AWM and livelihoods in the crop livestock systems of the Volta basin
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
0 gostou•437 visualizações
by: S. Douxchamps, E.K. Panyan, A. Kaboré, B. Sawadogo, F.K. Avornyo, K. Ouattara, N. Karbo, and A. Ayantunde Presented at the Final Volta Basin Development Challenge Science Workshop, September 2013
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Semelhante a AWM and livelihoods in the crop livestock systems of the Volta basin
Semelhante a AWM and livelihoods in the crop livestock systems of the Volta basin (20)
Mais de International Water Management Institute (IWMI)
Mais de International Water Management Institute (IWMI) (20)
Último
Último (20)
AWM and livelihoods in the crop livestock systems of the Volta basin
- 1. AWM and livelihoods in the crop-livestock systems of the Volta Basin S. Douxchamps, E.K. Panyan, A. Kaboré, B. Sawadogo, F.K. Avornyo, K. Ouattara, N. Karbo, A. Ayantunde
- 2. introduction material & methods results conclusions
- 3. introduction Background ▪ livelihood: means of securing the basic necessities for life (food, water, shelter, clothing). ▪ AWM increases livelihoods by ↑ agricultural productivity, ↑nutrition and health, ↑ employment and income ↓ risks and vulnerability … ▪ evidences are scarce ▪ quantification of impact of AWM on livelihoods is a challenge
- 4. introduction Background ▪ livelihood: means of securing the basic necessities for life (food, water, shelter, clothing). ▪ AWM increases livelihoods by ↑ agricultural productivity, ↑nutrition and health, ↑ employment and income ↓ risks and vulnerability … ▪ evidences are scarce ▪ quantification of impact of AWM on livelihoods is a challenge Hypotheses Objective ▪ to characterize crop-livestock households in four contrasting sites in the dry areas of the Volta Basin in terms of access to water and to services and information, AWM practice and livelihoods ▪ to explore and quantify the linkages between these characteristics AWM practice ↑ Livelihoods ↑ Access to water Access to services and information
- 5. Sampling ▪ 4 sites ~ N-S gradient and access to market ▪ 4 villages/site ~ population density access to water infrastructures involvement in projects conflict free community ▪ 25 households/village ~ crop-livestock farming random → final sample size: 326 households Survey ▪ household composition ▪ household assets (land, livestock, farm and domestic assets) and housing condition ▪ income ▪ food consumption ▪ AWM practices ▪ water sources ▪ access to services and information on AWM material & methods (Source: GLOWA) Njuki et al., 2011
- 6. material & methods Indicators Dimension Indicators Range or percentage of total Income Income (USD) 0 - 9306 Sources of income 0 - 8 Assets Assets (USD) 0 - 5280 Housing index 1 - 6 Land assets (ha) 0 - 31 Livestock assets (TLU) 0 - 69 Food security Food consumption score 10 - 93 Practice Intensity -3 - 21 Training 17 Services 31 Weather 21 Sources of information 0 - 5 Access for livestock 0 - 5 Sources crop-livestock 0 - 10 Labour Labour 0 - 105 Access to information and services Access to water ∑ Quality factori i = 1 5 ∑ (Frequencyi [days/week] * Factori) i = 1 12 Njuki et al., 2011; Sullivan et al., 2008 ∑ Intensityi i = 1 14 ∑ Frequencyi i = 1 33 Scaling: xi-xmin xmax-xmin
- 7. results Livelihoods Country Site mean SD mean SD mean SD Burkina Faso Ouahigouya 5.3 4.2 3.4 3.2 52 13 Koubri 5.4 4.6 6.3 8.6 39 10 Ghana Lawra 2.8 1.7 3.4 3.1 51 16 Tolon-Kumbugu 5.0 4.4 5.5 6.7 47 19 TLU: Tropical Livestock Unit Food consumptionLivestock assets (TLU)Land assets (ha) Country Site median range mean SD median range mean SD Burkina Faso Ouahigouya 99 0 - 3168 1.3 0.7 393 0 - 3012 2.1 0.5 Koubri 238 0 - 9306 2.6 1.2 882 0 - 4138 2.2 0.6 Ghana Lawra 19 0 - 1617 1.8 1.2 145 0 - 5280 2.8 0.9 Tolon-Kumbugu 367 0 - 5952 2.6 1.2 269 0 - 3603 2.6 0.9 Assets value (USD)Income (USD) Sources of income Housing index
- 8. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %ofhouseholds AWM practice 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 AWM impact Ouahigouya Koubri Lawra Tolon-Kumbugu results AWM practice and impact (Source: CILSS)(Source: CILSS)
- 9. a b c b a ab a a a a a a b a a b a a results Linkages
- 10. a b c a ab b a a b a a a b b a a ab b results Linkages
- 11. conclusions Key messages ▪ Most of the farmers perceived a strong positive impact of AWM strategies on their livelihoods ▪ Diversity of sources of water and diversity of sources of information played a major role in increasing the intensity of AWM practice ▪ Income would increase for 75% of smallholder crop-livestock farmers of the basin, if access to services and information would be improved ▪ Enabling vs. limiting factor: labour capacities available for water-related activities ▪ Access to water increased food security ▪ Important proportion of the variation in the data set was not explained: include additional environmental factors as well as field measurements (Source: Deserto Verde Burkinabé)
- 13. results Access to water and to services and information 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Trained in AWM Service available Information on weather %ofhouseholds Ouahigouya Koubri Lawra Tolon-Kumbugu 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Information Water Ouahigouya Koubri Lawra Tolon Diversity of sources 0.00 0.50 1.00 Distanceto water source Ouahigouya Koubri Lawra Tolon-Kumbugu 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Distanceto water source Ouahigouya Koubri Lawra
- 14. 1 2 3 4 Proportion of the variation explained 0.164 0.136 0.101 0.093 Cumulative proportion 0.164 0.300 0.401 0.494 Dimension Indicators Income Income (USD) 0.446 Sources of income 0.382 Assets Assets (USD) 0.448 Housing index 0.251 Land assets (ha) 0.404 Livestock assets (TLU) -0.454 Training -0.365 -0.449 Services -0.415 -0.359 Weather -0.369 -0.324 Sources of information 0.641 Access for livestock -0.309 Sources crop-livestock -0.381 0.436 Practice Intensity -0.326 0.396 0.334 Labour Labour -0.419 0.304 Principal components Access to information and services Access to water results PCA loadings
- 15. results Sources of information 0 10 20 30 40 50 Ouahigouya Koubri Lawra Tolon-Kumbugu %ofhou 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ouahigouya Koubri Lawra Tolon-Kumbugu %ofhouseholds Rainwater management Government NGO Farmer/farmer group Paravets Private entrepreneur Research organisation Radio TV
- 16. results Effect of the site Livelihood Practice Access Labour Ouahigouya a a bc a Koubri b a a a Lawra ab a bc b Tolon-Kumbugu a a c b P 0.005 ** 0.022 * 0.000 *** 0.000 *** Different letters within the same columns indicate significantly different means (P<0.05, Tukey HSD test).
- 17. results Sources of water for livestock consumption 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Cold dry Hot dry Rainy %ofhouseholdbenefiting fromthewatersource Seasons Ouahigouya Rainwater Open well Hand pumped well River/stream Standing pool Pipe Dam Smallreservoir Borehole 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Cold dry Hot dry Rainy Seasons Koubri Rainwater Open well Hand pumped well River/stream Standingpool Pipe Dam Small reservoir Borehole 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Cold dry Hot dry Rainy %ofhouseholdbenefiting fromthewatersource Seasons Lawra Rainwater Open well Hand pumped well River/stream Standing pool Pipe Dam Smallreservoir Borehole 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Cold dry Hot dry Rainy Seasons Tolon-Kumbugu Rainwater Open well Hand pumped well River/stream Standingpool Pipe Dam Small reservoir Borehole
- 18. results Labour calendar 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %ofhouseholds Ouah rainy Daily Every 3 weeks Weekly Every 2 weeks Monthly Rarely0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ouah 2 Daily Every 3 weeks Weekly Every 2 weeks Monthly Rarely0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ouah 3 Daily Every 3 w Weekly Every 2 w Monthly Rarely 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %ofhouseholds Ouah rainy Daily Every 3 weeks Weekly Every 2 weeks Monthly Rarely0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ouah 2 Daily Every 3 weeks Weekly Every 2 weeks Monthly Rarely0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Koubri 3 Daily Every 3 w Weekly Every 2 w Monthly Rarely 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %ofhouseholds Ouah rainy Daily Every 3 weeks Weekly Every 2 weeks Monthly Rarely0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ouah 2 Daily Every 3 weeks Weekly Every 2 weeks Monthly Rarely0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Lawra 3 Daily Every 3 w Weekly Every 2 w Monthly Rarely 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %ofhouseholds Ouah rainy Daily Every 3 weeks Weekly Every 2 weeks Monthly Rarely0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ouah 2 Daily Every 3 weeks Weekly Every 2 weeks Monthly Rarely 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Tolon 3 Daily Every 3 w Weekly Every 2 w Monthly Rarely OuahigouyaKoubriLawraTolon-Kumbugu Rainyseason Cold dry season Hot dry season Fetchingwaterfromthewell Fetchingwaterfromtheriver Collectingandstoringrainwater Cleaningwatercontainers Wateringlivestock Wateringgarden Irrigatingcrops Applyingwaterharvestingtechniques Fetchingwaterfromthewell Fetchingwaterfromtheriver Collectingandstoringrainwater Cleaningwatercontainers Wateringlivestock Wateringgarden Irrigatingcrops Applyingwaterharvestingtechniques Fetchingwaterfromthewell Fetchingwaterfromtheriver Collectingandstoringrainwater Cleaningwatercontainers Wateringlivestock Wateringgarden Irrigatingcrops Applyingwaterharvestingtechniques 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Tolon 3 Daily Every 3 days Weekly Every 2 weeks Monthly Rarely
Notas do Editor
- No facts about the volta basinthis time, as already the 2nddayyou must know it allLivelihood: differentcapitals… (sustainablelielihoodframework) ideaisthatit influences all capitals: see Jennie et al yesterdayCan we quantify this linkage with the data collected in V2 sites?It iscommonlyadmitedthat AWM increaseslivelihoods, by…. However: evidences are scarces. Furthercomplicatedbecausecomplex concept, numerous potential indicators, numerous influencing factors
- No facts about the volta basinthis time, as already the 2nddayyou must know it allLivelihood: differentcapitals… (sustainablelielihoodframework) ideaisthatit influences all capitals: see Jennie et al yesterdayCan we quantify this linkage with the data collected in V2 sites?It iscommonlyadmitedthat AWM increaseslivelihoods, by…. However: evidences are scarces. Furthercomplicatedbecausecomplex concept, numerous potential indicators, numerous influencing factors
- = V2 sitesCriteria for village selectionSurvey implemented by INERA and ARI in october and november 2011
- Range for quantitative,percentage of total for categorical variablesRooms, floor, walls, roofing, lightingTypes of foodIntensity: 0 to 3, fo 14 different practices: zai, stone bunds, half-moons, smallreservoirs, life barriers, composting, use of manure, etc…Scaling + linearcombinations: rural water livelihood index (FAO/Sullivan)
- Median and range forveryskewed variables
- Proportion of households practicing AWM technologies, in % of responses, and % of households practicing the technology characterizing the impact of these technologies on crop and livestock productivity and livelihoods as moderate to very strong.
- Livelihoods, intensity of AWM practice, and labour for three groups of contrasting access to water (a) and to information and services (b). Different letters per plot indicate significantly different means (P<0.05).Most of the hh are in the medium access group
- Radiois major canal for informationMost of the hh are in the lowaccess group
- Derive message for policymakers