Hmm. Since all weather and hence climate on a longer scale is essentially chaotic, isn’t rainfall generally erratic as a consequence of that chaos?. Isn’t that why we have some areas that get droughts in one season and floods the next? Of course there are overriding patterns like El Niño, but it seems to me that this story is simply hyping the obvious known for years: better water storage helps in dry years.
Image above from NASA Earth Observeratory: Global Rainfall Patterns
From a press release, one more thing to worry about. The “big dam dilemma” is actually in the press release, I kid you not, see it unedited below. – Anthony
In a changing climate, erratic rainfall poses growing threat to rural poor, new report says.
Addressing big dam dilemma, experts call for diverse water storage options to reduce uncertainty and improve production of rainfed farming
STOCKHOLM (6 September 2010)—Against a backdrop of extreme weather wreaking havoc around the world, a new report warns that increasingly erratic rainfall related to climate change will pose a major threat to food security and economic growth, especially in Africa and Asia, requiring increased investment in diverse forms of water storage as an effective remedy.
“Millions of farmers in communities dependent on rainfed agriculture are at risk from decreasing and erratic availability of water,” said Colin Chartres, director general of the Sri Lanka-based International Water Management Institute (IWMI), which released the report to coincide with World Water Week in Stockholm. “Climate change will hit these people hard, so we have to invest heavily and quickly in adaptation.”
The report argues against over-reliance on single solutions like big dams, proposing instead an integrated approach that combines large- and small-scale storage options, including the use of water from natural wetlands, water stored in the soil, groundwater beneath the earth’s surface, and water collected in ponds, tanks and reservoirs.
“Just as modern consumers diversify their financial holdings to reduce risk, smallholder farmers need a wide array of ‘water accounts’ to provide a buffer against climate change impacts,” said Matthew McCartney, the report’s lead author and a hydrologist at IWMI, which is supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). “That way, if one water source goes dry, they’ll have others to fall back on.”
“For millions of people dependent on rainfed agriculture, reliable access to water can make all the difference between chronic hunger and steady progress toward food security,” McCartney added. “Even small amounts of stored water, by enabling crops and livestock to survive dry periods, can produce large gains in agricultural productivity and in the well-being of rural people.”
IWMI and its research partners estimate that up to 499 million people in Africa and India can benefit from improved agricultural water management.
In Asia, where irrigation was greatly expanded in recent decades, rainfed agriculture is still extensive, accounting for 66 percent of the total cropped area, the IWMI study notes. In sub-Saharan Africa, the proportion is far greater at 94 percent. Yet, these are precisely the regions where water storage infrastructure is least developed.
“Unless we can reduce crippling uncertainty in rainfed agriculture through better water storage, many farmers in developing countries will face a losing battle with a more hostile and unpredictable climate.”
In response to increased demand for food and power supplies, the governments of developing countries with fast-growing economies have invested heavily in large dams during the current decade, ending a 10-year lull in their construction. Many of the 50,000 large dams built worldwide since the 1950s are intended to store water for irrigation.
The positive effects of such infrastructure development, in terms of flood control and improved agricultural productivity are well documented, the IWMI report explains. But so are the adverse social and environmental impacts, including displacement of up to 80 million people from their homes and disruption of the livelihoods of some 470 million people living downstream from dams as a result of altered river flows. As acrimonious debate about large dams continues, IWMI’s advice for governments is to do a better job of analyzing the potential benefits for economic development and poverty reduction and to pay more serious attention to the social and environmental consequences.
But the IWMI study also advocates giving more weight to a continuum of small-scale storage options, citing strong evidence that when such measures are well planned, they can contribute importantly to local food security and economic growth.
Field studies in various semi-arid environments, for example, have proven the effectiveness of using small planting basins to “harvest” water, together with targeted application of organic or inorganic fertilizer. In Zimbabwe, such basins have been shown to boost maize yields, whether rainfall is abundant or scarce, while in Niger, they have permitted three- or four-fold increases in millet yields.
In the northeast of India’s Rajasthan State, the construction of about 10,000 water harvesting structures—intended mainly to recharge groundwater—has made it possible to irrigate about 14,000 hectares, benefiting some 70,000 people. Whereas previously, farmers barely had enough water to produce grains, now they can also grow vegetables and other cash crops. Similarly, the construction of more than 90,000 underground water storage tanks in China is benefiting a million farmers.
Case studies suggest that combinations of different storage options can be particularly effective. In southern Sri Lanka, for example, the construction of a large water storage reservoir, which was then linked to five previously created small reservoirs brought about a 400 percent increase in crop production.
But in some places, the results of major water storage initiatives have been uneven. In Ethiopia, for example, one study showed that groundwater wells and small dams reduced poverty by 25 to 50 percent. But another analysis in the country’s Amhara region found that most of the approximately 4,000 water harvesting ponds constructed from 2003 to 2008 were no longer functioning, mainly because of poor site selection, technical failures and weak community involvement in maintenance.
“None of these options is a panacea,” said McCartney. “They all have pros and cons, which depend on their inherent characteristics, on the way they are planned and managed, and on the conditions at specific sites.”
A further hazard with any water storage option, the IWMI report notes, is that the practice itself will be subject to climate change impacts. In arid regions, for example, soil moisture may decline so rapidly as to reduce the effectiveness of practices like planting basins. Likewise, decreased rainfall could limit groundwater recharge, while rising sea levels will increase the risk of salt water intruding on coastal aquifers.
Another danger is that badly planned storage will not only waste money but actually worsen the negative affects of climate change, for example, by providing extra breeding habitats for malaria-infected mosquitoes.
To guard against such hazards, the report argues, governments need to assume greater responsibility for more integrated planning of water storage systems. In the past, storage schemes were often conceived in a piecemeal fashion at the local level, based more on political expediency than on evidence. An integrated approach would take into account the wide range of hydrological, economic, social and environmental factors that determine costs and benefits and would consider various storage options in combination. Well-planned water storage can help lift people out of poverty and provide them with an effective way to cope with climate change.
“The more we study climate change, the more we realize that water is the principal medium by which its impacts will be manifested in agriculture,” said Chartres. “We may not know exactly what those impacts will be, but we can be sure they will include greater rainfall variability. Water storage in all its forms offers a better way to manage risks during these times of increasingly uncertain weather.
The International Water Management Institute (IWMI) is a nonprofit, scientific research organization focusing on the sustainable use of water and land resources in agriculture, to benefit poor people in developing countries. IWMI’s mission is “Improving the management of water and land resources for food, livelihoods and the environment.” IWMI has its headquarters in Sri Lanka and regional offices in Africa and Asia. The Institute works in partnership with developing countries, international and national research institutes, universities and other organizations to develop tools and technologies that contribute to poverty reduction as well as food and livelihood security. www.iwmi.org
The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), established in 1971, is a strategic partnership of countries, international and regional organizations and private foundations supporting the work of a consortium of 15 international Centers. In collaboration with national agricultural research systems, civil society and the private sector, the CGIAR fosters sustainable agricultural growth through high-quality science aimed at benefiting the poor through stronger food security, better human nutrition and health, higher incomes and improved management of natural resources. www.cgiar.org
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There is more to supplying water to agriculture than building things including dams, ponds, and canals. The “rule of law” must be in place along with the means to keep everything working. Operation, maintenance, repair, delivery schedules – and many more – have to be guaranteed. A few weeks without water, say, because sediment has blocked flow or a pump burned up and another isn’t available will result in crop failure.
A recent book looks at some of the issues in trying to provide aid where things don’t work just the way some folks think they ought to. Here is a quote from a review of:
“Famine and Foreigners: Ethiopia since Live Aid” by Peter Gill
http://www.aworldtowin.net/reviews/famine.html
Reviewed by Susan Jappie
“
Peter Gill’s book looks at the controversial outcomes of the international efforts to help this historically powerful African country overcome the devastating effects of a series of droughts that destroyed the livelihoods of the people of Ethiopia.”
Invest heavily and quickly The statement we must invest heavily and quickly sounds a lot like redistribution of wealth and a plan for international control of all water. It is a very hard sell that we must submit to an investment in the third world based on a money and power grabbing hoax of global warming.
Where is the extreme weather wrecking havoc around the world that we never had before? Someone wrote all science is political. If it is, that is not an excuse for it not being honest.
R de Haan. “Natural climate variability”. Excellent idea. I’ll do it. Can I say ‘climatic’?
Richard Holle says:
September 7, 2010 at 1:46 am
Economic growth and prosperity has through out history followed the immigration of those who wished to be more free, to try their own ideas on how to become self sustaing, and still make a profit to grow more comfortable in old age.
In the USA the local farmers were shocked at the huge loss of livestock in central China, Mongolia due to just a couple feet of snow.
Here almost everyone who raises livestock….
__________________________________________________
Nice summation. Now if we could only keep the bureaucrats, politicians and greedy corporations from wrecking the system. Recently Farm Ponds have been the target of an eradication program here in the USA. Talk about idiocy!
The UN/WTO came up with the international “Guide to Good Farming Practices” in January 2005. When repeated attempts by Congress failed to get the law passed starting in the same year, corporations went a different route using their purchasing clout and contracts. They mandated farmers must follow their scorched-earth strategies in order to sell their products.
These policies include ponds being “poisoned and bulldozed. Vegetation harboring pollinators and filtering storm runoff is being cleared.” Now how does that square with this press release on water conservation methods?
“large growers instituted a quasi-governmental program of new protocols for growing greens safely, called the “leafy greens marketing agreement.” A proposal was submitted last month in Washington to take these rules nationwide.”
The “Food Safety bill” that was submitted was by none other than our old friend of “Cap and Trade” fame, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles. It gives new powers to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate all farms. The head of the new improved version would be Mike Taylor, lawyer and lobbyist for Monsanto according to internet scuttlebutt.
“Large produce buyers have compiled secret “super metrics” that go much further. Farmers must follow them if they expect to sell their crops. These can include vast bare-dirt buffers, elimination of wildlife, and strict rules on water sources. To enforce these rules, retail buyers have sent forth armies of food-safety auditors, many of them trained in indoor processing plants, to inspect fields…. “If they’re not prepared for the farm landscape, it can come as quite a shock to them. Some of this stuff that they want, you just can’t actually do.”
The same problem is seen in the Guide to Good Farming Practices that are modeled on Good Manufacturing Practices for the Pharmaceutical Industry and written by academics, not farmers. This is an example straight out of the Guide to Good Farming Practices and used by the Corporations . Of course they were the co-authors of the Guide via the World Trade Organization.
“Auditors have told Kimes that no children younger than 5 can be allowed on his farm for fear of diapers. He has been asked to issue identification badges to all visitors.”
From the Guide:
“keeping the immediate surroundings clear and free from stagnant water [ponds???] and anywhere that could harbour pests, and arranged so as to allow easy disinfection of areas used by professional visitors (veterinarian, animal or feed deliverers, milk or egg collectors, carcass disposal agents, etc.)
…so as to make access difficult for unauthorised persons or vehicles (barriers, fences, signs)”
I wonder if unauthorised persons include Monsanto’s private investigators [who] arrive unexpectedly on farmers’ land and take samples from fields, often without permission, a practice that has instigated repeated trespassing accusations
So much for the press release.
“The report argues against over-reliance on single solutions like big dams, proposing instead an integrated approach that combines large- and small-scale storage options, including the use of water from natural wetlands, water stored in the soil, groundwater beneath the earth’s surface, and water collected in ponds, tanks and reservoirs.”
They need to talk to Rep. Henry Waxman so he can get his story straight before anyone else points out the problem with his bill and this CAGW report.
Well, it sure is a big damn dilemma where these people get their “bona fides” from- The IWMI is a nonprofit, scientific research organization focusing on the sustainable use of water and land resources in agriculture…. Really? And THAT somehow gives them credence in the “study” of global weather? “The more we study climate change, the more we realize that water is the principal medium by which its impacts will be manifested in agriculture,” said Chartres. What a completely UN-scientific statement. The more we study … the more we realize … the principal medium(s) … impacts will be manifested… WHAT study?? This “report” is backed up by a “study”? Where is it? AND “realization”? that agriculture is “principally” impacted by water? DUH!
“We may not know exactly what those impacts will be, but we can be sure they will include greater rainfall variability. You DON’T know exactly the things you SHOULD KNOW, but you know exactly the variability of rainfall and that it WILL be greater?!? Ahh, excuse me for being so brash but, HOW do you know that? And, how do you know that is NOT a BETTER situation? Maybe it’ll be MORE rain everywhere… or at least more rain where “we” need it… or rain at the RIGHT TIME because THAT’S the real key to success in rainfed agriculture. But surely they know that because they are- focused “on the sustainable use of land resources in agriculture”…. In heart of farming in – Stockholm… Wisconsin… right? Oh no, that’s where the report is from?? Their HQ is in Sri Lanka… Sri Lanka?? Maybe they should move to – – Stockholm, WI.
I’m sure, in short order water wouldn’t be such a big damn dilemma, being right next to a lot of it…
Alexander K says:
September 7, 2010 at 7:31 am
“I know from my own youthful experience of working in the rural world that much of farming is unromantic, boring and physically unrelenting.
Like many former farm boys, I found the lure of the city lay not in the bright lights of the nightspots but in a physically less demanding, . . .”
Your comment is timely: Last Friday we agreed to buy a local man’s remaing hay. It was cut but still in the field. Saturday morning a man came with a machine and produced 112 bales of 110 pounds each folloowed by his brother with another machine that picked up 56 bales out of the field in just a few minutes and delivered it 2.6 miles away (to us) at about 50 mph. A second trip brought us the next load – about 3.5 tons.
That’s 7 tons, pickup and delivered, in about 30 minutes. I opened a gate. My wife wrote a check. Here is a link to see a delivery (not us):
As a young person I helped put hay up the old fashioned way. Once or twice with a wagon and pitchforks (as described in the link below), but mostly – back then – bales weighed about 60-65 pounds. Now they are twice that. Here’s the link (it is ironic – I was raised about 40 miles from this organic farm):
http://www.localharvest.org/blog/27987/entry/loose_hay_and_the_claw
The long tailed distributions of water flow in the Nile river system have been well studied and Mandelbrot has written about them.
Why any of the Warmists would ignore centuries of data is still a mystery to me, but it continues. Willful ignorance is worse than outright stupidity.
They ignore or spin the ice core data, they ignore world temperature data, they ignore anything that doesn’t fit the religion. They would, if they were allowed, cheerfully sit another Inquisition, and “save” the realists from their “sins”.
“It’s good to see robust debate in a climate blog. Someone like RW can take strong issue with Anthony Watts and RW’s comment doesn’t get moderated into oblivion.”
At least half the comments I leave never appear.
REPLY: More faux outrage. You have 236 comments on WUWT, your views have been well distributed here. Yes the ones that violate policy are snipped, and you’ve made many that violate policy, and that personally attack me and others, or act as flame bait to hijack threads. These get snipped. Read the policy page. That’s why you are often in the troll box. No I’m not going to argue merits of your individual posts. Clean up you act and you’ll have more of a voice here. If you don’t like the policy then don’t comment here. – Anthony
You can make this up, there is no limit to the way you can combine things to produce “astounding climate news” stories. Maybe they will get tired.
In SWFL this AM, it was in the low 70s and chilly. A nice December style night. Is this climate change? It is the peak of the hurricane season. Something has to be broke. Let me see, ‘Once Upon a time — ‘
Anthony, your rant does not address the point I raised at all.
Someone suggested that the IPCC WG1 report contradicted my statement. Here is an extract:
“While weather and climate are closely related, there are important differences … The chaotic nature of weather makes it unpredictable beyond a few days. Projecting changes in climate (i.e., long-term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and much more manageable issue. As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialised countries is about 75.”
REPLY: Yeah sure whatever, predict when the next ice age will happen then, or when the next El Niño rivaling 1998 will occur, or even simpler, predict the next long term drought in the USA midwest. Let us know when you’ve got that method down. – Anthony
The report argues against over-reliance on single solutions like big dams, proposing instead an integrated approach that combines large- and small-scale storage options, including the use of water from natural wetlands, water stored in the soil, groundwater beneath the earth’s surface, and water collected in ponds, tanks and reservoirs.,
They don’t even mention Reverse Osmosis, as they didn’t knew about its existence, and that is because they are biased and don’t want you to remember that the 71% of the world is WATER…..And that’s very bad news for the droughts armageddon. (BTW, it would mean that membranes’ manufacturers are not members of the carbon market elite).
No mention of the increased CO2 production from lake-bottom sediments. Is this exacerbating the “problem?”
Water “DERIVATIVES” anyone?….It seems someone out there is thinking to print a few trillions out of NADA.
Sweat instead, drip off some excess water! by working hard, that will make you healthy and happier, I can assure you!
I find it interesting that, at least here in California, the steady increase in the state’s measured average temperature also has produced an increase in the state’s average annual rainfall. The state’s average rate of change for precipitation just over 3 inches per 100 years. http://www.calclim.dri.edu/
Warmer is wetter.
Well I got yer Big Dam Dilemma right here:
Hoover Dam Guide: Welcome everyone. I am your dam guide, Arnie. Now I’m about to take you through a fully funtional power plant, so please, no one wander off the dam tour and please take all the dam pictures you want. Now are there any dam questions?
Cousin Eddie: Yeah, where can I get some damn bait?
Vegas Vacation (1997)
John F. Hultquist said at 10:12 am
…it is ironic – I was raised about 40 miles from this organic farm):
http://www.localharvest.org/blog/27987/entry/loose_hay_and_the_claw
THANK YOU John, for that link. It took me back to my youth. I wasn’t raised ON a farm, but sure spent a lot of time on my family’s farms and if you were there, you worked – – and learned a lot about the real world and how to “adjust” to changing conditions, including weather. That is why I have said all along, to the individual – “climate” is a myth. And for these – “fools” (sorry couldn’t think of a better word) to say they are studying “climate” changes in an effort to come up with highly local solutions to water shortages, is just plain fraud and job perpetuation. While the farmers they are suppose to help, keep suffering. It’s a big damn dilemma to me why we don’t just bypass these non-profits and just give the money to the farmers. Hell, they could bury it and with the added water retention it would do more for them than the IWMI.
Again, sorry. It’s just damn frustrating when you see the list of things that grant money (US tax dollars) is being given way to everyday.
The bolded quote shows a complete lack of understanding. Whoever said this is applying stochastic reasoning to explain a fundamentally chaotic problem. Chaotic systems settle into trajectories (attractors). The trajectory bounds the possible outcomes but you cannot say with any confidence where on that trajectory you will end up.
Ken Harvey says:
September 7, 2010 at 3:48 am
Farmers are world’s greatest optimists
_____________________________________________________________
NO. NO. NO.
Farmers have to be pessimistic. “Expect and prepare for the worst. Since it usually doesn’t get quite that bad, you can be happy. If it gets that bad, you can still be happy that you were smart enough to be prepared.”
The pore optomist would soon be looking for a job in town.
As long as you have rivers, you will have floods. One solution is just not to build in the flood plains, but the temptation during the non-chaotic years is just too great (best soil around and the high availability of water).
It is not AGW that is causing the flooding problems. It is the fact that people gamble. And sometimes lose.
Milwaukee Bob says:
September 7, 2010 at 11:52 am
……Worst if the very final goal of scammers would be their appropiation/ownership of the total arable land.
The last investments of he who organized the first Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit has been precisely in the best US arable lands. A new emerging world class of Land Lords ?
Farmland investment of Global Warming elite:
http://davidgarnerconsulting.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/rothschild-cashes-in-by-investing-in-farmland/
Summary: After Edmund de Rothschild’s statement, without basis, at the 4th World Wilderness Congress in 1987, that CO2 is the cause of a non-existent global warming – and that combating it needs money (our money), he founded the World Conservation Bank for this reason. In 1991 its name was changed to The Global Environment Facility (GEF). The purpose of this facility is to lend money to the poorest countries, printed by the IMF out of thin air, and with the guarantee of our governments. The facility takes wilderness areas with mineral riches as security. The GEF money is then to flow back to our governments as reimbursement for paid loans. I.e. We give away our tax money. For what? When a country cannot repay loans to the GEF it must give up a piece of its territory to the Rothschild banks (GEF, IMF, World Bank) – up to 30% of the Earth are meant. If land cannot be offered as collateral the country must starve (Haiti, Argentina and others). Rothschild´s stroke of genius was that he had his GEF smuggled into the UN system at the Rio UN Summit in 1992 by his friend, Maurice Strong. So now high-ranking ministerial officials from 179 countries are in the the council of the bank – blessing Rothschild grabbing the world! This article brings interviews with a man who was a participant at the 4th World Wilderness Congress,a man who knows what happened there and knew Rothschild personally – as well as David Rockefeller, who tried to threaten him to silence about what he had learned at the Wilderness Congress. The GEF is to manage the money just promised to the developing countries in Copenhagen (100 billion dollars a year from 2020 – 30 bn over the next 3 years) with the help of the World Bank. However, Rothschild does not leave it there. He and his henchmen are now joining the race of certain governments (China, Saudi Arabia), to buy up large areas of farmland in developing countries, having the crops transported back to the home countries. This leaves the locals, already starving, with much less crops available – with food prices rising rapidly – which is exactly Rothschild’s expectation. This makes people flee from Africa to Europe. Food prices have doubled in the past year or so – so that many people in Haiti before the earthquake, could not even afford to buy mud pies with minimal nourishment. And so it goes on. This is the ultimate goal of Rothschild’s New World Order.
Well of course weather is getting more extreme; and climate too. It gets worse and worse as you get older; so you forget that whopping 100 year storm that happened two years ago; and when it happens again next week, you are gonna be shocked.
I can state categorically, that I don’t remember any severe weather at all, when I was four years old; everything was always hunky dorey; so clearly it is getting worse; much worse.
People can actually get paid for making studies like this ? I think I need an agent who can get me on that gravy train.
George E. Smith says:
September 7, 2010 at 2:23 pm
People can actually get paid for making studies like this ? I think I need an agent who can get me on that gravy train.
Any agents around?
RW says:
September 7, 2010 at 10:46 am
Anthony, your rant does not address the point I raised at all.
Someone suggested that the IPCC WG1 report contradicted my statement. Here is an extract:
“While weather and climate are closely related, there are important differences … The chaotic nature of weather makes it unpredictable beyond a few days. Projecting changes in climate (i.e., long-term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and much more manageable issue. As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialised countries is about 75.”
____________________________________________
Nice try with the analogy RW, but off the mark. Comparing the ability to KNOW the average life expectancy of a population is not the same as KNOWING the climate. One is a very easy, simple mathematical task: directly observe the number of men who die each year (millions), the ages at which they die, and compute an average life expectancy. The other isn’t: how many DIRECT observations of the CLIMATE can one measure each year? How does one the compute the average CLIMATE for 2010? Since we only have one sample each year, how accurate is that number?
Not to mention the fact that knowing the average life expectancy of a man in 2010 doesn’t mean you can predict the average life expectancy in 2050…
Or would you care to give us your prediction today on the average life expectancy of a man in the US in the year 2050? You’ve got all the data you need, right? I mean, you know which types of cancers will be cured by then, right?