![1 The Challenge Program
on Water and Food: A new
paradigm for research in
the CGIAR1
Myles J. Fisher,a*
Amanda Hardingb
and Eric Kemp-Benedictc
a
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical CIAT, Cali, Colombia;
b
CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food CPWF, Paris, France;
c
Stockholm Environment Institute SEI, Bangkok, Thailand; *
Corresponding
author, mylesjfisher@gmail.com.
The creation of Global Challenge Programs and the
Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF)
The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has
always been about food security. It started over 40 years ago in 1971 with four
Centers focused on breeding better staple food crops. In 2000, when it
consisted of 16 Centers, it asked its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to
address its future for the next decade, what it should be doing and producing;
how it should be doing it and with whom. TAC produced A Food Secure World
for All: Toward a New Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR2
to guide it through
the coming decade (Box 1.1), which was approved at International Centers’
Week, 2000.3
The CGIAR Chair commissioned a Change Design and Management Team
(CDMT) to make concrete proposals for how TAC’s proposals might be imple-
mented. The CDMT recommended that “[The] CGIAR should formulate
Box 1.1 TAC’s vision and strategy
Vision: A food secure world for all.
Goal: To reduce poverty, hunger and malnutrition by sustainably
increasing the productivity of resources in agriculture,
forestry and fisheries.
Mission: To achieve sustainable food security and reduce poverty in
developing countries through scientific research and research-
related activities in the fields of agriculture, livestock, forestry,
fisheries, policy and natural resources management.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2384322-250605130414-6d4cd6eb/85/Water-Scarcity-Livelihoods-And-Food-Security-Research-And-Innovation-For-Development-1st-Edition-Larry-W-Harrington-20-320.jpg)
![and implement a few . . . Global Challenge Programs (GCPs), which are
focused on specific outputs and are based on an inclusive approach to priority
setting . . . They should be funded significantly by additional resources.”
One possible GCP identified by the CDMT was “Improved water manage-
ment practices for agriculture.” Although this set the stage for the submission
of a GCP on water in agriculture, there were already powerful movements
towards increasing global recognition of the critical state of water, food
production and poverty.
World Water Council activities, 1998–2000
In 1997, the World Water Council created a long-term vision on water, life and the
environment in the 21st century (Cosgrove and Rijsberman, 1998), which detailed
a comprehensive series of activities leading up to the 2nd World Water Forum
and a parallel Ministerial Conference in The Hague in 2000. Amongst the
activities, which were “meant to move us from where we are today to where we
need to be to meet future water needs and ensure the sustainable use of water,”
were consultations to obtain visions of the needs for “water for food (including
both rainfed and irrigated agriculture” (Cosgrove and Rijsberman, 1998),
emphasis is from the original paper). The 2nd World Water Forum, with 5500
delegates, and the parallel Ministerial Conference, with 600 delegates, including
120 ministers, were major international events. Their recommendations
influenced subsequent deliberations in the CGIAR and elsewhere.
The Challenge Program on Water and Food, justification and intent
In early 2002, the CGIAR interim Science Council (iSC, which superseded
the TAC), chose the Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) together
with two others4
to go forward for development as full proposals by mid-year.
The full proposal of the CPWF was, “an ambitious research, extension and
capacity building program that will significantly increase the productivity of
water used for agriculture . . . in a manner that is environmentally sustainable
and socially acceptable.” The intermediate objective was
[T]o maintain the level of global diversions of water to agriculture at the
level of the year 2000, while increasing food production, to achieve
internationally adopted targets for decreasing malnourishment and rural
poverty by the year 2015, particularly in rural and peri-urban areas in river
basins with low average incomes and high physical, economic or
environmental water scarcity or water stress, with a specific focus on low-
income groups within these areas.
The iSC endorsed the CPWF proposal at the end of August 2002 for approval
by the Executive Council (ExCo). ExCo endorsed the proposal and recom-
mended its approval by the CGIAR on 22 September 2002. ExCo noted that
2 Fisher, Harding and Kemp-Benedict](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2384322-250605130414-6d4cd6eb/85/Water-Scarcity-Livelihoods-And-Food-Security-Research-And-Innovation-For-Development-1st-Edition-Larry-W-Harrington-21-320.jpg)
![The CPWF emphasized team work in which all participants shared knowledge
and which led to technological innovation.
The GCPs did not exist as independent fiduciary entities, so that the CPWF
operated under the umbrella of the CGIAR International Water Management
Institute (IWMI). This led to administrative anomalies, such as the program
coordinator reporting to the Consortium Steering Committee, while IWMI
management evaluated the coordinator’s performance. Similarly, the program
coordinator had little authority over CPWF management staff, who were
employed and evaluated by the different consortium institutions involved.
Incremental funding
The CDMT foresaw that as more GCPs were created, they could together
require as much as 50 percent of the CGIAR’s budget. The iSC recognized
early on that this was unlikely and, although not stated, would certainly meet
fierce resistance from the Centers and those donors aligned to particular
Centers. The iSC believed that, “The Centers expect the [Challenge Program]
funding to be new and incremental . . .”5
and proposed that the GCPs should
seek new funding, which would add to the system’s total budget.
The CPWF secured new funding of nearly US$70 million for 2003–2008
from a broad spectrum of donors, which gave it independence from individual
donors. It also managed to compensate partly “for a drastic reduction of a
major donor commitment in the programme inception phase,”6
US$25 million
to only US$5 million when the government of the Netherlands changed in
May 2003.
Water and food sub-systems
The aim of the CPWF was to increase water productivity through better
management of water for food production. The CPWF identified three levels
of system organization. At the lowest level, the plant-field-farm system, there
are three sub-systems, agroecosystems, upper catchments, and aquatic eco-
systems. The second level is the river basin, where different water users
interact, and where the trade-offs between and among water users are impor-
tant. These determine the interactions between surface water, groundwater,
and precipitation as well as the interactions between upstream and downstream
users. The third level is the national and global water and food systems. The
external environment was considered at all levels, including not only the water
sector, but the macroeconomic factors that impact it, as well as policies and
institutional issues at global and national levels.
Research themes
The three sub-systems of the lowest level plus the basin and global levels
coincide with the five research themes that the CPWF identified (Box 1.2).
4 Fisher, Harding and Kemp-Benedict](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2384322-250605130414-6d4cd6eb/85/Water-Scarcity-Livelihoods-And-Food-Security-Research-And-Innovation-For-Development-1st-Edition-Larry-W-Harrington-23-320.jpg)
![Theory of change
Initially the CPWF used the CGIAR-wide impact pathways approach, which
itself was a shift from the donor-driven logical framework. As the CPWF
progressed toward the second phase, theory of change (ToC) (Vogel, 2012)
became the dominant conceptual approach. “[T]heory of change represents
people’s understanding of how change happens—the pathways, factors and
relationships that bring and sustain change in a particular context” (James, 2011).
Although ToC was the main conceptual approach, the CPWF used other
frameworks for differing specific purposes, when the alternative approach was
judged more suitable. For example, as discussed above, the poverty and
livelihoods analysis used the sustainable livelihoods framework (Solesbury,
2003; Kemp-Benedict et al., 2009), while the political economy analysis used
the institutional analysis and development framework (Harris et al., 2011).
In developing ToCs at the project, basin and program level in CPWF’s
second phase, the wide diversity of people involved in the range of CPWF
R4D (partner research organizations, local decision-makers, policymakers,
development practitioners, etc.) themselves contributed to defined develop-
ment outcomes. The CPWF model of practice approached R4D through ToC
thinking. It put ToC into practice using a set of tools, such as outcome learning
models, regular reflection meetings and use of “most significant change”
stories, all of which were developed iteratively.
The CPWF’s experience demonstrated the value of the ToC approach. ToC
created narratives that were accessible to all participants. These narratives were
established through a combination of collective inclusive reflection, adaptive
management and relating change to specific groups of actors. ToC also recog-
nized that explicitly stated assumptions are often subjective and depend on
people’s cultural and socio-economic perspectives.
Every programme is packed with beliefs, assumptions and hypotheses
about how change happens—about the way humans work, or organisa-
tions, or political systems, or eco-systems. [ToC] is about articulating these
many underlying assumptions about how change will happen in a pro-
gramme.
(Rogers, 2008)
Achieving outcomes with information and engagement
The CPWF defined outcomes as changes in practice, in behavior, decisions,
investments or other ways in which people choose to do things differently.
This is not coercing people to do things differently, but engaging with them to
help them obtain information that allows them to make informed choices
because they perceive the change to be to their own advantage. R4D therefore
seeks to contribute to development outcomes that are profitable, equitable,
sustainable and resilient. The CPWF used ToC to describe the process, which
reflects an inclusive, participative and reflective learning process.
10 Fisher, Harding and Kemp-Benedict](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2384322-250605130414-6d4cd6eb/85/Water-Scarcity-Livelihoods-And-Food-Security-Research-And-Innovation-For-Development-1st-Edition-Larry-W-Harrington-29-320.jpg)
, 8–12 April, 2002. Available from: library.cgiar.
org/bitstream/handle/10947/5684/iscchairreport.pdf (accessed 8 April 2014).
6 External Review of the Challenge Program on Water and Food. Available from:
gppi.net/fileadmin/gppi/Markus_exco13_cpwf_cper.pdf (accessed 8 April 2014).
7 “A key concept in the resilience framework is the concept of social-ecological
systems. There are no natural systems without people, nor social systems without
nature. Social and ecological systems are truly interdependent and constantly co-
evolving” (Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2007).
References
Black, M. and Hall, A. (2004) ‘Pro-poor water governance’, in: Water and poverty: The
themes. Asian Development Bank, adb.org/sites/default/files/pub/2004/Themes_
04.pdf, pp. 11–20 (accessed 8 April 2014).
Cook, S. and Gichuki, F. (2006) Analyzing water poverty: Water, agriculture and poverty in
basins, CPWF BFP Working Paper No. 3, CGIAR Challenge Program on Water
and Food, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Cosgrove, W. J. and Rijsberman, F. R. (1998) ‘Creating a vision for water, life and the
environment’, Water Policy, vol. 1, pp. 115–122.
Deloitte (2012) Water tight 2012. deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-SouthAfrica/Local%20
Assets/Documents/water_tight_2012.pdf (accessed 8 April 2014).
Harris, D., Kooy, M. and Jones, L. (2011) Analysing the governance and political economy
of water and sanitation service delivery, Working Paper 334, Overseas Development
Institute, London, odi.org.uk/resources/docs/7243.pdf (accessed 8 April 2014).
James, C. (2011) Theory of change review: A report commissioned by Comic Relief,
Comic Relief, London, mande.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/2012-
Comic-Relief-Theory-of-Change-Review-FINAL.pdf (accessed 8 April 2014).
Kemp-Benedict, E., Bharwani, S., de la Rosa, E., Krittasudthacheewa, C. and Matin,
N. (2009) Assessing water-related poverty using the sustainable livelihoods framework, SEI
Working Paper, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm.
Kemp-Benedict, E., Cook, S., Allen, S. L., Vosti, S., Lemoalle, J., Giordano, M., Ward,
J. and Kaczan, D. (2011) ‘Connections between poverty, water and agriculture:
Evidence from 10 river basins’, Water International, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 125–140.
KPMG (2012) Water scarcity: A dive into global reporting trends, KPMG Sustainability
Insight 2012, kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/
sustainable-insight/Documents/sustainable-insights-water-survey.pdf (accessed
8 April 2014).
McKinsey and Company (2012) Resource revolution: Meeting the world’s energy, materials,
food, and water needs, mckinsey.com/features/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/home
page/2011%20nov%20resource%20revolution/resource_revolution_full_report_v2.
ashx (accessed 8 April 2014).
Namara, R. E., Hanjra, M. A., Castillo, G. E., Ravnborg, H. M., Smith, L. and Van
Koppen, B. (2010) ‘Agricultural water management and poverty linkages’,
Agricultural Water Management, vol. 97, pp. 520–527.
Ostrom, E. (2009) ‘A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological
systems’, Science, vol. 325, no. 5939, pp. 419–422.
The CPWF: A new paradigm for research 13](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2384322-250605130414-6d4cd6eb/85/Water-Scarcity-Livelihoods-And-Food-Security-Research-And-Innovation-For-Development-1st-Edition-Larry-W-Harrington-32-320.jpg)
![spatial incidence of the imbalance between demand and supply. We do not
entirely concur with this narrative. Water scarcity means different things to
different people in different environments. Water can be both abundant and
scarce in the same environment, depending on the kinds of water and water
uses discussed.
Some observers are blunt: “Water shortages have emerged as one of the most
important infrastructure issues in the world today . . . Global demand for
freshwater will exceed supply by 40% by 2030 . . . with potentially calamitous
implications for business, society and the environment” (KPMG, 2012).
Recent reports speak of “water bankruptcy” for many regions (Mee and
Adeel, 2012) while water shortage has been called “the defining crisis of the
21st century” (Pearce, 2007).
Scenario analysis used in the World Water Vision for 2000 warned that
continued “business as usual” water management was likely to result in, “a
global system . . . becoming more and more vulnerable as a result of the
increasing scarcity of water resources per capita, the diminished quality of water
and increasing conflicts associated with inequality, water scarcity, and the
narrower resource base of healthy ecosystems.” Scenario analysis took account
of nearly two dozen drivers of change, among them demographic, economic,
technological, social, governance, and environmental [hydrological] factors
(Gallopín and Rijsberman, 2000).
Increased demand for food (population growth and dietary changes), rapidly
growing megacities, urbanization and industrialization, biofuel production, and
the increasing effects of climate change all drive increased use of freshwater.
Demand for drinking water and sanitation services will be a factor, but the real
increase in water demand will come from agriculture to produce food, feed,
fiber and fuel. With human populations predicted to increase from 7 billion in
2012 to about 9 billion in 2050, agricultural water requirements may grow to
as much as 14,000 billion m3
/yr (Chartres and Varma, 2011), or almost double
(see below). These predictions are based on current levels of agricultural WP,
including rainfed as well as irrigated agriculture.
These scenarios of water demand are only slightly higher than those pub-
lished in the Comprehensive Assessment of Water in Agriculture (CA), which noted
that, “without further improvements in water productivity or major shifts in
production patterns, the amount of water consumed by evapotranspiration
in agriculture will increase by 70%–90% by 2050. The total amount of water
evaporated in crop production would amount to 12,000–13,500 [billion
m3
/yr], almost doubling the 7130 [billion m3
/yr] of today” (Molden, 2007).
Other analyses estimate annual water use in agriculture at 8500–11,000
billion m3
/yr by 2050 (Rockström et al., 2010). They assume some growth in
productivity and separate consumption in rainfed (6500–8500 billion m3
/yr)
from irrigated (2000–2500 billion m3
/yr) agricultural systems.
The above estimates focus on demand for agricultural water, but ignore the
supply side. How bad is the mismatch between demand and supply of
agricultural water? We discuss three ways to address this question—through
16 Vidal, Harrington and Fisher](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2384322-250605130414-6d4cd6eb/85/Water-Scarcity-Livelihoods-And-Food-Security-Research-And-Innovation-For-Development-1st-Edition-Larry-W-Harrington-35-320.jpg)
![and Ogilvie, 2009). The rangelands of the dry, central Limpopo are also grazed
at low intensity but the pastoralists are sedentary (PN62) (Sullivan and Sibanda,
2012).
It is important to distinguish aridity from “physical water scarcity” as defined
in the CA (“when more than 75% of the river flows are withdrawn for
agriculture, industry and domestic purposes”) (Molden, 2007). The former
focuses on rainfall, the latter on the extent of blue water withdrawals.
The CPWF had few projects in catchments or sub-basins in arid areas. Most
projects were located where other dimensions of water scarcity were more
important.
Seasonal unreliability
Outside of arid regions, average annual rainfall is adequate for agriculture of
some kind, but annual averages can conceal more than they reveal. Rainfall
may fail when it is most needed, and the more unreliable the rainfall, the more
frequent failures. Unreliable rainfall can reduce productivity and favor extensive
use of land to reduce the risk, for example low planting densities. Unreliability
may affect contrasting social groups differently and with varying levels of
severity.
Unreliability may be normal or exceptional. Where it is normal, farm
families are likely to have developed multi-layered mechanisms to cope. If
unreliability becomes extreme, coping mechanisms may fail and threaten
family survival. Seasonal unreliability of rainfall is only part of the story. Risk
of loss is higher when farm families lack coping mechanisms and when
investment in water infrastructure and management is inadequate. The same
problems of seasonal unreliability may affect different social groups in different
ways.
There are several dimensions to the problem of seasonal unreliability, some
of them closely related:
• Seasonality of the rainy season (one or more of late onset, early termi-
nation, extended dry periods within the season, unfavorable temporal
distribution or outright failure);
• Seasonality of the supply of stored water (inadequate quantity of stored
water to grow crops or fodder in the dry season);
• Seasonality of the demand for stored water (the demand increases in years
when the rainy season is short, unreliable, or when failure of rainy season
crops due to pests or disease forces farmers to resow);
• Seasonality of water quality (excess of saline water when freshwater is
needed [for rice] or excess of freshwater when saline water is needed [for
shrimp]);
• Seasonality of river flow and flooding (inadequate or excessive pulsing of
river systems to support catch fisheries or aquaculture; unanticipated and
excessive seasonal flooding that destroys crops and livestock). Many
22 Vidal, Harrington and Fisher](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2384322-250605130414-6d4cd6eb/85/Water-Scarcity-Livelihoods-And-Food-Security-Research-And-Innovation-For-Development-1st-Edition-Larry-W-Harrington-41-320.jpg)
![farming systems and capture fisheries in water-rich basins such as the
Mekong are adapted to seasonal flooding. According to the timing and
extent of the floods, however, they may destroy wet season crops, or they
may enable wet- or dry-season cropping.
The BFPs assembled basic information on annual rainfall, and its seasonality
as measured by the coefficient of variation of monthly rainfall (Table 2.2).
Unreliability can contribute to poverty traps as noted by Grey and Sadoff
(2002, p. 4) regarding Africa:
We have all witnessed . . . catastrophic flood and drought—the endemic
and unpredictable consequence of Africa’s hydrological variability. The
economic impacts can be a significant proportion of GDP and social
impacts are incalculable [as is] the suffering of individual families and
communities, as years of labor in land preparation and crop development
is withered by drought or washed away by flood . . . the very existence of
extreme variability itself creates disincentives for investment and affects the
performance and structure of economies, as the unpredictability of rainfall
and runoff encourages risk averse behavior in all years, promoting patterns
of development that can trap economies in a low-level equilibrium. Thus,
even in years of good rains, economic productivity and economic
development can be constrained by conditions of hydrological variability.
In the Limpopo Basin, 80 percent of the annual precipitation falls between
November and late February with a mean of 50 rainy days. Variability in
rainfall, soil type, ground cover, and slope gives erratic runoff and pronounced
seasonal variation in flow, with negligible flow in the dry season. Seasonal
rainfall patterns vary unpredictably and substantially from one year to the next.
(PN62) (Sullivan and Sibanda, 2012). The Volta Basin has more rainfall than
Water availability, productivity and poverty 23
Table 2.2 Annual precipitation and its seasonality in the BFP basins.
Basin Annual total rainfall Precipitation seasonality
mm/yr CoV%
Andes 784 78
Ganges 1073 125
Karkheh 348 89
Limpopo 547 84
Mekong 1713 86
Niger 1017 108
Nile 618 103
São Francisco 975 84
Volta 973 96
Yellow 438 93
Source: Mulligan et al. (2012a).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2384322-250605130414-6d4cd6eb/85/Water-Scarcity-Livelihoods-And-Food-Security-Research-And-Innovation-For-Development-1st-Edition-Larry-W-Harrington-42-320.jpg)
![food chain. It then identified low-cost strategies to reduce the risk, which tests
by farmers and consumers showed to work. The project’s success influenced
policy in Ghana to allow the use of urban wastewater (PN38) (Abaidoo et al.,
2009; CPWF, 2012).
Excess
Excess water fits our definition of “not being the right amount”. It can vary
from the brief aftermath of a rainstorm, which may damage crops sensitive to
waterlogging, to massive flooding. Floods can result in:
• ruinous damage to farms and cities;
• improved income opportunities through wet- or dry-season agriculture,
capture fishing or aquaculture; or
• both simultaneously, although costs and benefits may accrue to different
groups.
A recent example of a flood disaster is that of the Chao Phrya Basin, central
Thailand in 2011, caused by a combination of bad decisions on reservoir man-
agement, copious late-season precipitation, and the inadequacy of the Bangkok
flood-control system (Komori et al., 2012). There is danger of similar, costly,
man-made floods along a cascade of dams in the Mekong Basin if the dams
are full, late-season rainfall is high, and the dam operators do not communicate
and coordinate water release from the dams (MK3) (Ward et al., 2012).
We found in the Ganges Basin Focal Project that,
Floods are a common feature . . . Flooding in rivers is mainly caused by
inadequate capacity within the banks of the rivers to contain higher flows
[that may be generated by exceptional rainfall or exceptional runoff
resulting from land-use imposed changes in soil structure and thus water
infiltration], riverbanks erosion and silting of riverbeds, landslides leading
to obstruction of flow and change in the river course, poor natural
drainage due to flat floodplains and occurrence of coastal cyclones, and
intense rainfall events . . . Among the South Asian countries, India is more
vulnerable to flood events, followed by Bangladesh.
(PN60) (Mishra, 1997; Sharma, 2010)
The Limpopo Basin suffers severe floods, interspersed with droughts. Although
the basin is on average water scarce, there are peak-rainfall periods during
which large amounts of runoff flow from the basin quickly as floods. The flood
flows are not captured and are not available to agriculture (PN62) (Sullivan
and Sibanda, 2012).
Not all floods are harmful. Smallholder communities use seasonally flooded
lands in Bangladesh for aquaculture to generate substantial income (PN35)
(Sheriff, 2010). The wet-season flood and dry-season ebb of the Mekong
Water availability, productivity and poverty 27](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2384322-250605130414-6d4cd6eb/85/Water-Scarcity-Livelihoods-And-Food-Security-Research-And-Innovation-For-Development-1st-Edition-Larry-W-Harrington-46-320.jpg)
![elsewhere). When legislation established formal water rights, the “reform
basically [dispossessed poor rural communities] from their current and future
claims to water” (PN66) (van Koppen, 2010).
Water access often has an upstream–downstream dimension. For example,
the proliferation of upstream small reservoirs in the Volta might threaten flows
into the Akosombo dam and the hydropower it generates. Project PN46 found
that “the collective downstream impact of the present number of small
reservoirs is minimal”; that “[even] after quadrupling the present number of
small reservoirs, their combined impact will be less than 1% of the total water
balance.” It concluded that the “reservoirs do not deprive downstream users
of the water for hydropower, agriculture, and environmental flows” (Liebe,
2002; Andreini et al., 2010).
Similarly, in Ecuador, Quito’s water company planned to increase with-
drawals from the Quijos River to meet increased urban demand. This raised
concerns about lessened downstream flow and its consequences on economic
activity. Project Andes 2 showed that the middle part of the watershed receives
enough rainfall to replace most of the upstream withdrawals so that down-
stream activities would be little affected. Stakeholders will use this information
to negotiate appropriate levels of compensation (Quintero et al., 2012).
Finally, there has been a long-standing debate between upstream and
downstream countries in the Nile, over the effects downstream of upstream
development of hydropower and large-scale irrigation. A recent book based
on a CPWF project concluded that “there is enough water to supply dams and
irrigate parched agriculture in all ten [Nile Basin] countries—but policymakers
risk turning the poor into water ‘have-nots’ if they do not enact inclusive water
management policies” (Awulachew et al., 2012a).
WP revisited
The CPWF proposal in 2001 defined low WP as an important problem (see
Chapter 1 for an overview of the creation of the CPWF and the activities of
the international water community). Indeed the objectives of many projects
approved in Phase 1 of the CPWF had as their primary objective to raise WP
of systems and sought to understand the reasons why WP was so low. Here we
revisit the concept of WP by examining how well the emphasis on it allowed
the CPWF to address its main objectives, that is, what did we learn about using
WP as an important indicator performance?
The first question is why WP and not some other measure such as land,
labor, capital or total factor productivity? While authors had noticed that WP
was not necessarily a factor that farmers could easily accept (Luquet et al.,
2005), at the time the CPWF was conceived, it was in response to a widely
held view that a global water crisis was looming. This was supported by the
address of the UN Secretary-General to the General Assembly in 2001 calling
for “more crop per drop.” Global population was forecast to increase by 50
percent by 2050 from the 6 billion reached in October 1999, and it was
Water availability, productivity and poverty 29](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2384322-250605130414-6d4cd6eb/85/Water-Scarcity-Livelihoods-And-Food-Security-Research-And-Innovation-For-Development-1st-Edition-Larry-W-Harrington-48-320.jpg)
![This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
Title: Bach
Author: C. F. Abdy Williams
Release date: September 5, 2013 [eBook #43650]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Credits: E-text prepared by Henry Flower and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net)
from page images generously made available by
Internet Archive/American Libraries
(http://archive.org/details/americana)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BACH ***](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2384322-250605130414-6d4cd6eb/85/Water-Scarcity-Livelihoods-And-Food-Security-Research-And-Innovation-For-Development-1st-Edition-Larry-W-Harrington-60-320.jpg)
![The Thirty Years’
War
organist at Schweinfurt. In 1635 he married the daughter of his
former master, and became director of the town musicians at Erfurt.
During the time he was there the city was suffering terribly from the
effects of pillage and quartering of soldiers, poverty and disorder;
yet Johann Bach managed to found a family which multiplied rapidly,
and soon filled all the town musicians’ places, so that for some
century and a half, and long after no more of the family lived in the
place, the town musicians were known as “The Bachs.”
He married twice, his second wife being Hedwig Lämmerhirt.
He was organist of the Prediger Kirche at Erfurt, and was called by
his contemporaries an “illustrious musician,” and he in a kind of way
forestalled John Sebastian in being skilful in both sacred and secular,
vocal and instrumental music.
The three towns of Erfurt, Arnstadt and Eisenach, now became the
chief centres of the Bach family.
Christoph Bach (No. 5), the grandfather of Sebastian, born at
Wechmar, entered the service of the Grand Duke of Weimar as
lackey and musician. In 1642 he was a member of the Guild of
Musicians at Erfurt, and in 1654 was Court and Town musician at
Arnstadt, where his younger brother Heinrich was living. He does not
seem ever to have been an organist, but a “Kunstpfeifer.”
During the Thirty Years’ War the town pipers and
musicians had sunk very low in public estimation,
and about the middle of the seventeenth century a
strong effort was made by their various guilds to raise themselves to
a more dignified position, in keeping with the worthiness of their
calling. To this end they combined in drawing up a code of statutes,
which was ratified by the Emperor Ferdinand III.;[1] the Bach family
seem, however, to have kept aloof from this combination, and there
is no doubt that they were better educated than the majority of
town musicians.
Heinrich (No. 6) was appointed organist of the Franciscan Church at
Arnstadt in 1641, which office he filled for fifty years. He suffered](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2384322-250605130414-6d4cd6eb/85/Water-Scarcity-Livelihoods-And-Food-Security-Research-And-Innovation-For-Development-1st-Edition-Larry-W-Harrington-78-320.jpg)
![Christoph (No. 12). The two brothers had a most remarkable
likeness, not only externally but in character and temperament. They
were both violinists and played in exactly the same style; they
thought and spoke alike, and their appearance was so similar that it
is said their own wives could not distinguish them apart. They
suffered from the same illnesses, and died within a few months of
one another.
Ambrosius first settled at Erfurt as an alto-viola[2] player, and was
elected a member of the Town Council. Here he married Elizabeth
Lämmerhirt, the daughter of a furrier, and a relation of Hedwig the
wife of Johann (No. 4). He now moved to Eisenach, and was
succeeded at Erfurt by his cousin Ægidius (No. 8). He undertook the
care of an idiot sister who died shortly afterwards, and for whom a
funeral sermon was preached, in which the Bach brothers are
referred to as being “gifted with good understanding, with art and
skill, which make them respected and listened to in the churches,
schools, and all the township, so that through them the Master’s
work is praised.” Little is known of the life of Ambrosius beyond the
fact that he is mentioned in the church register at Dornheim as “the
celebrated town organist and musician of Eisenach.” Six children
were born, the youngest being Johann Sebastian.
Johann Christoph Bach (No. 12) was Court musician to Count Ludwig
Günther at Arnstadt. The first thing we hear of him relates to a kind
of action for breach of promise of marriage brought before the
Consistory at Arnstadt by Anna Cunigunda Wiener, with whom he
had “kept company” and exchanged rings. The Consistory (a
spiritual court) decided that Bach must marry her, but, with the
independence of character which was peculiar to his family, he
refused and defied them—an unheard-of thing for a musician to do
in those days—declaring that he “hated the Wienerin so that he
could not bear the sight of her.”[3] The case lingered for two and a
half years, and ended in his favour. He remained single for many
years afterwards, marrying eventually a daughter of the
churchwarden of Ohrdruf.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2384322-250605130414-6d4cd6eb/85/Water-Scarcity-Livelihoods-And-Food-Security-Research-And-Innovation-For-Development-1st-Edition-Larry-W-Harrington-80-320.jpg)
![An organist’s
income
and organ. The cantata is preceded by a “sonata” for the
instruments, without trumpets and drums, something in the form of
the French overture. The work itself is modelled on those of
Hammerschmidt, who, with Schütz, created a form which culminated
in the Handel oratorio. Spitta says that it shows “power of invention
and genius,” and that “it was impossible that so important a
composition should fail to make an impression on many sincere
artistic natures, in spite of the small amount of intelligent sympathy
which was shown for Johann Christoph Bach, alike by his
contemporaries and by posterity.” Sebastian Bach thought very
highly of his uncle’s work, and performed it at Leipsic.
Johann Christoph composed many chorale-vorspiele for the organ, of
which forty-eight are preserved in a MS. formerly belonging to
Spitta. The themes are worked out on the same lines as those of
John Sebastian, but in a more elementary form. His vocal
compositions are, however, much in advance of his instrumental
works, and he seems certainly to have been the most important
member of his family before his great nephew appeared.
Johann Michael Bach (No. 14) was an
accomplished organist. His character may be
imagined from the account of his appointment to
the organistship of Gehren near Arnstadt, when we are told that
after his examination, the authorities thanked the Count for having
sent them a peaceable, retiring, and skillful performer. He was also
made parish clerk, and his income from the two posts amounted to
74 gülden, 18 cords of wood, 5 measures of corn, 9 measures of
barley, 3½ barrels of beer, some land, and a house free of rent.
Besides being a composer he made clavichords and violins. His
youngest daughter became Sebastian Bach’s first wife. A cantata on
“Ach! bleib bei uns, Herr Jesu Christ” by him is preserved in the Bach
archives in the Royal Library at Berlin, “full of interesting details and
ingenious ideas.”[4] It is scored for four voices, two violins, three
violas, bassoon, and organ, and is preceded by a “sonata.” Twelve of
his motets are preserved, but they are incoherent in structure, being](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2384322-250605130414-6d4cd6eb/85/Water-Scarcity-Livelihoods-And-Food-Security-Research-And-Innovation-For-Development-1st-Edition-Larry-W-Harrington-82-320.jpg)
More Related Content
Similar to Water Scarcity Livelihoods And Food Security Research And Innovation For Development 1st Edition Larry W Harrington (20)
Water Scarcity Livelihoods And Food Security Research And Innovation For Development 1st Edition Larry W Harrington
- 1. Water Scarcity Livelihoods And Food Security Research And Innovation For Development 1st Edition Larry W Harrington download https://ebookbell.com/product/water-scarcity-livelihoods-and- food-security-research-and-innovation-for-development-1st- edition-larry-w-harrington-4768644 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
- 2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Water Scarcity Climate Change And Conflict In The Middle East Securing Livelihoods Building Peace Christopher Ward Sandra Ruckstuhl https://ebookbell.com/product/water-scarcity-climate-change-and- conflict-in-the-middle-east-securing-livelihoods-building-peace- christopher-ward-sandra-ruckstuhl-50227100 Water Scarcity Reprint 2020 Ernest A Engelbert Editor Ann Foley Scheuring Editor https://ebookbell.com/product/water-scarcity-reprint-2020-ernest-a- engelbert-editor-ann-foley-scheuring-editor-51822448 Water Scarcity In The Mediterranean Perspectives Under Global Change 1st Edition Josep Calb Auth https://ebookbell.com/product/water-scarcity-in-the-mediterranean- perspectives-under-global-change-1st-edition-josep-calb-auth-2020850 Water Scarcity And Sustainable Agriculture In Semiarid Environment Tools Strategies And Challenges For Woody Crops 1st Edition Ivan Francisco Garcia Tejero https://ebookbell.com/product/water-scarcity-and-sustainable- agriculture-in-semiarid-environment-tools-strategies-and-challenges- for-woody-crops-1st-edition-ivan-francisco-garcia-tejero-36878554
- 3. Water Scarcity Land Degradation And Desertification In The Mediterranean Region Environmental And Security Aspects 1st Edition Raul Daussa Auth https://ebookbell.com/product/water-scarcity-land-degradation-and- desertification-in-the-mediterranean-region-environmental-and- security-aspects-1st-edition-raul-daussa-auth-4476870 Water Scarcity And Ways To Reduce The Impact 1st Ed Muthu Pannirselvam https://ebookbell.com/product/water-scarcity-and-ways-to-reduce-the- impact-1st-ed-muthu-pannirselvam-7148584 Water Scarcity In The American West Unauthorized Water Use And The New Future Of Water Accountability Isaac M Castellano https://ebookbell.com/product/water-scarcity-in-the-american-west- unauthorized-water-use-and-the-new-future-of-water-accountability- isaac-m-castellano-10464192 International Water Scarcity And Variability Managing Resource Use Across Political Boundaries Shlomi Dinar Ariel Dinar https://ebookbell.com/product/international-water-scarcity-and- variability-managing-resource-use-across-political-boundaries-shlomi- dinar-ariel-dinar-51824044 Combating Water Scarcity In Southern Africa Case Studies From Namibia 1st Edition J P Msangi Auth https://ebookbell.com/product/combating-water-scarcity-in-southern- africa-case-studies-from-namibia-1st-edition-j-p-msangi-auth-4319678
- 6. Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security This volume reviews the evolution of ten years’ learning and discovery about water scarcity, livelihoods and food security within the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food. It draws on the experiences of over 100 projects conducted in ten river basins in the developing world. The book describes how the program’s design evolved from an emphasis on water scarcity, water productivity and water access to an emphasis on using water innovations to improve livelihoods and address development challenges in specific river basins. It shows how the research was used to foster change in stakeholder behavior, linking it to improved knowledge, attitudes and skills, which were fostered by stakeholder participation, innovation, dialogue and negotiation. The authors describe development challenges, their drivers and their politi- cal context; how to address them through technical, institutional and policy innovations; and the consequences of change at different scales and time frames on equity, resilience and ecosystem services. Overall, the work represents a major synthesis and landmark publication for all concerned with water resource management and sustainable development. Larry W. Harrington was Research Director, Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) of CGIAR, based at the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka, now at Ithaca, NY, USA. Myles J. Fisher is an Emeritus Scientist, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia.
- 7. ‘From a water scarcity and productivity programme to one of development challenges, this book presents the commendable work of the CPWF in very diverse basins all over the world. The processes implemented built on participation, innovation, dialogue and negotiation among the locals, ultimate users of the resource, will ensure the positive legacy of the programme. Since lessons learnt will stay with the locals, and will not leave with the donors, the initial expectations of research for development may even be surpassed. Certainly a lesson for many donors.’ Cecilia Tortajada, President, Third World Centre for Water Management, Mexico.
- 8. Earthscan Studies in Water Resource Management Water Management, Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture in Developing Economies Edited by M. Dinesh Kumar, M.V.K. Sivamohan and Nitin Bassi Governing International Watercourses River Basin Organizations and the Sustainable Governance of Internationally Shared Rivers and Lakes By Susanne Schmeier Transferable Groundwater Rights Integrating Hydrogeology, Law and Economics By Andreas N. Charalambous Contemporary Water Governance in the Global South Scarcity, Marketization and Participation Edited by Leila Harris, Jacqueline Goldin and Christopher Sneddon Water Governance, Policy and Knowledge Transfer International Studies on Contextual Water Management Edited by Cheryl de Boer, Joanne Vinke-de Kruijf, Gül Özerol and Hans Th. A. Bressers Water as a Catalyst for Peace Transboundary Water Management and Conflict Resolution By Ahmed Abukhater Sustainable Water and Sanitation Services The Life-cycle Approach to Planning and Management By Livelihoods & Natural Resource Management Institute, International Water & Sanitation Centre, Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Watershed Support Services & Activities Network Water for Food Security and Well-being in Latin America and the Caribbean Social and Environmental Implications for a Globalized Economy Edited by Bárbara A. Willaarts, Alberto Garrido and M. Ramón Llamas Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security Research and Innovation for Development Edited by Larry W. Harrington and Myles J. Fisher Adaptation to Climate Change through Water Resources Management Capacity, Equity and Sustainability Edited by Dominic Stucker and Elena Lopez-Gunn For more information and to view forthcoming titles in this series, please visit the Routledge website: http://www.routledge.com/books/series/ECWRM/
- 9. This page intentionally left blank
- 10. Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security Research and innovation for development Edited by Larry W. Harrington and Myles J. Fisher Led by:
- 11. First published 2014 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2014 International Water Management Institute All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Water scarcity, livelihoods and food security : research and innovation for development / edited by Larry W. Harrington and Myles J. Fisher. pages cm. – (Earthscan studies in water resource management) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Water resources development–International cooperation. 2. Water- supply–International cooperation. 3. Food security–International cooperation. 4. Challenge Program on Water and Food. 5. Agriculture–Research–International cooperation. I. Harrington, Larry W. II. Fisher, Myles. J. HD1691.W363 2014 333.91–dc23 2014007179 ISBN: 978-0-415-72846-1(hbk) ISBN: 978-0-415-72847-8 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-85166-2 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Keystroke, Station Road, Codsall, Wolverhampton
- 12. Contents Foreword ix Abbreviations xiii 1 The Challenge Program on Water and Food: A new paradigm for research in the CGIAR 1 MYLES J. FISHER, AMANDA HARDING AND ERIC KEMP-BENEDICT 2 Water scarcity and abundance, water productivity and their relation to poverty 15 ALAIN VIDAL, LARRY W. HARRINGTON AND MYLES J. FISHER 3 Harnessing research for development to tackle wicked problems 45 MICHAEL VICTOR, BORU DOUTHWAITE, TONYA SCHUETZ, AMANDA HARDING, LARRY W. HARRINGTON AND OLUFUNKE COFIE 4 The institutional history of the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food 77 ILSE PUKINSKIS 5 Innovating in a dynamic technical context 99 LARRY W. HARRINGTON AND MARTIN VAN BRAKEL 6 Research on institutions for agricultural water management under the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food 125 NANCY JOHNSON, BRENT M. SWALLOW AND RUTH MEINZEN-DICK
- 13. 7 Partnerships, platforms and power 156 AMY SULLIVAN, TERRY CLAYTON, AMANDA HARDING AND LARRY W. HARRINGTON 8 From research outputs to development outcomes—selected stories 178 TERRY CLAYTON AND MICHAEL VICTOR 9 Messages and meaning 200 LARRY W. HARRINGTON AND ALAIN VIDAL Appendix: Projects financed by the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food 217 Index 234 viii Contents
- 14. Foreword The CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) was designed as a 15-year program (2004–2018) that addressed interrelated issues of water scarcity, water productivity, livelihoods, food security, poverty and the environ- ment. It was conceived as a response by the CGIAR to a perceived global crisis of water scarcity and the urgent need to use increasingly scarce water resources more efficiently. With the passage of time, the CPWF broadened its agenda to focus on a range of water-related development challenges in river basins. The CPWF came to see that water provides a useful, even essential, entry point for addressing many development challenges. These included challenges related to the sustainable intensification of agricultural systems and preserving eco- system services where these also see positive changes in rural people’s poverty. Through the latest CGIAR reform, the duration of the Program was shortened to ten years. The CPWF was designed, as were three other CGIAR Challenge Programs, to explore new ways of doing research with partners for development pur- poses. In its more than 50-year history, the CGIAR has had long experience with cross-Center initiatives (Ecoregional Programs, System-wide Programs, Challenge Programs, and more recently CGIAR Research Programs or CRPs). These have helped the whole system progress despite recurrent financial insecurity and uncertainties arising from multiple rounds of institutional change. The CPWF was not immune to this type of turbulence. This is a good time for us to express our admiration and sincere thanks to the project teams, and to their institutions and partners, for their perseverance, their inspiration and their cooperation. In a sustained and enthusiastic effort, they have demonstrated adaptability and a willingness to change, producing the scientific outputs and the development outcomes presented in this book. In research-for-development, scientific results are most useful when they are credible and relevant, and when they inform engagement with policy- and decision-makers. An important measure of our success lies therefore in the role those results will play in future decisions. In preparing this book, we aimed to provide in one place a top-level summary of what has been learned through the CPWF experience covering Phase 1, the Basin Focal Projects and Phase 2. The book tells the evolution of
- 15. ten years’ learning and discovery about water scarcity, livelihoods, and food security within the CPWF. It draws on the experience of 120 projects conducted in ten river basins in the developing world. It describes how the program’s design started from an emphasis on water scarcity, water productivity and water access. That design evolved to an emphasis on using water innova- tions to address development challenges in specific river basins. It tells how CPWF used research to foster change in stakeholder behavior, linking it to improved knowledge, attitudes and skills. These were fostered by stakeholder participation, innovation, dialogue and negotiation. It describes development challenges, their drivers and their political context, and how to address them through technical, institutional and policy innovations. The book features nine chapters. We first review the origin of CGIAR Global Challenge Programs and describe the evolution of the CPWF (Chapter 1) within its wider global context. Then we revisit the concepts that drove the original program, especially water scarcity and water productivity (Chapter 2) and show how a reconsideration of these concepts led us to introduce “research for development” (R4D) to address development challenges or “wicked problems” in river basins (Chapter 3). We present an institutional history of the CPWF, recording key events or factors that influenced the Program’s way of working (Chapter 4). We next discuss research on technologies, exploring the complementarity between technical and institutional innovation, and placing this research within our theory of change (Chapter 5). We then describe the contribution of CPWF research to understand how water research management institutions work, how they influence water allocation and use, and how they can be strengthened (Chapter 6). After this, we discuss how partnerships and innovation platforms helped generate information aimed at influencing decision-making or negotiations and explore the influence of power relation- ships on R4D processes (Chapter 7). Finally, we pull together the threads from previous chapters to present specific instances of using R4D to get from research outputs to development outcomes in specific instances (Chapter 8) and summarize basin-level and program-level messages (Chapter 9). This book is directed at several audiences, among them researchers interested in development and development workers interested in the contributions of research to problem solving. We also target research managers from national and international institutions, donor and development assistance agencies, NGOs, students and young scientists, the CPWF community, and the CGIAR and its Research Programs. The book describes practical lessons from a R4D community. We consider that its successes and its promise open up many opportunities for future investment by donors. In particular we see how broad partnerships and a focus on useable products often succeeded in producing results that went beyond business-as-usual and made a real difference on the ground. We also see how younger researchers sensed the value of their work for society in general and for the poor in particular, and as a result committed themselves with energy. x Foreword
- 16. As the CPWF comes to an end, it is clear that not only CPWF but all R4D programs operate in highly political environments, which can be more or less enabling, requiring long time frames, trust and adaptability. And we know from our CPWF experience, for example in the Andes region or in the Limpopo basin in Southern Africa, that policy change often needs 10–20 years to unfold. Hence much remains to be done to move from the early outcomes that CPWF projects have begun to generate towards achieving impacts on the ground. This will require continued effort from global, regional and local research and development partners, as well as intelligent choices by donors about investment in the opportunities that emerge from CPWF. We are glad to see that FANRPAN, CONDESAN and three CGIAR Research Programs (HumidTropics, AAS—Aquatic Agricultural Systems, and moreover WLE— Water Land and Ecosystems) have already embarked on this effort. Jonathan Woolley, CPWF Director (2003–2009) Alain Vidal, CPWF Director (2009–2014) Foreword xi
- 17. This page intentionally left blank
- 18. Abbreviations AET actual evapotranspiration BDCs Basin Development Challenges BFPs Basin Focal Projects BSM benefit-sharing mechanism CA Comprehensive Assessment of Water in Agriculture (Molden 2007, ed.) CAC Conversatorio de Acción Ciudadana CB Consortium Board CDMT Change Design and Management Team CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (up to 2010. Then restructured and renamed ‘CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers’) CIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (International Center for Tropical Agriculture) ComMod companion modeling CONDESAN Consortio para del Desarrollo Sonstenible de la Ecoregión Andina CP Challenge Program CPWF Challenge Program on Water and Food CRP CGIAR Research Program CSC Consortium Steering Committee DSS decision-support system DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (South Africa) ESSs ecosystem services ET evapotranspiration ExCo Executive Council FANRPAN Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization GCPs Global Challenge Programs IAD Institutional analysis and development IDE International Development Enterprises IFPRI International Food and Policy Research Institute
- 19. INRM integrated natural resource management iSC interim Science Council IWMI International Water Management Institute IWRM integrated water resource management KAS knowledge, attitudes and skills KM knowledge management LEDs local engineering departments LWP livestock water productivity M&E monitoring and evaluation M-POWER Mekong Program on Water, Environment and Resilience MT management team MUS multiple-use water services NARES national agricultural research and extension systems NARS national agricultural research systems NDI Nepal Department of Irrigation OLM outcome logic model PAM policy analysis matrix PESs payments for ecosystem services PET potential evapotranspiration PIPA participatory impact pathway analysis QSMAS Quesungual slash and mulch agroforestry system R4D research for development SADC Southern African Development Community SCALES sustaining collective action that links across economic and ecological scales SGPs small grants projects SLF sustainable livelihood framework SLM sustainable land management SRPs strategic research portfolios TAC Technical Advisory Committee ToC theory of change TWGs Topic Working Groups WLE Water, Land and Ecosystems (CGIAR Research Program) WP water productivity WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development xiv Abbreviations
- 20. 1 The Challenge Program on Water and Food: A new paradigm for research in the CGIAR1 Myles J. Fisher,a* Amanda Hardingb and Eric Kemp-Benedictc a Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical CIAT, Cali, Colombia; b CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food CPWF, Paris, France; c Stockholm Environment Institute SEI, Bangkok, Thailand; * Corresponding author, mylesjfi[email protected]. The creation of Global Challenge Programs and the Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has always been about food security. It started over 40 years ago in 1971 with four Centers focused on breeding better staple food crops. In 2000, when it consisted of 16 Centers, it asked its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to address its future for the next decade, what it should be doing and producing; how it should be doing it and with whom. TAC produced A Food Secure World for All: Toward a New Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR2 to guide it through the coming decade (Box 1.1), which was approved at International Centers’ Week, 2000.3 The CGIAR Chair commissioned a Change Design and Management Team (CDMT) to make concrete proposals for how TAC’s proposals might be imple- mented. The CDMT recommended that “[The] CGIAR should formulate Box 1.1 TAC’s vision and strategy Vision: A food secure world for all. Goal: To reduce poverty, hunger and malnutrition by sustainably increasing the productivity of resources in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Mission: To achieve sustainable food security and reduce poverty in developing countries through scientific research and research- related activities in the fields of agriculture, livestock, forestry, fisheries, policy and natural resources management.
- 21. and implement a few . . . Global Challenge Programs (GCPs), which are focused on specific outputs and are based on an inclusive approach to priority setting . . . They should be funded significantly by additional resources.” One possible GCP identified by the CDMT was “Improved water manage- ment practices for agriculture.” Although this set the stage for the submission of a GCP on water in agriculture, there were already powerful movements towards increasing global recognition of the critical state of water, food production and poverty. World Water Council activities, 1998–2000 In 1997, the World Water Council created a long-term vision on water, life and the environment in the 21st century (Cosgrove and Rijsberman, 1998), which detailed a comprehensive series of activities leading up to the 2nd World Water Forum and a parallel Ministerial Conference in The Hague in 2000. Amongst the activities, which were “meant to move us from where we are today to where we need to be to meet future water needs and ensure the sustainable use of water,” were consultations to obtain visions of the needs for “water for food (including both rainfed and irrigated agriculture” (Cosgrove and Rijsberman, 1998), emphasis is from the original paper). The 2nd World Water Forum, with 5500 delegates, and the parallel Ministerial Conference, with 600 delegates, including 120 ministers, were major international events. Their recommendations influenced subsequent deliberations in the CGIAR and elsewhere. The Challenge Program on Water and Food, justification and intent In early 2002, the CGIAR interim Science Council (iSC, which superseded the TAC), chose the Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) together with two others4 to go forward for development as full proposals by mid-year. The full proposal of the CPWF was, “an ambitious research, extension and capacity building program that will significantly increase the productivity of water used for agriculture . . . in a manner that is environmentally sustainable and socially acceptable.” The intermediate objective was [T]o maintain the level of global diversions of water to agriculture at the level of the year 2000, while increasing food production, to achieve internationally adopted targets for decreasing malnourishment and rural poverty by the year 2015, particularly in rural and peri-urban areas in river basins with low average incomes and high physical, economic or environmental water scarcity or water stress, with a specific focus on low- income groups within these areas. The iSC endorsed the CPWF proposal at the end of August 2002 for approval by the Executive Council (ExCo). ExCo endorsed the proposal and recom- mended its approval by the CGIAR on 22 September 2002. ExCo noted that 2 Fisher, Harding and Kemp-Benedict
- 22. “The proposal demonstrates clear linkages with global work on water and food, demonstrates wide stakeholder inclusion, national agricultural research systems (NARS) participation is very high, and other partners are well represented.” After the iSC endorsement, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) was held in Johannesburg 26 August–4 September 2002. The WSSD produced the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, of which paragraph 40 states, Agriculture plays a crucial role in addressing the needs of a growing global population and is inextricably linked to poverty eradication, especially in developing countries. Enhancing the role of women at all levels and in all aspects of rural development, agriculture, nutrition and food security is imperative. Sustainable agriculture and rural development are essential to the implementation of an integrated approach to increasing food produc- tion and enhancing food security and food safety in an environmentally sustainable way. Subparagraph 40(d) reads, “Promote programmes to enhance in a sustainable manner the productivity of land and the efficient use of water resources in agriculture, forestry, wetlands, artisanal fisheries and aquaculture, especially through indigenous and local community-based approaches.” Paragraph 40 provided the policy legitimacy for the research directions and themes of the CPWF: it can be seen from two sides. The global water com- munity needed to address the issue of water management in agriculture within the context of finite water resources under increasing pressure. The agricultural sector needed to identify ways to enhance resource productivity in agriculture, including water productivity. This view supported the establishment of the CPWF as a worldwide program aimed at increasing water productivity in agriculture from the community to whole basin scales. The focus on water productivity remained foremost in the thinking of the CPWF for several years after its inception. “The most important question in the current debate on water scarcity is not so much whether it is true or not, whether we are going to run out of water or not, whether water scarcity is fact or fiction, but whether this debate will help increase water productivity” (Rijsberman, 2004). CPWF context within the CGIAR’s new programmatic approach As intended by the CDMT, the CPWF introduced a new model for research for the CGIAR with the emphasis on collaboration, both between Centers, and between Centers and national agricultural research and extension systems (NARES) and advanced research institutes. When appropriate, the new model used a participatory, integrated natural resource management (INRM) approach to develop and disseminate technology (Sayer and Campbell, 2003). The CPWF: A new paradigm for research 3
- 23. The CPWF emphasized team work in which all participants shared knowledge and which led to technological innovation. The GCPs did not exist as independent fiduciary entities, so that the CPWF operated under the umbrella of the CGIAR International Water Management Institute (IWMI). This led to administrative anomalies, such as the program coordinator reporting to the Consortium Steering Committee, while IWMI management evaluated the coordinator’s performance. Similarly, the program coordinator had little authority over CPWF management staff, who were employed and evaluated by the different consortium institutions involved. Incremental funding The CDMT foresaw that as more GCPs were created, they could together require as much as 50 percent of the CGIAR’s budget. The iSC recognized early on that this was unlikely and, although not stated, would certainly meet fierce resistance from the Centers and those donors aligned to particular Centers. The iSC believed that, “The Centers expect the [Challenge Program] funding to be new and incremental . . .”5 and proposed that the GCPs should seek new funding, which would add to the system’s total budget. The CPWF secured new funding of nearly US$70 million for 2003–2008 from a broad spectrum of donors, which gave it independence from individual donors. It also managed to compensate partly “for a drastic reduction of a major donor commitment in the programme inception phase,”6 US$25 million to only US$5 million when the government of the Netherlands changed in May 2003. Water and food sub-systems The aim of the CPWF was to increase water productivity through better management of water for food production. The CPWF identified three levels of system organization. At the lowest level, the plant-field-farm system, there are three sub-systems, agroecosystems, upper catchments, and aquatic eco- systems. The second level is the river basin, where different water users interact, and where the trade-offs between and among water users are impor- tant. These determine the interactions between surface water, groundwater, and precipitation as well as the interactions between upstream and downstream users. The third level is the national and global water and food systems. The external environment was considered at all levels, including not only the water sector, but the macroeconomic factors that impact it, as well as policies and institutional issues at global and national levels. Research themes The three sub-systems of the lowest level plus the basin and global levels coincide with the five research themes that the CPWF identified (Box 1.2). 4 Fisher, Harding and Kemp-Benedict
- 24. The research themes were given a geographic focus carrying out research in one or more of nine benchmark basins. The theme to improve crop water productivity included a wide range of crops, environments, scale levels, and methodologies varying from bio- technology to geographic information systems, and remote sensing. Multiple use of upper catchments explored ways to improve the use of water and other resources by understanding the relationships between water, liveli- hoods and poverty at multiple scales. The objective was to design interventions that are both sustainable and equitable. Aquatic ecosystems and fisheries are important in the livelihoods of many of the world’s poor, for example supplying 60 percent of dietary protein in Cambodia. The theme focused on assessing the economic value of aquatic ecosystem goods and services; integrating crops with aquaculture, and improving the management of fisheries in reservoirs. The theme on basin-level water management focused on analysis of water productivity in rain-fed and irrigated farming systems. The objective was to identify basin-level interventions that enhance human and ecological well- being by increasing water productivity. The theme on global food and water systems developed a conceptual framework to analyze food production systems at national and global scales to identify strengths and weaknesses in the use of green and blue water. It used two approaches: (a) scenario analysis, including drivers and development goals; and (b) stakeholder participatory research and institutional analysis. Following a worldwide call, over 400 research project proposals were received of which 55 were finally approved, following a stringent evaluation process. Five Theme Leaders and nine Basin Coordinators based in different institutions acted as the management team, providing oversight to link tech- nical quality with support for out- and up-scaling and to ensure the quality of the contracted projects in the nine benchmark basins (Box 1.3). The purpose The CPWF: A new paradigm for research 5 Box 1.2 The five original research themes of CPWF Phase 1 (lead Center) Theme 1: Improve crop water productivity (IRRI). Theme 2: Multiple use of upper catchments (CIAT). Theme 3: Aquatic ecosystems and fisheries (WorldFish). Theme 4: Integrated basin water management systems (IWMI). Theme 5: The global and national food and water system (IFPRI). Note: IRRI = International Rice Research Institute; CIAT = Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical; IWMI = International Water Management Institute; IFPRI = International Food and Policy Research Institute.
- 25. of the benchmark basins was to integrate research across themes at the basin level by working closely with stakeholders and prioritizing the research most relevant to each basin. Teams within each basin developed baselines against which progress and impacts were assessed. Toward the end of Phase 1, the iSC criticized the lack of geographical and thematic coherence in the first round of 55 approved projects. In response, the Consortium Steering Committee created Basin Focal Projects (BFPs) to present a globally coherent picture of whole-basin systems that recognized the large differences in hydrology (and consequent livelihood systems) within and between basins. The work of the BFP teams was to show the link between poverty, agriculture and water within each benchmark basin, and to develop rigorous conceptual frameworks to enable scientists to analyze these links in other river basins at various scales of resolution. The CPWF responded to an external review commissioned by the iSC and to changes within the CGIAR by shifting the focus away from research outputs, to an emphasis on broader outcomes produced as a result of research. We discuss this evolution below. Water, development and poverty During the initial phase (2003–2007), CPWF research for development (R4D) was in the context of diverse, water-related problems and focused on identi- fying and selecting what strategies had most potential to improve food security and reduce poverty. As the CPWF gained understanding of the complex relationships between agricultural water management and poverty—and the dynamics of water, food, and poverty—it saw that the level of socio-economic development was a key driver. It also saw that the natural-resources manage- ment (NRM) approach it was using was well suited for research into many development issues (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). The second phase of the CPWF therefore focused on alleviating poverty and increasing farmers’ and farming systems’ resilience, which is often driven by external global forces at different spatial and institutional levels, such as shocks to financial markets and climate change. 6 Fisher, Harding and Kemp-Benedict Box 1.3 Benchmark basins South America: A group of small basins in the Andes, São Francisco. Africa: Volta, Limpopo, Nile. Asia: Karkheh, Indus-Ganges, Mekong, Yellow.
- 26. Poverty and development: the broader context Many scenarios of the future forecast conflict (The 2030 Water Resources Group, 2009; Deloitte, 2012; KPMG, 2012; McKinsey and Company, 2012) and conclude that food and environmental insecurity and poverty will be widespread, paying little attention to constructive solutions such as adaptation and innovation. In contrast, in the second phase the CPWF addressed these issues in a wider global context. It researched the drivers of change, and how development priorities evolve within global socio-political realities. The CPWF used water as an entry point to identify the most pressing current and future development challenges within an R4D framework, and solutions to address these challenges. This approach drew on thinking that links local realities with global influ- ences by understanding how people interact with the complex natural environment. Interlinked planetary boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009) were merged with social boundaries (Raworth, 2012) and overlain with the notion of common-pool resources and collective self-governance (Ostrom, 2009). This provided the framework for the CPWF’s R4D that seeks relevance, impact and equity. The CPWF placed R4D within a context of poverty and development. Poverty has no single definition with measures of poverty ranging from head counts of people living on a certain minimum amount of income to people- centered approaches of how well people meet their livelihood goals. The CPWF focused on people-centered approaches using participatory method- ologies while also recognizing the importance of economic dynamics at and between all levels of society. It also included the concept of social exclusion acknowledging that multiple forms of discrimination impact severely on the poor and their capacity to influence decisions that directly affect their lives. People-centered perspectives allowed the CPWF to consider the causes of poverty, including the importance of human agency, empowerment and institutional accountability. Human agency is what poor people can do for themselves, and empowerment is creating conditions that allow them to do so. These perspectives not only recognize the strategic importance of economic development, but the role of institutions as possible root causes of poverty. Water and poverty The CPWF focus on water management and social and ecological resilience7 led to research on the connections between water and poverty. Water poverty identifies water-specific forms of poverty, such as livelihoods that depend on water, and which are subject to water hazards or lack of development (Black and Hall, 2004; Cook and Gichuki, 2006). For example, people living more than one kilometer from a safe water supply are water poor (Sullivan, 2002). When the BFPs started in 2005, the CPWF had identified that key issues were the links between water productivity, water scarcity and water poverty. The CPWF: A new paradigm for research 7
- 27. The question was whether focusing on water could lead to useful insights that could guide interventions. But by the end of the BFPs in 2009, it was clear that water poverty and general poverty were only weakly related. Indeed, “the incidence of poverty and the availability of water are not necessarily linked and severity of poverty depends on the level of control over water, rather than the endowment” (Namara et al., 2010). The relation between poverty and water across basins was not clear. Shifting the view away from water to the stage of development of the basin, showed that rural poverty was high in underdeveloped basins where agriculture con- tributed most to total economic output. Agricultural basins with high levels of rural poverty are characterized by greater use of natural capital than physical capital, and reliance on local, informal institutions rather than the formal state water resources institutions. Industrialized basins had low levels of absolute rural poverty but varying levels of relative poverty. Intermediate basins, which had the greatest total populations in the BFP basins, had pockets of poverty within rapidly changing societies (Kemp-Benedict et al., 2011). In all basins, water scarcity often had institutional rather than physical causes, but the relevant institutions differed with the basin’s place on the development trajectory. In agricultural basins, the dominant institutions are local and traditional, and state institutions are relatively weak. In contrast, in transitional and industrial basins, state institutions dominate. In these basins, rural poverty is concentrated in specific areas that remain poor due to many causes that can only be addressed weakly through technical increases in water productivity. In contrast, in agricultural basins, technical improvement of water productivity can have a substantial impact on poverty. Interventions that give only modest increases in production, together with reduced variability, may be enough to allow poor farmers in agricultural basins to accumulate assets and diversify their incomes, often outside of water and agriculture. The sustainable livelihoods framework (Box 1.4) is a useful tool to capture modest impacts by combining all of the components of a house- hold’s assets both within an institutional context and the larger natural and political environment. Increased financial and human capital can permit diversification and thereby increase resilience. 8 Fisher, Harding and Kemp-Benedict Box 1.4 The sustainable livelihood framework (SLF) “In the SLF, households deploy their financial, physical, human, social and natural assets . . . to meet their livelihood goals.” “The SLF is a usable way of thinking about development and poverty” (Kemp-Benedict et al., 2011).
- 28. Outcome-based R4D and how change occurs In the CPWF, R4D reflects a shift in understanding of development processes and the role of research. It integrates notions of power and the relationships between people, institutions and partners and their evolving dynamics. It addresses inequities and engages with a diversity of groups and individuals. The relevance of research is transformed and with it the focus, approach and process also change. R4D for whom? In Phase 2, the CPWF pursued a path of targeted, inclusive R4D, based on development challenges decided in consultation with partners in six basins (Box 1.5). Scientific research remained a central component, but the research was for transformative change or outcomes. Research for outcomes required understanding of the relevant institutional and social structures. It also implied engagement with partners with the CPWF playing the role of a boundary organization, enabling, linking and translating learning across communities. Effective boundary organizations, which the CPWF aimed to become, depend on their credibility as well as the salience and relevance of the knowledge they share. Problems can be technical, institutional or political. Problem diagnosis examines the causal relationships among technologies, institutions and policies. It also traces out the nature and value of positive and negative externalities in which the problems being faced by one group are attributable to actions taken by other groups. Water- and food-related problems often involve common property, collective action, property rights and questions of access to resources. The CPWF: A new paradigm for research 9 Box 1.5 Basin Development Challenges Andes basins: To increase water productivity and to reduce water-related conflict through the establishment of equitable benefit-sharing mecha- nisms. Ganges: To reduce poverty and strengthen livelihood resilience through improved water governance and management in coastal areas of the Ganges Basin. Limpopo: To improve smallholder productivity and livelihoods and reduce livelihood risk through integrated water resource management. Mekong: To reduce poverty and foster development by optimizing the use of water in reservoirs. Nile: To strengthen rural livelihoods and their resilience through a landscape approach to rainwater management. Volta: To strengthen integrated management of rainwater and small reser- voirs so that they can be used equitably and for multiple purposes.
- 29. Theory of change Initially the CPWF used the CGIAR-wide impact pathways approach, which itself was a shift from the donor-driven logical framework. As the CPWF progressed toward the second phase, theory of change (ToC) (Vogel, 2012) became the dominant conceptual approach. “[T]heory of change represents people’s understanding of how change happens—the pathways, factors and relationships that bring and sustain change in a particular context” (James, 2011). Although ToC was the main conceptual approach, the CPWF used other frameworks for differing specific purposes, when the alternative approach was judged more suitable. For example, as discussed above, the poverty and livelihoods analysis used the sustainable livelihoods framework (Solesbury, 2003; Kemp-Benedict et al., 2009), while the political economy analysis used the institutional analysis and development framework (Harris et al., 2011). In developing ToCs at the project, basin and program level in CPWF’s second phase, the wide diversity of people involved in the range of CPWF R4D (partner research organizations, local decision-makers, policymakers, development practitioners, etc.) themselves contributed to defined develop- ment outcomes. The CPWF model of practice approached R4D through ToC thinking. It put ToC into practice using a set of tools, such as outcome learning models, regular reflection meetings and use of “most significant change” stories, all of which were developed iteratively. The CPWF’s experience demonstrated the value of the ToC approach. ToC created narratives that were accessible to all participants. These narratives were established through a combination of collective inclusive reflection, adaptive management and relating change to specific groups of actors. ToC also recog- nized that explicitly stated assumptions are often subjective and depend on people’s cultural and socio-economic perspectives. Every programme is packed with beliefs, assumptions and hypotheses about how change happens—about the way humans work, or organisa- tions, or political systems, or eco-systems. [ToC] is about articulating these many underlying assumptions about how change will happen in a pro- gramme. (Rogers, 2008) Achieving outcomes with information and engagement The CPWF defined outcomes as changes in practice, in behavior, decisions, investments or other ways in which people choose to do things differently. This is not coercing people to do things differently, but engaging with them to help them obtain information that allows them to make informed choices because they perceive the change to be to their own advantage. R4D therefore seeks to contribute to development outcomes that are profitable, equitable, sustainable and resilient. The CPWF used ToC to describe the process, which reflects an inclusive, participative and reflective learning process. 10 Fisher, Harding and Kemp-Benedict
- 30. Understanding the process of engagement is crucial (Box 1.6). Engagement is also part of problem definition in which the CPWF encouraged stakeholders to participate to achieve a common vision of the nature of the problem, its causes and drivers, and what might be done about it. In R4D, the CPWF distinguished between research to define development issues and research to identify feasible and socially acceptable solutions (also called interventions, strategies, etc.). Research for solutions required sound understanding of the issues for which a solution is sought, including taking account of the scale (region, basin, catchment, etc.). Effective solutions are often those that integrate improved technologies, new institutional arrangements and reformed policies, all three of which may co- evolve. Research on solutions may find win-win strategies to overcome con- tentious issues, or may define trade-offs to support negotiations. They may also be site specific, the conditions of which must be defined as part of targeting. They will generate a range of consequences on profits, livelihoods, gender equity, downstream resource users, ecosystem services, resilience, and so on, some of which may be unexpected. Research on solutions therefore needs to be dynamic and inclusive to respond to whatever may arise. Research on solutions must also be sensitive to the policy environment, align where it is appropriate and maintain its relevance. In some cases policies may The CPWF: A new paradigm for research 11 Box 1.6 The CPWF experience with engagement Engagement is most effective when it: • is evidence-based, well informed by research products, and builds on long-term relationships by working through existing networks (instead of creating new ones); • understands power relations by bringing in people with authority and responsibility for taking major decisions; • recognizes as honest brokers groups that have different and conflict- ing interests; • fosters negotiation when dealing with management of common property; • continues for a long time, often for a series of outcomes, which collectively enhance impact; • generates key messages tailored to different stakeholders; • enables all partners to understand and address the problem partici- patively; and • identifies and develops credible champions with vision of what can be achieved and who are involved in the long term. Authors discuss engagement in more detail in Chapters 3 and 5.
- 31. obstruct the use of attractive solutions, while in others favorable policies can be leveraged to make fast progress. In all cases understanding the policy environ- ment and how to impact it is crucial. The CPWF found that it was often more effective to be an influential, credible and respected member of a third party’s network rather than create one for itself. Moreover, both the process of defining problems and then discovering solutions to them, and the process of engagement took place at the same regional or basin level. Conclusions The CPWF started in 2002 with the objective to “significantly increase the productivity of water used for agriculture . . . in a manner that is environ- mentally sustainable and socially acceptable.” We have shown how this evolved from producing the outputs of conventional science to a R4D approach that used water-related innovations to involve partners in all stages of the process to produce outcomes. It carried out three functions: • Better understand and define water-related problems and challenges at different scales (Chapter 2). • Better understand the intricacies of designing water-related innovations and understanding their performance under different conditions, as well as their consequences for livelihoods, equity and the environment (Chapters 3, 4 and 5). • Better understand how to engage with stakeholders to foster dialogue and negotiations to lead to equitable development outcomes (Chapters 6 and 7). These three functions comprise a widened notion of development and change in which research plays a role in defining development pathways. As the CPWF progressed, the research process changed, results became focused on development outcomes, contribution to impact at scale became feasible, and a range of tools, approaches and frameworks complemented each other. In the chapters that follow authors describe the process and outcomes in more detail. Notes 1 The abbreviation CGIAR was for the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research from 1971 to 2010. The institution was restructured in 2010, incorporating the abbreviation as part of the name of the new entity, the CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers. 2 TAC document SDR/TAC:IAR/00/14.1/Rev.2. 3 sciencecouncil.cgiar.org/fileadmin/templates/ispc/documents/Publications/ 1a-Publications_Reports_briefs_ISPC/TAC_Food-Secure-World-for-All_2000.pdf (accessed 8 April 2014) 4 The HarvestPlus Challenge Program to produce bio-fortified crops, coordinated by CIAT, and the Generation Challenge Program to use advanced genetic technologies to improve crops for greater food security in the developing world, coordinated by 12 Fisher, Harding and Kemp-Benedict
- 32. Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo [International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center) (CIMMYT) and International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). 5 Minutes of the 82nd meeting of the iSC at Centro Internacional de la Papa [International Potato Center](CIP), 8–12 April, 2002. Available from: library.cgiar. org/bitstream/handle/10947/5684/iscchairreport.pdf (accessed 8 April 2014). 6 External Review of the Challenge Program on Water and Food. Available from: gppi.net/fileadmin/gppi/Markus_exco13_cpwf_cper.pdf (accessed 8 April 2014). 7 “A key concept in the resilience framework is the concept of social-ecological systems. There are no natural systems without people, nor social systems without nature. Social and ecological systems are truly interdependent and constantly co- evolving” (Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2007). References Black, M. and Hall, A. (2004) ‘Pro-poor water governance’, in: Water and poverty: The themes. Asian Development Bank, adb.org/sites/default/files/pub/2004/Themes_ 04.pdf, pp. 11–20 (accessed 8 April 2014). Cook, S. and Gichuki, F. (2006) Analyzing water poverty: Water, agriculture and poverty in basins, CPWF BFP Working Paper No. 3, CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Cosgrove, W. J. and Rijsberman, F. R. (1998) ‘Creating a vision for water, life and the environment’, Water Policy, vol. 1, pp. 115–122. Deloitte (2012) Water tight 2012. deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-SouthAfrica/Local%20 Assets/Documents/water_tight_2012.pdf (accessed 8 April 2014). Harris, D., Kooy, M. and Jones, L. (2011) Analysing the governance and political economy of water and sanitation service delivery, Working Paper 334, Overseas Development Institute, London, odi.org.uk/resources/docs/7243.pdf (accessed 8 April 2014). James, C. (2011) Theory of change review: A report commissioned by Comic Relief, Comic Relief, London, mande.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/2012- Comic-Relief-Theory-of-Change-Review-FINAL.pdf (accessed 8 April 2014). Kemp-Benedict, E., Bharwani, S., de la Rosa, E., Krittasudthacheewa, C. and Matin, N. (2009) Assessing water-related poverty using the sustainable livelihoods framework, SEI Working Paper, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm. Kemp-Benedict, E., Cook, S., Allen, S. L., Vosti, S., Lemoalle, J., Giordano, M., Ward, J. and Kaczan, D. (2011) ‘Connections between poverty, water and agriculture: Evidence from 10 river basins’, Water International, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 125–140. KPMG (2012) Water scarcity: A dive into global reporting trends, KPMG Sustainability Insight 2012, kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/ sustainable-insight/Documents/sustainable-insights-water-survey.pdf (accessed 8 April 2014). McKinsey and Company (2012) Resource revolution: Meeting the world’s energy, materials, food, and water needs, mckinsey.com/features/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/home page/2011%20nov%20resource%20revolution/resource_revolution_full_report_v2. ashx (accessed 8 April 2014). Namara, R. E., Hanjra, M. A., Castillo, G. E., Ravnborg, H. M., Smith, L. and Van Koppen, B. (2010) ‘Agricultural water management and poverty linkages’, Agricultural Water Management, vol. 97, pp. 520–527. Ostrom, E. (2009) ‘A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems’, Science, vol. 325, no. 5939, pp. 419–422. The CPWF: A new paradigm for research 13
- 33. Raworth, K. (2012) A safe and just operating space for humanity: Can we live within the doughnut?, Oxfam Discussion Papers, Oxford, UK, oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam. org/files/dp-a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-130212-en.pdf (accessed 8 April 2014). Rijsberman, F. R. (2004) ‘Water scarcity: Fact or fiction?’, in: T. Fischer, N. Turner, J. Angus, L. McIntyre, M. Robertson, A. Borrel and D. Lloyd (eds) New directions for a diverse planet. Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress, 26 September–1 October 2004, Brisbane, Australia, cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/ plenary/1/1994_rijsbermanf.htm (accessed 8 April 2014). Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P. and Foley, J. A. (2009) ‘A safe operating space for humanity’, Nature, vol. 461, no. 7263, pp. 472–475. Rogers, P. J. (2008) ‘Using programme theory for complicated and complex programmes’, Evaluation, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 29–48. Sayer, J. A. and Campbell, B. M. (2003) ‘Research to integrate productivity enhancement, environmental protection, and human development’, in: B. M. Campbell and J. A. Sayer (eds) Integrated natural resource management: Linking productivity, the environment and development, CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp. 1–14. Solesbury, W. (2003) Sustainable livelihoods, a case study of the evolution of DFID policy, Working Paper 217, Overseas Development Institute, London, odi.org.uk/ resources/docs/172.pdf (accessed 8 April 2014). Stockholm Resilience Centre (2007) ‘Social-ecological systems’, available from: stockholmresilience.org/21/research/what-is-resilience/research-background/ research-framework/social-ecological-systems.html (accessed 8 April 2014). Sullivan, C. (2002) ‘Calculating a water poverty index’, World Development, vol. 30, pp. 1195–1210. The 2030 Water Resources Group (2009) Charting our water future, 2030water resourcesgroup.com/water_full/Charting_Our_Water_Future_Final.pdf (accessed 8 April 2014) Vogel, I. (2012) Review of the use of ‘Theory of Change’ in international development: Review report, dfid.gov.uk/r4d/pdf/outputs/mis_spc/DFID_ToC_Review_VogelV7.pdf (accessed 8 April 2014). World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 14 Fisher, Harding and Kemp-Benedict
- 34. 2 Water scarcity and abundance, water productivity and their relation to poverty Alain Vidal,a* Larry W . Harringtonb and Myles J. Fisherc a CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food CPWF, Montpellier, France; b CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food CPWF, Ithaca, NY, USA; c Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical CIAT, Cali, Colombia; * Corresponding author, [email protected]. Water scarcity and beyond The Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) was conceived as a response by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) to a perceived global crisis: the threat posed by water scarcity to food security, livelihoods and the environment, and the urgent need to use increasingly scarce water resources more efficiently. With the passage of time, the CPWF has broadened its agenda to focus on a range of development challenges in basins that relate to water. The CPWF came to see that water provides a useful entry point for addressing many development challenges, including those related to sustainable intensification of agricultural systems and preservation of ecosystem services. Addressing water scarcity is a means to a broader end as well as an end in itself. In this chapter, we look back at some of the concepts that underpinned the original CPWF. We review recent findings on water scarcity at the global level and compare these with basin-level information on water scarcity from CPWF Basin Focal Projects (BFPs). We also take a closer look at the multiple dimen- sions of water scarcity as they affect farm family livelihoods and show that water can be scarce even when it is apparently abundant. We then revisit the concept of water productivity (WP) (embodied in the phrase, “crop per drop”) and discuss its usefulness and limitations as an indicator. Finally, we review what the CPWF has learned regarding the subtle and complex relationships among water scarcity, poverty, livelihoods and food security. The global level—freshwater is scarce The essence of the global water scarcity narrative is simple: freshwater supply and demand are out of balance in important regions and the mismatch is likely to get worse. The narrative suggests that the demand for water-related products (especially food) will grow faster than the population increases, whereas the supply of freshwater is limited, and that the main question is the timing and
- 35. spatial incidence of the imbalance between demand and supply. We do not entirely concur with this narrative. Water scarcity means different things to different people in different environments. Water can be both abundant and scarce in the same environment, depending on the kinds of water and water uses discussed. Some observers are blunt: “Water shortages have emerged as one of the most important infrastructure issues in the world today . . . Global demand for freshwater will exceed supply by 40% by 2030 . . . with potentially calamitous implications for business, society and the environment” (KPMG, 2012). Recent reports speak of “water bankruptcy” for many regions (Mee and Adeel, 2012) while water shortage has been called “the defining crisis of the 21st century” (Pearce, 2007). Scenario analysis used in the World Water Vision for 2000 warned that continued “business as usual” water management was likely to result in, “a global system . . . becoming more and more vulnerable as a result of the increasing scarcity of water resources per capita, the diminished quality of water and increasing conflicts associated with inequality, water scarcity, and the narrower resource base of healthy ecosystems.” Scenario analysis took account of nearly two dozen drivers of change, among them demographic, economic, technological, social, governance, and environmental [hydrological] factors (Gallopín and Rijsberman, 2000). Increased demand for food (population growth and dietary changes), rapidly growing megacities, urbanization and industrialization, biofuel production, and the increasing effects of climate change all drive increased use of freshwater. Demand for drinking water and sanitation services will be a factor, but the real increase in water demand will come from agriculture to produce food, feed, fiber and fuel. With human populations predicted to increase from 7 billion in 2012 to about 9 billion in 2050, agricultural water requirements may grow to as much as 14,000 billion m3 /yr (Chartres and Varma, 2011), or almost double (see below). These predictions are based on current levels of agricultural WP, including rainfed as well as irrigated agriculture. These scenarios of water demand are only slightly higher than those pub- lished in the Comprehensive Assessment of Water in Agriculture (CA), which noted that, “without further improvements in water productivity or major shifts in production patterns, the amount of water consumed by evapotranspiration in agriculture will increase by 70%–90% by 2050. The total amount of water evaporated in crop production would amount to 12,000–13,500 [billion m3 /yr], almost doubling the 7130 [billion m3 /yr] of today” (Molden, 2007). Other analyses estimate annual water use in agriculture at 8500–11,000 billion m3 /yr by 2050 (Rockström et al., 2010). They assume some growth in productivity and separate consumption in rainfed (6500–8500 billion m3 /yr) from irrigated (2000–2500 billion m3 /yr) agricultural systems. The above estimates focus on demand for agricultural water, but ignore the supply side. How bad is the mismatch between demand and supply of agricultural water? We discuss three ways to address this question—through 16 Vidal, Harrington and Fisher
- 36. analysis of planetary boundaries; threats to water security from multiple stressors at sub-national levels; and economic versus physical water scarcity in basins. Analysis of planetary boundaries defines boundaries, “within which we expect that humanity can operate safely. Transgressing one or more planetary boundaries may be deleterious or even catastrophic due to the risk of crossing thresholds that will trigger non-linear, abrupt environmental change within continental- to planetary-scale systems” (Rockström et al., 2009). These boundaries include climate change, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone, global P and N cycles, atmospheric aerosol loading, land use change, biodiver- sity loss, chemical pollution, and use of freshwater. Recent analysis concludes that passing a boundary of about 4000 billion m3 /yr of consumptive use of blue water1 will increase the risk of collapse of terrestrial and aquatic eco- systems (Rockström et al., 2009). The analysis focuses on blue water, however, it is not restricted to agricultural water nor does it address the question of whether water use in agriculture will substitute for natural land use. An analysis of threats to water security from multiple stressors at sub-national levels takes a different slant (Vörösmarty et al., 2010). It uses spatial accounting to assess threats to human water security, where a threat is exposure to stressors at given location. There are four categories of stressors: catchment disturbance, pollution, water resource development and biotic factors. Catchment distur- bance includes cropland use, impervious surfaces, livestock density, wetland and disconnectivity. Pollution includes such factors as soil salinization, loading of excess plant nutrients, toxic materials and sediments, acidification and thermal alteration. The analysis concludes that 80 percent of the global popu- lation is exposed to high levels of threat. Areas not exposed include parts of the Amazon, central Africa, the Malay Archipelago, and parts of southeast China and Southeast Asia with low populations and high rainfall. Rich countries make massive investment to offset high stressor levels. All CPWF basins are located in areas with high levels of threat to water security.2 The analysis focuses on blue water in rivers; however, it is not restricted to agricultural water and emphasizes quality more than availability. The basin level—blue water is (sometimes) scarce Although much rainwater is unused by people, water scarcity is an important topic. With regard to blue water, the CA (Molden, 2007) distinguished between areas with no water scarcity, with economic water scarcity, and with physical water scarcity (Rijsberman, 2006). Physical water scarcity occurs when withdrawal of water approaches or exceeds sustainable limits commonly set at 75 percent of the river flow. This may be because of a lack of supply, high demand, or both. Economic water scarcity occurs when there is inadequate investment in water-related infra- structure, which limits access to water even where there is no local physical Water availability, productivity and poverty 17
- 37. scarcity and withdrawal is less than 25 percent (Molden, 2007). High levels of water use lead to closed basins, that is, where water no longer flows out through the rivers. The Yellow River in China failed to reach the sea in 1997 for 226 days and was dry to 600 km upstream (Ringler et al., 2012). Subsequent government action reduced water use for irrigation and this helped provide year-round flows, which, however, were still insufficient to counter entry of sea water within the basin, leading to damage of wetlands. The Karkheh in Iran is potentially closed by the use of its limited water for irrigation downstream of the new dam to the detriment of the Hoor-al-Azim wetlands on the border with Iraq (Ahmad and Giordano, 2012). By these definitions, only two of the CPWF’s ten basins, the Limpopo and the Yellow, suffer from physical water scarcity, although parts of the Ganges and the Karkheh have scarcity at times in specific places. Both population size and availability of blue water affect water scarcity, and both are captured by the Falkenmark water stress indicator (Falkenmark, 1997) and can be applied to basins, countries or regions. Water stress occurs when there are less than 1700 m3 /yr of renewable water resources per capita for all needs. When per capita supply falls below 1000 m3 /yr there is water scarcity, and below 500 m3 /yr, absolute scarcity. The indicator has great spatial variability, across continents, within river basins, across and within countries. It falls faster where population growth is rapid. The Yellow (1250) is stressed, the Karkheh (1970) and the Volta (2560) approach stress, but even the populous Indus- Ganges (5900) is over three times the level that indicates stress. The other basins exceed 10,000 (the São Francisco is the highest at 38,390). In the future, many more people are likely to experience water stress and water scarcity, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia (Figure 2.1) (UNDP, 2006). 18 Vidal, Harrington and Fisher 2.5 Population of countries facing water or scarcity (billions) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1990 South Asia 2005 2025 2050 1990 Sub-Saharan African Water scarcity: less than 1,000 m3 /yr per capita 2005 2025 2050 1990 Arab States 2005 2025 2050 1990 East Asia and the Pacific 2005 2025 2050 1990 Latin America and the Caribbean 2005 2025 2050 Water stress: less than 1,700 m3 /yr per capita Figure 2.1 Water stress is projected to accelerate in intensity in several regions. Source: UNDP, 2006.
- 38. Taken together, these analyses suggest that blue water is only physically scarce in selected areas. Problems with water quality and lack of investment in water storage technology are far more pervasive than scarcity. None of the analyses consider green water. We conclude that institutions and governance are central to dealing with issues of water control, water quality and infra- structure investment. The basin level—green water is often abundant At the level of a river basin, freshwater can be scarce and abundant at the same time, depending on whether we are talking about blue water or green water. Green water and rainfall may be abundant when blue water is scarce. Even in dry basins, green water can be deemed abundant when only a small proportion of precipitation or actual evapotranspiration (AET) goes through agriculture. Blue water makes up rivers, lakes and groundwater. Green water includes water stored in the soil to be transpired in the process of vegetative produc- tivity. There is a complicated interaction between green and blue water involv- ing precipitation, temperature, topography, soil type, vegetation cover and processes that control runoff and deep drainage (Chartres and Varma, 2011). Analysis of future demand and supply for freshwater for the most part focuses on blue water, but agriculture uses three to four times more green than blue water. Evapotranspiration (ET) is the sum of plant transpiration and evaporation from soils and open water to the atmosphere. Meteorologists differentiate between potential ET (PET), which is the atmosphere’s ability to evaporate water, and AET, which is the amount of water that does evaporate from all sources. Agricultural uses, including pasture, often account for only a small proportion of AET, so that a lot of green water does not go through agriculture at all (Table 2.1). In the moderately dry Volta Basin, for example (average precipitation 973 mm/yr), only about 10 percent of precipitation goes through agricultural systems, accounting for 11 percent of AET. More productive use of rainwater can therefore help to resolve the global crisis of freshwater scarcity. We need to focus on the blue–green water nexus (Falkenmark and Rockström, 2010), that is, on green water as well as on blue water since transpiration from vegetation is a major water use. The BFPs The CPWF BFPs research provided information on the distribution of water across different environments and land uses. From 2005 to 2009, the BFPs researched water availability, water balances, WP, the relationships between water, poverty, and other factors in ten river basins.3 The BFP basins cover a wide range of geographic settings on three continents with considerable cross- basin and within-basin variability in size, topography, land use, extent of irriga- tion, population density, income levels, poverty, precipitation, temperature, Water availability, productivity and poverty 19
- 39. seasonality, water resources infrastructure, groundwater resources, water access for direct consumption or for agriculture, PET and AET, agricultural water demands, domestic and industrial use (Mulligan et al., 2012b). A series of water use accounts gave details of catchment-lumped water avail- ability and water balances in all ten basins (e.g. Kirby et al., 2010b; Eastham et al., 2010). Kirby et al. (2010a) discussed the methods used. The CPWF published the principal research outputs of the BFPs and syntheses of the various components in Water, Food and Poverty in River Basins: Defining the Limits (Fisher and Cook, 2012). We shall draw further on the BFP research in several of the following chapters. The multiple dimensions of farm-level water scarcity Problem definition Global- and basin-level estimates of present and future water supply and demand are important to establish the limits for water allocation and use by helping to define problems of water scarcity and WP. However they gloss over the many complex ways in which water scarcity affects farm productivity and family livelihoods. In this section, we focus on the components of water scarcity and their effects on how families manage their farm systems. In this context, we define water scarcity as a failure to achieve the right amount of the right quality of water for the right purpose at the right time for the right people. To make this definition operational, we need to define what we mean by “right” in each context, understanding that its meaning depends on whose 20 Vidal, Harrington and Fisher Table 2.1 Agricultural use of AET and rainfall. Annual Mean Mean AET for Agricultural Agricultural total AET productive use of AET use of rainfall rainfall mm/yr pastures and % % mm/yr agricultural areas mm/yr Andes 784 632 43 7 5 Ganges 1073 746 499 67 47 Karkheh 348 291 13 4 4 Limpopo 547 640 103 16 19 Mekong 1713 1049 393 37 23 Niger 1017 804 116 14 11 Nile 618 606 36 6 6 São Francisco 975 928 94 10 10 Volta 973 910 98 11 10 Yellow 438 458 229 50 52 Source: Mulligan et al. (2012a).
- 40. viewpoint we are representing. In the end, water is scarce for someone in some way nearly everywhere. The right amount means that many crops have specific needs: while paddy rice needs to be flooded, in contrast many crops are sensitive to waterlogging. The purpose that water will be used for determines what the right quality is, for example, some crops can tolerate more salinity than others so that the salinity of irrigation water determines which crops can be grown with it. Other aspects of quality include maintaining sediments and other pollutants at acceptable levels. We can define the right purpose either narrowly in terms of crop, agricultural system or landscape management, or broadly in terms of water allocation across a wide range of ecosystem services. We use the right time to take account of seasonality, and how seasonal patterns change over time. The right people means equitable allocation between alternative groups of water users, including people who benefit from water-related ecosystem services, and sometimes water managers or polluters. Several of these factors often come together to create scarcity where water seems abundant. Water appears plentiful in coastal Bangladesh for most of the year, but it is a water-scarce environment for some purposes. There is not enough water of the right quality (salinity < 2 g/L) available at the right time (end of wet season and throughout the dry season) for the specific purpose of completing wet-season rice crops, followed by dry-season crops/aquaculture. When the wet season ends with decreasing river flows, sea water intrusion affects the quality of the river water surrounding the polders, so that quality, timing and purpose together create scarcity (PN104 ) (Tuong and Hoanh, 2009). Rainfall in the Ethiopian highlands is at least 1300 mm/yr and ET is modest, yet water is often scarce for crops and livestock. The causes are sloping landscapes that give high rates of runoff, soils with low water-holding capacity and poor infrastructure for water-storage (Block, 2008; Awulachew et al., 2010). We now discuss water scarcity in terms of aridity, seasonal unreliability, quality, excess and access using examples from CPWF projects. Aridity The water scarcity of arid lands, which have no rainy season, is physical scarcity caused by low precipitation and high atmospheric demand. The ratio of mean annual precipitation to PET—the aridity index (Middleton and Thomas, 1997)—ranges from zero to less than 0.20 in those regions. Water quality and allocation are not part of this index. Arid areas can only sustain agriculture with irrigation. Elsewhere they are rangelands used at low intensity for ruminant production, often with nomadic herders ranging 1000 km or more in their yearly transhumance. The herders require access to crop residues and watering points, which is a critical component that is coming under threat in the northern Sahel (PN64) (Clanet Water availability, productivity and poverty 21
- 41. and Ogilvie, 2009). The rangelands of the dry, central Limpopo are also grazed at low intensity but the pastoralists are sedentary (PN62) (Sullivan and Sibanda, 2012). It is important to distinguish aridity from “physical water scarcity” as defined in the CA (“when more than 75% of the river flows are withdrawn for agriculture, industry and domestic purposes”) (Molden, 2007). The former focuses on rainfall, the latter on the extent of blue water withdrawals. The CPWF had few projects in catchments or sub-basins in arid areas. Most projects were located where other dimensions of water scarcity were more important. Seasonal unreliability Outside of arid regions, average annual rainfall is adequate for agriculture of some kind, but annual averages can conceal more than they reveal. Rainfall may fail when it is most needed, and the more unreliable the rainfall, the more frequent failures. Unreliable rainfall can reduce productivity and favor extensive use of land to reduce the risk, for example low planting densities. Unreliability may affect contrasting social groups differently and with varying levels of severity. Unreliability may be normal or exceptional. Where it is normal, farm families are likely to have developed multi-layered mechanisms to cope. If unreliability becomes extreme, coping mechanisms may fail and threaten family survival. Seasonal unreliability of rainfall is only part of the story. Risk of loss is higher when farm families lack coping mechanisms and when investment in water infrastructure and management is inadequate. The same problems of seasonal unreliability may affect different social groups in different ways. There are several dimensions to the problem of seasonal unreliability, some of them closely related: • Seasonality of the rainy season (one or more of late onset, early termi- nation, extended dry periods within the season, unfavorable temporal distribution or outright failure); • Seasonality of the supply of stored water (inadequate quantity of stored water to grow crops or fodder in the dry season); • Seasonality of the demand for stored water (the demand increases in years when the rainy season is short, unreliable, or when failure of rainy season crops due to pests or disease forces farmers to resow); • Seasonality of water quality (excess of saline water when freshwater is needed [for rice] or excess of freshwater when saline water is needed [for shrimp]); • Seasonality of river flow and flooding (inadequate or excessive pulsing of river systems to support catch fisheries or aquaculture; unanticipated and excessive seasonal flooding that destroys crops and livestock). Many 22 Vidal, Harrington and Fisher
- 42. farming systems and capture fisheries in water-rich basins such as the Mekong are adapted to seasonal flooding. According to the timing and extent of the floods, however, they may destroy wet season crops, or they may enable wet- or dry-season cropping. The BFPs assembled basic information on annual rainfall, and its seasonality as measured by the coefficient of variation of monthly rainfall (Table 2.2). Unreliability can contribute to poverty traps as noted by Grey and Sadoff (2002, p. 4) regarding Africa: We have all witnessed . . . catastrophic flood and drought—the endemic and unpredictable consequence of Africa’s hydrological variability. The economic impacts can be a significant proportion of GDP and social impacts are incalculable [as is] the suffering of individual families and communities, as years of labor in land preparation and crop development is withered by drought or washed away by flood . . . the very existence of extreme variability itself creates disincentives for investment and affects the performance and structure of economies, as the unpredictability of rainfall and runoff encourages risk averse behavior in all years, promoting patterns of development that can trap economies in a low-level equilibrium. Thus, even in years of good rains, economic productivity and economic development can be constrained by conditions of hydrological variability. In the Limpopo Basin, 80 percent of the annual precipitation falls between November and late February with a mean of 50 rainy days. Variability in rainfall, soil type, ground cover, and slope gives erratic runoff and pronounced seasonal variation in flow, with negligible flow in the dry season. Seasonal rainfall patterns vary unpredictably and substantially from one year to the next. (PN62) (Sullivan and Sibanda, 2012). The Volta Basin has more rainfall than Water availability, productivity and poverty 23 Table 2.2 Annual precipitation and its seasonality in the BFP basins. Basin Annual total rainfall Precipitation seasonality mm/yr CoV% Andes 784 78 Ganges 1073 125 Karkheh 348 89 Limpopo 547 84 Mekong 1713 86 Niger 1017 108 Nile 618 103 São Francisco 975 84 Volta 973 96 Yellow 438 93 Source: Mulligan et al. (2012a).
- 43. the Limpopo, but seasonal unreliability of rainfall affects it almost as much. Rainfed agriculture only uses 14 percent of the basin’s rainfall, but drought years and within-year dry spells, together with the infertility and low water- holding-capacity of the soils, cause low crop yields and WP (PN55) (Lemoalle, 2008). Even in the high-rainfall highlands of the Nile Basin, drought and the intra-seasonal variability of rainfall causes crop failures, livestock deaths and livelihood disasters (Nile 2) (Amede et al., 2007). Seasonal unreliability adversely affected many CPWF projects. A project in the Limpopo Basin noted that, “Rainfed smallholder cropping in semi-arid Zimbabwe is constrained by frequent droughts and mid-season dry spells . . . In southern Zimbabwe, it is actually rare for drought or mid-season dry spells not to occur and this has led to permanent food insecurity for the majority of households” (PN17) (Mupangwa et al., 2011). In another Limpopo project, rainfall was so erratic that researchers could not establish cropping trials or the trials failed with no grain harvest. In drier years, structures to harvest rainwater were ineffective because there was not enough rainfall to collect, while in wetter years they were often washed out (PN1) (Siambi, 2011). Rainfall variability causes risk and uncertainty. Early sowings can fail if there is early-season drought, while late-season drought or competition from early- season weed growth can reduce the yields of late sowings. In either case, mid- season dry spells can further reduce yields. Farmers mostly know the risks of unreliable rainfall and use many strategies to manage it (Scoones, 1996; Harrington and Tow, 2011) (Box 2.1). Unreliable rainfall constrains the use of fertilizer and other inputs when the risk of crop failure outweighs their potential benefits (CIMMYT, 1999). Under some conditions, however, fertilizer micro-dosing or applying low levels of 24 Vidal, Harrington and Fisher Box 2.1 Farmers’ strategies to manage risk of seasonally unreliable rainfall Staggered planting dates; early-maturing varieties; varieties with different crop durations; crop combinations (for example both maize and sorghum or millet); dry-season plowing to control weeds and allow earlier sowing; reduced planting density; intercropping; matching crop species to land niches; supplementary irrigation; rainwater harvesting; and seasonal use of wetlands. (PN55) (Cooper et al., 2008; Terrasson et al., 2009)
- 44. basal fertilizer can reduce risk (PN1) (Dimes et al., 2005) when combined with soil cover or cover crops (FUNDESOT, 2012). Pastoralists and agro-pastoralists have developed various community-level coping mechanisms in response to seasonal unreliability. There are places in China where the rainfall can be too little for flooded rice in some years, but in other years, there is too much rain for maize or other rainfed crops. A CPWF project selected and mapped these places and showed that aerobic rice can grow well when rainfed, but it is not affected by flooding (PN16) (Bouman, 2008). The challenge will be whether aerobic rice will work elsewhere (Rubiano and Soto, 2008). Quality We also addressed water quality as a component of scarcity, especially when linked to seasonality (“right amount of the right quality of water for the right purpose at the right time”). Salinity induces seasonal scarcity of freshwater in places such as coastal Bangladesh,5 where a series of polders create areas of land protected from river flooding or seawater incursion by embankments. Freshwater surrounds the polders during the wet season and salt water during the dry season. Lack of freshwater at the end of the wet season and during the dry season hinders intensification and diversification of farms in the polders. Most produce only one low-yielding rice crop during the wet-season each year. Nevertheless, in places in coastal Bangladesh it is possible to grow two rice crops in the wet season plus a dry-season crop, or rice followed by aquaculture. The intensification depends on allowing freshwater to enter and be stored when the water surrounding the polders is fresh, and closing the sluice gates as the water becomes saline (PN10 and G2) (Sharifullah et al., 2008; Humphreys, 2012). Overcoming water-scarcity problems caused by variable quality during the year depended on new crop-management technology and new institutions to coordinate management of sluice gates and infrastructure within the polders (G3) (Mukherji, 2012). Salt stress is a problem in rice in the lower Ganges Basin of India and in Bangladesh without polders. Seawater intrusion causes salinity in coastal areas and inland there are shallow, saline water tables. In the wet season, flooding is a problem, while salinity damages crops during the dry season, and in inland areas, it is expanding. Project PN07 integrated salt-tolerant rice and other crops with complementary land and water management to minimize the effects of salt (Srivastava et al., 2006; Castillo et al., 2007; Vadez et al., 2007; Islam et al., 2008; Ismail, 2009). In the Andes, sediment often reduces water quality, causing scarcity down- stream because muddy water is unsuitable for sprinkler or drip irrigation or for domestic use without expensive treatment. Projects PN22, Andes 2 and Andes 3 promoted institutional changes that allow for payment for ecosystem services and other benefit-sharing mechanisms to encourage farmers in upper Water availability, productivity and poverty 25
- 45. catchments to manage their land and water better. They identified hotspots of erosion, measured their impacts on water quality and identified land manage- ment that reduces erosion and so improves downstream water quality (Estrada et al., 2009; Quintero et al., 2009; Quintero, 2012). Throughout the Andes, mining is notorious for contaminating water. It is a growing cause of scarcity of clean water and was researched in the Andes BFP project (Mulligan et al., 2009; Mulligan et al, 2012b). In the Conversatorio de Acción Ciudadana process in Colombia, communities and institutions negotiated legal agreements related to water in catchments (Candelo et al., 2008), which inter alia find ways for benefits from mining to be used to address its negative externalities. For example, benefit-sharing mechanisms have been negotiated and implemented in ways that recognize the negative impacts of mining on water and provide the resources to manage water quality directly at the mine to reduce these impacts or by supporting improved management of other land uses. Because mining is an important source of income, both locally and nationally, it requires institutional tradeoffs when the national priority is to reduce poverty ( Johnson et al., 2009). In the Volta Basin, muddy water in the wet season causes scarcity. Rainfall is not scarce in the basin as a whole but it is seasonal and varies from 1200 mm/yr in the south to less than 500 mm/yr in the north. Wet-season runoff is difficult to store because much of the basin is too flat to build large dams (PN55) (Lemoalle and de Condappa, 2012), but several thousand small dams built over the last 20 years supply water in the dry season for domestic use, livestock and small-scale irrigation. The small dams are in streams that are hydrologically linked (PN46) (Andreini et al., 2010). Most small dams in the White Volta Basin have problems with water quality caused by cyanobacteria (potentially harmful microalgae) of unknown origin. Pesticides and other pollution from agriculture also reduce water quality (PN46) (Andreini et al., 2010). Cyanobacteria constrain the use of water from small dams for households, fishing or irrigation (V3). Small dams also increase the incidence of schistosomiasis and malaria (Boelee et al., 2009). Nevertheless, water quality is better when communities improve their soil management and use of pesticides (V3) (Cecchi and Sanogo, 2012). In the Nile, water quality differs between upstream and downstream. Siltation and livestock-related water pollution affects water quality in upstream countries, leading to sedimentation of reservoirs and low quality for domestic water. In downstream countries, ET is high, increasing salinity of the river water, which in the delta reduces yields and limits the range of crops that farmers can grow. Another example of scarcity of water of suitable quality for particular purposes comes from Ghana, where urban and peri-urban vegetable farmers use urban wastewater for irrigation, posing a public-health risk. A CPWF project developed strategies to safeguard public health without compromising farmers’ livelihoods. It assessed land and WP in farms irrigating with waste- water and quantified levels of contamination on vegetables at points down the 26 Vidal, Harrington and Fisher
- 46. food chain. It then identified low-cost strategies to reduce the risk, which tests by farmers and consumers showed to work. The project’s success influenced policy in Ghana to allow the use of urban wastewater (PN38) (Abaidoo et al., 2009; CPWF, 2012). Excess Excess water fits our definition of “not being the right amount”. It can vary from the brief aftermath of a rainstorm, which may damage crops sensitive to waterlogging, to massive flooding. Floods can result in: • ruinous damage to farms and cities; • improved income opportunities through wet- or dry-season agriculture, capture fishing or aquaculture; or • both simultaneously, although costs and benefits may accrue to different groups. A recent example of a flood disaster is that of the Chao Phrya Basin, central Thailand in 2011, caused by a combination of bad decisions on reservoir man- agement, copious late-season precipitation, and the inadequacy of the Bangkok flood-control system (Komori et al., 2012). There is danger of similar, costly, man-made floods along a cascade of dams in the Mekong Basin if the dams are full, late-season rainfall is high, and the dam operators do not communicate and coordinate water release from the dams (MK3) (Ward et al., 2012). We found in the Ganges Basin Focal Project that, Floods are a common feature . . . Flooding in rivers is mainly caused by inadequate capacity within the banks of the rivers to contain higher flows [that may be generated by exceptional rainfall or exceptional runoff resulting from land-use imposed changes in soil structure and thus water infiltration], riverbanks erosion and silting of riverbeds, landslides leading to obstruction of flow and change in the river course, poor natural drainage due to flat floodplains and occurrence of coastal cyclones, and intense rainfall events . . . Among the South Asian countries, India is more vulnerable to flood events, followed by Bangladesh. (PN60) (Mishra, 1997; Sharma, 2010) The Limpopo Basin suffers severe floods, interspersed with droughts. Although the basin is on average water scarce, there are peak-rainfall periods during which large amounts of runoff flow from the basin quickly as floods. The flood flows are not captured and are not available to agriculture (PN62) (Sullivan and Sibanda, 2012). Not all floods are harmful. Smallholder communities use seasonally flooded lands in Bangladesh for aquaculture to generate substantial income (PN35) (Sheriff, 2010). The wet-season flood and dry-season ebb of the Mekong Water availability, productivity and poverty 27
- 47. provides a productive capture fishery used by smallholders in the Tonle Sap in Cambodia (PN58, MK5 and MK2) (Kirby et al., 2010b; Mainuddin et al., 2011; Kura, 2012; Pukinskis and Geheb, 2012). The lower Mekong Basin yields about 4.5 mt/yr of fish and aquatic products worth US$3.9–7 billion/yr, with fisheries contributing to the diversification of livelihoods of the poor. The annual flood–ebb pulse opens up new feeding areas for fish to feed and triggers migration in some fish species (Pukinskis and Geheb, 2012). The Yellow River and the Niger have similar seasonally flooded fisheries (PN69) (Kam, 2010; Béné et al., 2009). Seasonal flooding of the Nile was important to cropping in Egypt, especially in the delta, but no longer occurs downstream of the Aswan high dam. Access Our definition of farm-level water scarcity includes who has access to the water resources. Because of conflicting interests among water users, it can be difficult to define who the right people are. Conflict over access to water can occur at the community, landscape, catchment, basin and regional levels, or even internationally. Here we only give a few examples as Chapter 6 on the contributions of research to understanding and strengthening institutions for equitable water resource management discusses water access at greater length. In the Limpopo Basin, access to water resources is inequitable with larger commercial farmers having preference over smallholders (PN62) (Alemaw et al., 2010). In the Mekong Basin, conflicts in the use of water to generate hydropower to the detriment of agriculture and fisheries have been researched in both CPWF phases (PN67, MK5, MK4, MK3 and others) (Dore et al., 2010; Joffre et al, 2011; Pukinskis and Geheb, 2012; Sajor, 2012). The challenge has been to find ways to protect farming, fisheries and ecosystem services even as planning, construction and operation of hydropower dams go ahead (Ziv et al., 2012). Improvements in productivity can sometimes intrude on access to water. Improved community-managed aquaculture during the wet season in season- ally flooded areas in Bangladesh precedes a dry-season crop. As the economic success of aquaculture became apparent, private investors began to compete to lease the fishing rights, threatening community access (PN35) (Sheriff et al., 2010; Ratner et al., 2012). Water access is linked to seasonality and water quality, often in complex ways. In coastal Vietnam, some farmers wanted freshwater to grow rice while others wanted saline water to grow shrimp at different times during the year and at different places. Researchers analyzed land- and water-use options using modeling. They defined suitable areas both for rice and for shrimp, which effectively resolved conflict and fostered intensification and diversification of the farming system (PN10) (Tuong and Hoanh, 2009). Self-supply and informal arrangements flexible enough to cope with the harsh climate governed traditional access to rural water in South Africa (and 28 Vidal, Harrington and Fisher
- 48. elsewhere). When legislation established formal water rights, the “reform basically [dispossessed poor rural communities] from their current and future claims to water” (PN66) (van Koppen, 2010). Water access often has an upstream–downstream dimension. For example, the proliferation of upstream small reservoirs in the Volta might threaten flows into the Akosombo dam and the hydropower it generates. Project PN46 found that “the collective downstream impact of the present number of small reservoirs is minimal”; that “[even] after quadrupling the present number of small reservoirs, their combined impact will be less than 1% of the total water balance.” It concluded that the “reservoirs do not deprive downstream users of the water for hydropower, agriculture, and environmental flows” (Liebe, 2002; Andreini et al., 2010). Similarly, in Ecuador, Quito’s water company planned to increase with- drawals from the Quijos River to meet increased urban demand. This raised concerns about lessened downstream flow and its consequences on economic activity. Project Andes 2 showed that the middle part of the watershed receives enough rainfall to replace most of the upstream withdrawals so that down- stream activities would be little affected. Stakeholders will use this information to negotiate appropriate levels of compensation (Quintero et al., 2012). Finally, there has been a long-standing debate between upstream and downstream countries in the Nile, over the effects downstream of upstream development of hydropower and large-scale irrigation. A recent book based on a CPWF project concluded that “there is enough water to supply dams and irrigate parched agriculture in all ten [Nile Basin] countries—but policymakers risk turning the poor into water ‘have-nots’ if they do not enact inclusive water management policies” (Awulachew et al., 2012a). WP revisited The CPWF proposal in 2001 defined low WP as an important problem (see Chapter 1 for an overview of the creation of the CPWF and the activities of the international water community). Indeed the objectives of many projects approved in Phase 1 of the CPWF had as their primary objective to raise WP of systems and sought to understand the reasons why WP was so low. Here we revisit the concept of WP by examining how well the emphasis on it allowed the CPWF to address its main objectives, that is, what did we learn about using WP as an important indicator performance? The first question is why WP and not some other measure such as land, labor, capital or total factor productivity? While authors had noticed that WP was not necessarily a factor that farmers could easily accept (Luquet et al., 2005), at the time the CPWF was conceived, it was in response to a widely held view that a global water crisis was looming. This was supported by the address of the UN Secretary-General to the General Assembly in 2001 calling for “more crop per drop.” Global population was forecast to increase by 50 percent by 2050 from the 6 billion reached in October 1999, and it was Water availability, productivity and poverty 29
- 49. thought that there would not be enough water to grow the food that would be needed. It was therefore reasonable to focus on WP as one way to address the crisis, and incorporate it as a main objective of the CPWF. The CPWF proposal emphasized the importance of WP (CPWF Consortium, 2002), which was still regarded as being of great importance for the rest of the decade (Rijsberman, 2004; Molden, 2007). Initial concept “Productivity of water is related to the value or benefit derived from the use of water” (Molden, 1997; Molden et al., 2003). Starting from the point of view of irrigation, water is classified on its utility, as to whether it is depleted (removed from the system as by crop ET, flows to a sink, or becomes so polluted as to be unusable), or whether it is outflow, which may or may not be committed to some downstream use. The basin WP estimate will include the WP of the downstream use if the outflow is used consumptively. In the context of irrigation, WP is straightforward with the denominator as depleted water and the numerator being either the yield of the crop, the saleable value of that yield, or some other relevant measure such as energy content (yield of calories). Authors have broadened the WP concept to include rainfed agriculture, grazing animals and aquaculture. Each of these presents difficulties in deciding what to use as the denominator. For example, of the rain that falls on a crop, some evaporates in situ, a fraction enters the soil and a variable part is runoff, which is likely to become blue water. The fraction that enters the soil is either taken up by plants and transpired, or percolates to depth where it may replenish an aquifer, which may contribute to the blue water of stream flow. Given these possibilities, what fraction of the precipitation should we use as the denomi- nator in calculating WP? The answer depends on the scale of comparison, often using annual or seasonal rainfall or some estimate of ET and ignoring runoff and downstream use. Because the conditions in different basins are rarely the same, it is usually not valid to compare WP between basins, although it can be used with caution to indicate relative efficiency of water use. The same arguments apply to intra-basin comparisons. Different measures of WP All terrestrial water originates from precipitation; even that stored in aquifers came from historic precipitation. Hydrologists are principally concerned with the utilization of blue water in managed irrigation systems. In rainfed systems, the denominator should be ET, but this is difficult to estimate even at the level of an experimental plot. It becomes more problematic as the scale increases to the field, or the farm, but at the broader landscape or basin level, it can be estimated by remote sensing (Vidal and Perrier, 1990; Ahmad et al, 2008). At the level of a basin, authors typically use precipitation, either annual, or for 30 Vidal, Harrington and Fisher
- 50. the growing season where there is more than one crop a year. In these cases, WP needs to be interpreted with caution (Ogilvie et al., 2012). Where water does not limit crop production, as in southern Nigeria, for example, factors other than water, such as soil fertility, control WP. The paradox is that apparent WP is higher in rainfed systems with lower precipi- tation than it is in areas where rainfall is adequate or more abundant. The paradox arises because the divisor is received precipitation. Crops in wetter areas in general use a lower proportion of the rainfall than those in drier areas. Moreover, if farmers use risk-avoidance strategies, such as low sowing densities, that give some yield in bad years but cannot give high yields in good years, average long-term WP will be low (Terrasson et al., 2009). For this reason WP of crops in rainfed systems, especially those where only a small fraction of rainfall goes through agriculture, also needs to be interpreted with caution. WP based on crop yield in irrigated systems is straightforward, although we need to be careful when we consider higher-value crops, where the higher value may not offset lower yields. Then there is the converse example where low-yielding crops, such as cotton in the Gezira, are grown upstream, potentially limiting the water available for more valuable, higher-yielding crops downstream in the Nile valley and its delta. Water productivity of herbivores is difficult because they consume only a small fraction of the available herbage (Peden et al., 2009). In well-managed tropical pastures, utilization by cattle is rarely more than 30 percent. It is at least tenfold less in extensively grazed rangeland. In estimating WP in aqua- culture, losses to evaporation and infiltration of the ponds are the denominator, unless the outflow is too contaminated to use downstream. WP in capture fisheries is debatable, because water lost to evaporation or infiltration would be lost anyway, but if preservation of the fishery resource prevents another use such as hydropower, there is a cost in foregone development. Utility of WP As the CPWF progressed, and with more analysis, the objective remained to improve WP, “more crop per drop,” but the limitations of the approach as an end in itself became clearer. It is relatively straightforward to measure crop WP with a combination of satellite data “to estimate both crop production and consumptive water use” (Cai et al., 2012). It is more difficult to estimate WP of livestock systems and capture fisheries, both of which need “development of concepts and methodology” (Cai et al., 2012). Limitations of WP Because of the complexity in measuring it and interpreting the data, we conclude that WP has limited usefulness as an objective. Nevertheless, WP is a useful diagnostic tool, which with other data can identify bright spots of high productivity and hot spots of low productivity per unit of water depleted in Water availability, productivity and poverty 31
- 51. irrigation systems. It is less useful to identify inefficient rainfed cropping systems, except in the broadest sense; for example, rainfed agriculture in West Africa clearly performs poorly. It is more useful to analyze the reasons why it performs so poorly. WP still remains an important identifier of efficiency in irrigated systems; for instance the WP of the huge Gezira irrigation area in Sudan was low as a result of central control, which prescribed crop management and required that the tenant farmers plant 20 percent of their land to cotton. Recent administrative changes allow some crop diversification and WP is improving, but remains low (Awulachew et al., 2012a; 2012b). In contrast, there are bright spots in the Indian Punjab in the Ganges Basin, where WP is close to its practical maxi- mum (Sharma et al., 2012). When we apply the concept of WP to rainfed systems, the results are trivial because only a small proportion of the precipita- tion is used by agriculture. There are wide variations in WP in rainfed systems within basins, for example, the Volta (Lemoalle and de Condappa, 2012), the Karkheh (Ahmad and Giordano, 2012) and the Limpopo (Sullivan and Sibanda, 2012). Each basin needs careful analysis to identify the causal factors, which differ between basins, so that it is impossible to make blanket recommendations. Focus on WP can (and did) overshadow other, equally important indicators of produc- tivity and livelihoods, which partly explains why the CPWF focus broadened from water scarcity to include development challenges. Final observations Authors often write that “drought tolerance” can improve WP, although the term is rarely explained. Certainly crops or crop varieties that are able to survive short droughts without too much damage are likely to give yields that are more reliable in droughty environments than those that cannot. However, gains in WP through new germplasm are most likely when plants are capable of yielding well under favorable climatic conditions as well as being tolerant of drought and other abiotic stresses. Reliable yields under dry conditions are only half of the story. Much of the improvements in yield (and hence WP) last century were achieved by plant breeders who changed harvest index, that is, the proportion of the commercial product (often grain) in the total yield (Gifford and Evans, 1981; Bennett, 2003). They achieved this by breeding short-strawed rice and wheat, and hybrid sorghum and maize with shorter stature and reduced root systems, which were possible on good soils with precision fertilizer placement. In rainfed agriculture in many of the CPWF’s target basins, smallholder farmers typically grow rustic varieties with low harvest indices. High-yielding plant varieties and fertilizer can increase WP, but the institutional and sociological problems that constrain farmers from adopting them are the key issues. There is also the issue of varietal adaptation: modern varieties do sometimes perform poorly when grown under stresses to which they lack adaptation. Nonetheless, 32 Vidal, Harrington and Fisher
- 52. as a general rule increased WP tends to accompany increased land productivity, and both require plant types that can yield well under favorable conditions as well as tolerating unfavorable conditions. As understanding accumulated during the currency of the CPWF, it recog- nized that factors other than WP itself were more important to livelihoods and food security, especially of the poor. It concluded that WP was a useful indicator for some purposes, but was not the critically important factor that it was assumed to be when the CPWF was initiated. The CPWF broadened its agenda to focus on development challenges in basins related to water. It came to see that addressing water scarcity was a means of helping achieve broader development goals, including reducing poverty, rather than an end in itself. The change is an example of how learning helped the CPWF to grow and evolve, adjusting its priorities and research questions as its understanding of the issues improved. Water, poverty and water poverty Kemp-Benedict et al. (2012) summarized the variables used to estimate poverty in the BFP’s ten basins. Water scarcity was not strongly correlated with poverty, which highlights the danger of assuming that there is a simple association between water availability and poverty. Other variables that do explain variations in poverty are those responsible for basic livelihood support, including access to water, protection from hazards such as drought and flood, and the ability to produce increased amounts of high-quality food. Evidence suggests that poverty is more dependent on the stage of develop- ment of the basin’s economy (Cook et al., 2012). At their least-developed phase, populations in basins are low in proportion to the resources available. In this case, poverty is more strongly related to the absence of basic services such as safe water, sanitation, health care, education, finance, markets or farming inputs. Pressure on resources increases as a basin’s economy develops during the transitional phase, so that both scarcity of and access to water become important. As economies move toward industrialization, these deficiencies are corrected, but some sectors of the populations are left behind in relative poverty, showing that the benefits from growth do not trickle down to the whole population, especially to the most vulnerable. This pattern of economic evolution parallels a general movement from informal to formal governance structures. This makes formal policy interventions less effective for less- developed basins. Similarly, as incomes increase there are more livelihood opportunities, which blurs the relationship between water and poverty. In a nutshell, when economies develop, we see a weakening of the link between the provision of natural resources and livelihood outcomes. Socio-economic development changes the manner in which food and water systems utilize ecosystem services (freshwater, soil formation, nutrient cycling) within geographically diverse river basins. We order these with respect to development along a single trajectory (Byerlee et al., 2009). This trajectory is Water availability, productivity and poverty 33
- 53. defined by the level of rural poverty or of urbanization and is strongly related to the contribution of agriculture to GDP growth (Figure 2.2). This concept classifies economies as they move from conditions that are described as agricultural, through transitional to industrial. Here we organize observations from ten river basins to focus on the characteristics of developing food and water systems, and of the ecosystem services that support them. Agricultural economies Agricultural economies are characterized by a high dependence on agriculture for GDP and widespread rural poverty. These conditions predominate in the African basins (Niger, Volta and Nile, except Egypt) but also occur in parts of other basins, such as in upper parts of the Mekong and Yellow rivers. Many of these basins include semi-arid areas, but analyses by Awulachew et al. (2010), Lemoalle and de Condappa (2012) and Ogilvie et al. (2012) indicate that the relationship of poverty with water availability is weak. Other factors are more important, including the vulnerability to drought and flood, and lack of access to water and other benefits such as roads, safe water and sanitation. Despite the influence of drought, water resources are hardly developed: irrigation consumes less than 1 percent of water resources and covers less than 1 percent of the landscape in the Niger and the Volta Basins (Lemoalle and de Condappa, 2012; Ogilvie et al., 2012). Even in the Nile, irrigation accounts for less than 4 percent of the water balance, virtually all restricted to Egypt and 34 Vidal, Harrington and Fisher Rural poverty Andes São Francisco Karkheh Yellow Mekong Limpopo IGBs Nile Volta Niger Industrial Transitional Agricultural Agricultural as % of GDP Figure 2.2 CPWF basins ordered according to rural poverty and agricultural contri- bution to gross domestic product (GDP). Source: Cook et al., 2012.
- 54. the Gezira in Sudan (Awulachew et al., 2010; Kirby et al., 2010c). Rainfed agriculture dominates and is generally of very low productivity. Rural liveli- hoods depend on a diversity of low-intensity activities that reduce risk. Poverty is widespread but absolute numbers are low because of low population densities. Birth and mortality rates are very high. Poverty is associated with lack of access to resources and vulnerability to hazards of drought, flood, malaria, and other—often water-borne—diseases. Transitional economies Transitional economies are identified by a reduced dependence on agriculture for GDP growth and a coincident reduction in levels of rural poverty, even though in some basins, such as the Ganges and Yellow, absolute numbers below the poverty line remain very large, for example, more than 220 million in the Ganges (Sharma et al., 2010). In these basins, vast numbers of farmers are supported by irrigation. In some areas (e.g. the Indian Punjab or Shandong province in the Yellow River) this is extremely productive and has a clear impact in reducing rural poverty and on national food security and economic activity. The Yellow River basin produces 14 percent of China’s grain and about 14 percent of GDP while consuming only about 2 percent of the nation’s water (Ringler et al., 2012). Irrigation has a clear impact on poverty alleviation, and reduces major sources of vulnerability. Provision of basic necessities that accompany the development of agricultural systems reduces mortality, and most transitional economies show a substantial decline in fertility. As economies develop further, the competition for water resources for urban and industrial supply intensifies. In the Ganges, Indus, Karkheh and Yellow rivers, as well as the Nile delta, this is a cause of major tension, especially if irrigated agriculture is locked into relatively low-value production of commodities. Rainfed agricultural productivity also increases in response to demand, but generally value-adding remains low. During this phase, regulating ecosystem services suffer widespread loss since institutions aimed at preserving ecosystem resilience are rudimentary or powerless, while those supporting resource exploitation are very powerful. By the end of this phase, aquatic ecosystems will be substantially modified, as seen in the Mekong, Ganges, Niger, São Francisco and Karkheh Basins. In the Yellow River, capture fisheries have been eliminated. Elsewhere they are likely to be severely reduced or replaced by aquaculture. Extensive livestock systems will have been replaced in part by more-intensive production. In summary, this phase is characterized by a major expansion in productivity but also widespread reduction in the range of ecosystem services. The industrial classification The industrial classification applies to basins in which agriculture contributes 5 percent on average to GDP growth and poverty is mostly urban (World Water availability, productivity and poverty 35
- 55. Another Random Document on Scribd Without Any Related Topics
- 59. The Project Gutenberg eBook of Bach
- 60. This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. Title: Bach Author: C. F. Abdy Williams Release date: September 5, 2013 [eBook #43650] Most recently updated: October 23, 2024 Language: English Credits: E-text prepared by Henry Flower and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by Internet Archive/American Libraries (http://archive.org/details/americana) *** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BACH ***
- 61. The Project Gutenberg eBook, Bach, by Charles Francis Abdy Williams Note: Images of the original pages are available through Internet Archive/American Libraries. See http://archive.org/details/bach00will Some characters for musical symbols, such as natural, sharp, and flat, might not display in this UTF-8 html version. If so, the reader should consult the iso-8859-1 (Latin-1) text file 43650-8.txt (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/43650/43650-8.txt) or 43650.zip (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/43650/43650- 8.zip) The Master Musicians Edited by FREDERICK J. CROWEST.
- 63. The Master Musicians Edited by Frederick J. Crowest LIST OF VOLUMES. BACH. By C. F. Abdy Williams. [Fourth Edition. BEETHOVEN. By F. J. Crowest. [Eighth Edition. BRAHMS. By J. Lawrence Erb. [Second Edition. CHOPIN. By J. Cuthbert Hadden. [Fourth Edition. HANDEL. By C. F. Abdy Williams. [Third Edition. HAYDN. By J. Cuthbert Hadden. [Second Edition. MENDELSSOHN. By Stephen S. Stratton. [Fifth Edition. MOZART. By E. J. Breakspeare. [Third Edition. SCHUBERT. By E. Duncan. [Second Edition. SCHUMANN By Annie W. Patterson.
- 64. [Second Edition. TCHAIKOVSKY. By Edwin Evans. [Second Edition. WAGNER. By C. A. Lidgey. [Fourth Edition. All rights reserved
- 65. Published with the permission of the proprietors of the original engraving Breitkopf and Härtel in Leipsic. Joh. Seb. Bach.
- 66. Bach By C. F. Abdy Williams M.A. Cantab.; Mus. Bac., Oxon. et Cantab. With Illustrations and Portraits London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. 1921
- 67. First Published 1900 Reprinted 1903, 1906, 1921
- 68. Preface The position of Johann Sebastian Bach as one of a numerous family of musicians is unique. Of no other composer can it be said that his forefathers, contemporary relations, and descendants were all musicians, and not only musicians, but holders of very important offices as such. All his biographers have therefore given some account of his family antecedents before proceeding to the history of his life; and I have found myself obliged to follow the same course. In other respects I have adopted the plan made use of by the older biographers, of keeping the account of his life distinct from that of his compositions. Every biography is necessarily based on that written by his two sons, four years after his death, published by Mizler, and the one published in 1802 by Forkel, who was intimate with the sons. Hilgenfeldt’s account follows these, and in later years further information has been acquired from the searches into archives, and other ancient documents, by C. H. Bitter and Philipp Spitta. Any details concerning the life and works of this remarkable man are interesting; and it is probable that researches will be continued for some time to come. Thus, last year (1898) a “celebration” took place at Ohrdruf in memory of Bach’s school career there; and Dr Friedrich Thomas took the opportunity of publishing some details of the Bach family which had escaped Spitta. The name of Bach is reverenced by Thuringian organists, and I this year had interesting conversations with his successors at Arnstadt and Mühlhausen, Herr Kellermann and Herr Möller. But the chief music-seller at Arnstadt told me that “Bach’s music is out of date; no one has now any interest in such old-fashioned compositions.” The two recent important accounts of Bach’s life are those of C. H. Bitter, 1865, 2 vols.; second edition 1880, 4 vols.; and Philipp Spitta,
- 69. 2 vols, a translation of which by Mrs Clara Bell and Mr Fuller- Maitland was published by Messrs Novello in 1884. With regard to the last, I have to thank Messrs Novello for kindly allowing me the use of the book at a time when it was out of print. I understand that a second edition has since been published. References to Spitta apply to the first edition of the translation; all others to the original German. C. F. ABDY WILLIAMS. Bradfield, December 1899.
- 70. Contents PAGE PREFACE v CHAPTER I The Bachs of Thuringia—Veit Bach, the ancestor of John Sebastian—His sons and descendants—A breach of promise of marriage—J. Christoph Bach of Arnstadt—His cantata “Es erhob sich ein Streit”—John Michael Bach of Gehren—His character—His compositions—J. Christoph Bach of Ohrdruf and his descendants—The sons of John Sebastian Bach—The clan feeling—A sixteenth century quodlibet 1 CHAPTER II Bach’s attitude towards art—His birth—The death of his father —Moves to Ohrdruf—Performances in the Ohrdruf choir— Removal to Lüneburg—His industry as a boy—Expeditions to Hamburg and Celle—Joins the Court Orchestra at Weimar—Is appointed organist at Arnstadt—Troubles with the church authorities—Successfully competes for a new post 20 CHAPTER III Bach’s salary—He borrows a cart from the Consistory for his furniture—The agreement is made verbally—Bach’s first marriage—His duties at St Blasius—The festival compositions— Repairs to the organ—Difficulties with the Pietists—He resigns his post—Is appointed chamber-musician at Weimar—His duties there—His relations with Walther—Studies instrumental music—His journeys—His competition with Marchand 34 CHAPTER IV Bach becomes capellmeister to the Duke of Cöthen—His Weimar pupils—His new duties—Death of his wife—Journey to Hamburg—He competes for an organistship there—The post is 48
- 71. sold—Disgust of Matheson at the transaction—Bach endeavours to meet Handel—His second marriage—Is obliged to leave Cöthen CHAPTER V The position and duties of the Cantor of St Thomas’ School at Leipsic—The condition of the school in 1722—Kuhnau’s death— Competition and election of two cantors in succession—Bach offers himself—Is elected—Difficulties with the authorities—The Council make irritating regulations—Bach endeavours to leave Leipsic—Election of a new Rector, and temporary disappearance of Bach’s troubles 59 CHAPTER VI Home life at Leipsic—Personal details—Music in the family circle—Bach’s intolerance of incompetence—He throws his wig at Görner—His preference for the clavichord—Bach as an examiner—His sons and pupils—His general knowledge of musical matters—Visit from Hurlebusch—His able management of money—His books and instruments—The Dresden Opera—A new Rector, and further troubles—Bach complains to the Council 77 CHAPTER VII Bach obtains a title from the Saxon Court—Plays the organ at Dresden—Attacked by Scheibe—Mizler founds a musical society —Further disputes—Bach’s successor chosen during his lifetime —Visit to Frederick the Great—Bach’s sight fails—Final illness and death—Notice in the Leipsic Chronicle—The Council—Fate of the widow and daughter 84 CHAPTER VIII The Cantatas and the Chorale 91 CHAPTER IX The Matthew Passion and B Minor Mass 114 CHAPTER X The Wohltemperirte Clavier—The Art of Fugue—The Musical Offering—Bach as a teacher—Bach’s works in England 131
- 72. CHAPTER XI The Christmas Oratorio—The Magnificat—The lost works— Instrumental works—Bach’s playing—The Manieren or grace notes 144 CHAPTER XII Innovations in the fingering and use of keyed and stringed instruments 152 CHAPTER XIII The organs in Leipsic churches—Bach’s method of accompanying—The pitch of organs 160 CHAPTER XIV Bach as “Familien-Vater”—As a choirmaster—His eagerness to learn all that was new and of value in music—He finds time to conduct public concerts—His self-criticism—Bach was never a poor man—His reputation was gained by his playing rather than compositions—Portraits—Public monuments 170 CATALOGUE OF VOCAL WORKS 177 CATALOGUE OF INSTRUMENTAL WORKS 191 BIBLIOGRAPHY 202 GLOSSARY 205
- 73. List of Illustrations Portrait of Bach, by Hausmann (Photogravure) Frontispiece PAGE The House at Eisenach in which J. S. Bach was Born To face 21 St Michael’s Church, Ohrdruf, with the Lyceum, now the Burgerschule „ 22 The Keyboard of Bach’s Arnstadt Organ, now in the Rathhaus „ 27 The Thomasschule at Leipsic „ 59 St Thomas’ Church, Leipsic: the Thomasschule is on the right „ 68 St John’s Church, Leipsic „ 89 Facsimile of Music „ 132 The Performance of a Church Cantata, from Walther’s Lexicon, Leipsic, 1732 „ 204
- 74. The Founder of the Family Chapter I The Bachs of Thuringia—Veit Bach, the ancestor of John Sebastian—His sons and descendants—A breach of promise of marriage—J. Christoph Bach of Arnstadt—His cantata “Es erhob sich ein Streit”—John Michael Bach of Gehren—His character—His compositions—Joh. Christoph Bach of Ohrdruf, and his descendants—The sons of Joh. Sebastian Bach—The clan feeling—A sixteenth century quodlibet. John Sebastian Bach came of a large family of Thuringian musicians, whose members have been traced back to the first decade of the sixteenth century. The name frequently occurs in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries among the inhabitants of Arnstadt, Erfurt, Gräfenrode, Molsdorf, Rockhausen and other villages; and that it has not yet disappeared is shown by the fact that the Erfurt Directory for 1899 contains the addresses of no less than thirteen Bachs. The subject of this biography considered that the founder of his family was Veit Bach, who had settled at Presburg in Hungary as a baker and miller. Owing to religious persecution, however, he sold what he could of his property, returned to Thuringia with the proceeds, and settled at the village of Wechmar near Gotha. Here he recommenced his trade, and occupied his leisure with the cithara, or cither, even taking it to the mill, where he played it to the rhythmical tapping of the wheels. “He must,” says John Sebastian, “at any rate have learned time in this way.” The date of his birth is unknown. He died 1619 and left two sons, Hans and Johannes. All his descendants, to the number of sixty, were, with only two or three exceptions, musicians. Hans Bach, the great-grandfather of John Sebastian, was a weaver by trade as well as a musician. His father, Veit, sent him to
- 75. Genealogy Gotha to study music under a relative, Caspar Bach, the “town piper.” In his capacity of “Spielmann” or “Player” Hans travelled about to different towns in Thuringia to take part in the “town music” with his violin, and as he was also very humorous he became popular, and twice had his portrait painted. He died of the plague in 1626. He seems to have left several children, of whom three were musicians— Johann, 1604-1673. Christoph, 1613-1661. Heinrich, 1615-1692. The following genealogy will enable the reader to distinguish the various members of this remarkable family. The names of sons only are given, as the daughters do not appear to have distinguished themselves. The list of nearly sixty names is not, however, by any means exhaustive. Spitta gives many more, and there were of course a great number whose names are entirely lost, for a peasant and artisan family is not usually careful to keep its genealogical tables in order. THE BACH FAMILY. (From Hilgenfeldt.) 1. Veit Bach, 155—-161—, the Founder. Sons of Veit. 2. Hans d. 1626. 3. Johannes ... Sons of Hans. 4. Johann, 1604-1673. 5. Christoph, 1613-1661. 6. Heinrich, 1615-1692. Sons of Johann (No. 4).
- 76. 7. Johann Christian, 1640-1682. 8. Johann Ægidius, 1645- 1717. 9. Johann Nicolaus, 1653-1682. Sons of Christoph (No. 5). 10. Georg Christoph, 1642-1697. 11. Joh. Ambrosius, 1645- 1695. 12. Joh. Christoph, 1645-1694. Sons of Heinrich (No. 6). 13. Joh. Christoph, 1643-1703. 14. Joh. Michael ... 15. Joh. Günther ... Sons of Joh. Christian (No. 7). 16. Joh. Jacob, 1668-1692. 17. Joh. Christoph, 1673-1727. Sons of Joh. Ægidius (No. 8). 18. Joh. Bernhard, 1676-1749. 19. Joh. Christoph, 1685-174 —. Son of Joh. Nicolaus (No. 9). 20. Joh. Nicolaus, 1682-174—. Sons of Georg Christoph (No. 10). 21. Joh. Valentin, 1669-1720. 22. Joh. Christian, 1679- 1707. 23. Joh. Georg, 16——-17——. Sons of Joh. Ambrosius (No. 11). 24. Joh. Christoph, 1671-1721. 25. Joh. Jacob, 1682-171—. 26. JOHANN SEBASTIAN, 1685-1750. Sons of Joh. Christoph (No. 12). 27. Joh. Ernst, 1683-173—. 28. Joh. Christoph, 1689-1736. Sons of Joh. Christoph (No. 13). 29. Joh. Nicolaus, 1669-1740. 30. Joh. Christoph ... 31. Joh. Friedrich ... 32. Joh. Michael ...
- 77. Music and War Children of Joh. Michael (No. 14). 33. Joh. Ludwig 1677-1730. Maria Barbara (first wife of Joh. Sebastian). Sons of Joh Christoph (No. 17). 34. Joh. Samuel, 1694 ... 35. Joh. Christian, 1696 ... 36. Joh. Günther ... Son of Joh. Bernhard (No. 18). 37. Joh. Ernst, 1722-1781. Sons of Joh. Christoph (No. 19). 38. Joh. Friedrich, 1703 ... 39. Joh. August, 17 ... 40. Wilhelm Hieronymus, 17 ... Sons of Joh. Valentin (No. 21). 41. Joh. Lorenz, 1695 ... 42. Joh. Elias, 1705-1755. 43. Joh. Heinrich ... Sons of Joh. Christoph (No. 24). 44. Joh. Friedrich, 1695 ... 45. Joh. Bernhard, 1700-1742(?) 46. Joh. Christoph, 1702-1756. 47. Joh. Heinrich, 1707 ... 48. Joh. Andreas, 1713-175—. Sons of Joh. Sebastian (No. 26). 49. Wilhelm Friedemann, 1710-1784. 50. Joh. Christoph and a twin brother, 1713 + same year. 51. Carl Philipp Emanuel, 1714-1788. 52. Joh. Gottfried Bernhard, 1715-1739. 53. Leopold August, 1718-1719. 54. Gottfried Heinrich, 1724- 1736(?). 55. Christian Gottlieb, 1725-1728. 56. Ernst Andreas, 1727 + same year. 57. Joh. Christoph Friedrich, 1732-1795. 58. Joh. Aug. Abraham, 1733-1734. 59. Joh. Christian, 1735-1782. 60. (8 daughters). Johann (No. 4) was born at Wechmar. He was apprenticed to the town piper of Suhl and became
- 78. The Thirty Years’ War organist at Schweinfurt. In 1635 he married the daughter of his former master, and became director of the town musicians at Erfurt. During the time he was there the city was suffering terribly from the effects of pillage and quartering of soldiers, poverty and disorder; yet Johann Bach managed to found a family which multiplied rapidly, and soon filled all the town musicians’ places, so that for some century and a half, and long after no more of the family lived in the place, the town musicians were known as “The Bachs.” He married twice, his second wife being Hedwig Lämmerhirt. He was organist of the Prediger Kirche at Erfurt, and was called by his contemporaries an “illustrious musician,” and he in a kind of way forestalled John Sebastian in being skilful in both sacred and secular, vocal and instrumental music. The three towns of Erfurt, Arnstadt and Eisenach, now became the chief centres of the Bach family. Christoph Bach (No. 5), the grandfather of Sebastian, born at Wechmar, entered the service of the Grand Duke of Weimar as lackey and musician. In 1642 he was a member of the Guild of Musicians at Erfurt, and in 1654 was Court and Town musician at Arnstadt, where his younger brother Heinrich was living. He does not seem ever to have been an organist, but a “Kunstpfeifer.” During the Thirty Years’ War the town pipers and musicians had sunk very low in public estimation, and about the middle of the seventeenth century a strong effort was made by their various guilds to raise themselves to a more dignified position, in keeping with the worthiness of their calling. To this end they combined in drawing up a code of statutes, which was ratified by the Emperor Ferdinand III.;[1] the Bach family seem, however, to have kept aloof from this combination, and there is no doubt that they were better educated than the majority of town musicians. Heinrich (No. 6) was appointed organist of the Franciscan Church at Arnstadt in 1641, which office he filled for fifty years. He suffered
- 79. J. Ambrosius Bach severely from the war, which disorganised everything, and his salary, like that of every one else, got into arrears. Moreover there were war taxes to be paid, and the soldiery seem to have robbed and plundered at their will. He petitioned the Count of Schwarzburg for his salary as he “knew not where to find bread for himself and his young family.” The Count ordered his salary to be paid, but the keeper of the funds immediately resigned. It is supposed that Bach managed to eke out his existence by cultivating a small plot of land which it was usual to give to organists in Thuringia as part of their salary. He kept to his pious and simple life all through the horrors of the times, (which reduced the mass of the people to a state of coarseness and immorality), and brought up six children, three of whom became famous musicians in their day. In the funeral sermon preached by Olearius, he is mentioned as the composer of chorales, motets, concertos, fugues and preludes, but few of his compositions have been preserved. Johann Christian Bach (No. 7), a viola player and music director, belonged to Erfurt, whence he went to Eisenach, being the first of his family to settle there. Johann Ægidius Bach (No. 8) became director of the town musicians and alto-viola player at Erfurt in succession to his brother Joh. Christian (No. 7) and his cousin Ambrosius (No. 11) when they moved to Eisenach. Like several others of his clan he married the sister of his elder brother’s wife, and soon after became organist of St Michael’s Church, which post he held to an advanced age. John Nicolaus Bach (No. 9) was a town musician and good performer on the viola-da-gamba. He died of the plague in 1682. Georg Christoph Bach (No. 10), born at Erfurt, was an usher in a school at Heinrichs near Suhl, but became cantor, first at Themar, near Meiningen, and afterwards at Schweinfurt, where he died. He was a composer, but his works are all lost. Johann Ambrosius Bach (No. 11), the father of John Sebastian, was twin brother to Johann
- 80. Christoph (No. 12). The two brothers had a most remarkable likeness, not only externally but in character and temperament. They were both violinists and played in exactly the same style; they thought and spoke alike, and their appearance was so similar that it is said their own wives could not distinguish them apart. They suffered from the same illnesses, and died within a few months of one another. Ambrosius first settled at Erfurt as an alto-viola[2] player, and was elected a member of the Town Council. Here he married Elizabeth Lämmerhirt, the daughter of a furrier, and a relation of Hedwig the wife of Johann (No. 4). He now moved to Eisenach, and was succeeded at Erfurt by his cousin Ægidius (No. 8). He undertook the care of an idiot sister who died shortly afterwards, and for whom a funeral sermon was preached, in which the Bach brothers are referred to as being “gifted with good understanding, with art and skill, which make them respected and listened to in the churches, schools, and all the township, so that through them the Master’s work is praised.” Little is known of the life of Ambrosius beyond the fact that he is mentioned in the church register at Dornheim as “the celebrated town organist and musician of Eisenach.” Six children were born, the youngest being Johann Sebastian. Johann Christoph Bach (No. 12) was Court musician to Count Ludwig Günther at Arnstadt. The first thing we hear of him relates to a kind of action for breach of promise of marriage brought before the Consistory at Arnstadt by Anna Cunigunda Wiener, with whom he had “kept company” and exchanged rings. The Consistory (a spiritual court) decided that Bach must marry her, but, with the independence of character which was peculiar to his family, he refused and defied them—an unheard-of thing for a musician to do in those days—declaring that he “hated the Wienerin so that he could not bear the sight of her.”[3] The case lingered for two and a half years, and ended in his favour. He remained single for many years afterwards, marrying eventually a daughter of the churchwarden of Ohrdruf.
- 81. The orchestra at Arnstadt J. Christoph Bach A Church Cantata Quarrels between Gräser, the town musician, and Johann Christoph Bach led to the dismissal of all the Court musicians on account of the disunion which made it impossible for music to prosper. For a time, therefore, he had to make a meagre living by “piping before the doors,” but after the death of the Count his successor reappointed Bach “Court musician and town piper.” At this time Adam Drese was Capellmeister at Arnstadt, and there exist catalogues of the Court musicians which are of interest as showing the kind of musical establishment that prevailed at the petty courts in Germany. One of these catalogues gives the names of seven singers, four violinists, three viola players, a contrabassist, and the organist Heinrich Bach (No. 6). There were trumpeters, and extra singers from the school, who could also play stringed instruments, so that on occasion a very respectable string orchestra was available, consisting of twelve violins, three alto violas, three tenor violas, two bass viols, and a contrabasso. The violoncello does not seem to have been represented. Christoph Bach’s income in later life was sufficient not only to raise him above want, but to enable him to leave something to his family, on his death, in 1694, at the age of forty-eight. Johann Christoph Bach (No. 13) was born at Arnstadt, and studied under his father Heinrich (No. 6). He was appointed organist at Eisenach in 1665, which post he held till his death sixty years later. He and his brother Michael (No. 14) were born during the worst time of the disturbance produced by the war, yet such was the vigour of their race that, uninfluenced by the general degeneracy and misery, they both became celebrated composers, Michael leaning towards instrumental, and Christoph to vocal music. An important church work, describing the strife between Michael and the Devil, “Es erhob sich ein Streit,” is fully described with musical quotations by Spitta (vol. i. p. 45, &c.). For its performance it required two five part choirs, two violins, four violas, one bassoon, four trumpets, drums, double bass,
- 82. An organist’s income and organ. The cantata is preceded by a “sonata” for the instruments, without trumpets and drums, something in the form of the French overture. The work itself is modelled on those of Hammerschmidt, who, with Schütz, created a form which culminated in the Handel oratorio. Spitta says that it shows “power of invention and genius,” and that “it was impossible that so important a composition should fail to make an impression on many sincere artistic natures, in spite of the small amount of intelligent sympathy which was shown for Johann Christoph Bach, alike by his contemporaries and by posterity.” Sebastian Bach thought very highly of his uncle’s work, and performed it at Leipsic. Johann Christoph composed many chorale-vorspiele for the organ, of which forty-eight are preserved in a MS. formerly belonging to Spitta. The themes are worked out on the same lines as those of John Sebastian, but in a more elementary form. His vocal compositions are, however, much in advance of his instrumental works, and he seems certainly to have been the most important member of his family before his great nephew appeared. Johann Michael Bach (No. 14) was an accomplished organist. His character may be imagined from the account of his appointment to the organistship of Gehren near Arnstadt, when we are told that after his examination, the authorities thanked the Count for having sent them a peaceable, retiring, and skillful performer. He was also made parish clerk, and his income from the two posts amounted to 74 gülden, 18 cords of wood, 5 measures of corn, 9 measures of barley, 3½ barrels of beer, some land, and a house free of rent. Besides being a composer he made clavichords and violins. His youngest daughter became Sebastian Bach’s first wife. A cantata on “Ach! bleib bei uns, Herr Jesu Christ” by him is preserved in the Bach archives in the Royal Library at Berlin, “full of interesting details and ingenious ideas.”[4] It is scored for four voices, two violins, three violas, bassoon, and organ, and is preceded by a “sonata.” Twelve of his motets are preserved, but they are incoherent in structure, being
- 83. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com