/var/lib/tomcat6/webapps/pdnadmin/data/documents/3457

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate

change: Key issues and research priorities

Benefits to people from water ecosystems like rivers, swamps,
floodplains and groundwater systems are central to human
well-being. But ecosystems are in trouble and the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, the Comprehensive Assessment of
Water Management in Agriculture, and the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change have each shown that freshwater
ecosystem services are particularly vulnerable. Water problems
for poor people are exacerbated by the abuse of ecosystems
and global climate change looks certain to increase the stresses
and variability they face.

To help shape a research programme proposed by the UK
Department for International Development (DFID), this report
seeks to highlight some of the critical issues facing water
ecosystem services in Africa, South Asia and Latin America and
makes recommendations on the research that is needed to fill
the current gaps in knowledge and practice.

The views expressed in this study do not necessarily represent
those of the institutions involved, nor do they necessarily
represent official UK Government and/or DFID policies.

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

ISBN: 978-1-84369-687-2
ISSN: 1605-1017

James Mayers, Charles Batchelor, Ivan Bond, Rob Hope,
Elaine Morrison and Breana Wheeler

Water ecosystem services and

poverty under climate change

Key issues and research priorities

a
t
e
r

e
co

s
y
s
t
e
m
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

a
n

v
e
r
t
y

e
r

i
m

a
t
e

c
h

a
n

a
ye

r
s

e
t

a
l
.

First published by the International Institute for Environment and Development (UK)
in 2009
Copyright © International Institute for Environment and Development
All rights reserved

ISBN: 978-1-84369-687-2 ISSN: 1605-1017

To contact the authors, please write to:
James Mayers, IIED, 4 Hanover Street, Edinburgh EH2 2EN
james.mayers@iied.org

For a full list of publications please contact:
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
3 Endsleigh Street, London WC1H 0DD, United Kingdom
newpubs@iied.org
www.iied.org/pubs

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Citation: Mayers, J., Batchelor, C., Bond, I., Hope, R. A., Morrison, E. and Wheeler, B.
2009. Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change: Key issues and
research priorities. International Institute for Environment and Development, London,
UK. Natural Resource Issues No. 17.

Design: Eileen Higgins, email: eileen@eh-design.co.uk
Cover photo: Woman of the Dhobi cast, washing clothes by a small river in the
outskirts of Madras/Chennai by Heldur Netocny / Still Pictures
Printed by Park Communications, UK on 100% recycled paper using vegetable oil
based ink

Executive summary

Between October 2006 and July 2007 IIED steered a team that scoped a possible
research programme for the UK Department for International Development (DFID)
on freshwater ecosystem services and poverty reduction in the context of climate
change and other drivers of change. The work identified key research areas and
delivery mechanisms. It did this by: developing a drivers–state–impacts–response
conceptual framework; seeking views from stakeholders internationally (334
web-survey respondents; 54 in-depth interviews); drawing key lessons from the
literature; carrying out policy and practice analyses in key developing countries
(Kenya, South Africa, India, Mexico and Bolivia); and capturing the results in this
report to DFID.

The challenge addressed by this proposed research programme is a daunting
one. Freshwater ecosystem services – the benefits obtained by people from
freshwater ecosystems like rivers, swamps, floodplains and groundwater systems
– are central to human well-being. But ecosystems are in trouble and the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the Comprehensive Assessment of Water
Management in Agriculture, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
have each shown that freshwater ecosystem services are particularly vulnerable.
Water problems for poor people are exacerbated by the abuse of ecosystem
services and global climate change looks certain to increase the stresses and
variability they face. The impacts will vary greatly by region, but the challenges to
sustainable development in Africa are particularly acute.

Yet globally, we never destroy water – no matter how we use and abuse it:
somewhere, sometime the rains will return. Water ecosystem services are the
ultimate renewable resources and many promising solutions to the problems exist.
The difficulty is in ensuring that water itself is where we need it, when we need
it and of an acceptable quality. This requires efficient and equitable regimes for
using the water that is available. In other words, it’s all about how decisions are
made about water ecosystem services – it’s all about governance.

Water as a basic human right, and water left in stream to sustain environmental
flows, are both necessary guiding principles yet characterise the tension at the
heart of this subject. The adaptive capacity and resilience needed in the face of
climate change and other further stressors to livelihoods, and the ever-increasing
demand for water for food, fuel and forests, must be better understood and
tackled. Key knowledge gaps can be filled by well-targeted research on how to
secure regulatory and supporting services of ecosystems while doing most for
poverty reduction.

Where river basins are ‘closing’ – with all water being used and residual flows
reduced to a trickle – local conflicts and growing transboundary arguments
demand more astute negotiating processes. Payments for water ecosystem

services are tools that need further sharpening to be useful here and in other
contexts where buyers and sellers become clear. The scale and type of investment
needed to secure water ecosystem services is not hopelessly unachievable, but
greatly improved governance will be needed to make such investment work.
Integrated water resource management incorporating the full range of water
ecosystem services remains a fine ideal for governance, but an elusive reality. Yet
efforts to achieve higher levels of integration are sensible and innovative forms of
research and delivery have great scope to help.

Recommendations on research content

Much existing research needs to be put into practice, and more research is
needed to fill vital gaps. Indeed, perhaps perversely, one of the key functions for
future research is to work out how to get past research into use. The following
priority research issues are drawn from the evidence generated in this study and
selected on the basis of the following criteria: researchable gap in knowledge;
generic significance; innovation; integration potential; impact likelihood; and
DFID comparative advantage. Research issues can be only roughly prioritised at
this level because they are interconnected, and because the specific forms of the
issues researched will have to be tailored and shaped by local circumstance. Some
indication of relative priority of the issues in Africa, South Asia and Latin America
is given in the report. Five research fields are proposed, all are important but they
are in roughly descending order of priority. Within each field the issues are also of
roughly descending order of priority:

Governance of water ecosystem services

Political economy of water ecosystem service management

Integrated water resource management

Managing/resolving competition, displacement and conflict

Climate change as driver of decisions despite uncertainty

Local institutional control of water ecosystem services

Variability, vulnerability, adaptation and resilience

Resilience of water ecosystem services

Responses to variability and risk

Targeted and holistic adaptation

Changes brought by disease burdens

Land use change impacts on water ecosystem services

Urbanisation, migration and water ecosystem services under climate change

Unrecognised consequences of climate change mitigation actions

Land use impacts of market shifts

Biofuel production – poverty and water ecosystem impacts

Carbon storage and avoided deforestation – poverty and water

ecosystem impacts

Hydrology, technology and evaluation

Tools for predicting hydrological and societal impacts of land use change

Soil and water conservation decision-support tools

Groundwater recharge and surface water–groundwater interactions

Applying complementary knowledge systems

Impact evaluation

Market instruments, businesses and investment

Informal markets and small businesses

Prices, payment schemes and investment triggers in water ecosystem services

Productivity–equity nexus

From green accounting to green decision-making

Recommendations on research delivery, and way forward
for DFID

So how can research on these issues actually help? Too much research has
focused on producing publications rather than actually helping policymakers and
resource managers think through issues and make better decisions. Researchers
often choose their topics without consulting the people they supposedly serve.
These and other problems are well known, yet they persist. The analysis and
recommendations in this report show that there is a better way.

DFID should consider structuring a research programme around the fields
identified above, phasing in the issues identified over time according to the
descending order in which they appear. Guidance for DFID in setting up this
programme is provided in the report with the identification of the essential
characteristics of effective research in these fields and on research programme
management. These characteristics can be developed to guide potential
programme applicants, who should be encouraged to design their research
around some further desirable characteristics and key mechanisms also identified
in the report.

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Introduction

The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) was asked
by the UK government’s Department for International Development (DFID) to
develop ideas for a potential research programme on ‘water ecosystem services
and poverty reduction under climate change’. The study, carried out between
October 2006 and July 2007, had two objectives:

Identify the key research areas and knowledge gaps for improving the

sustainability and equity of water provision and water ecosystem services
management in the context of climate change in developing countries of
Africa and Asia, and with reference to lessons from Latin America.

Identify the most effective means by which research can contribute to

achieving more sustainable and equitable water services and ecosystems
management in these countries.

The remainder of this report presents the results. Section 2 summarises the
approach taken, including identification of key issues, consultations, specialist
inputs, country-specific studies and a workshop. Section 3 analyses the issues
revealed during the study, using a drivers–state–impacts–response conceptual
framework; examines the extent and use of existing knowledge, and gaps in
knowledge, drawing on literature as well as activities conducted specifically
for this study; and it looks at research organisation and delivery mechanisms.
Sections 4 and 5 provide specific recommendations on research content, and
on organisation and delivery. The report concludes with a proposed way
forward for DFID.

In addition to this report, readers are encouraged to look at the annexes that
are available online (see Appendix 1 for details) and examine the issues in much
more detail than can be covered here.

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

The approach

Terms of reference for the study formed the basis for a proposal from IIED,
which was subsequently agreed with DFID, and which mapped out the
approach. The approach had the following main elements:

Core team and specialist team (specific shorter-term inputs) with

experience in key subject areas: natural resource governance; analysis and
support for improved livelihoods and reducing poverty; policy analysis;
research-into-use approaches; surface and groundwater management
and provision; water governance; integrated water resource management;
payments and negotiation for watershed services; and climate change
mitigation and adaptation.

Core team and expertise:

James Mayers – IIED. Project leader. Natural resources governance

for livelihoods; coordinating lead author for Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment; project management.

Ivan Bond – IIED. Lead researcher. Payments for watershed services;

environmental economics; community-based natural resource
management.

Elaine Morrison – IIED. Researcher. Asia water ecosystem services; research

support; project administration.

Breana Wheeler – IIED. Project assistant. Postgraduate research on

markets for environmental services; database management and project
administration.

Rob Hope – Oxford University, School of Geography and the Environment,

UK. Behavioural economics; human development; water policy.

Charles Batchelor – Water Resources Management Ltd, UK. Water

resources management; water governance; agricultural hydrology.

Specialist team and expertise:

Hannah Reid – IIED. Climate change impacts and adaptation; network and

capacity building on climate change in developing countries; ecosystems
research and policy analysis.

Ashvin Gosain – Indian Institute of Technology, India. Policy, planning and

practice in India; impact of climate change on water resources in India;
modelling for integrated water resources management.

Cynthia Awuor – African Centre for Technology Studies, Kenya. Policy,

planning and practice in Kenya; climate change adaptation in Africa; socio-
economic research.

Gavin Quibell – Independent consultant, South Africa. Policy, planning and

practice in South Africa, integrated water resources management; legal
and social water issues.

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Nigel Asquith – Independent consultant, Bolivia. Water ecosystem services

in Bolivia; environmental economics.

Sofia Cortina – Ministry of Environment, Mexico. Environmental law;

economic instruments in Mexico’s environmental law; strategic planning,
monitoring and evaluation of environmental management systems.

Mike Mortimore – Drylands Research Ltd, UK. Management of water

and other ecosystem services in drylands; climate change adaptation in
drylands.

Jeremy Evans – Greenfox consulting, UK. Social scientist with expertise in

forest, water and natural resource management – carried out interviews.

Tighe Geoghegan – Green Park Consultants, UK. Water ecosystem services

in the Caribbean; water policy development.

Aniol Esteban – New Economics Foundation, UK. Economics and

development; climate change and carbon constraints; land use and
agricultural change.

Inputs from the core team and the specialist team were supplemented by
inputs from many other stakeholders, including policymakers and other end
users, through the web survey and interview process described below. While
resources did not allow for a second round of extensive consultation on the
findings presented in this report, the authors continue to welcome reactions and
responses such that the recommendations may be continually refined.

Learning from past DFID-supported work. Key lessons from relevant

past DFID-supported research initiatives were drawn on, notably those
from: the Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy and Engineering
programme water theme, and their respective evaluations programmes; the
OASIS resource centre’s scoping study for possible DFID funding of research
into water for development; the WELL resource centre for water, sanitation
and environmental health; other research scoping processes such as on the
Sustainable Agriculture Research Strategy, Climate Change Adaptation in
Africa programme and current work on energy; and other Development
Research Centre programmes.

Concerted exploration of the gaps and links. The current level of

integration of key research areas such as integrated water resource
management, payments for watershed services and climate change was found
to be weak. So particular efforts were made to unearth work that sheds light
on these links, why there are gaps, and what opportunities/constraints exist
for integration and improved policy.

Seven main actions were undertaken:
A.

Issues paper

The core team developed a short paper, describing the background and
approach of the scoping study and setting out key issues and eight main
questions about which views were sought. These eight main questions were:

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

1. Water ecosystem services. Which water ecosystem services need to be

better understood in the context of poverty reduction and climate change?

Poverty–water ecosystem direct links. What are the research priorities in
the direct links between poverty and water ecosystem services under climate
change?

Changes and transitions. Which other changes affecting water ecosystem-
poverty links will need to be better understood as the global climate continues
to change?

Technology. What are the research priorities among the existing or promising
technological solutions to water ecosystem service problems under climate
change?

Institutions and integration. Which policy, legal, organisational and
integrative approaches affecting water ecosystem services need to be better
understood?

Economic instruments. What are the research priorities in enabling economic
instruments to help tackle water ecosystem service problems under climate
change?

Research organisation. Which are the key organisational characteristics
of effective research and delivery on water ecosystem services and poverty
reduction under climate change?

Research and delivery mechanisms. What research and delivery
mechanisms will work best?

The issues paper also offered three annexes with methodologies for the
consultations, country-level policy and practice analyses and literature review
respectively. This issues paper was posted on the IIED website (Mayers 2007).
The above eight main questions provided the framework for the web-based
survey and interviews described below.

Web-based survey

A web-survey instrument offered an efficient tool to collect data from a
global sample of respondents. It was designed to collect responses in a closed
question format for quantitative analysis. This approach permits a comparative
understanding and measurement of research priorities. Under the above eight
main headings, the study team agreed upon a list of 72 questions that reflected
a range of issues under consideration. To elicit priorities, a Likert scale (here,
1 to 10) allowed respondents to determine their lowest priority (score = 1) to
highest priority (score = 10). In addition, an open-ended text box was available
for respondents to provide more detailed comments and observations. An
introductory text laid out the scope and aims of the web survey, and provided
links to the project website and issues paper. The survey was anonymous
though respondents were obliged to complete a short set of profiling questions
in order to allow disaggregation of the results. The survey was available in
French and Spanish as well as English.

The project’s website increased awareness of the study through a prominent
banner on the front page of IIED’s home page during the period that the web

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

survey was active. The study team also compiled a list of relevant contacts that
were supplemented by institutional networks, e.g. IIED’s database, Bradford
University’s Splash network. Stakeholders identified on the list were sent
personal emails, where possible, or a generic message to a group. In some cases,
stakeholders were introduced to the web survey in-person from opportunistic
country visits. In addition, the web survey was promoted via requests made to
web-based list-serves, for example:

International Institute for Sustainable Development (water and climate portals)

UNESCO’s water portal, the UN Water Newsletter and the FAO Land and Water

newsletter

WaterNet (Southern African water community)

Water and Sanitation News Service (IRC-hosted);

Decentralised Natural Resource Management discussion group (India-hosted)

Flows – on payments for watershed services (IIED and World Bank)

Some 335 good analysable responses from 70 countries were received. Of these
responses, the profile of the average respondent is of a man (63 per cent), over
40 years of age (50 per cent) with a post-graduate qualification (82 per cent),
and over 10 years’ relevant experience (42 per cent). Most respondents work as
researchers while regional expertise is concentrated in Africa and Asia (Figures 1
and 2).

Donor/Finance

Other

Government

Private Sector

NGO

Research/academia

38%

27%

13%

Per cent

Figure 1.

Web-survey respondents’ employment by sector

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Exploratory and multivariate data analysis was carried out on the web-survey
results.

Interviews

The stakeholder list mentioned above was also used to identify a range
of people with whom to conduct detailed interviews based on the main
questions developed in the issues paper and listed above. The scope of this was
international – key individuals and institutions in developing countries and in
agencies in developed countries concerned with these issues. As with the web-
based survey, particular effort was made to contact individuals who are well
connected with issues at community level – ‘gatekeepers’ of local perspective.
However, it should be recognised that this consultation was not conducted
primarily with stakeholders at community level.

A particular emphasis was placed on African and Asian contexts, and on what
can be learned and transferred from Latin American contexts. Brief initial
messages and short exchanges were followed up where appropriate to press
people for their views and as much focused information as possible. Some 54
interviews were carried out between February and April 2007 – 23 of these

1. A detailed report on the findings of the web survey is available on request from the authors.

North America

Other

Europe

Latin America

Asia

Africa

13%

10%

30%

31%

Per cent

Figure 2.

Web-survey respondents’ regional knowledge

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Interviewees by region of expertise/interest

Region

Percentage

Number

Global

28%

Africa

11%

Latin America

26%

Asia

35%

Total

100%

Interviewees by sector

Sector

Percentage

Number

Donor/Finance

22%

Government

26%

NGOs

17%

Private Sector

Research/academia

31%

Total

100%

Table 1.

Profile of interviewees

by telephone and 31 in person (Table 1). Quotes used in text boxes in Section
3 of this report come from these interviews. (An analysis of the findings from
interviews is available on request from the authors.)

Literature assessment

An assessment of existing literature in relevant fields was conducted. These fields
were divided into:

Water governance. This focused on access to water, accountability, sector

reform, economic and political change, participation and integrated water
resource management.

Poverty implications of climate change impacts on water ecosystems.

This focused on water rights, strengthening adaptive capacity, water for food,
managing water ecosystems, ecosystems as water infrastructure, investing in
water, and water and growth.

Climate change, development and the water sector. This briefly

considered the results from a previous consultation on climate change
adaptation (2005), and the major changes that have taken place since, in
relation to water issues and water sector priorities.

Payments for watershed services. This focused on the theory and current

reality of payments for watershed services, on land use and hydrology, and on
financing mechanisms.

Freshwater ecosystem services, climate change and poverty in the

Sahel. Concerted effort was made in this area because the new work by the

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests it is one of the
most vulnerable to climate variability and change due to multiple stresses and
low adaptive capacity.

These assessments made particular efforts to access grey literature as well as web-
based and published literature. Efforts were also made to uncover material that
explores the links and integration among the above fields.

Policy and practice analysis: identifying influences on water

delivery in key developing countries

The aim of these analyses was to understand how, and to what extent, policy and
planning related to water ecosystem services impact on practice, and to identify
how research efforts might improve the situation in future. Analyses were carried
out in India, South Africa, Kenya, Bolivia and Mexico.

Initial assessment suggested that much is already known about the immediate
influences of policy and planning on water delivery. Much less is known
or recognised about policy influences on the water and land use practices
that ultimately affect the wider range of benefits to people from freshwater
ecosystems. Thus the emphasis in these analyses was less on policy and planning
influences on delivery of water, and more on their influence over on-the-ground
practices that affect the quantity and quality of water available and poverty.
The impact of climate change thinking and evidence on relevant policies and
practices was also analysed. The analyses explored the relative impacts and
relationships between different policies and planning priorities over time and
place. Critically, they also explored the impact of research in these fields and
concluded with assessment on where research is most needed and how its
impact might be optimised.

The following six main steps were taken in each analysis:
1. ‘Map’ policies that affect the relationship between water ecosystem services

and the poor

2. ‘Overlay’ the policy map with climate change
3. Assess the interests and effectiveness of the state in water ecosystem services
4. Assess the role and effectiveness of other parties in influencing policy that

affects water ecosystem services

5. Forecast other changes
6. Highlight research priorities

‘Policy’ in this work was used as shorthand to mean the range of signals
that stem from laws, regulations, policies, subsidies, incentives, institutional
arrangements and major programmes and initiatives – primarily steered by
government but not exclusively so (non-governmental and private sectors develop
and use policies and institutions too). It was noted by these analyses that policy
often sends very mixed and conflicting ‘signals’ yet their effectiveness, efficiency,
equity and sustainability can, with some effort, be judged. It was also noted

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

that impacts of policy may be negative and positive, and act by compulsion,
persuasion, incentive or the absence of all three – we are interested in policy in
practice, not in theory.

The policy and practice analyses were each led by a key individual, who consulted
available literature, his/her own knowledge and experience base and a modest
number of key informants, before providing his/her own conclusions.

Workshop

A workshop was held in London in April 2007 with a sub-set of those consulted,
once preliminary findings had been generated. The objective was to share the
results of the process to that point, to interrogate the preliminary findings and to
identify issues that needed further examination or emphasis.

A good range of perspectives was brought together and a wealth of ideas and
information was generated. Participants broadly endorsed the approach taken by
the team and the validity of the major themes emerging from the work.

Ways forward: identifying key research areas and approaches

With the findings from the above tasks, the team debated and identified its
recommendations for the key research areas and research-to-policy entry points
for DFID-funded research on water ecosystem services and poverty reduction
under climate change. These recommendations on key research priorities and
delivery mechanisms are presented in Sections 4 and 5 below, following our
analysis in Section 3 of the issues arising from consultation work, the literature
review and the country policy and practice analyses.

2. The workshop report is available online at www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=G02513

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Analysis of issues

3.1

Conceptual framework

Fresh water is fundamental to life and contributes to all the major benefits
provided to people, both directly and indirectly, from ecosystems. The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, delivered in 2005, installs a wide definition
of these ‘ecosystem services’:

Provisioning services like food, fresh water and fibre

Regulating services like climate and flood regulation

Supporting services like soil formation and nutrient cycling

Cultural services like spirituality, aesthetics, education and recreation

Fresh water is a provisioning service as it provides for human use of water for
domestic use, irrigation, power generation and transportation. Fresh water
and the hydrological cycle also sustain inland water ecosystems, including
rivers, lakes and wetlands. These ecosystems provide cultural, regulating and
supporting services that contribute directly and indirectly to human well-being
through recreation, scenic values and maintenance of fisheries. Fresh water also
plays a role in sustaining freshwater-dependent ecosystems such as mangroves,
inter-tidal zones, and estuaries, which provide another set of services to local
communities and tourists alike (see Table 2). The trade offs and balances
between these different uses of fresh water – in the midst of increasing demand
for all types of human benefit derived from fresh water – are, to say the least,
major challenges.

Freshwater ecosystems include:

Permanent and temporary rivers and streams

Permanent lakes, reservoirs

Seasonal lakes, marshes and swamps, including floodplains

Forested, alpine and tundra wetlands

Springs and oases

Groundwater systems and geothermal wetlands

In addition to the climate regulating services provided by water bodies –
sequestering and releasing a major proportion of fixed carbon in the biosphere
– some water ecosystems, such as mangroves and floodplains, can play a key
role in the physical buffering of climate change impacts.

Poverty is multi-dimensional state of deprivation, of which lack of access to
adequate water of safe quality is a key characteristic. More water per se is unlikely
to reduce poverty unless complementary improvements in, for example, health,
education, infrastructure and employment are also made. Water poverty is not
limited to access to water for basic needs alone. Improved access to productive
uses of water is also a key determinant in lifting the poor out of poverty.

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Provisioning services

Regulatory services

Cultural services

Water quantity and quality
for consumptive use
(for drinking, domestic
use, and agriculture and
industrial use)

Water for non-
consumptive use (for
generating power and
transport/navigation)

Aquatic organisms for
food and medicines

Maintenance of water quality
(natural filtration and water
treatment)

Buffering of flood flows, erosion
control through water–land
interactions and flood control
infrastructure

Climate regulation (source and
sink for greenhouse gases,
and influence temperature and
precipitation)

Recreation (river
rafting, etc. and
fishing as a sport)

Tourism (river
viewing)

Existence values
(personal
satisfaction from
free-flowing rivers)

Supporting services

Nutrient cycling (role in maintenance of floodplain fertility)

Ecosystem resilience

Mitigation of climate change (mangroves and floodplains providing physical buffering)

Table 2.

Ecosystem services provided by fresh water and the

hydrological cycle

Source: adapted from Aylward et al. (2005)

Water availability introduces the temporal and spatial dimensions of water
poverty. For example, a person can remain permanently below a stylised poverty
line and be ‘chronically poor’. Alternatively, a person can be ‘transitorily poor’ and
step out of poverty following a good harvest or reduced disease burden but fall
back into poverty the following year. The transitorily poor may cause additional
development policy concern to the enduring problems of ‘chronic poverty’ as
this group may have increased exposure to climate change. With few livelihood
options, the poor may adopt a range of low-risk, low-return activities or informal
insurance networks that may reduce their risk from minor perturbations but that
leave them exposed to the next major climate event.

Given the complexity in water and poverty relationships, a Drivers–State–
Impacts–Response framework provides a conceptual understanding of some of
the linkages between drivers of change, water ecosystems and poverty (Figure
3). The framework illustrates the role of change in water ecosystems and how
this has direct impacts on development pathways, including water poverty, and
a range of responses available to society. Drivers of change affecting water
ecosystems include climate change, economic growth, population growth,
urbanisation, energy use, land use change or trading systems. Drivers can
work independently or in combination to alter the state of water ecosystems.
Combined drivers might occur when economic growth leads to higher incomes,
increased energy demands, urbanisation and changes in dietary requirements,
such as from low water use (e.g. cereals) to high water use (e.g. meat).

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

The state of water ecosystems will have water management implications in
terms of availability of water for allocation to domestic, industrial, agricultural
or energy uses. The timing, allocation and access to water have implications
for development pathways across economic, energy, food systems and poverty
sectors. In turn, these sectors may have direct impacts on water ecosystems in
terms of abstraction, pollution or system modification (e.g. draining wetlands).
Society has an array of responses at its disposal to alter drivers of change, subject
to its political, economic, institutional and environmental situation. Responses
available to global, national or local actors and institutions to mitigate, adapt or
cope with climate-related changes to water ecosystems include improvements
in governance, rights-based approaches, technological innovations, investment
allocations, individual or collective decision-making, policy shifts or economic
instruments, such as water pricing.

Figure 3.

Conceptual framework on water ecosystem services and

poverty

Drivers

State

Impacts

Responses

Climate change
Economic growth
Population growth
Urbanisation
Energy use/source
Land use
Trading systems
Info-technology

Ecosystems and services
– rivers, lakes, wetlands
groundwater systems, etc.
– provisioning, regulating,
supporting, cultural

Water management:
storage, distribution,
treatment, etc.
a. Water resources
for energy, irrigation,
recreation, industry,
nature, etc.
b. Water services for
domestic needs

Development pathway
– Economic
e.g. jobs GDP
– Energy
e.g. carbon, other
– Food
e.g. irrigated, rainfed
– Poverty
e.g. income, food,
well-being, freedom,
water

Governance
Rights
Technology
Investment
Decision/choice
Economic
instruments

Impact pathway
Response pathway

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

3.2

Analysis of existing knowledge, its use and key

researchable gaps

Productivity of land and water are increasing…

Some promising trends were identified by the Comprehensive Assessment of
Water Management in Agriculture (CAWMA) – pulling together five years of
work by more than 700 scientists and practitioners from around the world
(Molden 2007):

Land and water productivity are rising steadily – with average grain yields rising

from 1.4 metric tons per hectare to 2.7 metric tons over the past four decades.

Average global per capita daily food supply increased from 2400 kilocalories

(kcal) in 1970 to 2800 kcal in 2000 (slower rises to 2400 kcal in South Asia
and 2200 kcal in sub-Saharan Africa by 2000).

Potential increases in yields are greatest in rainfed areas, where many of the

world’s poorest people live and where managing water is the key to such
increases.

While some expansion of irrigated land will be needed to feed the world

population of 8–9 billion expected by 2050, with determined change there is
real scope to increase production on many existing irrigated lands, while there
is potential in many areas for highly productive pro-poor groundwater use, e.g.
in the lower Gangetic plains and parts of sub-Saharan Africa.

The CAWMA concluded that there is enough fresh water to produce food for all
the world’s people over the next half century, but also that failure to drastically
improve water use in this period will mean that environmental crises will be
experienced in many locations.

Box 1.

Freshwater ecosystem services are central to human well-being

Each person needs over 4000 litres of water each day to produce enough food for a healthy

diet. A calorie of food takes a litre of water to produce. A kilo of grain takes 500–4000 litres,
a kilo of industrially produced meat 10,000 litres.

Of the water available for withdrawal from rivers, lakes and groundwater, humans take some

3800 cubic kilometres. Some 70 per cent of this is used for irrigated agriculture, industry
takes another 20 per cent and municipalities take the remaining 10% for domestic use.

Some 55 per cent of the global gross value of crop production is grown under rainfed

agriculture on 72 per cent of harvested land There are large regional differences in the
percentage of rainfed cultivated land, from almost 95 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa and
almost 90 per cent in Latin America, to less than 70 per cent in the Near East and North
Africa and less than 60 per cent in South Asia. In Southeast Asia the picture is more mixed.

It is estimated that global wetlands generate values to humans worth in the region of US$70

billion per year.

Fresh water is crucial to climate stability. For example, although covering only an estimated

3–4 per cent of the world’s land area, wet peatlands are estimated to hold 540 gigatons
of carbon, representing 25–30 per cent of global carbon contained in terrestrial vegetation
and soils.

Sources: Falkenmark and Rockstrom (2005), Finlayson et al. (2005), Molden (2007), WWF (2006)

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

…But freshwater ecosystem services are in trouble – hitting the poor

hardest

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) showed that the gains made for
human well-being over the last 50 years have come at the expense of ecosystem
degradation, which is now being compounded in particular by climate change
and nutrient pollution. Already some 2 billion people living in dry regions are
intensely vulnerable to the loss of ecosystems services, including water supply.

The MA and CAWMA demonstrated
that freshwater ecosystem services are
in trouble particularly. It found that the
degradation of lakes, rivers, marshes
and groundwater systems is more rapid
than that of other ecosystems. Similarly
it found that the status of freshwater
species is deteriorating faster than those
of other ecosystems. This loss of species
and genetic diversity decreases the
resilience of ecosystems – their ability to
maintain ecosystem services as conditions change. However there is a severe lack
of information on freshwater biodiversity, its links to livelihoods and the impacts
of current changes.

Primary direct drivers of degradation of freshwater ecosystem services include
infrastructure development, land conversion, water withdrawal, eutrophication
and pollution, overexploitation, and the introduction of invasive alien species.

Box 2.

Problems for freshwater ecosystem services

Lake Chad shrank over 35 years from about 2.5 million hectares in surface area to only

one-twentieth of that size at the end of the 20th century as a consequence of, at first,
low rainfall, then a poor understanding of the climate and badly planned irrigation projects
– with the subsequent loss of many species and ecosystem services.

The surface area of the Mesopotamian marshes (located between the Tigris and Euphrates

Rivers in southern Iraq) decreased from an area of 15,000–20,000 square kilometres in the
1950s to less than 400 square kilometres today due to excessive water withdrawals, dams
and industrial development (these marshes have since been large rehabilitated since the
removal of the Saddam regime).

The volume of water in the Aral Sea basin has been reduced by 75 per cent since 1960 due

mainly to large-scale upstream diversions of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya river flow for
irrigation of close to 7 million hectares.

Of the 1138 waterbird biogeographic populations whose trends are known, 41 per cent are

in decline. Of the 964 bird species that are predominantly wetland-dependent, 203 (21 per
cent of total) are extinct or globally threatened.

Approximately 20 per cent of the world’s 10,000 described freshwater fish species have been

listed as threatened, endangered, or extinct in the last few decades.

According to the World Water Council, more than half of the major rivers of the world are

seriously polluted (WWC 1999 cited in Aylward et al. 2005).

Sources: Vorosmarty et al. (2005), Finlayson and D’Cruz (2005), Finlayson et al. (2005), Aylward et al.
(2005), UNDP (2006)

‘The water ecosystem services

approach is a good way of breaking

down “water” into its essential

components and making the links

with other parts of the landscape; it’s

a good political tool. In Tanzania, the
environment ministry gained support

from other ministries on the issue of

climate change by using this approach’

Gordon Conway, survey respondent

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Many indirect drivers of change work through the impacts of land use arising
from agriculture-related activities. Both the extensive use of water for irrigation
and excessive nutrient loading from the use of nitrogen and phosphorous in
fertilisers have, despite their major contributions to global food production and
employment, resulted in a decline in the delivery of services such as fresh water
and fish species.

Degradation of ecosystem services hits the poor disproportionately. It is also
sometimes the principal factor causing poverty, often contributes to the growing
inequities and disparities across groups, and increasingly fuels social conflict. With
limited other resources, poor people are more vulnerable to ecosystem change.
The absence of clean water is a major cause of poverty and malnutrition.

Of the estimated 850 million people who are undernourished globally (FAO
2004), several types of dependency on water ecosystem services can be
characterised:

Smallholder farmers (50 per cent of those undernourished) – depend on

access to secure water supplies for food production, nutrition, income and
employment.

Urban poor (20 per cent) – also depend on access to water supplies, have

benefited from the lower food prices made possible through productivity gains
in agriculture, and show an increasing pattern of urban–rural family linkages.

Rural landless (20 per cent) – depend on water access and may gain

employment in rainfed or irrigated agriculture.

Pastoralists, fishers and forest-dependents (10 per cent) – vulnerable

respectively to drought and climate change, water pollution and river water
depletion, and clearing of land for agriculture and eventually deforestation.

Poor people’s dependency on water ecosystem services is greatly affected by
policy decisions and the actions of the more wealthy. Mounting pressure to
reallocate water from agriculture to industry threatens to increase rural poverty.
Richer people’s greater access to many ecosystem services, their over-consumption
and waste, and prevailing resource-intensive development patterns are the flip-
side of the same coin of ‘water poverty’ and require equal efforts to redress.

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Box 3.

Poor people are hit hardest by degraded freshwater ecosystem

services

1.6 million children under five years of age die each year because of unclean water and poor

sanitation.

One in five people in the developing world – 1.1 billion in all – lacks access to an improved

water source. The Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of halving by 2015 the proportion
of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water will be missed on current trends
by 235 million people. To meet the MDG, 300,000 people need to gain access each day,
every day from now until 2015.

Most of these 1.1 billion people use about 5 litres of water a day – one quarter of the 20

litres now considered a minimum threshold and, increasingly, a basic human right, and one-
tenth of the average daily amount used in rich countries to flush toilets

Diseases and productivity losses linked to water and sanitation in developing countries

amount to 2 per cent of GDP, rising to 5 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa—more than the
region gets in aid.

In many of the poorest countries the poorest households pay as much as 10 times more for

water as wealthy households.

Africa and Asia account for 80 per cent of people currently unserved by an improved water

source, of whom rural people are five times less likely to be served than urban dwellers.

Within the household the gender division of labour means that women and girls shoulder

a greater burden of disadvantage than do men because they are responsible for collecting
water, cooking and caring for young, elderly and sick family members.

Water is a vital productive input for the smallholder farmers who account for more than half

of the world’s population living on less than $1 a day.

The number of people living in water-stressed countries will increase from about 700 million

today to more than 3 billion by 2025.

Over 1.4 billion people currently live in river basins where the use of water exceeds minimum

recharge levels, leading to the desiccation of rivers and depletion of groundwater.

In water-stressed parts of India irrigation pumps extract water from aquifers 24 hours a day

for wealthy farmers, while neighbouring smallholders depend on the vagaries of rain. In parts
of India, groundwater tables are falling by more than 1 metre a year.

Groundwater depletion poses a grave threat to agricultural systems, food security and

livelihoods across Asia and the Middle East.

In Ethiopia the military budget is 10 times the water and sanitation budget – in Pakistan, 47

times.

The United States stores about 6000 cubic metres of water per person compared to 43 cubic

metres in Ethiopia.

Sources: Vorosmarty et al. (2005), UNDP (2006), WHO and UNICEF (2006)

Water problems are increased by ecosystem degradation

Huge gains have been made in meeting human needs through water resources
development – the construction of dams and irrigation channels, the construction
of river embankments to improve navigation, drainage of wetlands for flood
control, and the establishment of inter-basin connections and water transfers.
Between 1990 and 2000, 1.2 billion people have been supplied with both
improved water and improved sanitation (WHO and UNICEF 2006). This is a
massive achievement, although population growth has diminished its impact, but
reaching the ‘second billion’ is proving a harder and slower task (as noted in the
box above).

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Human Activity

Impact on Ecosystems

Dam construction

Alters timing and quantity of river flows. Water
temperature, nutrient and sediment transport, delta
replenishment, blocks fish migrations

Dyke and levee construction

Destroys hydrologic connection between river and
floodplain habitat

Diversions

Depletes stream flow

Draining of wetlands

Eliminates key component of aquatic ecosystem

Deforestation/land use change

Alters runoff patterns, inhibits groundwater recharge,
fills water bodies with silt

Release of polluted water effluents

Diminishes water quality

Overharvesting

Depletes species populations

Introduction of exotic species

Eliminates native species, alters production and nutrient
cycling

Emission of pollutants into the
atmosphere

Alters chemistry of rivers and lakes, and changes in
runoff patterns from increase in temperature rainfall
changes

At the same time, these approaches have themselves become direct drivers of
ecosystem degradation. The impacts of water resource development are twofold:
less water remains in the ecosystem and the distribution and availability of the
remaining water often has a different pattern from that present under natural
conditions. It is estimated that the amount of water withdrawn from inland
water systems has increased by at least 15 times over the past two centuries. The
impact of withdrawals, though, is not evenly spread and it is estimated that about
80 per cent of the global population is living downstream of only 50 per cent of
Earth’s renewable water supplies (Vorosmarty et al. 2005).

Inland water ecosystems have also been polluted by excessive nutrients, which
drive eutrophication; heavy metals; nitrogen and sulphur based compounds,
which cause acidification of freshwater ecosystems; organic compounds;
suspended particles, both organic and inorganic; contaminants such as bacteria,
protists, or amoebae; and salinity. Changes in the condition of freshwater and
associated inland water ecosystems have also occurred at the hands of other
direct drivers such as species introductions and land use change (Table 3).

Table 3.

Impacts of human activity on freshwater ecosystems

Source: Aylward et al. (2005)

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Climate change will exacerbate water problems

One of the greatest impacts of climate change will be on water cycles.
A changing climate can modify all elements of the water cycle, including
precipitation, evaporation, soil moisture, groundwater recharge, and runoff. It can
also change both the timing and intensity of precipitation, snowmelt and runoff.
Modelling exercises point to complex and still uncertain outcomes. But the weight
of evidence suggests that many of the world’s most water-stressed areas will get
less water, and water flows will become less predictable and more subject to
extreme events.

Box 4.

Climate change will intensify water problems for the poor

Water insecurity linked to climate change threatens to increase malnutrition by 75–125

million people by 2080, with staple food production in many sub-Saharan African countries
falling by more than 25 per cent.

Marked reductions in water availability in East Africa, the Sahel and Southern Africa are

predicted as rainfall declines and temperature rises, with large productivity losses in basic
food staples. Projections for rainfed areas in East Africa point to potential productivity losses
of up to 33 per cent in maize and more than 20 per cent for sorghum and 18 per cent for
millet.

Disruption of food production systems has been predicted, exposing an additional 75–125

million people to the threat of hunger.

The UN estimates that 50 million ‘environmentally displaced’ people around the world could

join the exodus of migrants crossing borders in search of new livelihoods.

Rising sea levels are likely, resulting in freshwater losses in river delta systems in countries

such as Bangladesh, Egypt and Thailand.

Some 150,000 people a year are now dying as a result of climate change, as diseases spread

faster at higher temperatures. WHO warns that globally some 80 million more people could
become infected with malaria.

The ‘Stern Review’ carried out by the UK government on the economics of climate change

calculated that the dangers of unabated climate change would be equivalent to at least 5 per
cent of global GDP each year for a narrow range of direct effects, and about 20 per cent of
global GDP if a wider range of impacts on the environment and poor people are taken into
account.

Sources: DWC (2003), IPCC (2007a), Scholze et al. (2006), SDI (2007), Stern (2006), UNDP (2006), WHO (2003)

The fourth assessment reports of the IPCC in 2007 synthesise current scientific
understanding of impacts of climate change on ecosystems, and the vulnerability
and capacity of social systems to adapt. The overall message is that the ability
of many ecosystems to adjust to change and bounce back from shocks will be
exceeded this century (Figure 4).

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Figure 4.

Potential climate change impacts on water, ecosystems, food

and health

Notes to figure. The figures shows examples of global impacts projected for climate changes associated with
different amounts of increase in global average surface temperature in the 21st century. Impacts will vary by
extent of adaptation, rate of temperature change, and socio-economic pathway. The black lines link impacts,
dotted arrows indicate impacts continuing with increasing temperature. Entries are placed so that the left hand
side of text indicates approximate onset of a given impact. Source: Reproduced from IPCC (2007b)

Annual average river runoff and water availability are projected to increase by
10–40 per cent at high latitudes but decrease by 10–30 per cent over some dry
regions at mid-latitudes and in the dry tropics (Figure 5). Drought-affected areas
will likely increase in extent. Heavy precipitation events are likely to increase
in frequency, augmenting flood risks. Poor communities are considered to be
particularly vulnerable in high-risk regions, such as the tropics and coastal zones
– having limited adaptive capacities and being vulnerable to changes in climate-
sensitive resources, such as local water and food supplies.

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

IPCC (2007a) predictions by major region can be summarised as follows:

Africa. New studies confirm that Africa is a particularly vulnerable continent
because of multiple stresses and low adaptive capacity. Agricultural production
is likely to be severely compromised in many regions by climate variability and
change. The projections suggest increasing challenges in terms of increased water
stress and adverse effects on food production as areas suitable for agriculture
along the margins of semi-arid and arid areas are expected to decrease. An
estimated 600,000 km

of arable land could be lost with between 75 and

250 million of sub-Saharan Africa’s 800 million people facing physical water
scarcity. Rising sea levels pose threats to Gambia around to the Gulf of Guinea
and a predicted band of desiccation will wrap around the Congo Basin from
the Gambia to Angola (Figure 6). Although some adaptation to current climate
variability is taking place, it may be insufficient for future climate changes.

Asia. An expanded set of challenges is predicted for Asia linked to glacial melt
in the Himalayas, affecting water resources first by increasing flooding, and later
followed by decreased dry-season river flows as the glaciers recede over the next
20–30 years. The glaciers of the Himalayas and Tibet alone feed seven of the
world’s greatest rivers – Brahmaputra, the Ganges, Indus, Irrawady, Mekong,
Salween and Yangtze – which provide water supplies for more than 2 billion
people. Some modelling exercises for India predict an increased proportion of rain
falling during intensive monsoon episodes in parts of the country that are already
well endowed with rainfall. Meanwhile, two-thirds of the country will have fewer
rainy days. This will translate into a net loss for water security, placing a premium
on water harvesting and storage (Figure 7). The dense populations in the mega-
delta regions in South, East and Southeast Asia will also be at great risk from sea-
level rise. Many of these regions are under intensive rice cultivation, and sea-level
rise is likely to keep hunger risks very high in several countries in Asia.

Latin America. In Latin America, decreases in green water (soil moisture) are
projected to lead to gradual replacement of tropical forests by savannah in
eastern Amazonia, where significant biodiversity loss is also foreseen. In drier
areas of the continent, salinisation and degradation of agricultural land may be
expected. Glaciers on this continent may disappear, while areas of critical water
stress will increase (Figure 8).

In addition to the direct impacts on species and ecosystems noted by the MA and
IPCC, indirect impacts of climate change on the physical, chemical and biological
characteristics of wet ecosystems include (DWC 2003): shifts in vegetative season;
species invasions; range extensions and contractions; shifts in nutrient cycles
related to fluctuations in water levels, and shifts in intensity and frequency of
structuring processes (fire, flood, pests).

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Box 5.

The Sahel – A crucible of the issues for water ecosystem

services, climate change and poverty

In the past quarter century the Sahel has experienced the most substantial and sustained decline
in rainfall recorded anywhere and river discharge has fallen by more than 40 per cent. Yet the
Sahel, like other drylands, is in continuous transition as its ecosystems and human systems adapt
to many drivers of change, including climate change, demographic and economic change, and
changes in natural resource management (de Oliveira, Duraiappah and Shepherd 2003; Dobie
and Goumandakoye 2005). Climate change scenarios for the region do not all agree (Haarsma
et al. 2005; Held et al. 2005; Hulme et al. 2005), and according to the IPCC, ‘it is uncertain how
rainfall in the Sahel... .will evolve this century’ (IPCC 2007b: 866).

In  the  Sahel,  seasonal  streams  with  associated  flooding  in  topographical  depressions  are  the
basis of support for grazing and temporary settlements, while for drinking, watering animals
and domestic use in permanent settlements, Sahelians depend on groundwater. Early research
found that in the arid Sahel, annual rainfall is a strong correlate of plant biomass productivity,
because  nutrients  are  not  limiting,  whereas  in  the  semi-arid  Sahel  (where  rainfed  farming  is
undertaken), nutrient deficiencies may set a ceiling to productivity (Breman and de Wit 1983;
Penning de Vries and Djiteye 1991). Recent research emphasises the importance of soil biology,
and  especially  where  organic  manure  is  used  rather  than  agro-chemicals  alone  (Harris  2002;
Mortimore and Harris 2005; Uphoff et al. 2006). It is noted that water (rather than soil moisture)
is necessary for making compost, which can double yields on poor soils.

Research tends to confirm that the mobility of nomadic and transhumant pastoralists is rational,
efficient and non-destructive of the natural resource, and mobile grazing systems derive fresh
relevance under conditions of increasing rainfall variability predicted in climate change scenarios.
But conflict over closed borders and zones of exclusion is increasing, and wetlands and access
routes are increasingly alienated from the pastoralists. There has been a significant increase in
violent incidents, e.g. along the Hadejia River in northern Nigeria.

Throughout  the  region  market  demand  for  food  commodities  is  rising  very  rapidly  with
urbanisation  predicted  to  increase  from  40  per  cent  in  1990  to  63  per  cent  in  2020.  There
is  rising  demand  for  meat,  which  requires  more  water  per  kg  to  produce  than  cereals.  The
mismatch between urbanisation and the availability of blue water in the Sahel becomes ever
more stark.

In urban areas water delivery to poor households is often by carriers and a situation where poor
people pay while the rich get it free is common. Piped water systems in urban areas are prone to
local failures in the treatment of sewage, which finds its way into streamflow. In the dry season,
it is common for urban waste water to be used for irrigating vegetables and fruit trees in the
peri-urban zone. A growing market for safe water is suggested by the sales of bottled water,
which have spread from a few francophone cities in the 1960s to most West African markets
today. This trend among a growing salaried class, however, should not deceive: poor people in
urban areas are still at risk.

Problems  for  water  ecosystem  services  in  the  Sahel  are  likely  to  intensify  regardless  of  the
direction  of  climate  change.  Catchment  planning  is  an  urgent  priority.  This  suggests  that
governments  need  to  move  beyond  simple  strategies  of  drilling  boreholes  to  capture  votes
from rural areas, and suggests a transition from a perception of water as a free and unlimited
good  to  one  of  scarcity  in  which  management  is  driven  by  considerations  of  value.  It  also
means that development and disaster relief agencies need to look harder at the root causes of
vulnerability – which is crucially influenced by gender, ethnic group and generation issues, and
by contemporary and historical processes often not analysed.

Source: Mortimore (2007)

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Governance is the key

Decisions about water ecosystem services, who makes them and how they are
made, are at both the core of most of the main problems and the target of most
attempts to improve matters. Better governance of water ecosystem services thus
stands out from the research scoping exercise as both the necessary solution to
many challenges and the appropriate target for research itself.

The above analysis of the links between poverty, water ecosystem services and
climate change illustrate some of the governance imperatives. Further shifts
in governance, much called for in the literature and consultations, would for
example enable decisions that (e.g. Falkenmark and Rockstrom 2005, Molden
2007):

Establish and implement systems of water use rights and entitlements.

Recognise green water issues and land use issues in water resources

management much more – to reduce the loss of green water through
non-productive evaporation and make it accessible to plants as productive
transpiration in forestry products, grain farming and market food needs.

Enable water to be re-allocated from lower- to higher-‘value’ uses particularly

in closing river basins. How ‘value’ is assessed across social and economic
considerations is of course critical.

Provide incentives for water conservation including rewards for saving water.

Set and enforce water quality standards.

Box 6.

Research issues highlighted in the in-depth interviews

Among  the  interviewees  discussing  Asian  contexts  there  is  a  growing  sense  of  ‘water  crisis’
exacerbated by rapid economic growth and urbanisation. ‘Basin closure’ and the severe depletion
of groundwater are realities that are already being experienced in many parts of the region and
are  likely  to  spread.  In  contrast,  the  challenges  to  freshwater  systems  in  Africa  are  generally
felt  less  acutely,  but  the  likely  impacts  of  climate  change  in  the  semi-arid  and  arid  regions  of
the  continent  will  have  severe  and  long-term  impacts  on  freshwater  ecosystems,  economic
development and poverty.

Provisioning services of freshwater ecosystems are seen as the most important category of
ecosystem services in terms of poverty and the likely impacts of climate change. Regulating
services are seen as less well understood and an appropriate focus for the proposed research
programme – often best approached through initial consideration of provisioning services.

Governance, and the range of imperatives in improving how decisions are made and by whom,
is seen as the core challenge by many in sustaining ecosystem services and the needs of the poor
in all regions. There is a range of research themes on governance around which the proposed
research programme might best be built.

Urbanisation, migration and economic development are powerful drivers of change. In the
short  term  they  are  likely  to  have  as  much  influence  over  freshwater  ecosystems  and  poverty
as  climate  change.  Increasing  frequency  and  severity  of  extreme  climatic  events  and  absolute
shortages  of  water  may  increase  urbanisation  trends  and  lead  to  large-scale  local,  regional  or
international migrations.

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Hydrological research needs are strongly perceived by a body of interviewees who see critical
gaps in understanding which, if filled appropriate to context, would unlock action generally for
better management of water ecosystem services. Others perceive sufficient existing understanding
on most hydrological issues.

Economic instruments for better sustaining water ecosystem services were also identified
as an area of research priority by some and not others. Payments for watershed services were
recognised as a tool for integrating upstream and downstream stakeholders in some contexts
and these contexts need more research. The role of economic instruments in achieving greater
efficiency with equity in water use is another area where research is seen as high priority.

Important  challenges  that  will  need  to  be  considered  in  the  design  of  the  proposed  research
programme were raised in the interviews. Foremost is doing more than has been done in the
past to ensure that research and research outcomes feed into policy process. Second is making
better  use  of  the  enormous  body  of  research  work  on  freshwater  ecosystems  and  their  links
with poverty that already exists. Third is taking care to overcome the potential barrier that the
language  of  ‘water  ecosystem  services’  may  represent  among  water  sector  practitioners  and
potential end users in developing countries.

Ultimately, any development of water resources will involve a trade-off between
provisioning, and the cultural, regulating and supporting services. Current
trends to continue favouring provisioning services should reduce poverty. But
due to the linkage between ecosystems and their cultural, regulatory and
supporting services, poverty can only be reduced so far before feedback loops
from ecosystem degradation cascade back through these services, thereby
reducing well-being, particularly for the poorest members of society (Aylward
et al. 2005). While optimisation is unlikely in the real world, balance across
ecosystem services remains a key imperative for their governance. For this to
make progress, key direct drivers of governance change need to be addressed,
such as internalising environmental externalities, ensuring stakeholder
participation, and increasing transparency and accountability of government
and private sector decision-making.

A trend in water governance thinking towards ‘distributed’ governance systems
– which aim to supplement formal authority by an increasing reliance on informal
authority, for example through genuine public–private cooperation – is having
some influence (Green 2007). This might be usefully extended to governance of
water ecosystem services.

Governance is political – it will tend to be defined to suit those who hold a
particular vision of the future. Good governance is therefore only meaningful if
developed to suit local conditions. Incremental improvement and flexibility are key
and support is best targeted at capacity for governance (i.e. information systems,
stakeholder platforms, legal and regulatory mechanisms, executive capabilities
and conflict resolution systems) to enable society to respond to and adapt to
uncertainty, variability and change that could be local or regional, short or long
term, political, economic or environmental.

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Current writing on governance tends to be gender blind while physical presence
and the exercise of public voice continue to be major elements of the formal
institutions of water resource management. Clearly governance of water ecosystem
services needs to take better account of the roles of women in managing water
service delivery and in water-related decision-making (Cleaver 2007).

Box 7.

Bolivia’s need for research on what policy interventions actually

work, and on capacity

Water ecosystem services in Bolivia are split along a series of fault lines, the most important of
which are geographical and biophysical. The altiplano highlands are a low precipitation desert
with most available water coming from summer glacier- and snow-melt, which is only minimally
affected by land use. At the other extreme, lowland Bolivia is humid with high year-round rainfall
and relatively little human impact on water ecosystem services. Thus it is only the area between
the high Andes and the Amazon – the transitional inter-Andean valleys and slopes – where
human activities can define the scope of water ecosystem services.

Climate change will likely increase extreme flows in the altiplano in the short term, while long-
term increased temperatures may serve to reduce summer base flow. In the mid-altitude valleys,
under a scenario of ‘permanent’ El Niño-like conditions, rainfall and flooding extremes will likely
increase. Data for the Amazon suggest that warmer temperatures and decreased precipitation
during already dry months could result in more severe droughts. Coupled with land use changes,
these changes could lead to increased ecological degradation and spread of infectious diseases.
Effects on agricultural yields will vary by region and by crop – with the positive physiological
effects of CO

enrichment being countered by temperature increases in some conditions, leading

to shortening of the growing season, rainfall changes and consequent reductions in crop yields.

Policymakers have tried and failed 32 times to update and modify Bolivia’s antiquated 1906 water
law. Faced with this legal gridlock, various new sectoral laws and policies have been developed
instead. Many of these laws affect water service provision, but contradict, strengthen, oppose
or ignore the articles of the water law itself. Added to this confused and unmanageable system
is the general inability of the Bolivian state to reach into its more remote areas, which leaves a
jurisdictional vacuum that at least in the short term will most likely be filled by locally developed
activities and policies. Even if central government laws and policies were actually implemented,
biophysical realities mean that such policies would affect water ecosystem services only in the
mid-altitude valleys.

There  is  a  clear  need  for  research  that  can  help  Bolivian  policymakers  to  develop  appropriate
institutions,  policies  and  laws  that  ensure  the  provision  of  water  ecosystem  services.  But  the
above-mentioned abortive attempts to create new water legislation act as a warning. Greater
understanding  is  needed  of  how,  and  under  what  circumstances,  policies  and  interventions
protect water ecosystem services. One of the greatest bottlenecks is the lack of human capacity,
so cost-effective donor research investments are likely to build local capacity to carry out such
policy research.

Source: Asquith and Vargas (2007b)

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

There is no shortage of guidelines or toolboxes that can be helpful in improving
different aspects of governance for water ecosystem services. For example:

Guidelines for improved local water governance: www.empowers.info/

page/2850

Sustainable livelihoods toolbox: www.livelihoods.org/info/info_toolbox.html#1

Global Water Partnership toolbox: www.gwpforum.org/

Tools to support transparency in local governance: http://ww1.transparency.

org/toolkits

‘Power tools’ series from IIED: www.policy-powertools.org

The challenge, however, is to adapt, pilot and mainstream these tools such that
they are brought into everyday use.

Governance has received increasing attention from DFID in both its development
and research programme in recent years (DFID 2006a; Moore and Unsworth
2006) so the organisation is well placed to support effective research initiatives on
governance of water ecosystem services.

Water rights and sustainability – a particular governance challenge

Insecurity of water rights, mismatches between formal legislation and informal
customary water rights, and an unequal distribution of water rights are frequent
sources of conflict (UNDP 2007a; Hodgson 2004). In contrast, the establishment
of well-defined and coherent roles and responsibilities through legislation of
formal and informal water rights may lead to a number of social, economic
and environmental benefits including: equitable water use; improved efficiency
and productivity of existing water supply allocations; an increased willingness
of users to take economic risks by investing in improved water management
and practices in both rural and urban contexts; and reduced pressure on
water resources because those with water rights have incentives for managing
resources sustainably.

In 2002, the United Nations recognised water as a human right in a legally non-
binding normative framework, which has been supported by DFID and other
bilateral donors (UNDP 2006; DFID 2006b). The moral case is complemented
by economic and political arguments to foster national prosperity and stability.
What is less clear is how such desirable outcomes can be achieved effectively and
sustainably given past water policy failures (Thompson, Porras et al. 2001; Biswas
2003). For example, will making water a ‘right’ tip the balance in favour of the
poor or paralyse embattled governments and service providers? Anand’s (2006)
analysis of changes in water (and sanitation) access between 1990 and 2004
suggests that the context-specific historical roots of the issues matter along with
an uncertain combination of growth and social sector spending.

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Research may need to more effectively combine back-casting to data points in
the past with forward-casting through narrative scenarios that recognise risk
and uncertainty to better evaluate societal demands and preferences, ecosystem
integrity and the financial sustainability of delivering water as a human right. DFID
could make significant gains for water rights and sustainability by supporting this
kind of research.

Box 8.

Research issues highlighted by the web survey

The top 10 (of 52) research issues by mean ranking of the 335 full responses to the web-based
survey were:

1.  Water quantity and quality for domestic water
2.  Soil and water conservation technologies
3.  Build capacity of water managers
4.  Equity in access to water for basic needs
5.  Institutions/norms/rules/rights for productive water use
6.  Effective participation in water decision-making
7.  Land use change, including forest cover and wetlands
8.  Sustainable groundwater use
9.  Regulating water investment decisions
10.  Social change/coping/adaptation/resilience

Domestic water and equity of access for basic needs rank as high priority issues in the
survey results. This supports DFID’s renewed engagement with the water sector and focus on
improved water access to reduce poverty. Equity, in a broad sense, may be promoted by improved
understanding of the risks poor people face over time; and better knowledge of how risks are
distributed and how people respond to risk is likely to be increased with better longitudinal data
that can evaluate climate-related impacts to ecosystems and livelihoods.

Water resource management, including areas such as soil and water conservation, land use
change,  groundwater  use  and  wetland  use,  is  a  research  area  that  records  high  scores  from
the analysis. These issues are particularly important for African experts – the region does stand
apart  from  Asia  in  terms  of  its  limited  water  storage  infrastructure  and  associated  exposure
and vulnerability to climate change. The descriptive rankings also reinforce the argument that
groundwater  management  is  one  of  the  most  pressing  challenges  for  Asia.  Africa  may  be
considered to face first-order physical water constraints, while Asia may be facing second-order
socio-political constraints to sustainable water resource management.

Institutional environment, including aspects of water legislation, regulation and enforcement
from the local level to the catchment scale, and on to transboundary issues is also emphasised in
the results. While global evidence illustrates the difficulties in effectively implementing IWRM, it
appears to be the best, or often the only, game in town. The analysis here may be understood as
endorsement for more and better research that improves and strengthens integrated approaches
across management, legal and regulatory domains.

Adaptation, including rainfall variability, farming adaptive capacity, water-related disease and
social coping mechanisms, is another strong theme in the survey findings. Building on knowledge
from both advances in theory and technology and existing indigenous knowledge emerges as an
important area for continuing research investment.

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Adaptive capacity and resilience need to be understood, and built

The array of potential options to adapt to changes in water ecosystem services
wrought by climate change is large, ranging from purely technological measures
such as sea defences, through behavioural adaptation such as altered food
choices, to managerial adaptation such as
altered farm practices, to policy such as
planning regulations. For developing countries,
availability of resources and adaptive capacity
building are particularly important. The
MA proposes that removing the existing
pressures on freshwater ecosystem services
and improving their resilience is the most
effective method of coping with the adverse
effects of climate change and a key element
in its mitigation. A key question then is
whether practical strategies for supporting and
developing such resilience can be found and
implemented (Mortimore and Anvell 2006).

Research needs to evaluate how effective current adaptive strategies are in
reducing food and water security risk for vulnerable groups in developing regions
at higher temperatures (IPCC 2007a) and higher agricultural commodity prices
related to cropland conversion to biofuel production. Technological innovations
for natural resource use under climate variability can also play a role in poverty
reduction (Mortimore and Manvell 2006), particularly when strengthening
existing adaptive capacity among poor people.
Wider concerns exist in terms of how the
political economy of climate change influences
development policy priorities between meeting
immediate needs in favour of laying down
effective plans for the future. Climate change may
perversely offer a political window where public
support drives institutional change in exploiting
synergies between Poverty Reduction Strategy
Papers, National Adaptation Programmes of
Action and water policy.

From its experience with the Renewable Natural
Resources Research Strategy in particular, DFID is well placed to capitalise on the
opportunity that climate change agendas bring to support research on land use
change, adaptation and resilience.

‘Climate change is creating
a conceptual framework to

better understand implications

of impacts on water resources.

Suddenly, intergenerational

equity is a key issue. From

a planning point of view,

sustainable development has

been very nebulous, but with

climate change it becomes a

very pragmatic issue’

Sarah McIntosh,

survey respondent

‘Political and media

interest in climate change

has meant that scarce

resources are being

diverted away from other

development priorities

to fund climate change

activities of as yet uncertain

return on investment’

John Hudson,

survey respondent

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Box 9.

Mexico’s need for research on investment, adaptation and

resilience

Currently,  Mexico  is  characterised  by  considerable  diversity  in  water  resources  between  the
largely  arid  northern  areas  of  the  country  and  the  much  better  and  well-watered  southern
states. Some 75 per cent of water is used for agriculture. Because water is considered a national
good, farmers are only required to pay for the costs of abstraction. Large quantities of water
are wasted because there are few, if any, incentives to use it efficiently. Mexico’s water resources
have  suffered  from  the  discharge  of  industrial  waste,  urban  effluent  and  non-point  pollution
from agro-chemicals to the extent that only 10 per cent of water supplies are considered to be
‘good quality’ or unpolluted.

Even without the impact of climate change, water resources in Mexico will come under enormous
stress from economic growth, population growth and the increased use of water for agriculture.
Climate change will exacerbate these projections as surface and ground water diminishes and
farmers try to compensate with higher levels of irrigation. Indirect effects of land use change such
as deforestation will impact on water quality, water quantity and seasonal flows. Climate change
projections also indicate that Mexico will bear a heavy burden with an increasing frequency and
severity of extreme events – particularly hurricanes.

National  Water  Law  presents  a  definition  of  water  ‘environmental’  services  as  those  benefits
of  ‘social  interest  generated  by  watersheds  and  its  components’,  such  as  climate  regulation,
conservation  of  hydrologic  cycles,  mitigation  of  erosion,  mitigation  of  floods,  recharge  of
aquifers, management of natural filtration for water quality and quantity, soil creation, sinks for
greenhouse gases and conservation and protection for biodiversity. Meanwhile, national forestry
law  has  created  a  trust  fund  for  interventions  with  environmental  services  and  to  support  an
increasingly impressive community forest enterprise programme.

To  date  then,  water  and  forest  policy  have  been  dominated  by  government  expenditure  on
supply-side investments. Recently, through the Payment of Hydrological Environmental Services
(PSAH),  the  government  has  sought  to  build  bridges  between  the  water  and  forestry  sectors.
Under the PSAH programme, government is a buyer of watershed services from land managers
in areas that are known to be critical for aquifer recharge, and increasingly in areas with high
poverty  incidence.  These  experiments  with  payments  for  hydrological  services  have  so  far
fostered substantial engagement of stakeholders. They do show promise, but have also met with
substantial criticism, largely due to their basis in subsidy, and face numerous challenges.

Research priorities may include: sustainability of payments for watershed services in the context
of market instruments and investment; governance of water ecosystem services; and many
aspects of variability, vulnerability, adaptation and resilience of water ecosystem services under
climate change.

Source: Cortina (2007)

Water for food, fuel and forests

As populations and incomes grow, demand for agricultural water will rise. For
example, by 2050 food demand is expected to double. Rockstrom (2007) argues
that ‘investments in rainfed agriculture have large payoffs in yield improvements
and poverty alleviation through income generation and environmental
sustainability’. The challenge is to tackle rainfall variability rather than an absolute
lack of water. Yet rainfed innovations also require complementary investments in
infrastructure, market access, credit, farm diversification and building adaptive
capacity for productivity gains to be sustainable in reducing poverty. Key questions

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

include: who will bear the costs, what will be the role of prices on agricultural
productivity and land use, and how will local improvements in rainwater
harvesting impact on interdependent water users?

While advances are being made to improve
weather forecasting in order to communicate
early warnings/opportunities to rainfed farmers
in Africa (Brew and Washington 2004), how
significant and usable this information will be is
difficult to predict. Equally, the actual benefits
of innovative financial mechanisms such as
monsoon-indexing and climate reinsurance in
semi-arid Africa and South Asia are uncertain,
though they may provide farmers with more
choices and reduce risk in the face of increasing
climate variability (Hess 2003). Equally, wider initiatives are being called for
in social marketing to change dietary attitudes and preferences to reduce
agricultural water demand and fuller understanding of ‘virtual water’ trading
approaches (Molden 2007).

The case of biofuel production is illustrative of how market forces are driving
ecosystem change as prices for oil have risen and global demand for alternative
energy has soared. Increasing farmer returns, higher foreign exchange earnings,
reduced fossil fuel imports and investment in rural areas are some of the positive
outcomes. The flip-side is that impacts on ecosystems are poorly understood
– although rapid processes of agricultural intensification or expansion certainly
have negative impacts. For example, it is estimated that under a scenario of heavy
reliance on biofuels, by 2050 total water demand for biofuel production will be
equivalent to today’s total agricultural water demand (Molden 2007).

Land use decisions effectively act as water resource
decisions by partitioning rainfall between vapour
flow (green water) and liquid flow (blue water).
This understanding has been recognised in South
Africa where Stream Flow Reduction Activity (SFRA)
policy taxes land uses that have an incremental
impact on water resources above a baseline natural
condition. For example, commercial forestry is
taxed by area on non-native forest species based on reductions in runoff. With
increased physical water scarcity under climate change, improved understanding
of forest-water interactions is needed (Bruijnzeel 2004, Calder 2005, Calder et
al. 2004, FRP 2005). It requires a fine balance to understand in different contexts
the type and extent of forests which meet societal needs and environmental
requirements. Simplified statements that ‘forests are bad/good’ are unhelpful
given the complexity of system interactions and the limited extent of adequate
biophysical data, environmental evaluation or societal assessment (ETFRN 2005).

‘A particular challenge for the

UK government is the frequent

and increasing contradiction

between domestic policy

pronouncements – like buy

local – and the aid agenda

which is supporting agriculture

as a driver of growth’

Anna Nileshwar,

survey respondent

‘Answering the main

hydrological questions is

the key to unlocking many

other water ecosystem

services issues’

Stefano Pagiola,

survey respondent

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Filling key knowledge gaps in determining under what conditions agricultural,
fuel and fibre systems enhance water ecosystem services for poverty reduction is a
particularly important niche for DFID-supported research.

Box 10.

India’s need for research on practical governance of water

ecosystem services and on the drivers of land use change

Projections of water demand in India indicate, according to the Ministry of Water Resources, that
the nation’s water requirements can be met until the year 2050 if integrated water management
plans are properly implemented. Beyond 2050, demand will exceed supply even with such
implemented plans. But two crucial factors have been absent in painting this relatively rosy
picture: the impact of new interventions such as watershed management programmes, and the
impact of climate change.

Policy provisions are reasonably solid – those in the National Water Policy provide a basis for
addressing many of the problems in the water sector while those in the 2006 Environment Policy
are the first to address climate change – but implementation to date is feeble.

Watershed development guidelines, most recently the ‘Hariyalli’ guidelines of 2004, are useful
(apart from the objective to harvest ‘every drop of water’ without accompanying guidance on
the potential lack of supply to downstream areas). However, implementation so far reveals weak
application of hydrological principles, and excessive focus on expenditure rather than a balance
of implementation means. Integrated watershed management would greatly benefit from
being based on a framework that effectively incorporates both administrative and hydrological
systems, and the generation and use of the right information to evaluate the cause and effect
of all proposed actions.

India  developed  its  first  ‘National  Communication’  (NATCOM)  on  climate  change  impact
assessment  for  the  UNFCCC  in  2004.  This  and  subsequent  NATCOM  area-specific  reports
remain the only significant national-level assessment of the impacts of climate change on water
resources.  The  Fourth  IPCC  Assessment  report  in  2007  predicts  severe  stress  on  the  already
stressed  ecosystems  of  India  –  ranging  from  increased  drought  and  river  system  closure  to
reduced flows in Himalayan river systems, extreme precipitation events, changes in crop yields
and  reduced  ecosystem  resilience.  India  has  experienced  a  series  of  extreme  events  that  fall
outside ‘usual’ natural variability and are associated with climate change.

Recent developments in collaborative research with UK institutions and others indicate
increasing concern about freshwater ecosystem services among policymakers and researchers
in India, but wider awareness is limited. Religious and value-based beliefs prevail, yet some of
these are highly questionable in hydrological terms. Other drivers of change in water ecosystem
services – such as afforestation targets, biofuel development and free extraction of groundwater
– are not addressed coherently, and not in the context of climate change.

Suggested  research  priorities  are  those  that  aim  to  improve  the  policy  implementation
environment  with  a  particular  focus  on  links  between  policies,  consideration  of  ecosystem
effects,  participation  and  negotiation,  and  evaluation.  Focused  research  should  also  aim  to
address  the  mismatch  between  hydrological  and  administrative  boundaries,  and  to  improve
understanding and management of the drivers of land use change. Research networks may be
best placed to take the initiative on these issues and to communicate findings to policymakers.

Source: Gosain (2007)

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Payments for water ecosystem services

– a tool worth further developing

Of various possibilities for ‘payments for
environmental services’, initiatives to establish
payments for watershed services have received
particular attention recently. The assumption is
that a payment or compensation by downstream
beneficiaries of changes in quantity or quality
of water will provide an incentive for upstream
land users to adopt conservation and sustainable land management practices
that guarantee these changes. Payments for watershed services schemes range
from a pilot project in Nicaragua that rewards just five families on 13 hectares of
land to a massive state-run Chinese project that aims to reach 15 million farmers
and 27,000 villages over 32 million hectares of land by 2010. Many emerging
schemes and programmes are characterised by considerable ingenuity and
creativity (Landell-Mills and Porras 2002) as stakeholders struggle to find new
ways of addressing long-standing and often intractable problems. A new global
review identifies nine active national programmes and 39 local schemes (as well
as another 45 proposals). Latin America leads the field with Asia catching up and
Africa lagging behind (Porras et al. 2007).

Emerging evidence identifies transaction costs, behavioural change, compliance,
institutional development, economic valuation, and resource evaluation and
monitoring as some of the key obstacles (Porras et al. 2007; IUCN 2006).
Schemes acknowledge the implicit inequality in expecting poor people to
sustainably manage ecosystems, whose goods and services benefit remote, un-
paying or future generations. To date, there is ambiguous evidence whether these
schemes, like traditional integrated conservation and development programmes,
can successfully combine environmental improvements and poverty reduction
(McCauley 2006; Porras et al. 2007; Gutman 2003). Limited quantified evidence
for positive impacts of payments for watershed services on livelihoods and poverty
comes from Latin America (Echavarria et al. 2004, Porras et al. 2007, Miranda
et al. 2003, Munoz 2004; Ortiz Malavasi 2003), while there is a developing
consensus that these schemes are unlikely to benefit those trapped in extreme
poverty because the barriers to their participation are too great (Wunder 2005).

Imposing strict poverty reduction criteria may, in some cases, be counter-
productive as a broader definition of rural development may mean the approach
can be more widely applied to explore innovative interventions while not
making the poor worse off. For example, research in Latin America and India
suggests that transitional payments to assist farmers move from degrading land
management practices to more benign practices can be self-funding over time,
can reverse ecological decline, and are socially acceptable, if there is adequate
compensation and support during the costly transition process (Bassi 2002;
Pagiola et al. 2004; Hope et al. 2006). Payments for watershed services may thus
be worthy of concerted further exploration in broader contexts of governance,

‘Even with our current

climate, variability is poorly

understood, which generally

leads to land use practices

in the uplands being

blamed for everything’

Meine van Noordwijk,

survey respondent

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

primarily as a new way to construct relationships between key stakeholders
around water and land use issues (IIED 2007; van Noordwijk et al. 2004). Having
backed pioneering work in these areas, DFID is well placed to follow this up.

Environmental flows and valuing ecosystems – still to break through

in policy

Environmental flows maintain freshwater ecosystems, whose services provide
critical contributions to surface and groundwater availability and quality, economic
development and poverty reduction (IUCN 2003). As might be anticipated, the
South Africans have legislated for such an Environmental Reserve in the National
Water Act (RSA 1998) and Europe has attempted to follow suit with the Water
Framework Directive requirement for ‘good ecological status’. The devil, as
always, is in the detail and difficulties arise in defining, measuring and valuing
environmental flows against societal preferences and governance capacity.
Gutman (2003) provide global lessons from 10 river basins, which suggest that
key ingredients for success are an adaptive mix of governance across spatial
levels with long-term and participatory visioning, in association with effective
partnerships and knowledge, plus predictable and sufficient investment.

Valuing ecosystems as water infrastructure is one approach that acknowledges
the considerable economic benefits the world’s ecosystems generate (IUCN
2004; Gutman 2003). However, high but unredeemable environmental values
in the context of climate shocks are meaningless as the poor have no choice
but to liquidate all available assets, including natural resources, to buffer losses
from other assets (Dercon 2002; Pearce 2005). Policy responses here need to
recognise that vulnerable groups have no effective insurance mechanisms against
large negative climate shocks and more accessible and effective savings schemes
need to be developed to insulate them against these. (Hess 2003, Dercon 2004;
IPCC 2007b).

A common perception is that valuation of ecosystem services and quantification
of environmental flows are too complex and too uncertain to be included in
decision-making. In some contexts, this is changing. Techniques are improving;
the critical factor now is recognition of their results in governance such that
the market and non-market values of services sustained by ecosystems are
internalised in water resources management.

Investing in water ecosystem services

The Camdessus Report (2003) estimates that more than US$13 billion per year
is needed to meet drinking water provision targets in developing countries.
Toubkiss (2006) compares more recent studies of water investment estimates and
concludes: ‘if the results are analysed on comparable bases, they appear quite
similar: approximately US$10 billion per year is needed to supply low-cost water
and sanitation services to people who are not currently supplied, a further US$15
to 20 billion a year to provide them with a higher level of service and to maintain

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

current levels of service to people
who are already supplied. A
much larger figure, up to US$80
billion is projected solely for
collecting and treating household
wastewater and for preserving the
environment through integrated
water resources management and
ecological methods”.

While the UNDP (2006) estimates that there is currently a significant investment
funding gap that cannot be met by government or (poor) users alone, it should
also be noted that investments of the above magnitude are only likely to be
effective, and avoid the mistakes of the past, with greatly improved governance
of water ecosystem services. Where infrastructure investments are emphasised
well ahead of institutions, or vice versa, the returns on investment are likely to
be low, ecosystems may be damaged and the poor may not benefit (Grey and
Sadoff 2006).

‘In SE Asia governments think that

planting trees is the answer whatever

the problem – and this can be a terrible

misdirection of public funds. Why is it that

planting trees satisfies the public? We need

to work more in the interface of science,

public knowledge and what people do’

Meine van Noordwijk, survey respondent

Box 11.

Kenya’s need for research on tradable rights, adaptation and

resilience, and effective tools for integration and up-scaling

Population growth, uneven distribution of water over space and time, climate variability,
pollution and ecosystem degradation all continue to exacerbated water shortages in Kenya.

Climate change is already thought to have increased the frequency of droughts and floods
– with impacts on economic activities such as agriculture, tourism, industrial and hydroelectric
power production. One estimate puts the costs to Kenya of La Nina drought in 1998–2000 at
$28 billion. Increased prevalence of climate sensitive diseases such as malaria, Rift Valley fever
and meningitis is also anticipated.

Various  policies  and  laws  affecting  affect  water  ecosystem  services  have  been  overhauled  in
recent  years.  Water,  forest  and  environmental  policy  now  generally  promotes  decentralised
natural  resource  management  and  provide  for  the  establishment  of  institutions  such  as  the
National Environment Management Authority and the Water Resources Management Authority.
Policy also now institutes the licensing and privatisation of service provision, fiscal incentives and
disincentives, and water quality standards.

While the state’s capacity to handle water ecosystem issues is constrained by weak technological
and financial capabilities, and by poor data, the level of political awareness about water
issues is high. Participation by civil society, research institutions and the private sector in water
management is increasing.

Areas for further research include the development of markets in tradable water rights that
secure ecosystem services and equitable livelihoods; water ecosystem services, climate change,
poverty and economic development; effective tools and methods for the integration of water
ecosystem services and climate change in national policy processes; and up-scaling best practices
in watershed management. The strengthening of stakeholder engagement and partnerships in
research is also recommended.

Source: Awuor (2007)

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Sector reform that can grapple with institutional mayhem

Many countries are currently moving away from conventional forms of water
governance, which usually have been dominated by a top-down supply-driven
approaches, towards bottom-up demand-driven approaches, which combine the
experience, knowledge and understanding of various local groups and people
(UNDP 2007a). Perhaps reflective of the bureaucratic approaches that have
prevailed in the water sector – there are 23 UN agencies dealing with water
and sanitation. This flowering of institutions is mirrored at other levels: the state
of Andhra Pradesh in India has over 30 government departments that have
an interest in water management. Such institutional proliferation can prove a
huge challenge for coordination and this is increasingly subject to review. Many
governments are also moving towards better policy alignment in recognition of
the fact that many policies outside the water sector can have a major bearing on
levels and patterns of water demand and use (Figure 9).

Notes to figure. Four ‘circles of influence’ of policies on water ecosystem services can be discerned. The closer
the circles to the centre the more direct impact they have on the provision of water ecosystem services.

Figure 9.

Inter-relationships between different policies affecting water

ecosystem services in Bolivia

Until recently, governments, and bilateral and multilateral organisations involved
in sector reform, have tacitly accepted corruption in the way water is governed.
Corruption has been seen as something that could ‘grease the wheels’ of
development efforts. However, thinking is shifting and anti-corruption measures
are now perceived as central to equitable and sustainable development water
service delivery. A positive step on behalf of the European Union Water Initiative
(EC 2007) has been to link water and sanitation expenditure to initiatives aimed
at improving water governance.

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Conflicts increase as basins close

In most cases, water governance challenges intensify and become more complex
as river basins approach ‘closure’ – the condition in which water demand outstrips
supply to the extent that water resources are fully allocated (see Table 4). Molden
and colleagues (2005) contend that river basins pass through three phases as
available resources are developed and demand outstrips available supply. What is
clear in many countries is that systems of water governance have been slow to
recognise and adapt to challenges related to basin closure.

Characteristics/
Concerns

Development

Utilisation

Reallocation

Approximate
fraction of already
flow allocated

Low (0–40%)

Medium (40–70%)

High (70–100%)

Dominant activity

Construction

Managing supply

Managing demand

Value of water

Low

Increasing

High

Groundwater

Development

Conjunctive use

Regulation

Pollution

Limited pollution.
Pollutants are diluted

Increasing pollution.
Increasing regulations

Emphasis on control
and clean-up

Poverty

Some improvements
in access to safe
water supply,
irrigation and
employment
opportunities

Similar to
‘development phase’
but with O&M
and rehabilitation
employment
opportunities

High risk of
deteriorating safe
water supply,
irrigation access
and employment
opportunities

Conflicts

Few

Within sector

Cross-sectoral

Typical institutional
tasks

Planning &
implementing
construction

O&M. Rehabilitation

Inter-sectoral
planning. Often
large complex
infrastructural
projects

Table 4.

Characteristics and concerns during different phases of river

basin development

Source: Batchelor (2007) after Molden et al. (2005)

‘Integration’ remains alluring yet elusive

Integrated water resources management (IWRM) is the current paradigm for
sustainable water use and conservation. It was adopted by the World Summit
on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 as part of the wider
international strategy for the MDGs. The starting point for IWRM is that all
water should be treated as a single environmental resource and allocated within
a coherent public policy framework among the main groups of water users:
agriculture, industry and households. A definition of IWRM that is in common
usage is as follows: IWRM is a process which promotes the co-ordinated
development and management of water, land and related resources, in order

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner
without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems (GWP 2000).

By factoring in sustainability, the model also recognises that there are ecological
limits to water use and that the environment has to be treated as a user in
its own right (UNDP 2006). Another key concept installed is that of process.
IWRM is a process of getting from some existing state to some envisaged and
preferred future state through the involvement of all relevant stakeholders.
IWRM is being promoted by many organisations, implemented in some areas
and piloted in others.

However, in much of the world it is business as usual (Moriarty et al. 2004). The
political naivety of IWRM has been denounced by Biswas (2004) because of the
discrepancy between the concepts of integrated
management and actual political institutions
and property rights. These approaches can only
succeed if the authority and resources of the
management mechanisms are consistent with
their responsibilities. IWRM requires institutions
that take several years to develop, even with
strong political commitment, and attention to
the equity and social justice issues that are central to long-term sustainability and
poverty reduction (UNDP 2006). Adopting an incremental approach – focusing
on a few issues initially then gradually addressing additional ones as capacity
increases – is often more feasible and effective.

Yet the vagueness of the means by which holistic management might be
achieved does not remove all utility from the IWRM concept nor should it be
used as an excuse to regress into out-dated technocratic governance. IWRM
continues to inspire many adherents among international agencies and it has
inspirational value for the direction of improvement in governance for water
ecosystem services.

‘We have pushed the

mantra of IWRM long

enough and deep enough

– we need to DO it now,

prove how useful it can be’

Simon Thuo,

survey respondent

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Box 12.

South Africa’s need for research that supports actual decisions

and capacity rather than striving for unachievable levels of integration

South African water resources policy is considered by many to be among the world leaders
in provision for protection of water ecosystem services. But despite various innovative policy
developments over the last 10 years, much is yet to be translated into action.

A  high-level  framework  for  environmental  protection  and  social  redress  is  provided  by  the
Constitution,  while  policy  for  water  resource  protection  is  focused  on  the  maintenance  of
vital ecological functions and the ‘silent services’ these functions provide. The National Water
Policy and National Water Act also provide for the re-allocation of water, through a process of
compulsory licensing, and a Classification System that explicitly recognises the need to balance
the protection of water ecosystem services with the use of the water for productive purposes
(irrigation, industrial and mining uses).

Slow progress in introducing these mechanisms stems in part from a paralysis by analysis
syndrome, where water resources managers attempt to fully understand the integrated nature
of water resources, and the possible response of water ecosystem services, before making
decisions.

While many water ecosystems in South Africa are adapted to extreme variability in water, many
water ecosystem services are still likely to be vulnerable to climate change (Figure 10). South
Africa’s National Climate Change Response Strategy recognises that mitigation of these impacts
requires coordinated action across a number of government departments, and pressures are
building to shift water use away from agriculture towards industrial and mining uses that
produce more jobs and income per drop. But this would increase South Africa’s carbon footprint
and fly in the face of international climate change agreements.

A lack of knowledge on threshold responses for some water ecosystem services makes it
difficult to predict how they will respond to changes in climate – it is possible that increased
temperatures, and a widening of the winter and summer shoulder seasons, may shift biological
triggers affecting the functioning of ecosystems earlier or later. There are as yet no policy
provisions on how these shifts could be accommodated in the Classification System.

Past  economic  policies  in  South  Africa  have  unfortunately  led  to  a  widening  gap  between
rich  and  poor,  although  they  have  made  major  progress  towards  addressing  the  injustices
of  apartheid.  The  new  Government  and  President  elected  in  2009  may  well  make  sweeping
changes to economic policies in order to promote a more inclusive and equitable society. At this
point, the impacts of these broader policy shifts on water policy and water ecosystem services
are speculative.

Potential priority research questions identified through analysis in South Africa include:

How to value water ecosystem services and how can pricing shift water use?

How much integration is needed for practical approaches to IWRM?

What are the threshold and amplification effects of climate change on water ecosystems?

How can variability and vulnerability be managed by small businesses/producers?

How do we move water ecosystem services up the political agenda?

Source: Quibell (2007)

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

F
i
g

r
e

1
0
.

P
os

s
i
b
le

c
l
i
m

a
t
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
n

p
o
l
i
c
y

a
n
d

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e

i
n

a
t
e
r

e
c
os

y
s
t
e
m

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

i
n

S
o
u
t
h

f
r
i
c
a

*
E
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

a
r
e

u
s
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

b
r
o
a
d
e
s
t

s
e
n
s
e

a
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

w

e
t
l
a
n
d
s
,

p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

h
o
u
s
i
n
g

m

a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,

c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

u
s
e
s
,

r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

f
o
o
d

a
n
d

e
d
i
c
i
n
e
s
,

a
n
d

m

i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
l
o
o
d
s

a
n
d

f
l
o
w

s
.

T
H

E

I
M

P
A

T
S

O

F

C

L
I
M

T
E

C

E

O

T
E
R

E
C

S
Y

S
T
E
M

S
E
R
V

I
C

E
S

T
H

E

N

T
I
O

L
I
M

T
E

R
E
S
P
O

S
E

S
T
R
A

T
E
G

I
M

P
A

T
S

F

C

L
I
M

T
E

I
T
I
G

T
I
O

R
E
S
P
O

S
E
S

a
t
e
r

q

a
l
i
t
y

a
t
e
r

q

a
n

t
i
t
y

a
t
e
r

f
o

r

p

r
o

c
t
i
v
e

u

s
e

E
c
o

s
y
s
t
e
m

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
*

e
s
i
l
i
e
n

c
e

I
n

c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n

a
t
e
r

b

r
n

i
s
e
a
s
e
s
,

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y

a
n

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n

t
h
e

a
r
e
a
s

p
r
o
n
e

t
o

c
h
o
l
e
r
a
.

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

e
u
t
r
o
p
h
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

s
e
d
i
m

e
n
t

l
o
a
d
s
.

S
h
i
f
t
s

t
o
w

a
r
d
s

m

i
n
i
n
g

a
n
d

i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n

u
s
e

d
u
e

t
o

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

w

a
t
e
r

s
t
r
e
s
s
.

e
d

c
e
d

r
a
i
n

f
a
l
l
,

a
m

l
i
f
i
e
d

i
n

r
e
d

c
e
d

r
u

f
f

a
n

r
e
d

c
e
d

a
t
e
r

y
i
e
l
d

s
.

R
e
d
u
c
e
d

a
n
d

m

o
r
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

a
t
e
r

y
i
e
l
d
s

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

u
n
i
t

c
o
s
t
s

o
f

w

a
t
e
r
.

R
e
d
u
c
e
d

g
r
o
u
n
d
w

a
t
e
r

v
a
r
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
.

I
n

c
r
e
a
s
e
d

e
m

a
n

s

f
o

i
r
r
i
g

a
t
i
o

a
t
e
r
.

H

i
g
h

v
u
l
n
e
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

s
m

a
l
l

s
c
a
l
e

a
t
e
r

u
s
e
r
s

c
o
m

p
r
o
m

i
s
e
s

t
h
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

w

a
t
e
r

r
e
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

L
o
s
s

o
f

d
r
y
l
a
n
d
s

f
a
r
m

i
n
g

a
r
e
a
s

f
o
r
c
e
s

m

o
r
e

p
e
o
p
l
e

i
n
t
o

i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

u
s
e
.

P
o

t
e
n

t
i
a
l

l
o

s
s

o

e
c
o

s
y
s
t
e
m

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

e

t
o

c
h

a
n

i
n

r
u

f
f

a
n

f
l
o

a
t
t
e
r
n

s
.

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

t
e
m

p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

i
d
e
n
i
n
g

o
f

r
a
i
n
f
a
l
l

r
u
n
o
f
f

s
e
a
s
o
n
s

i
m

p
a
c
t

o
n

b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

t
r
i
g
g
e
r
s
.

P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e

t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d

l
e
v
e
l
s

r
e
a
c
h
e
d
.

I
n

c
r
e
a
s
e
d

f
r
e
q

e
n

c
y

o

r
o

t
s

a
n

f
l
o

s

a
f
f
e
c
t
s

a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

s
y
s
t
e
m

t
o

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
.

r
e
a
t
e
r

e
f
f
o
r
t

t
o

r
e
a
l
i
s
e

s

f
o
r

W

S
S

i
n

c
h
o
l
e
r
a

a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d

a
r
e
a
s
.

T
i
g
h
t
e
r

c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s

o
n

i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
s

a
s

w

a
t
e
r

u
s
e

p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s

s
h
i
f
t
.

L
a
n
d

c
a
r
e

a
n
d

l
a
n
d

r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.

P
r
o
m

o
t
i
n
g

s
h
i
f
t
s

i
n

w

a
t
e
r

u
s
e

t
h
a
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

m

o
r
e

c
r
o
p

a
n
d

i
n
c
o
m

e

p
e
r

c
r
o
p

b
y

p
r
i
c
i
n
g

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m

s
.

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

a
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e

o
f

s
u
p
p
l
y

t
o

s
m

a
l
l
e
r

u
s
e
r
s
.

P
r
o
m

o
t
i
n
g

o
n
-
f
a
r
m

s
t
o
r
a
g
e

t
o

c
a
p
t
u
r
e

s
h
o
r
t

t
e
r
m

h
i
g
h

r
u
n
o
f
f

e
v
e
n
t
s
.

a
i
n
t
a
i
n

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
,

c
l
a
s
s

a
n
d

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s

b
y

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
s

f
r
o
m

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

s
t
o
r
a
g
e
,

o
r

a
d
a
p
t

t
h
e
s
e

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
s
i
n
g

t
h
e

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

i
m

p
a
c
t
s

o
f

c
l
i
m

a
t
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
.

S
e
t
s

o
u
t

a

n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o

b
o
t
h

m

i
t
i
g
a
t
e

t
h
e

i
m

p
a
c
t
s

o
f

c
l
i
m

a
t
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
,

a
s

w

e
l
l

a
s

t
h
e

c
o
u
n
t
r
y
’
s

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o

i
t
s

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

o
b
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

I
t

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
s
e
s

t
h
a
t

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
c
t
i
o
n

o
n

c
l
i
m

a
t
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

c
a
n

b
e

a

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

t
o

r
e
d
r
e
s
s

t
h
e

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
,

i
n
e
q
u
i
t
a
b
l
e

a
n
d

u
n
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

n
o
r
t
h
/
s
o
u
t
h

d
i
v
i
d
e

o
f

t
h
e

o
r
l
d
’
s

e
c
o
n
o
m

y

a
n
d

p
r
o
s
p
e
r
i
t
y
.

T
h
e

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s

a

n
u
m

b
e
r

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y

v
u
l
n
e
r
a
b
l
e

s
e
c
t
o
r
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

s
e
c
t
o
r
,

m

a
i
z
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

p
l
a
n
t

a
n
d

a
n
i
m

a
l

b
i
o
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,

w

a
t
e
r

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

a
n
d

r
a
n
g
e
l
a
n
d
s
.

I
t

a
l
s
o

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
s
e
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

S
o
u
t
h

A

f
r
i
c
a
n

e
c
o
n
o
m

y

i
s

v
u
l
n
e
r
a
b
l
e

t
o

t
h
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

o
f

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d

n
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

S
o
u
r
c
e
:

Q

u
i
b
e
l
l

(
2
0
0
7
)

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

3.3

Analysis of research organisation and delivery

mechanisms

If  it  is  recognised  that  the  knowledge  needed  for  learning  accumulates  slowly,  largely  through
practice, and that the time and resources invested in learning determine how quickly development
occurs,  the  question  arises:  do  we  need  more  research  on  freshwater  ecosystem  services  and
poverty, or do we just need to put more existing research
into practice? The answer is almost certainly that we need
both  –  and  we  need  them  together.  And  it  is  likely  that
some  of  the  most  important  understanding  needed  is  on
exactly how more research can be converted into practice.

DFID is well placed to support those tackling the problems
of governance that constrain the potential for wise use of
ecosystem  services.  In  its  2006  White  Paper,  DFID  brings
a  major  new  focus  on  this  potential.  More  specifically,
the  White  Paper  commits  DFID  to  help  partner  countries
develop  sustainable  and  equitable  ways  of  managing
their fresh water resources. DFID recognises a key role for
research in this effort and now seeks to set the scope of an appropriate research programme to
be run by its Central Research Department. This programme will only work if it is shaped by the
demands and  views of  those it seeks  to help,  if it  finds  a niche  that  complements the  work of
others, if it builds effectively on the strengths of DFID-supported past and current research and
existing  experience,  and  if  it  is  focused  both  on  spreading  understanding  of  the  problems  and
getting solutions into use.

Multi-functional  freshwater  ecosystem  services  –  and  their  problems,  prospects  and  trade-offs
– exemplify the need for a type of research that can meet the challenges of sustainability. This
means  research  that  can  bridge  the  divide  between  disciplines  and  analyse  the  dynamics  of
ecosystems, economics and social interactions. The type of cutting edge research that is needed
will  be  set  in  local  contexts  and  applied  in  ways  that  recognise  the  special  circumstances  of
the  poor  –  particularly  as  regards  risk,  dependency,  and  long-term  productive  potential  and
environmental externalities.

Many have argued that the idea of integration is conceptually appealing but impossible to
achieve in practice as many attempts to integrate complex sets of knowledge and the interests of
diverse actors into a common framework have yielded disappointing results. The desire to achieve
integration persists but our inability to achieve practical results on the ground has bred disillusion.

Yet in other spheres it seems to be possible: large groups of diverse scientists collaborate to produce
complex computer systems and unravel the complexities of human diseases. In contrast to these
endeavours the markets for the products of integrated research and action on ecosystem services,
at least in the developing world, are often embryonic. The costs of failure are not borne by scientists
and researchers or by their supporters and users in governments and donor agencies. These costs
are manifest in the suffering of resource-poor farmers and urban dwellers, and by society at large.
Ultimate integration may indeed be impossible but efforts to achieve higher levels of integration
are sensible. Integration is more costly in the short term but is likely to bring greater benefits in
the longer term.

Sayer and Campbell (2004) identify seven conditions needed for this type of research:

Acknowledge and analyse the complexity of natural resource systems

Use action research – become actors in the system

Consider effects at higher and lower scales

‘People can’t distinguish

between good information

and infomercials. The

biggest function of research

is to produce critical minds

that can distinguish between

trash and real findings’

Jesse Ribot,

survey respondent

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Box 13.

Research organisation and delivery priorities highlighted by the

web-based survey and in-depth interviews

The top 10 (of 21) research organisation issues and delivery mechanisms by mean ranking of the
335 full responses to the web-based survey were:

1.  In-built communication/policy uptake/impact strategies in research strategies
2.  Involvement of local institutions in research cycle
3.  Time/resources to tailor/disseminate research
4.  Policy and practice analysis
5.  Action research
6.  Explore different stocks of knowledge and ecosystem–social system interactions
7.  Longer time frames for adaptive research
8.  Between project funding
9.  Shape research by user demand
10. Learning groups/networks

Descriptive analysis and multivariate analysis of the responses to the web-based survey broadly
coincide in identifying ‘process mechanisms’ and ‘research principles’ as key priorities. The
following emphases on research organisation and delivery are drawn from the 54 interviews
carried out:

Research organisation. There are many reasons why research outputs often do not translate
directly  into  technologies  and  policies  to  support  the  lives  of  poor  people.  They  include
inappropriate research methodologies and poor communication strategies. Many interviewees
felt that the subject matter of the proposed research programme lends itself to a stronger, but
not exclusive, emphasis on ‘action-research’ and ‘action-learning’ methodologies. More effective
communication  of  research  results  can  generally  be  achieved  through  the  establishment  of
‘learning  groups’  –  organisations  that  are  closely  aligned  and  associated  with  action-based
research methodologies.

There was broad consensus that favoured more user- and farmer-led research and that greater
co-leadership within developing countries of research programmes was necessary and a
potential DFID niche. But there was also widespread recognition of the paucity, and ongoing
decline, of research skills in many developing countries that limits the formation of effective
partnerships. There were some suggestions that DFID should focus its work through regional
research organisations.

A number of respondents challenged DFID to achieve higher levels of coordination between the
research activities of its central and bi-lateral development programmes, specifically with PSA
(public service agreement) countries.

Research delivery mechanisms. There was a sense that too little research supported by DFID
translates into technologies or policies that alleviate the constraints on poor peoples livelihoods.
Again, investment in ‘action-research’ that allows a fuller understanding of challenges faced by
poor people was emphasised, accompanied by learning platforms where stakeholders can share
and reflect upon the results.

High levels of concern were expressed by interviewees that, while key messages about the future
impacts of climate change are being effectively communicated to the public in Europe and North
America, in Asia and Africa the level of engagement and debate is low. One of the challenges for
a new research programme will be to consider how research process and outputs can support
effective messages to policymakers and the public.

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Use models to build shared understandings and as negotiating tools

Be realistic about the potential for dissemination and uptake

Use performance indicators for learning and adaptation

Break down the barriers between science and resource users

A range of tried-and-tested approaches and more experimental and innovative mechanisms for
research and delivery may need to be considered. More developing country input in defining areas
of need is likely to be central, as is more involvement of local institutions, federations of the poor
and new social movements in the governance of the whole research cycle. In some of this work,
methodologies that recognise and build on the value of plural stocks of knowledge (e.g. western
science and indigenous knowledge) may prove important.

Longer time frames than have been the norm are likely to be needed – to allow for more in-depth
analysis, adaptation to changing circumstances and greater use of action-research approaches.
Significant flexibility and responsiveness may need to be built into management so that small
and micro-grants, key meetings, publications and other communication products can be covered.
Funding that remains available ‘between’ projects to maintain networks and avoid the feast/famine
effect for priority research needs might be an important innovation.

A greater focus on research methods that engage with enabling environments may need to be
considered, with capacity and uptake elevated from assumption level to objective level – e.g. work
on governance, policies, institutions, property rights and market access. The timescales for research
and the delivery of in-country development programmes are seldom synchronised. Research has
a longer time horizon while the demands for development programmes are generally immediate.
Better assessment methods may be needed especially for policy and poverty impact work. Efforts
to ensure that robust evaluations of research and delivery programmes become routine would also
be useful.

Too much research is done only on the basis of a credential-check at the proposal stage rather than
also involving follow-up and impact tracking. And too much research is too ‘safe’ – with short time
horizons and a focus on familiar territory. More risk taking is needed – with funding for longer-term
work with impact tracking.

Finally, a key set of mechanisms, in which experience is fast developing with promising results,
is learning groups, communities of practice and networks that explicitly set out to develop and
effect practical systems and capacity for re-orienting institutions and professional practice. They
are recommended in particular where the field is not dominated by a single actor and there is a
basic willingness to communicate. There is likely to need to be an external facilitating agent who
convenes and motivates the grouping.

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Recommendations on research content

The following recommendations for priority research fields and issues draw
on the preceding analysis of the evidence-base provided by the combined
elements of this scoping study. The recommendations reflect the study team’s
judgement. Each of the fields and issues identified meets the following criteria
used for selection:

Researchable gap in knowledge. The issue is a key gap in knowledge that

could benefit substantially from research.

Generic significance. The issue cuts across development contexts (issues of

concern in particular circumstances are of vital importance but are not included
here).

Innovation. The issue breaks new ground, offers a new angle or will require

new thinking and perspectives to pursue.

Integration potential. The issue is likely to open doors and be catalytic or

encouraging of integration of bodies of separated work.

Impact likelihood. The issue if well researched, with good organisation and

delivery mechanisms (the subject of Section 5), is likely to have policy impact.

DFID comparative advantage. The issue can be particularly well tackled

through DFID, and wider UK government, support.

There are several principles about the content of research that cut across the
fields and issues outlined below (principles of research process are dealt with in
Section 5). All research content should reflect the following principles:

Scale. All research efforts must identify and be clear about the scale(s) and

geography they are dealing with. Concerted application of the concept of
subsidiarity in managing water ecosystem services is also important – revealing,
for example, many issues to be best dealt with at catchment level that were
previously assumed to require basin-level approaches.

Change. Change should be assumed and the flexibility to deal with it planned

for. This applies equally as much to shifts in institutions and social systems as it
does to shocks and stresses in the physical world. For water ecosystem services
these issues come together dramatically in closing river basins – which demand
a major research focus.

Trade-offs. Trade-offs between competing objectives for water ecosystem

services are the norm, integration is the exception. All research should bear this
reality in mind and have clear politically astute targets based on a theory of
change that recognises its drivers. It should also make every effort to explore
potential unintended consequences.

Rights and sustainability. Water should be treated as a basic human right,

and water is needed for sustaining environmental flows (water left in stream).
These are both guiding principles and sources of underlying tension (the trade-
off at the heart of this subject).

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Regulating and supporting services. It is the regulating and supporting services

of freshwater ecosystems that generally cry out most for greater recognition
and understanding. There has been much more research on provisioning and
cultural services. However, the main route to this recognition and understanding
is often through better decision-making about provisioning services (hence the
considerable attention to these in the recommendations below).

There are five fields of research that DFID should consider supporting, each
with priority research issues. Research issues can be only roughly prioritised at
this level because they are interconnected, and because the specific forms of the
issues researched will have to be tailored and shaped by local circumstance. Some
indication of relative priority of the issues in Africa, South Asia and Latin America
is provided in a table below. All five research fields are important but they are
in roughly descending order of priority. Within each field the issues are also of
roughly descending order of priority:

. Governance of water ecosystem services

Political economy of water ecosystem service management. Empirical and

theoretical understanding of the socio-political process of water decision-making
from competing interest groups, sources of knowledge and power domains
across community, catchment and transboundary levels. Tensions, trade-offs and
degree of democratisation in decision-making on rights, access, allocation and
sustainability. Awareness of training needs for those involved in, for example,
international transboundary management negotiations.

Integrated water resource management. Where institutional capacity enables

planning to yield returns: evidence-based investments in public water services
delivery that match sustainable supply and demand on a catchment or urban
area basis; taking account of climate change when planning and developing
water infrastructure; and raising the profile of water ecosystem service
management in partnerships and working practices of agencies, for example,
land, water, industry, education and health.

Managing/resolving competition, displacement and conflict. Focused

particularly on contexts of basin closure and movement of people from dryland
areas into areas of higher potential, development of methods and tools for
improved dialogue and conflict resolution, and approaches to move from
assumptions of reallocation of water to higher economic value uses to more
democratic development and management of water.

Climate change as driver of decisions despite uncertainty. Adaptation and

uptake of methods and tools that improve integration and accountability of
water ecosystem service decision-making under conditions of limited data and
uncertainty. Seizing the political opportunity of integration that climate change
and other drivers of change can bring. Frameworks and tactics that realise
multidisciplinary components and inter-sectoral negotiation. Sharpened decision

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

support systems including water scarcity mapping (i.e. balance between supply
and demand) and use of remotely-sensed data on green-water management.

Local institutional control of water ecosystem services. Institutions that
can govern access, regulate distribution and markets, negotiate for investments
and give voice to the most marginalised users. ‘Policy subtlety’, subsidiarity
and ‘distributed governance’ in the recognition of local and traditional water
governance systems. Locally based conservation and use strategies informed by
catchment-level data and policies. Institutional frameworks to handle transition
from water understood as a free good to water seen as increasingly scarce.
Mechanisms to ensure poor communities are guaranteed access to water,
particularly where water privatisation is occurring.

Variability, vulnerability, adaptation and resilience

Resilience and reliability of water ecosystem services. When variability

and uncertainty are the norm – focus on resilience and reliability of regulatory
and support services of ecosystems, e.g. over-design of water services
infrastructure, early risk detection, negotiation to maintain water flows,
conservation and restoration tactics for wetlands under variability. Increase
knowledge of freshwater biodiversity and its links to livelihoods, and impacts of
biodiversity loss on resilience.

Responses to variability and risk. Better understanding of variability

of rainfall and water ecosystem service supply and their impacts on
subsistence production and water services (with attendant risks of
increased burden on women and children, divestment, indebtedness,
loss of resource access and increased health risks) – and better practical
insurance mechanisms. Informal or formal risk-reducing, insurance and
knowledge-sharing institutions and approaches for poor people to reduce
livelihood vulnerability from climate change.

Targeted and holistic adaptation. Targeted adaptation, including social coping
strategies, appropriate technological solutions, improved crop varieties, pollution
control measures, indigenous soil and water conservation and farming adaptive
capacity. Holistic adaptation mechanisms that avoid negative externalities.

Changes brought by disease burdens. Changes in vector and water-borne

disease burdens, and impacts of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, on use of water
ecosystem services.

Land use change impacts on water ecosystem services

Urbanisation, migration and water ecosystem services under climate

change. Links between critical water scarcity, migration and increasing
urbanisation under conditions where climate change also causes sea level
rise and more frequent extreme events (e.g. flooding, cyclones, etc.), with
potentially severe impacts on the urban poor in coastal and low-lying areas.

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Unrecognised consequences of climate change mitigation actions.

Impacts of changing energy and transport use on, for example, the terms of
agricultural water use and costs of production for poor people, and on increased
groundwater extraction.

Land use impacts of market shifts. Impacts of production shifts, for example

of food and horticulture with declining costs of airfreight, on water ecosystem
services such as downstream water and groundwater quantity and quality
as a result of agricultural intensification, waste disposal, etc. Water impacts
of production systems and market supply chains fuelling rapidly emerging
economies such as China, Brazil and India.

Biofuel production – poverty and water ecosystem impacts. Potential types

and scales of impacts and feasibility of their modification and mitigation – e.g.
increased water use, reduced food production, reduced access of poorer groups
to land, economic growth changes, impacts on water ecosystems including
wetlands, river flows and groundwater systems.

Carbon storage and avoided deforestation – poverty and water ecosystem

impacts. Water ecosystem service impacts of evolving arrangements for carbon
sequestration, including bundled and stacked water and carbon services, and
incentives for protection of water ecosystem services in carbon markets.

Hydrology, technology and evaluation

Tools for predicting hydrological impacts of land use change. Methods and

particularly models that enable more precise prediction and monitoring of effects
of land use change in arbitrary environments – reflecting non-linear cause and
effect relationships in water ecosystem services and land use.

Soil and water conservation decision-support tools. Effective approaches for

ensuring that solid water conservation measures are planned and implemented
to meet specific needs while taking full account of potential negative
downstream impacts.

Groundwater recharge and surface water-groundwater interactions.

Causes and implications of rates of recharge, hydrological and hydro-geological
processes relating to the contamination of groundwater with both pollutants and
naturally occurring contaminants (e.g. arsenic, fluoride).

Applying complementary knowledge systems. In seeking a stronger

convergence between indigenous and scientific knowledge systems, focus on the
decision-maker (at farm, community, or policy levels), whose capacity to critique
and implement promising indigenous and scientific technologies is central.

Impact evaluation. To maximise returns on investment for poverty reduction

and ecosystem service sustainability – longitudinal data and stronger analysis

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

of pilot initiatives and other development interventions. Governance reforms
demand particular scrutiny (e.g. decentralised decision making, establishment
of stakeholder platforms, increased transparency, etc.), in particular the extent
to which they are leading to more democratic water management and more
sustainable water service delivery (as opposed to token participation and
improved opportunities for expropriation of resources by elites).

Market instruments, businesses and investment

Informal markets and small businesses. Economic incentives and small

business water issues recognising that most poor people operate entirely in the
informal sector.

Prices, payment schemes and investment triggers in water ecosystem

services. Inter-disciplinary market chain and impact assessment work identifying
better contracts, trade-offs, prices and taxation levels related to water ecosystem
services. Environmental valuation as a necessary precursor to payment schemes
and markets. Further exploration of payments for water ecosystem services,
e.g. avoided abstraction and ecosystem modification, and work to expand their
legitimacy. Understanding the conditions under which commercial actors invest
in water scarcity solutions and sustaining water ecosystem services.

Productivity–equity nexus. Water allocation to agriculture and ecosystems

under conditions of scarcity against competing criteria of productivity (food,
income) and of equity (nature, generational) across formal and customary legal
systems. Potential for re-allocation of water to small entrepreneurs; possible
re-allocation from the agricultural sector. Balancing markets that solve scarcities
(water sellers; municipal water charges; bottled water, etc.) with access to safe
water as a human right.

From green accounting to green decision-making. Mechanisms that

sharpen and install much solid work on valuing water ecosystem services in the
key planning frameworks and macro-economic decision-making – from valuing
services to getting them paid for.

Regional prioritisation. As stated above, the research fields and issues are
pitched at a relatively broad level. This is because the team considers research
organisation is best carried out at this level – with the specifics to be tailored to
local circumstance in research proposals developed for particular contexts in South
Asia, Africa or Latin America. Table 5 offers the team’s indication, on the basis of
the criteria described above, of the differing priority of the issues across the three
regions. This is the team’s opinion based on experience and review work carried
out as part of this study and is a subjective assessment; further research and
regional consultation would be needed to provide a truly comparative quantitative
assessment. Latin America tends to receive comparatively lower priority for some
of the issues, given that it hosts the majority of functioning schemes based on
markets for environmental services (Porras et al. 2007).

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Research issue

Africa

South
Asia

Latin
America

(a) Governance of water ecosystem services
Political economy of water ecosystem service management

XXX

Integrated water resource management

XXX

Managing/resolving competition, displacement and conflict

XXX

Climate change as driver of decisions despite uncertainty

Local institutional control of water ecosystem services

(b) Variability, vulnerability, adaptation and resilience
Resilience and reliability of water ecosystem services

XXX

Responses to variability and risk

XXX

Targeted and holistic adaptation

Changes brought by disease burdens

(c) Land use change impacts on water ecosystem services
Urbanisation, migration and water ecosystem services
under climate change

XXX

Unrecognised consequences of climate change mitigation
actions

XXX

Land use impacts of market shifts

Biofuel production – poverty and water ecosystem impacts

Carbon storage and avoided deforestation – poverty and
water ecosystem impacts

(d) Market instruments, businesses and investment
Informal markets and small businesses

XXX

Prices, payment schemes and investment triggers in water
ecosystem services

Productivity–equity nexus

From green accounting to green decision-making

(e) Hydrology, technology and evaluation
Tools for predicting hydrological impacts of land use change XXX

XXX

Soil and water conservation decision-support tools

Groundwater recharge and surface water–groundwater
interactions

XXX

Applying complementary knowledge systems

Impact evaluation

Table 5.

Proposed regional priority of identified research issues, for this

particular research programme

Very high priority = XXX, High priority = XX, Priority = X

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Recommendations on research organisation
and delivery

This section is divided into four parts. First, it suggests the essential characteristics
of the kind of research needed to be effective in spreading learning and achieving
policy impact in the above thematic areas, irrespective of institutional level and
context. Second, it suggests some less essential but still generically desirable
characteristics. Third, it highlights some context-dependent mechanisms of proven
effectiveness that we suggest should play a major role in the potential research
programme. Fourth, we note some aspects of research programme management
that are particularly worthy of attention.

Essential characteristics of effective research on the above themes

Fulfilling quality research criteria. All research on water ecosystem

services should be:

Contributory in advancing wider knowledge or understanding about

policy, practice, theory or a particular substantive field

Efficient in being cost effective and enabling resources to be targeted

where they are most needed

Defensible in design by providing a research strategy that can address

the questions posed

Rigorous in conduct through the systematic and transparent collection,

analysis and interpretation of qualitative or quantitative data

Credible in claim through offering well-founded and plausible arguments

about the significance of the evidence generated

Accountable in process through open and honest reporting on progress

Demand led. Research must be shaped by the demands of its potential

users. This in practice often means breaking down considerable barriers that
in practice exist between researchers and water ecosystem service users.
‘Demand led’ does not always mean farmer led or end-beneficiary led – key
sources of demand that should be responded to include resource managers
and decision-makers at local government and other levels.

Strategy for putting findings into use. Policy uptake and impact

strategies need to be built in and required of research. This is likely to be a
function of the actors in the system concerned being involved in research
design. It is key in this to recognise that governance and policy are not
rational processes and that evidence is usually at best only one of the
influences over decisions – and work to increase this influence.

Ecosystem–people interactions. Explicit exploration of ecosystem and

social system interactions is necessary in all issues – with implications for the
expertise needed.

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Installing flexibility. Both researchers and their supporters need to expect

that change will and should occur – and pay more than lip service to flexibility
in research programmes and proposals. Use methods for including change, with
uncertainty being expressed as a positive element of management – e.g. open
sections in planning that can only be filled in after some time in operation.
Reviews should welcome changes in activities, coupled with commitment to
core objectives. Log-frames should be amenable to wholesale revision in the
light of new learning and changes in the situation. ‘Break points’ where the
initiative can be reassessed and redirected should be anticipated.

Breaking out of the silos. Elite, monolithic research centres are of little value

for research on ecosystem services. There is so much to be gained, for example,
from reducing the separation of water and health research for sustaining water
ecosystem services. Opportunities should be seized to adopt a systems approach.

Collaborative research approach. Collaboration is essential for water
ecosystem service research. This may include multidisciplinary teams within
research organisations, which can appreciate differential powers within
communities and protect the intellectual capital of institutions. It may also
include a multi-sectoral approach: co-creating research with NGOs and the private
sector to provide a wider vision and engagement with local/ regional actors.

Empowerment factored in. Capacity-building contributing to poor people’s

empowerment is a necessary part of this research agenda. Skills development
at all levels generally needs support to undertake and use the results of
research. Research initiatives that explicitly link more capable partners with
‘weaker’ ones, with the objective of developing capability, should be a clear
focus. Research proposals should demonstrate a specific strategy through
which partner capacities will be developed – and this will have consequent
implications for the research – to have sufficient time and resources for such
capability development to be achieved.

Realistic impact ambition. Realism is required about the potential for

dissemination and uptake. Site and context-specific detail may remain just
that, but the processes involved, especially of successful integration, may have
widespread impact if well disseminated and promoted.

Clear about return on investment. Researchers and their clients should

understand what the data will cost, and be transparent about the expected
return on investment of the research.

Applying existing knowledge while breaking new ground. Researchers

should pursue opportunities for the application of existing but weakly
developed knowledge in their generation of new knowledge through research
Any new research should demonstrate how it builds on foundations made by
existing work, synthesised and critiqued as necessary.

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Desirable characteristics for effective research on above themes

Dealing with complexity. The complexity of natural resource systems

should be acknowledged and embraced – with tools and concepts of systems
analysis being brought to bear in dealing with complexity.

Crossing scales. Effects at higher and lower scales should be considered, with

cross-scale analysis and planning routinely conducted and such analysis examined
against simulations (best guesses) of long-term processes at other scales.

Modelling to provoke. Systems modelling and scenario planning should

be used to build shared understandings and as negotiating tools. Confront
complexity with conceptual and systems models – models are needed which
stimulate engagement and discussion and which can then be discarded,
adapted or replaced.

Performance indicators for learning. Tools for monitoring and evaluating

system performance should be used – not impact assessment to then transfer
technology – but information for learning and adaptive management.

User-determined. More research funding resources should be put into the

hands of research output users (e.g. catchment agencies, national water
ecosystem service policy delivery departments) to allow them to direct the
research agenda.

Combining scientific and indigenous knowledge. The role of research

should be not only to feed the process with scientifically based knowledge
but also (through appropriate social science initiatives) to empower
indigenous knowledge and experience for a knowledge-sharing process.

Key mechanisms – context dependent

Action research. Actors in a system become researchers, as researchers

join them to become actors. This form of research aims at a fluid interaction
between knowledge gathering, policy-related action, active tracking of
action, adaptive management and concomitant development of adaptive
capacity. It calls for well-understood and shared hypotheses and skilful
management of multiple actors, recognising that the action research
appropriate for policy research in a field that directly affects every individual
in society must be inclusive and negotiated from the design stage onwards.

Support small-scale projects. In spite of higher transaction costs, it is well

worth supporting small-scale projects in order to ensure that all views are
given a chance to be explored. Restricting support to only big initiatives and
projects means that the potential for good, novel ideas may be missed, if they
are being proposed by individuals or small groups who may not be part of the
mainstream research community.

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Learning groups, networks, alliances and platforms. Learning groups

and alliances are relatively new in development work but experience is
sufficient to show that they can be a very powerful means to getting good
research and ideas into use. Structures and approaches vary but a common
focus is on innovation and scaling up in an area of common interest, involving
facilitation of multiple stakeholders, disciplines and institutional levels. They
enable researchers to connect with practitioners at all scales and across
all sectors, and key messages to be directly transmitted to policymakers.
Learning groups and alliances need effective facilitation and can be expensive
in terms of transaction costs, but decision-making impact can be significant.

Time frames long enough for adaptive research to deliver. There is a

need for support over longer timeframes to enable research to be adaptive
and responsive. Quality and depth should be the aim – with effective impact
tracking – to generate useful, reliable solutions for a subset of problems rather
than poor ones for many. Time and adequate resources are also needed
to tailor and disseminate research. Longer-term research efforts should,
however, be tasked with producing interim outputs with the potential to be
picked up and used in policy.

Knowledge sharing mechanisms. Information sharing between

communities and disciplines, particularly in the field of risk management e.g.
knowledge on how to cope with water shortages, vulnerability and disaster
risk reduction and relief to provide lessons on how to cope with climate
change. Support for developing country stakeholders to access knowledge
resources from elsewhere in the world.

Key people on key issues. Supporting key individuals with passion and

contacts may well be the best research model in some circumstances e.g. on
some key hydrological issues.

Combined research and policy consultation. Some contexts require

an explicit bringing together of national capacity in research for water
management and related disciplines to set out a finite work programme to be
carried out alongside a policy consultation with public fora at critical points
and direct links to collaborating communities at study sites.

Policy dialogues. Active consultations with policymakers and others to

explore involvement in, and implications of, research are often crucial. Video
or audio programmes in these contexts too can be highly effective.

Mass media and cultural media. Academic papers and conferences

may be important means of research dissemination, but they may not be,
and are usually insufficient. Newspapers, radio and television may be used
wherever immediacy and mass circulation can draw stakeholders into key
lines of research or to raise the profile of findings. Theatrical groups and

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

cultural events can be key routes in the spread of research findings and public
awareness raising.

Internet technologies. As with all technologies, access is the critical issue

for poor people but the nature of the ‘digital divide’ is changing all the time.
For example, in Africa mobile phones are leapfrogging desktop computers
as the means of accessing the Internet. The Internet has utterly transformed
mass communication via email and websites such that research findings can be
directed very specifically to people, networks and organisations that can lobby
for change. Researchers must take advantage of the best tools online (RSS
feeds; powerful databases; podcasts; conference webcasts; social bookmarking;
social networks; etc.) and the best methods for storing, processing and sharing
data, recognising the positive trends to more open access publishing and more
technologies being developed as global public goods.

Research programme management

Research consortia and alliances. The joining of several research

organisations, including combinations of developed and developing country
organisations, to form consortia that manage and deliver outcomes that
address a researchable problem, should be a major feature of the research
programme recommended here. ‘Triangles’ of local partners (local relevance),
international centres (cross comparisons) and developed-country centres of
academic excellence (key science) may be needed on some themes.

Competitive grant facilities. Much research on water ecosystems services

and poverty reduction under climate change will best be supported through
competitive grant facilities managed by effective commissioned institutions.
Ability to run programmes with the above-highlighted essential characteristics
should be the first consideration in selecting appropriate institutions, and
the subsidiarity principle should then be applied. This may mean that both
developing and developed country based institutions are selected.

Active database of potential lead research institutions. Once research

themes are agreed an active and transparent approach to developing and
maintaining a database of potential lead institutions appropriate to the level
and type of research is needed. This can be a key resource in itself for thematic
networking, and is needed for managing restricted tenders (see below).

Open and restricted tenders. Where funds and number of projects are

restricted, it is not appropriate to put out open calls for tenders. If potential
bidders realise there is only a small chance of winning a bid then they are
unlikely to put in the effort needed to submit a good proposal. Guidance
needs to be clear and calls restricted to a shortlist of organisations (see above).

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Concept note process. Calling for short concept notes in response to

thematic priorities is the right approach to running the core of a research
programme. Going too early to full proposal stage restricts creativity and
accessibility of research funds and creates management burdens for both
applicant and funder.

Include users and policymakers in proposal review process. It would

be useful to include users and policymakers in the proposal review process
– as well as subsequent reviews of outputs – more explicitly. This will help to
ensure research activities are designed appropriately for end users’ needs and
will increase engagement and acceptance of outcomes by such end users.

Project preparation facilities, capability scoping and inception periods.

For some types of theme and approach, where the concept is worthy but
the specifics on the issue and institutional role identification are at an early
stage, support for project preparation and an inception period is appropriate.
Scoping studies prior to full-blown proposals can be an important approach
– where a lead partner carries out an analysis of local capability among
institutions and designs an appropriate strategy with some of them. In
addition to the vital space thus given to prepare the research proposal, such
a process can be charged with developing an appropriate type and level of
stakeholder commitment (buy-in) to the work.

Innovation and flexibility funds. Relatively small proportions of research

programmes (10–20 per cent) set aside for innovative research ideas and one-
off initiatives that meet programme aims should be considered.

Between-project funding. Ways in which funding can be made available

between projects, to maintain networks in priority research areas and
avoid ‘feast and famine’ research cycles among key institutions, should
also be a priority.

Advisory committees – independent but including stakeholders. The

screening and selection of projects may usefully involve an independent
advisory committee with an open approach to scoring proposals.
Representation on such a committee of some of the stakeholders in the issue
at hand is an important mechanism to ensure credibility and accuracy.

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Appendix 1.
List of annexes available separately

Annexes to this report are listed below and are available to download as pdfs
from the links provided.

Annex 1. Gosain, A. (2007) Assessing policy influences on people’s
relationship to water ecosystem services: The Indian experience. Report
prepared for DFID scoping study. IIED, London. Available at: www.iied.org/
pubs/display.php?o=G02514

Annex 2. Quibell, G. (2007) Assessing policy influences on people’s
relationship to water ecosystem services: The South African experience. Report
prepared for DFID scoping study. IIED, London. Available at: www.iied.org/
pubs/display.php?o=G02515

Annex 3. Awuor, C. (2007) Assessing policy influences on people’s
relationship to water ecosystem services: The Kenyan experience. Report
prepared for DFID scoping study. IIED, London. Available at: www.iied.org/
pubs/display.php?o=G02516

Annex 4. Asquith, N. and Vargas, M.T. (2007) Assessing policy influences on
people’s relationship to water ecosystem services: The Bolivian experience.
Report prepared for DFID scoping study. IIED, London. Available at: www.iied.
org/pubs/display.php?o=G02517

Annex 5. Cortina, S. (2007) Assessing policy influences on people’s
relationship to water ecosystem services: The Mexican experience. Report
prepared for DFID scoping study. IIED, London. Available at: www.iied.org/
pubs/display.php?o=G02520

Annex 6. Mortimore, M. (2007) The interaction between freshwater
ecosystem services, climate change and poverty in the Sahel. Report prepared
for DFID scoping study. IIED, London. Available at: www.iied.org/pubs/display.
php?o=G02521

Annex 7. Reid, H. (2007) Climate change and development: Results from a
2005 consultation on key researchable issues and priorities that have evolved
since Climate change, development and the water sector. Report prepared for
DFID scoping study. IIED, London. Available at: www.iied.org/pubs/display.
php?o=G02518

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Literature assessed and references

The following reference list includes all the main sources assessed in this scoping
study. It does not, however, include references consulted and assessed in the
course of the five country policy and practice analyses – these can be found in the
relevant annexes to this report.

Adams, W.M., Aveling R., Brockington D., Dickson B., Elliot J., Hutton J., Roe D.,

Vira B. and Woolmer W. (2004) Bio-diversity conservation and the eradication
of poverty. Science, 306: 1146–148.

Anand, P.B. (2006) An Assessment of Progress with Respect to Water and

Sanitation: Legacy, synergy, complacency or policy? UNU-Wider, Research
paper 2006/01.

Anderson T.L. and Leal D.R. (1991) Free Market Environmentalism. The Pacific

Research Institute for Public Policy (PRIPP), California.

Appleton , A.F. (2002) How New York City used an ecosystem services strategy

carried out through and urban–rural partnership to presence the pristine
quality of its drinking water and save billions of dollars. Paper prepared for
Forests Trends, Tokyo meeting.

Asquith N. and Vargas M.T.(2007a) Fair Deals for Watershed Services in Bolivia.

Natural Resource Issues Series Number 7, IIED, London.
Available at: www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=13536IIED

Asquith, N. and Vargas, M.T. (2007b) Assessing policy influences on people’s

relationship to water ecosystem services: The Bolivian experience. Report
prepared for DFID scoping study. IIED, London.
Available at: www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=G02517

Aylward, B., Bandyopadhyay, J. and Belausteguigotia, J-C. (2005) ‘Freshwater

ecosystem services’ in Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Policy Responses,
Volume 3. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press, Washington, Covelo
and London, and www.maweb.org

Aylward, B., Echeverria, J., Fernandez Gonzales, A., Porras, I., Allen, K. and Mejias,

R. (1998) Economic Incentives for Watershed Protection: A case study of Lake
Arenal, Costa Rica. CREED, IIED, London.

Awuor, C. (2007) Assessing policy influences on people’s relationship to water

ecosystem services: The Kenyan experience. Report prepared for DFID scoping
study. IIED, London. Available at: www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=G02516

Badiane, A.N., Khouma, M., and Sène, M. (2000) Région de Diourbel: Gestion des

eaux Drylands Research Working Paper 14. Drylands Research, Crewkerne, UK.

Baker, J. (2000) Evaluating the Impacts of Development Projects on Poverty: A

handbook for practitioners. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Banerjee, A., Deaton A., Lustig N., Rogoff K. and Hsu E. (2006) An Evaluation of

World Bank Research, 1998–2005. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Natural Resource Issues No. 17

Barbier, E.B. and Swanson, T. (eds) (1992) Economics for the Wilds. Earthscan,

London.

Barrett, C.S. and. Arcese P. (1995) Are integrated conservation-development

projects sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in sub-Saharan
Africa. World Development 23(7) 1073–84.

Bassi, L. (2002) Valuation of land use and land management impacts on water

resources in Lajeado Sao Jose Micro watersheds, Chapeco, Santa Caterina
State, Brazil. Land-Water Linkages in Rural Watersheds.

Batchelor, C. (2007) Water governance literature assessment. Report prepared for

DFID scoping study. IIED, London.
Available at: www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=G02523

Batchelor, C.H., Rama Mohan Rao, M.S. and Manohar Rao, S. (2003) Watershed

Development: A solution to water shortages in semi-arid India or part of the
problem? Land Use and Water Resources Research 3, 1–10.

Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS) (2007) Community Based

Adaptation to Climate Change. Reports from the second international
workshop, held in Dhaka, 24-28 February, BCAS, Bangladesh
www.bcas.net/2nd-cba/index.html

Berkoff, J. (2003) Prospects for Irrigated Agriculture: Has the international

consensus got it right? Proceedings of the Alternative Water Forum, May,
Centre for International Development, University of Bradford, UK.

Biswas, A. (2004) Integrated water resources management: A reassessment.

Water International 29(2): 248–56.

Biswas, A. (2003) From Mar del Plata to Kyoto: An analysis of global water policy

dialogues. Third World Centre for Water Management, Mexico.

Bond, I. (2007) Payments for watershed services: A review of literature. Report

prepared for DFID scoping study. IIED, London.
Available at: www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=G02522

Bond, I. and Mayers, J. (forthcoming) Fair Deals for Watershed Services: Lessons

from a multi-country action learning project. IIED, London.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M., Farvar, M.Y., Kothari, A. and Renard, Y.

(2004) Sharing Power. Learning by doing in co-management of natural
resources throughout the world. IIED and IUCN/ CEESP/ CMWG, Cenesta,
Tehran.

Bosch, C., Hommann, K., Rubio, G., Sadoff, C. and Travers, L. (2002) ‘Water and

sanitation’ in J. Klugman, (ed) A Sourcebook for Poverty Reduction Strategies
– Volume 2, Macro-economic and Sectoral Approaches. World Bank,
Washington, DC.

Breman, H. and de Wit, C.T. (1983) Rangeland productivity and exploitation in

the Sahel. Science, 221: 1341–387.

Brew, D and Washington, R. (2004) African Climate Report. A report

commissioned by the UK Government to review African climate science, policy
and options for action. Unpublished. December 2004. DFID, London.

Water ecosystem services and poverty under climate change

Bruijnzeel, L.A. (2004) Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the

soil for the trees? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 104: 185–228.

Calder, I.R. (2005) The Blue Revolution. Earthscan, London (second edition).
Calder, I.R., Amezaga, J., Aylward, B., Bosch, J., Fuller, L., Gallop,K., Gosain,

A., Hope, R., Jewitt, G., Miranda, M., Porras, I. and Wilson, V. (2004) Forest
and water policies – the need to reconcile public and science perceptions.
Geologica Acta 2(2): 157–66.

Camdessus, M. (2003) Report on the Panel on Financing Water Infrastructure.

GWP/WWC, Geneva.

Child, B.A. (2004) ‘Principles, practice and results of CBNRM in Southern Africa’

in M.W Lyman and B. Child (eds) Natural Resources as Community Assets:
Lessons from two continents. Sand County Foundation, Madison, Wisconsin,
pp. 19–50.

Cleaver, F. (2007) Water Governance and Poverty: A framework for analysis

(in press).

Cleaver, F. (2000). Moral ecological rationality, institutions and the management

of common property resources. Development and Change, 31: 361–83.

Cleaver, F., Franks, T., Boesten, J. and Kiire, A. (2006) Water Governance and

Poverty: What works for the poor?. DFID Research Report, University of
Bradford.

Commission for Africa (2005) Our Common Interest: Report of the Commission

for Africa. Penguin, London.

Cortina, S. (2007) Assessing policy influences on people’s relationship to water

ecosystem services: The Mexican experience. Report prepared for DFID
scoping study. IIED, London.
Available at: www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=G02520

Cowling, S., Betts, R., Cox, P., Ettwein, V., Jones, C., Maslin, M. and Spall, S.

(2004) Contrasting simulated past and future response of the Amazonian
forest to atmospheric change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,
359: 539–47.

Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC) (2004) The Chronic Poverty Report,

2004–05. CPRC, IDPM, University of Manchester.

Davis A. (2006) Namibia’s Communal Conservancies: A review of progress and

challenges in 2005. NACSO, Windhoek, Namibia.

de Oliveira, T., Duraiappah, A.K., and Shepherd, G. (2003) The Global Drylands

Imperative: Increasing capabilities through an ecosystem approach for the
drylands. UNEP, Nairobi.

Dercon, S. (2004) Insurance against