The Council Study:

Socio-Economic Assessment

Dr John Ward (MERFI)

Overview of the socio-economic assessment

Council Study

Development

scenarios (2007,

2020, 2040)

Confirm Thematic

(Sector) indicators

Irrigation

Agriculture and

Land use

Domestic and

Industrial use

Flood protection

Hydropower

Transportation

Assessment

indicators

pre-development, M1-

M3, sub-scenarios

Water security

Food security

Income security

Health security

Employment

Gender

Step 1 Step 2

Discipline teams

Hydrodynamic

modelling

BioRA

Climate Change

Thematic indicators: SIMVA

analysis and calibration

National data calibrated to

SIMVA sub-zones and

Corridor Provinces

Distributional

equity

Cross indicator

effects

Transboundary

influences

Steps 3 and 4 Step 5

Links to Thematic

teams, Economic

and Cumulative

impact

assessments

Changes in the

Hydrologic regime

and Ecosystem

services

Discipline indicators:

Formulate impact

relationships

With Water development

Without water development

M1 through M3 and sub-

scenarios

Combined

assessment

indicators:

evaluation of

changes at corridor

zone and Province

level

Step 6

Baseline (SIMVA 2011,

2014): pre

development,

2007 trend analysis

Population, Spatial

boundaries, Land use,

Potential Mitigation

measures and

recommendations

Objectives of the socio-economic assessment

Water security

Food security

Income security

Health security

Employment

Gender

Estimate the changes in Livelihoods and Wellbeing in response to changes in hydrology and ecology; and non-water developments.

ResponseCS Development

Scenarios

Social Assessment

indicators

Hydrological and

ecological change

Pre-development,

2007, 2020 and

2040

Isolate water development changes from non-water changes. For provinces and

Corridor zones

Steps 1 and 2 Steps 3 and 4 Step 5

Step 6

Spatial scope: 13 Corridor zones and Provinces

SIMVA (2011, 2014) and

EMRF:

Sampling error = ±1.5%-

2.7%

Sampling extended to non-

sampled households

Assessment indicator

Discipline specific indicators Data source

Water security

% of HHs with access to safe water SIMVA2011

% of HHs whose primary domestic water sources runs dry for more than x weeks

SIMVA2011

% of HHs reporting water shortages that resulted in crop damage in the last 12 months

SIMVA2011

% of HHs reporting water excess that resulted in crop damage in the last 12 months

SIMVA2011

Food security

Per capita /day (Kcal, protein and fat (% RDI) Calculated FAO

Production of catch fish and OAAs (t) BioRA

Production of rice, maize, cassava, riverbank gardens aquaculture, livestock (yield, ha and yield/ha)

ALU, IRR, BioRA

Poverty level SIMVA2011, FAO

Assessment indicators:

Assessment indicator

Discipline specific indicatorsData source

Income security

Monthly income SIMVA 2011

Poverty rate MRC SEDB

Diversity (#) of income sources (fish/OAAs/river bank/non-aquatic resource)

SIMVA 2011

Income source from agriculture AIP

HHs income SIMVA 2011

HHs expenditure

Health security

Number of HHs access to potable water SIMVA 2011

Number of HHs access to sanitation MRC SEDB

List of communities that have health facilities SIMVA 2014

Assessment Indicators:

Main water development scenarios

ALU = Agric/Landuse Change; DIW = Domestic and Industrial Water Use; FPF = flood protection infrastructure;

HPP = hydropower; IRR = irrigation; and NAV = Navigation

Scenario

Level of Development for water-

related sectors Climate

Flood-

plain

s’mtALU DIW FPF HPP IRR NAV

M1 Early

Development

Scenario 2007

2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 1985-

2008

2007

M2 Definite Future

Scenario 2020

2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 1985-

2008

2020

M3 Planned

Development

Scenario 2040

2040 2040 2040 2040 2040 2040 Mean

warmer

& wetter

2040

Scenario and sub-scenario comparison

Comparison

Sub-scenarios are a key part of the design of the assessment

To understand impacts the CS compares sub-scenarios with and without sector change

Effects testedScenario

ComparisonsSocio-economic

Overall water resources developmentM3 vs M2

M2 vs M1

X

X

Climate change

C1 vs C2

C1 vs C3

M3 vs C1

X

X

Irrigation developmentM3 vs I1

M3 vs I2X

Hydropower development

M3 vs H1

M3 vs H2

M3 vs H3

X

Navigation developmentM3 vs N1 X

Domestic & Industry water use M3 vs D1 X

Agriculture & land-use developmentM3 vs A1

M3 vs A2X

Flood protection infrastructure development

M3 vs F1

M3 vs F2

M3 vs F3

X

The analytical value of scenarios comes from their comparison

Developments- water related and

“exogenous”

Isolate where possible

exogenous trends

from water related

social consequences

•Urbanisation

•Overfishing

•Deforestation

•Dietary changes

•Roads and transport

•Population growth

Assessment indicator Δ Water security Δ Food security

Discipline specific indicators

HH

s w

ith

acc

ess

to s

afe

wat

er

sup

ply

sys

tem

HH

s w

ith

sec

ure

su

pp

ly f

or

do

mes

tic

use

HH

s w

ith

sec

ure

su

pp

ly f

or

agri

cult

ura

l use

HH

s ex

po

sed

to

fl

oo

d d

amag

e ri

sk

Kca

l/d

ay/c

apit

a

Tota

l pro

tein

p

rod

uct

ion

(f

ish

, liv

esto

ck

etc)

Pove

rty

(HH

ex

pen

dit

ure

on

)f

oo

d

CS themes information requirements

Change in Discipline indicators (Δ)

Sectors (e.g.IrrigationTheme)

Change in Thematic Indicators (Δ)

Irrigation area and location

Δ Δ

Irrigated agricultural production

Δ

Irrigated agricultural production

Δ

Irrigated agriculture employment

Δ

Development Scenarios

CONNECTING DEVELOPMENT CHANGES TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC

ASSESSMENT INDICATORS

Spatially explicit assessments eg Food

security

% change

-2: < -10%;-1: -2 to -10%; 0: ±2%; 1: +2 to 10%2: > 10%

Country Province District Sub-zone area (km2)

Population Bio Zone

(,000) Kcal/day

Protein

(g/day) Fat (g/day) Kcal/day

Protein

(g/day)

Fat

(g/day) Total

A AA AAA BZ-1 xxx 2430 2100 47 52 -2 -1 -2 -5

A AA AAB BZ-1 xxx 600 2400 50 45 0 0 -2 -2

A AA AAC BZ-2 xxx 2234 1960 50 56 -2 0 -2 -4

A AA AAD BZ-2 xxx 1325 2200 45 45 -1 -1 -2 -4

A AA AAE BZ-2 xxx 670 2340 50 55 -1 0 -2 -3

A AA AAF BZ-3 xxx 550 2450 34 65 1 -2 0 -1

A AA AAG BZ-3 xxx 2567 2400 56 65 0 2 0 2

A AA AAH BZ-3 xxx 356 1970 45 50 -2 -1 -2 -5

Country Province District Sub-zone area (km2)

Population Bio Zone

(,000) Kcal/day

Protein

(g/day) Fat (g/day) Kcal/day

Protein

(g/day)

Fat

(g/day) Total

A AA AAA BZ-1 xxx 2430 2400 50 50 0 0 -2 -2

A AA AAB BZ-1 xxx 600 2400 50 65 0 0 0 0

A AA AAC BZ-2 xxx 2234 1980 35 40 -2 -2 -2 -6

A AA AAD BZ-2 xxx 1325 2400 50 45 0 0 -2 -2

A AA AAE BZ-2 xxx 670 2100 42 45 -2 -2 -2 -6

A AA AAF BZ-3 xxx 550 2200 45 47 -1 -1 -2 -4

A AA AAG BZ-3 xxx 2567 2350 48 57 -1 -1 -2 -4

A AA AAH BZ-3 xxx 356 2100 48 52 -2 -1 -2 -5

Food Security (Likert scale: -2 to +2 )

Baseline

Development Scenario xx

Food Balance Food Security (Likert scale: -2 to +2 )Location

Location Food Balance

Food Secure if Total

score >=0

Assessment compares total and percentage

changes between scenarios, by country,

zone and province

Discipline specific indicators

from SIMVA and National

data sets

Food Balance indicators

from Thematic team

indicator relationships Sub-zone 2007 M1 Trend

Zone 1a -5 -2

Zone 1b -2 0

Zone 2a -4 -6

Zone 2b -4 -2

Zone 2c -3 -6

Zone 3a -1 -4

Zone 3b 2 -4

Zone 3c -5 -5

Vision of the main

report

Chapters

Executive Summary

1 Introduction

2 Design

3 Key Message 1: Most important benefits and opportunities

4 Key Message 2: Most significant negative impacts and risks

5 Key Message 3: Key trade-offs and synergies

6 Key Message 4: Implications for planning and policy

7 Key Message 5: Knowledge gaps

8 Key Message 6: Main recommendations

• Report organized

around key messages

• Concise: a report you would want to read

• Supported by graphics

13

Looking ahead

Summary

• Addressed data constraints

• Calibrated Province and National data to SIMVA (2011

and 2014)

• Hydrological responses estimated from Thematic

teams, expert panels (Delphi) and Likert scales

• A few reliable indicators are better than many

unreliable ones (e.g. Food security Kcal/day/capita)

• Exploring cross indicator interactions