step 2 Baseline (SIMVA 2011, 2014): pre development, 2007 trend analysis Population, Spatial boundaries, Land use, Thematic indicators: SIMVA analysis and calibration National data calibrated to SIMVA sub-zones and Corridor Provinces Steps 3 and 4 Step 5 Discipline indicators: Formulate impact relationships With Water development Without water development M1 through M3 and subscenarios Assessment indicators pre-development, M1- M3, sub-scenarios Water security Food security Income security Health security Employment Gender Step 6 Combined assessment indicators: evaluation of changes at corridor zone and Province level Distributional equity Cross indicator effects Transboundary influences Links to Thematic teams, Economic and Cumulative impact assessments Potential Mitigation measures and recommendations

3 Objectives of the socio-economic assessment Estimate the changes in Livelihoods and Wellbeing in response to changes in hydrology and ecology; and non-water developments. CS Development Response Scenarios Steps 1 and 2 Steps 3 and 4 Step 5 Social Assessment indicators Hydrological and ecological change Pre-development, 2007, 2020 and 2040 Water security Food security Income security Health security Employment Gender Isolate water development changes from non-water changes. For provinces and Corridor zones Step 6

4 Spatial scope: 13 Corridor zones and Provinces SIMVA (2011, 2014) and EMRF: Sampling error = ±1.5%- 2.7% Sampling extended to nonsampled households

5 Assessment indicators: Assessment indicator Discipline specific indicators Data source Water security Food security % of HHs with access to safe water SIMVA2011 % of HHs whose primary domestic water sources runs dry for more than x weeks % of HHs reporting water shortages that resulted in crop damage in the last 12 months % of HHs reporting water excess that resulted in crop damage in the last 12 months Per capita /day (Kcal, protein and fat (% RDI) Production of catch fish and OAAs (t) Production of rice, maize, cassava, riverbank gardens aquaculture, livestock (yield, ha and yield/ha) SIMVA2011 SIMVA2011 SIMVA2011 Calculated FAO BioRA ALU, IRR, BioRA Poverty level SIMVA2011, FAO

6 Assessment Indicators: Assessment indicator Discipline specific indicators Data source Income security Health security Monthly income SIMVA 2011 Poverty rate Diversity (#) of income sources (fish/oaas/river bank/non-aquatic resource) Income source from agriculture MRC SEDB SIMVA 2011 HHs income SIMVA 2011 HHs expenditure Number of HHs access to potable water SIMVA 2011 Number of HHs access to sanitation AIP MRC SEDB List of communities that have health facilities SIMVA 2014

7 Main water development scenarios Scenario Level of Development for waterrelated sectors ALU DIW FPF HPP IRR NAV Climate Floodplain s mt M1 Early Development Scenario M2 Definite Future Scenario M3 Planned Development Scenario Mean warmer & wetter 2040 ALU = Agric/Landuse Change; DIW = Domestic and Industrial Water Use; FPF = flood protection infrastructure; HPP = hydropower; IRR = irrigation; and NAV = Navigation

8 Scenario and sub-scenario comparison Comparison Effects tested Overall water resources development Scenario Comparisons M3 vs M2 M2 vs M1 Socio-economic Sub-scenarios are a key part of the design of the assessment Climate change Irrigation development C1 vs C2 C1 vs C3 M3 vs C1 M3 vs I1 M3 vs I2 The analytical value of scenarios comes from their comparison Hydropower development Navigation development M3 vs H1 M3 vs H2 M3 vs H3 M3 vs N1 To understand impacts the CS compares subscenarios with and without sector change Domestic & Industry water use M3 vs D1 Agriculture & land-use development Flood protection infrastructure development M3 vs A1 M3 vs A2 M3 vs F1 M3 vs F2 M3 vs F3

9 Developments- water related and exogenous Isolate where possible exogenous trends from water related social consequences Urbanisation Overfishing Deforestation Dietary changes Roads and transport Population growth

10 HHs with access to safe water supply system HHs with secure supply for domestic use HHs with secure supply for agricultural use HHs exposed to flood damage risk Kcal/day/capita Total protein production (fish, livestock etc) Poverty (HH expenditure on )food CONNECTING DEVELOPMENT CHANGES TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT INDICATORS Assessment indicator Δ Water security Δ Food security Discipline specific indicators CS themes information requirements Sectors (e.g.irrigation Theme) Irrigation area and location Irrigated agricultural production Irrigated agricultural production Irrigated agriculture employment Change in Discipline indicators (Δ) Change in Thematic Indicators (Δ) Δ Development Scenarios Δ Δ Δ Δ

11 Spatially explicit assessments eg Food security Baseline Food Secure if Total score >=0 Location Food Balance Food Security (Likert scale: -2 to +2 ) Population Bio Zone Protein Protein Fat Country Province District Sub-zone area (km2) (,000) Kcal/day (g/day) Fat (g/day) Kcal/day (g/day) (g/day) Total A AA AAA BZ-1 xxx A AA AAB BZ-1 xxx A AA AAC BZ-2 xxx A AA AAD BZ-2 xxx Discipline specific indicators A AA AAE BZ-2 xxx A AA AAF from BZ-3 SIMVA and xxx National A AA AAGdata sets BZ-3 xxx A AA AAH BZ-3 xxx % change -2: < -10%; -1: -2 to -10%; 0: ±2%; 1: +2 to 10% 2: > 10% Development Scenario xx Location Food Balance indicators Food Balance Food Security (Likert scale: -2 to +2 ) Country from Thematic team Province indicator District Sub-zone relationships area (km2) Population Bio Zone (,000) Kcal/day Protein (g/day) Fat (g/day) Kcal/day Protein (g/day) Fat (g/day) Total A AA AAA BZ-1 xxx A AA AAB BZ-1 xxx A AA AAC BZ-2 xxx A AA AAD BZ-2 xxx A AA AAE BZ-2 xxx A AA AAF BZ-3 xxx A AA AAG BZ-3 xxx Assessment 2567 compares total 2350 and percentage A AA AAH BZ-3 xxxchanges between 356 scenarios, 2100 by country, zone and province Sub-zone 2007 M1 Trend Zone 1a -5-2 Zone 1b -2 0 Zone 2a -4-6 Zone 2b -4-2 Zone 2c -3-6 Zone 3a -1-4 Zone 3b 2-4 Zone 3c -5-5

12 Looking ahead Vision of the main report Report organized around key messages Concise: a report you would want to read Supported by graphics Chapters Executive Summary 1 Introduction 2 Design 3 Key Message 1: Most important benefits and opportunities 4 Key Message 2: Most significant negative impacts and risks 5 Key Message 3: Key trade-offs and synergies 6 Key Message 4: Implications for planning and policy 7 Key Message 5: Knowledge gaps 8 Key Message 6: Main recommendations 13

13 Summary Addressed data constraints Calibrated Province and National data to SIMVA (2011 and 2014) Hydrological responses estimated from Thematic teams, expert panels (Delphi) and Likert scales A few reliable indicators are better than many unreliable ones (e.g. Food security Kcal/day/capita) Exploring cross indicator interactions