Fig 4 - uploaded by Leon M Hermans
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Water valuation is needed to enable sound and well-informed decisions on the allocation and management of water resources. The existing methods for water valuation have an important potential and need to be further developed. Practical tools are especially urgently needed to aid implementation on the ground. There is a need to expand the scope of e...
Context in source publication
Similar publications
This report provides an analysis of agricultural policy developments and the EU approximation process in the Western Balkan area. Quantitative analysis of agricultural policy developments was performed using data on budgetary support for agriculture, systematised according to the Agricultural Policy Measures (APM) classification scheme, a uniform c...
The post 2020 rural development policy will build on the wealth of experience and commitment of a wide scope of rural actors. To increase effectiveness, it will have to respond to a host of drivers and changes of
rural regions. Rural policy should concern all economic sectors, strengthen social action and environmental considerations and be targete...
Citations
... De fait, les productivités peuvent donner des indications contradictoires, ainsi par exemple une culture de rente sera probablement plus performante qu'une culture céréalière au regard de la productivité économique (WPe), mais peut être moins performante au regard de la productivité de l'eau agricole (WPa). En outre, si la productivité de l'eau est comparable dans le temps, cela en fait une variable à surveiller plutôt P (Hermans et al., 2006). ...
The sustainability of irrigated agriculture is threatened by growing pressure on water resources, whose over-exploitation is leading to the degradation of ecosystems, especially in the Mediterranean basin. Despite investment in costly modern equipment, the performance of irrigation systems remains below expectations, notably due to induced effects on a wider scale. Digital information technologies offer new opportunities for better understanding and management of water resources, but they remain relatively inaccessible and poorly adapted to agrarian contexts, particularly for surface irrigation systems and in the global South. Therefore, to what extent can the participatory design of digital information technologies result in new tools that are useful and accessible to improve the performance of irrigation systems and contribute to greater territorial sustainability? The results of our PhD thesis show that digital innovation for irrigation management does not necessarily have to be complex, expensive and energy-intensive. We developed new simple, open source, do-it-yourself and low-cost measurement and automation systems to support real-time water management with farmers practising surface irrigation in France and drip irrigation in Tunisia. We proposed a multi-criteria and multi-scale modeling method to simulate the effects of the adoption of such new tools on the performance of irrigation systems. Our results put into perspective the benefits of changes in practices resulting from the adoption of innovations, and illustrate the trade-offs emerging on a larger scale. We believe that this work will contribute to the democratisation of digital low-tech for more autonomous, energy and water-saving irrigation systems. The designed tools and methods are highly reproducible and open the way to future research on the understanding and management of water flows in various agro-hydrological contexts.
... Yet, many existing decision-support applications assume an objective "optimal" outcome based on a decision rule and clearly defined factors that can be captured in a model, such as cost minimisation, in which the cheapest alternative emerges as "best" e.g., [11,12]. Avoiding the assumption of a single "best" option broadens the discussion, as in many cases, "what is best" is far from objective but is, at least in part, a personal preference subject to change over time [17]. It may even be political [18]. ...
Regional long-term water management plans depend increasingly on investments by local water users such as farmers. However, local circumstances and individual situations vary and investment decisions are made under uncertainty. Water users may therefore perceive the costs and benefits very differently, leading to non-uniform investment decisions. This variation can be explored using crossover points. A crossover point represents conditions in which a decision maker assigns equal preference to competing alternatives. This paper presents, applies, and evaluates a framework extending the use of the concept of crossover points to a participatory process in a group setting. We applied the framework in a case study in the Coal River Valley of Tasmania, Australia. Here, farmers can choose from multiple water sources. In this case, the focus on crossover points encouraged participants to engage in candid discussions exploring the personal lines of reasoning underlying their preferences. Participants learned from others' inputs, and group discussions elicited information and insights considered valuable for both the participants and for outsiders on the factors that influence preferences. We conclude that the approach has a high potential to facilitate learning in groups and to support planning.
... Stakeholder-oriented approaches that place stakeholders more at the centre gained attention since 2006 (FAO, 2006;Hermans et al., 2006). Such approaches widen the water valuation lens. ...
... Through valuing water, stakeholders can express their values and jointly reach a certain level of agreement on the use and management of scarce water resources. Hermans et al. (2006) proposed a stakeholder-driven approach to valuing water, based on different indicators to produce a mosaic of values that support water resource management by local stakeholders. The general idea is to consider water's multiple values and guide the transparent incorporation of these values into decision-making by policymakers, communities and businesses. ...
... This section discusses five main practical challenges of valuing water and the risks associated with them (Table 2). Practical challenges are not only derived from the literature, but also from practical experiences of the authors, for instance, experiences with respect to different conceptualizations of water productivity indicators (Hellegers et al., 2009) and shifts in perspectives (Van Halsema & Vincent, 2012) and also experiences with respect to challenges regarding the comprehensiveness of valuation frameworks (Hermans et al., 2006). The political nature of commensuration to produce one overarching valorisation framework is described in Hellegers & van Halsema (2018). ...
p>The increasing policy interest in valuing water raises questions about practical roles or applications. Is valuing water intended, for example, to inform public policy and businesses, guide resource allocation, support a multi-stakeholder process, manage conflicts of interest, or to inform realistic pricing systems and support investment decisions? Decisions affecting water often fail, however, to consider ecosystem needs and social objectives and impacts in other geographical areas. This paper reflects on the essence of valuing water in practice. The paper concludes that in practice, valuing water is indeed useful in decision-making, not solely in the sense of it contributing to the value determination (as values are typically disputed, partial, incommensurable and imperfect), but more in offering a structured and transparent mechanism that supports an inclusive stakeholder water resources management process. Water valuation can play a key role in making explicit the trade-offs intrinsic to decision-making and priority setting, especially when it concerns societal needs such as food security and stability, which are not revealed in the marketplace. As such, valuing water may be a key tool in water diplomacy, whereby its value lies not so much in its numerical assessment as in the process it offers to engage stakeholders across different perspectives and interests in water use.</p
... It was proposed in [4] that the essence of value was in the capitalization of water resource rent, upon which the differences in price and value of water resources would be clarified. Scholars have estimated the value of water resources by employing equilibrium pricing [5], value mosaic [6], emergy estimation [7], and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation [8]. In addition, there is clear theoretical and empirical evidence that using price to manage water demand is more cost-effective than other approaches [9]. ...
Research on water pricing is important to effectively address the water resource crisis. The agricultural industry has the greatest water-saving potential. Using Heilongjiang Province, the main grain-producing region in China, as an example, an agricultural irrigation water price was determined based on macro and micro scales, and affordable water prices for peasants were calculated. The results show a macro-agricultural irrigation water price of 1.023 yuan/m3, indicating that the current agricultural irrigation water price does not reflect the water source value. The micro-agricultural irrigation water prices for surface water and groundwater range from 0.993 to 1.008 and from 2.343 to 2.358 yuan/m3, respectively, indicating differences in cost recovery and value. The surface water prices for maize, rice, and soybeans ranged from 0.286 to 0.476, from 0.101 to 0.179, and from 0.180 to 0.307 yuan/m3, respectively, while the appropriate groundwater prices ranged from 0.317 to 0.507, from 0.131 to 0.210, and from 0.211 to 0.337 yuan/m3, respectively. The government could formulate different subsidy policies according to the actual situation and raise agricultural irrigation water prices to the full-cost level to enable the implementation of law of value.
... NOVA, with F (10; 309) ¼ 20.841. In order to also explore the inter-scheme water value variability, average water values per irrigation scheme and scheme type were calculated and compared. An ANOVA analysis revealed that using an irrigation scheme as a factor the irrigation water values differ significantly at the 0.05% level (F (13; 306) ¼ 2.029). Hermans et al. (2006) and Faulkner et al. (2008) suggest that the institutional settings, management and design principles of the schemes can be important explicatory factors for such differences.Figure 1 shows the average water values for the different types of schemes discussed above. The values found are of the same size as those reported by Molden (1998) for ...
Capturing the economic value of water use is an integral part in the design of economic incentives and institutional arrangements that can ensure sustainable, efficient and equitable allocation of water. Irrigation water values of small-scale irrigators are, however, seldom studied and too little attention is paid to the determinants of the variability of water values. In South Africa issues like the call for more efficient water allocation resulting from growing water scarcity, the approaching introduction of water charges for smallholders and the crucial role in rural development attributed to small-scale schemes, render this knowledge even more important. This study therefore first assesses irrigation water values at small-scale irrigation schemes in South Africa using the residual imputation method. Results reveal that, without input subsidies, smallholders have difficulties generating a profit from certain irrigated crops. This raises doubts about the capacity of smallholders to pay for water. The average economic value of irrigation water in this study is US$0.188 m⁻³. The water values are, however, shown to be highly variable. The General Linear Model shows that this variability can be mainly attributed to the crop choice and to the irrigation scheme design and institutional setting. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
... Compared to past efforts, more emphasis is placed on conflict resolution and linking social, institutional and hydrological scales. Where earlier projects promoted the participation of stakeholders -and often focused specifically on local communities -more recent projects seek to foster collaboration between different types of stakeholders and stakeholder groups (FAO, 2006;Hermans et al., 2006). ...
Watersheds, especially in the developing world, are increasingly being managed for both environmental conservation and poverty alleviation. How complementary are these objectives? In the context of a watershed, the actual and potential linkages between land and water management and poverty are complex and likely to be very site specific and scale dependent. This study analyses the importance of watershed resources in the livelihoods of the poor in two watersheds in the Colombian Andes. Results of the participatory poverty assessment reveal significant decreases in poverty in both watersheds over the past 25 years, which was largely achieved by the diversification of livelihoods outside of agriculture. Water is an important resource for household welfare. However, opportunities for reducing poverty by increasing the quantity or quality of water available to the poor may be limited. While improved watershed management may have limited direct benefits in terms of poverty alleviation, there are important indirect linkages between watershed management and poverty, mainly through labour and service markets. The results suggest that at the level of the watershed the interests of the rich and the poor are not always in conflict over water. Sectoral as well as socio-economic differences define stakeholder groups in watershed management. The findings have implications for policymakers, planners and practitioners in various sectors involved in the implementation of integrated water resources management (IWRM).
... Thus, capturing the economic value of water use is an integral part in the design of economic incentives and institutional arrangements that can ensure sustainable, efficient and equitable allocation (Birol et al., 2006). Indeed, reliable estimates of water value help to make informed choices and can provide an important input in guiding rational decision making (Hermans et al., 2006;Hussain et al., 2007). The value generated by water use is also related with the cost recovery objective because it determines the capacity of farmers to pay for water. ...
... The importance of the institutional context as a factor influencing water values is stressed by Hermans et al. (2006). Therefore, this section briefly repeats the most important characteristics of the small-scale irrigation sector, which were identified in Chapter 2. The sector roughly contains two types of irrigation schemes: larger government funded schemes and community schemes or garden schemes. ...
With the growing water scarcity, the need for more efficient water use has worldwide increased in importance. In addition, cost-recovery is now widely acknowledged as a cornerstone of sustainable water management. This research aims to contribute to improved water management in the small-scale irrigation sector in South Africa, which also faces these challenges. In a first analysis the economic production value of irrigation water was determined. Results show that without government subsidies on inputs, the profitability of many smallholders was low. Achieving full cost recovery therefore appears to be problematic for the current users. In the next part the concept of sub-vector efficiencies is introduced as a measure for water use efficiency. The analysis shows that smallholders fail to reach their overall technical efficiency levels when it concerns water use. Even using the current technologies the potential to reallocate irrigation water to other water demands is substantial. In a third part an innovative two-steps simulation model was developed to study the impact of water pricing. The model introduces a representation of the technology and smallholder efficiencies in a profit maximisation model. Farmers appear to be quite responsive to water charges and adjust their water use, even when the charge is relatively low. Pricing water can thus be used to provide incentives for efficiency improvement. However, the introduction of a water price is also shown to significantly decrease farm profit, particularly for smaller farms. The last part of the study investigates the impact of improving the water rights system in South Africa. Using a contingent ranking experiment the WTP of smallholders for specific interventions is estimated. The results show that farmers are prepared to pay considerably higher water prices if this is connected with advancements in the water rights system. This implies that such interventions would improve the efficiency of the small-scale irrigation sector. A higher WTP for water is also interesting in the light of the cost recovery, because it allows the government to increase water charges. In general, this research shows how economic analyses can be used to inform policy making to improve water management.
... The importance of the institutional context as a factor influencing water values is stressed by Hermans et al. (2006). Therefore, this section provides a brief overview of the development and the current context of small-scale irrigation in South Africa. ...
ABSTRACT Insight into the value of water is essential to support policy decision making about
investments in the water sector, efficient allocation of water and water pricing. However, information
on irrigation water values at small-scale schemes is scarce and in general little attention is paid to the
determinants of these values. In this study values are calculated for small-scale irrigation schemes in
the North West Province of South Africa, using the residual imputation method. An average water
value of US$0.188/m3, in line with expectations for vegetable crops, was found. Furthermore, the crop
choice and the irrigation scheme design and institutional setting were shown to significantly influence
the water value, whilst individual characteristics of farmers proved to be less important.
... This raises the question whether in these and other cases indeed all the costs and benefits are equitable shared by all. It has been suggested by various authors (Sengo et al. 2005; Hermans et al. 2006) that ideally all users of water and water-related environmental services should be involved in the process of assigning values to these services, and to jointly conduct sensitivity analyses of the " what if " type: " what if this type of use would have a higher or lower value than... " Negotiations may therefore shift to agreeing over the relative values and preferences of the various types of goods and services that the water provides, rather than on absolute values expressed in monetary units. ...
Water users wish to achieve the highest benefits from water resources. Rules limit the manner in which water users may utilise
the water resources occurring within their constituencies or territories. However an asymmetrical situation exists whereby
downstream users may not affect upstream users but upstream users do cause downstream impacts. Because of this asymmetry the
equitable sharing of water resources between upstream and downstream users will always imply that upstream users have to forego
some potential water benefits. The general question that this paper addresses is: which institutional arrangements can be
devised to (re-)establish an equilibrium between up- and downstream entities within a catchment area or river basin? The paper
addresses this question by first focusing on some local and national water allocation arrangements. After briefly reviewing
the different management regimes, customary and colonial, that co-evolved in Southern Africa, it assesses the water management
principles that are currently being espoused. The focus then turns to the principles in international water law that deal
with the allocation of water in transboundary river basins. It is concluded that it often proves difficult to reach agreement
over how to share the scarce resource. The paper then discusses the current trend to look beyond water and beyond the river
basin when seeking peaceful means to share a common water resource. The concept of “hydrosolidarity” emerges as a normative
value that may help to recreate a balance between the various (asymmetrical) interests that exist within a river basin. The
paper concludes that water resources can only be governed wisely is there is capacity to understand and monitor the water
fluxes within a river basin. If such capacity is wanting, priority should be given to strengthen it.
Development of joint irrigation infrastructure increasingly depends on investment decisions made by individual farmers. Farmers base their decisions to invest on their current knowledge and understanding. As irrigation infrastructure development is ultimately a group decision, it is beneficial if individuals have a common understanding of the various values at stake. Sharing the personal reasoning behind individual decisions is a promising approach to build such common understanding. This study demonstrates application of participatory crossover analysis at a workshop in Tasmania, Australia. The workshop gave farmers the opportunity to discuss their broader considerations in investment decisions, beyond just financial or monetary factors. It centered on the question, "In what conditions would you-the individual farmer-invest?" The participants' willingness to pay, in the form of crossover points, was presented as a set of scenarios to start an explorative discussion between irrigators and non-irrigators. Evaluation feedback indicates that the workshop enabled participants to share new information, improved understanding of differences between neighbors, and generated more respect for others and their decisions. As expected, reasoning went beyond economic concerns, and changed over time. Lifestyle choices, long-term intergenerational planning, perceived risks, and intrinsic motivations emerged as factors influencing water valuation. Simply having a facilitated discussion about the reasons underlying individuals' willingness to pay seems to be a useful tool for better informed decision-making about joint irrigation infrastructure, and is worth testing in further case studies.
