Wishful thinking or the way forward?

Written by

Rachel Cramer

Topics

Two researchers react to the ‘ecosystem services based approach’

When experts in large-scale irrigation systems hear the phrase ‘ecosystem services based approach’, their responses represent an array of contrasting perspectives on what is - or should be - an environmental service perspective and how it can be used. Some view this approach as an analytical tool to assess the costs and benefits of an irrigation system while others believe it is a pragmatic approach to management.

People living around the canals in Gujarat, India. Photo: Hamish John Appleby/IWMI

Another point of discrepancy is the practicality of applying the ecosystem services based approach in countries where governments are unlikely to prioritize and financially support it without clear, economic incentives. Other experts are unconvinced that the approach could work to reduce poverty if farmers and other local stakeholders do not directly benefit from changing the way they use and manage irrigation systems.

We decided to pinpoint some of the tensions and overlap by asking two participants from a recent joint International Water Management Institute and CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems irrigation workshop to answer a few questions.

Jean-Philippe Venot is a human-geography researcher with the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD).

I mostly conduct irrigation and water related policy-research, with the aim of understanding how and why certain policy models are elaborated, adapted and implemented in developing countries.

Jamie Pittock is an environmental policy researcher at The Australian National University.

My work focusses on the conflicts and positive synergies among the agriculture, biodiversity, climate-change, energy and water sectors.

Can you explain what an ecosystem services based approach means and how this connects to large-scale irrigation systems?

Jean-Philippe Venot views it as a useful analytical tool; he prefers the term ‘environmental services’ to ‘ecosystem services’. He says:

I think an environmental services perspective is useful in the sense that it forces us to understand, assess and evaluate irrigation systems in broader environmental perspectives and can shed new light on the distribution of costs and benefits linked to irrigation development. Large-scale irrigation systems provide some ecosystem services but can also limit them - notably downstream.

Jamie Pittock believes this is an issue of environmentalism versus pragmatism. In the agricultural sector, managing ecosystem services should not be seen as an environmentalist’s concept, he says.

Ecosystem services are the benefits that nature provides for people. It is a pragmatic, utilitarian and anthropocentric concept. Application of an ecosystem services framework can work to ensure that the positive synergies and negative trade-offs that irrigation induces can be better identified and purposefully managed in developing countries.

Based off recommendations from IWMI researchers, the local power company in the Karnataka state of India is now required to buy back surplus solar energy from farmers, which provides a monetary incentive to conserve groundwater and energy for irrigation. This particular intervention was innovative because it recommended small but highly effective tweaks to preexisting policies, which had positive repercussions for the farmers, ecosystem services and energy sector. But this was based on small scale irrigation systems. Are there examples where an ecosystem services based approach to large scale irrigation in developing countries is working or has worked?

Jean-Philippe Venot:

I do not know of any countries where large-scale irrigation systems have been purposefully managed for enhancing ecosystem services. They are many instances in which large-scale irrigation management has overtly focused on mono-cropping for food production with detrimental consequences on the environment. There are also other instances in which medium to large scale irrigation systems are embedded in their surrounding environment and are de facto part and parcel of a broader agro-ecosystem.

One of the main strengths of looking at large-scale irrigation from an environmental service perspective is maybe the fact that it allows going past the classic dichotomy between irrigation and the environment by replacing irrigation systems in a broader landscape perspective.

However, I doubt that this approach can be turned into a ‘practical framework’ that could guide investment and management of irrigation systems. I think the question we should ask is not “How can we convince governments to use an environmental services based approach in large scale irrigation projects?”, but rather “How does large scale irrigation feature in national strategies, is an environmental services based approach to their management possible, and would it yield more equitable and aggregate benefits?”

Jamie Pittock:

Irrigation does not have a good track record in deliberately generating multiple ecosystem services, and in its negative impacts on other sectors, which is why the Water, Land and Environment program is so important. Payments for ecosystem services schemes are working very successfully in the urban water supply and hydropower sectors, for example, in many Latin American countries.

There are many examples of successful schemes in water and natural resources management, such as the Working for Water program that is generating more surface water by removing alien tree species in South Africa. It is about time that the irrigation sector explored how to improve its performance by managing for ecosystem services. I am hopeful that reforms being trialed in some Mexican irrigation areas can demonstrate the potential of this approach.

During the conference, several members expressed concern that the ecosystem services based approach in large scale irrigation schemes does not support equity. In other words, it might be great for fish and downstream users, but it does not address poverty and ensuring that the people following this approach receive their fair share of the benefits. What are your thoughts on this?

Jean-Philippe Venot:

I think whether an environmental services based approach will support equity or not depends on the irrigation system, its history, its surrounding biophysical environment, the country in which it is located, etc. Managing large scale irrigation systems for environmental services would be extremely challenging and implies trade-offs: some services may benefit some people; other services may benefit others. Choices to favor one set of services over others are highly political and value/power laden.

What an environmental services perspective can allow for is to identify the range of services, costs and benefits that are related to the development and management of large scale irrigation systems beyond food production, and how these are distributed across stakeholder groups and scales. Researchers can provide insights on this distribution of costs and benefits to people and the environment; they can also provide knowledge on the way decision making takes place, including on the basis of existing power relationships.

I am, however, concerned that an environmental service approach to large scale irrigation management leads to diverting attention away from the pressing issues of poverty, equity and justice.

Jamie Pittock:

Many irrigation schemes are not equitable now in favoring small groups of people over investment in improving agriculture in broader areas supporting more people. The ecosystem services based approach is the most promising option for more equitable and sustainable irrigated agriculture because it will: identify more benefits for more people, better assign costs to beneficiaries and distribute income to providers, and enable greater self-determination of (sub-national) communities.