58905 EWOrldBank Group Confronting a Changing Climate in Michoacan BV Richard Damanill David George Michael Peter Steen Jacobsen Diego Juan Rodriguez Ann Jeannette Glauber Verania Sanchez Ramos Contents Acknowle dgments ..... . ........................ 3 Disclaimer .. ...... 3 Exe cutive Summary ..... . ............................ ..... ....... ... ....... .. 5 The Future Climate . _________ ______ . 5 The Climate Risk Management Workshop ................................................... .......................................... 5 en Water ................... . Agriculture ............................................. . ........................................ 6 ..................... 6 .. Common Themes ........................................................................... The Way Forward ........................................... 1. Introduction ....... , ........................... . .......................................... 6 ................................................. 6 ... 9 ,.1 Background to the Report .. .. ........ .................... 9 1.2The Michoacim Approach to Climate Change Planning ...... .. ............................... 9 ~, 1.3The Risk Management Approach to Adaptation .. . .................................................................. ......... 11 ~ 2. Climat e and Context in Michoacan .... .... 15 2.1 Geography, Climate and Economy ............................... . ......... ................................. 15 2.2 Economy and Agriculture .......................................................................... . .. .............................................. 16 2.3 Climat e Change in Michoacan ......................................................................... ...................................... 18 3. Water, Agriculture and Climate Change . ........... .. ...................................... ......... ..... ... 23 3.1 Introduction ... ,' ................................................................................ ........................................ 23 3.2 Surface Water Infrastructure .. """", ........................................... ................. 27 CONFRONTING A CHANGING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 3.3 Water Use .. ........................... 28 3.4 Current and FutureWater Balance . ........................... 28 3.5TheWater Challenge . ............................ 28 3.6 Responding to Climate Change Impacts in the Water Sector: the Stakeholder Response ....................... 30 3.7 Responding to Climate Change Impacts in the Agricultural Sector . .............................. 32 4. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 39 References ............................................................................................................................................... 41 Annex 1: State GOP by Sector and Other Figures .. ............................ 43 Annexes···············································......................................................······················· 43 Annex 2:Yearly Runoff for Alto Lerma Region .. ........................... 44 Annex 3:Yearly Runoff for Medium Lerma Basin ............ ... .... ........................................... .... .............................. 45 Annex 4:Yearly Runoff for Bajo Lerma Basin .. ............................ 45 Annex 5: Consumptive Water Use by Water Source and Economic Sector for Balsas Basin ......................... 46 Annex 6: Excess Demand for Groundwater. . .. ............................ 46 Annex 7: Some Adaptations ............................... 47 Annex 8: Risk Matrix: Impacts on Soil, Plants/Crops, and Pests .. ............................... 50 Annex 9: Impact Risk & Vulnerability Matrix of Climate Change for Water, Biodiversity & Health ................ 51 Annex 10: Adaptation to Climate Change for Water, Biodiversity & Health . ................................. 52 Annex 11: "No Regrets" & "Climate Justified" Actions (Adaptations) For Crop Systems .............................. 53 CONFRONTING A CHANG ING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN Boxes Box 2.1: Assessing Scenario Projections .. ................................................................ .. 19 Box 3.1:The Hyd rological Model. . . ..................................... 29 Box 3.2: Sensitivity to Alternative Futures ...........................................................................................................30 Box 3.3: SurlaceWater and Climate Change .......................................................... ...................................... 31 Figures Figure 1.1 : Components and Stakeholders Involved in the Preparation of the State Strategy for Climate Change for the State of Michoacan ........................................................ 10 Figure 1.2: Selected Sleps in Risk Identification, Analysis and Evaluation ......................................... 12 Figure 1.3: Example of the Risk Matrix wi th Color Coding of Risk as a Function of Likelihood & Consequence . ..... ...... ..... 12 Figure 2. 1: Michoacan and State Boundaries of Mexico ... ........................ . ......... ....................................... 15 Figure 2.2: Annual Average Precipitation (left in mm) &Temperatures (ri ght in Celsius) in the State . 16 Figure 2.3: Histori c Annual Minimum Temperatures {Tm in )Trending Upwards ................................................ 17 Figure 2.4: Compa ring Future Changes (2080) with Current Mean AnnuaITemperatures .. ............. .. 20 Figure 2.5: Soil Moisture Deficits: Near Future (a) 2030-50 and Distant Future (b) 2070-2100 ........................ 21 Figure 3.1 : Institutional Arrangements for Water in Mexico ............................... .... 24 Figure 3.2: Hydrologic Regions and Sub-Regions in the State of Michoacan ,.. ........................................ 26 Figure 3.3: High Intra-Annual Variations in Ru noff Illustrated for a Hydromet Station in Balsas Basin _ ............................ ................. .. .. 26 Figure 3.4: Water Storage in Different Localities ................................................................................................27 Figure 3.5: Gross and live Storage in Balsas and Lerma ............... . ... 27 Figure 3.6: ENSO Impact on White MaizeYield in the State (1980 to 2008) ...................................................... 33 CONFRONTING A CHANGING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN Figure 3.7: Standardized Rainfall Index in Summer (green and brown bars) and White Ma izeYield (red line) for Michoacan (1980 to 2008) ........................... 33 Figure 3.8: Change in Rainfed Maize Crop Yield with Changes toTemperature and Rainfall ....................... .... 34 Figures Table 2.1: Maize Production Statistics ................................... . .......................................... 17 Table 2.2: Baseline Climatic Data and Projections for Michoacan .................................... 19 Table 3.1: Consumptive Water Use by Water Source and Economic Sector for Lerma Basin ......................... 28 Table 3.2: Surface Water Use by Basin and Economic Sector ....... . ...................................... 28 Table 3.3: Input Data from Climate Into the Hydrologic Model ................................................................. 29 Table 3.4: Risk Matrix: Impacts on Agriculture .....................................................................................................35 Annex Distribution of Mean Monthly Precipitation for Lerma Basin . .... 43 State GOP by Sector and Other Figures .......................................................... . . .................................................43 Monthly Potential Evaporation for Lerma Basin . ............ ..44 CONFRONTING A C HANGiNG CLIMATE IN MICHQACAN vii - - - - Acknowledgments T hiS report is the product of a broad and extensive collaborntivc effort between the World Bank and the Gov· ernment ofMichoacln under the ovemUleadership orthe Secreillria de Urbani smo y Media Ambiente. The sustained guidance and support of SEMA RNAT and INE arc gratefully acknowledged. Special gratitude is extended to Catalina Rosas Monge, Sccretaria de Urbanismo y Media Ambicntc; Arturo Chacon Torres, ASeSOTj Alberto Rojas Rueda, Ascsor; Rocio BaU estcros Lopez, Jcfa del Departamento de Mitigacion del Cambia Climatico; Fernando Ojeda, Subdirector de Cuencas of the Comision Estatal de Aguas y Gestion de Cuencas; and Luciano Grobel Vallarta, Ascsor, Secrctaria de Desarrollo Rural. 11lc strategic support and incisive comments of Gustavo Sa1tiel (Sector Leader) and Karin Kemper (Sector Man- ager) arc gratcfullyacknowlcdged. "Ihe partnership between the Government of Michoacan and the World Bank has a long genesis and has evolved through several phases. The initial stage of thi s collaborative effort was led by Ricardo H ernandez. ' !"he sc<:ond, comprising the development of a consultative process and a Strategic Environmental Assess- ment workshop, was led by Ann J eannette Glauber.'!"he subsequent phase, was led by Richard Damania and culm inated in this report and a workshop. The World Bank team involved in writing this report and organizing the workshop included: David George, Michael Peter StcenJacobsen, Diego J uan Rodriguez, and Yerania Sanchez Ramos.l Damaris Garay provided outstanding support to the mission and the workshop. The climate change projections were prepared by Victor Magana Rueda (UN AM ), technical background papers,dara and calculations by D avid Corderi , Sergio Marcias Nava, Cesar Herrera Toledo, ricardo Sandoval and Enrique Aguilar. Special thanks to Cesar Herrera Toledo for his assistance wi th this entire project. Helpful and valuable comments and contributions were received from peer reviewers: Fernando LoaY.la, Nagaraja Rao H arshadeep and Luis Ernesto Garcia. Disclaimer llle findings. int'c rprctations, and conclusions contained in this report arc those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect thc vicws ofthc Executive DirectorsofThe \Vorld Bank, or thc Govcrnmcnt ofMichoac:i.n. 3 Executive Summary is among the global leaders in addressing the challenges of climate change. It has embraced ambitious M exiCO targets to lower emissions coupled with far sighted plans to manage and address the risks of climate change. To meet these bold objectives, it is recognized that the states will be crucial to achieving success in implementing policies. Accordingly the Government of Michoacan, under the stewardship of the State Ministry of Urbanism and Environment (SUMA in Spanish), is in the process of developing a State Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP ). ' niC Government of Michoacan, together wilh the World Bank, has initiated a series of workshops as pari of the consultative process. A Strategic Environmental Assessment Workshop held in November 2009 identified the need for a participatory framewo rk which culminated in a Climate Risk Management workshop held in October 201O. 1h is document summarizes the key findings of the scientific analysis of future climate projections and the outcomes of the stakeholder workshops. The focus of the workshops and this report is on the effects of climate change on sectors at the frondines of climate impacts: water and agriculture. The Future Climate Characterized by increasing variations in climate and rising temperal'ures, Michoacan is already confronting die impacl's of climate change. Projections suggcst that tempcraturcs will rise further, much of the statc will get drier, and rain(.·dl will become more crratic. Futurc climate change will add to cxisting uncertaintics, \vith potential outcomes that span an even greater range of possibilities: more variability of furore precipitation, flood ing and droughts. Consequently, proposed adaptation strategies will need to be robust to withstand different climate futures and be cost effective. The Climate Risk ManagementWorkshop Sustained stakeholder involvement and responsiveness to new infonnation, are critical ingredients for ownership of policies at the local level, where adaptation must occur. Accordingly, the workshop engaged key stakeholders from across the public and private sectors. The cutting-edge risk management ap proach applied in M ichoad.n was adapted from a participatory model that has been pioneered with success in other water-constrained economies (most notably Australia). The approach provides a tool for combining the complexities of climate science with local expertise in an iterative and participatory process. A recurring dleme was that climate change strengthens die need for efficiency-enhancing improvements and poli- cies, radler than demanding new initiatives. Greater efficiency in the use of natural resources builds greater resilience to climate change and is therefore an economically prudent way of adapting when there are large uncertainties. The climate risk management approach ensured that consensus was reached on adaptation options for water and agriculture . 5 Water Infmstructurc im'estments that address the current and future chaUengcs in the water sector were high on the list of priorities. With a drier and more extreme future climate there is a greater imperative for balancing variable water supplies with rapidly escalating water demands. Declining storage capacity due to high siltation rates, over-allocations of water, and inefficient uses were among the set of problems that were addressed at length in the workshop. Measures leading to greater water efficiency were recommended, but the extent of investment depends on the uncertain climate impact. This further reinforced the need for adaptive management approaches that respond to new information in a consensual manner, as it becomes available. Agriculture In the agriculture seclor,the focus was on rainfed maize. Maize is an important and climate-sensitive source of Ii vel i- hood in rural Michoacan. l he Southern Oscillation Index (50 1) or El Nifio Southern OsciHation (EN SO} phenom- enon is one of the critical determinants of precipitation (timing and volume) and yields on these farms. With climate change, extreme events (such as ENSO, lower rainfall, and storm damage) that compromise yields are projected to increase in frequency and intensity. Adaptation options were prioritized based on perceived cost effectiveness, im- mediacy of impact and robustness of the policy to alternative climate futures. As a result, there was convergence upon promoting cropping systems and techniques that are extensions of current "best practi ce~ climate risk management approaches. Research and adaptive management approaches that respond to new information were emphasized as priority measures. Common Themes Given the large uncertainties, associated with the future climate, the prioritization exercise converged upon "no regret" measures. lhese are policies and investments that arc beneficial across a wide range of climate outcomes, including no climate change. l he scientific assessments suggested that climate change would amplify the urgency and magnitude of required responses, but not the type of adaptations that are needed .lhe adaptations proposed would be relevant across a wide spectrum of climate futures. lhese included adaptation options related to better information systems, better analysis and more efficient usc of existing systems through changes in regulations and policies. Mal-adaptation to climate change as a result of policy distortions WIt.S a further source of concern. An example of this is ~Tarifa nucve~ (a subsidized energy tariff scheme in the agricultural sector) which increases climate risks in the long run by promoting power-consumption and over-abstraction of groundwater. And it may be true of the continuing informal changes in land use in certain parts of the state.lhere was recognition that the current adaptation deficit and current policies are the products of history, but climate change was seen as a catalyst for possible improvements. The Way Forward Overall, a successful policy response for promoting climate adaptation would require a broad mngc of measures because there is no "silver bullet" that can adeqUluely cushion the stale from the uncertain impact's of climate change. A successful policy response would need to include an emphasis on : (i) information on climate risks and impacts, (ii) adaptive institutions with the capacity for horizontal and vertical integration, and (iii) climate-sensitive infrastructure. Together these would allow for responses that are sequenced and calibrated to the known threats and uncertain risks of climate change. A sequenced approach that builds on new information is desirable because the potential effectiveness of individual measures is uncertain. The exercise suggested the following priority responses going forward. Investing in Information. In a context of uncertainty, infonnation has high economic value and is required for guiding long term decisions. Experience has shown that the economic rerurns to investment in better hydrological and meteorological information arc extremely high. There is also a need for improved climate change projections, as well as more information on the costs of adaptation and the economic impacts of adaptation measures. For this information to be useful it needs to be delivered in a form that is comprehensible to decision makers. This calls for a CONFRONTING A CHANGING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 6 fo rmal institutional framework that can share information with stakeholders and policy makers. The risk managemen t workshop summarized in this report is one vehicle for generating consensus and could be scaled up and furthe r refined in the future. Harmonizing Priorities. Adaptation is a local challenge and local solutions need to work in harmony with national policies. A large number of the adaptation measures prioritized by the experts require a strong policy framewo rk and support at the Federal level. Examples include water pricing, the incorporation of environmental flows, water reuse, aquifer recharge, and agricultural policy issues. The broad and cross-sectoral impacts of climate change also suggest the need for strengthening the Comite l ntersectorial de Cambio Climatico y Desarrollo Sustentable to deal with cross-sectoral linkages. Climate-Sensitive Infmstruct'Ure. Governments must ensure that new, long-lived infrastructure does not bring with it new risks. l itis is particularly important for structures in climate-sensitive sectors such as water. Locating infrastructure out of harm's way is one strategy. But often this is not feasible and it may call for revising and reviewing margins of safety in the light of available information .lbis suggests sequencing of infrastructure and priorities in terms of immediacy and certainty of impact. I nefficiencies in die Water Sector. Addressing the existing inefficiencies that result in unmet demand in the water sector emerged as the most urgent adaptation measure. Satisfying the unmet demand in water resources is a key to successful adaptation in the water sector and calls for hard and soft solutions . CONFRONTING A CHANG I NG CLIMATE I N MICHOACAN 7 1. Introduction 1.1 Background to the Report exico, th e world 's fourteenth largest economy, has e me rged as o ne of the global leaders in confront - M ing the climate challe nge. T he country has commincd to ambitious COl reduction targets and has rolled out a muiti-scclOral efforl to adapt to a changing and morc uncertain climate. There has been a steady march from policy and regulation to institut ional development and sub-national climate action plans. The Climate Change Performance Index, a global comparator of policy perfo rmance on climate issues, ranks Mexico 4,k among S6 countries. Recognizing the country's pivotal role in climate change deliberations, Mexico will host the 16th Conference of Partics (CoP 16) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate C hange (UN FCCC), to be held in December 2010. Mexico's over.trching str.uegy for combating climate c1lange is described in the SpcciaJ C limate Change Program (l'ECC). 'The PECC, launched by President Calderon on J une 5,2009, strives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by SO percent by 2050 (against the baseline of 2000). Ie sets out pillars for adaptation, mitigation and policy actions. Recognizing the ubiquitous nature of climate impacts, an Inter-Secretarial Commission on Climate Change (Com is- ion Inter-secretarial de Cambio Cl imatico - CICC) has been created. It has a mandate to fo rmulate and coordinate national climate change strategies and sectoral programs. To meet the bold objectives of PECC there is recognition that the states will be pivotal in implementing policies. Accordingly, several states arc in the process of preparing climate change plans, addressing both mitigation and adapta- tion. Building upon lessons learned, the Government ofMichoadn, with the support of the Federal Government, is in the process of preparing a state climate change action plan. ' Ihis report provides details of a consultative process undertaken to inform the development of the state climate eh ange plan in Michoacan. The distinguishing fea ture of the exercise is its attempt to pilot a risk management ap- proach that combines the high-end science of climate change with local expertise and stakeholder experience [0 identifY climate change adaptation priorities. 1.2The Michoacan Approach to Climate Change Planning 1]le Government of Michoacan is committed to combating dIe impacts of climate change and is developing a State C limate Clmnge Action Plan (SCCAP). The plan will identifY the key actions that could be taken [0 better prepare the state for a changi ng and uncertain future climate. The State of Michoacin, under the leadership of the Ministry of Urbani sm and Environment (SU1vlA), garnered the support of federal agencies, including Seeretaria de M edia 9 Figure 1.1: Components and Stakeholders Involved in the Preparation of the State Strategy for Climate Change for the State of Michoacan A'C1D Comlte I nle~ecl0nal Banco Mundlal Calernamlemo de Suslenlablhdad Recunos INE y CamblO Chm.llCO { CONACYT 010"'1 VariaClon del clime Sopone Clentiflco Fondo Amblental Anaiisis hlst6rico - l . endenClas Energia, causas Clima - { VevldenClas Escenarios _ Modelos Futuros IPCC ConstrucCl6n_ Costo ,- - f - - -Justicacion ____-, ~ Plan de Acci6n Beneficlo A9","'"" Diagn6SIico Escenarios Sect ores Agua climalicos - prioritarios Salud Instalacion G 6 Asentamlentos Comisi6n- estl n I Estatal C.C. Estatal Humanol Gases Inventario - de efecto t invernadero Redes SOCialeS - , Fona lecimiento de capacldades Comunicacion j Ana llsls Socioecon6mlco - Actores involucrados ----+ PLAN Eslralegia blllal de RECTOR ...-.cambio Climalico del ESlado de Michoaciln ~ Vunerabilidad Eslalel Regional p er capita ~ Amenazas j v Adaptaci6n_ Medidas y _ Lineas ResistenCla ulnerabilldad Estrategia de acci6n DlagnOstlCOs Mi1igaci6n _ Medida~, _ Lineas . EstraleSlas de accI6n PrlOrizaclOn } Escenarlos Estralegia de Crnenos por SeCfOr' ---l- Geslion del Riesgo de AdaptaclOn ~~~:~~~~:':' t Cntenos _ Inventario GEl FortalecimienlO .. de Mltigaclon de Capacidades f nlorm~clo~~ . .. Institucionales COmUMICaCIOn y dlluslon Evualuaci6n, Cono plazo Transversalidad Segulmiento, · Mediano plazo Desempeiio ypolilicn Pol~icas V · e Indicadores Transversahdad largo plazo ' - - - Taller de evaluacion - Banco Mundial Cono plazo Diagn6stico Objetivos L._ _ _ Publicaci6n Medlano plazo -{ VMetas Plan de accion Largo plazo s:o...c. SiKIII preunred by SUMA 'I ""'*""'" o.::t_ 12- 13. 2010 in Moffl/",. Mid>oIIcMl Ambicntc y Rccursos aturalcs (SEMA RNAT) and Instituto Nacional de Ecologia (lNE), along with that of the World Bank and academia in launching a responsive and stakeholder- driven framework fo r the plan. l The State of Miehoadn identified the need for an instrument that would generate consensus on priorities that are most critical to buffer the impacts of climate change. To encourage the continued participation of key stakeholders, a Strategic Environmental Assessment approach was adopted. Plan preparation began at a workshop together \vith the World 2 See ~ttP//WWw lne 9Ql:>1TI>C/OH(:"'VII$/<:dlmato::o/e2001m pdf B~ upon the guojonc, ptOYo(Ied I;Iy INE. the SCCAP alms 10 1) 5U!T"OITWIl' ..... Il00100 onfodOwnscaied o;I,,,,. te ~,; 3) od,nnfy Met"" and '''9'''''l' most """'-able to dlmale cNnge; 41.....a/yle the ,elev""tle9/>V I"OSIOeC(>I"OOm'" tOClo and IdIptluo", ...-.:16) >denllt~ "'I<:'$$a",~.::v Kt>OflS 10 ~ove the SIal'·' 1W,,_n of, and 'es4enc. 10. CI I~{' cn.roge To.....'..d tNI IOlm, tile Slot' ot MlCIlOocan I"In de<>M,ed ....." IV 01 fund lrog sources and ~nnl'" to ~1' the51 multople oo,ecl...e, CONFRONTING A CHANGING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 10 Bank held in November 2009. 3 An outcome of the workshop was the creation of a Technical Committee to accompany the plan's development and provide just- in- time guidance on the preparation of the plan. Th e next step was to generate consensus on priority responses, given the significant and wide-ranging impacts of climate change. The complexities of responding to climate change calls for instruments that can facilitate prioritization of adaptation measures based on risk. The SEA workshop was a fi rst attemp t to raise awareness about climate change and its impacts and it provided a large number of stakeholders with a basic understanding of potential impacts and solutions. However, it did not allow for the prioritization of adaptation measures. Th e scientific knowledge required to assess impacts and responses calls fo r an additional set of tools that could enable local experts to iden ti fy, rank and prioritize adaptation measures. In tllis context, the Stale. in partnership with tlle World Bank, conducted a risk management workshop that would inform the SCCAP. The State Strategy for Climate Change (also called the Climate Change Master Plan or Plan Rector) contemplates seven phases, as shown in the Figure 1.1 .' It has been structured as a policy instrument to define actions, timing and responsible units. Performance indicators will be set to monitor and evaluate progress in the short, medium and long term . Within this broad framework the workshop, upon which this report is based, has provided a common vehicle for identifying and defining climate impacts and risks, guided by science and prioritizing adaptation responses. 1.3The Risk Management Approach to Adaptation Given the unknowns and uncertainties of future climate c1lange. adaptation policies need to be robust in the face of a range offuture outcomes. Of particular concern are infrastructure assets with long lives (30 years). With a changing climate there is a risk that the wrong type of infrastructure could be built, or the correct type of infrastructure could be built but in the wrong location (e.g. if river flows alter in volume or direction then a storage or flood control dam could be built in the wrong location). Finally, since most adaptation actions involve local actions, better information on how to adapt resides at the local level . To address these challenges there is a need for an adaptive decision making process that responds to new information, is sensitive to the needs of 10cal stakeholders, and is robust when faced with a range of climate futures. 'nle risk management approach combines the complexities of climate science wilh local expertise and priorities. It recognizes the intrinsic uncertainty of climate projections and provides a systematic protocol for simplifying and enumerating climate risks, possible impacts and responses. I t deals with future uncertainties by testing the robustness of policy actions against different climate scenarios. Most sign ificantly, it establishes participatory protocols to ensure that higher priority risks are identified and more effectively managed.The risk management approach applied in Michoadn brings together experts and provides a common knowledge platform. It was originally developed for the Australian Government and has now become the cutting edge approach for participatory climate change adaptation approaches in both government and the private sector.' Participatory decision making is a relatively new practice in the climate change arena. lhe methods have been refined and more widely applied through the World Bank I nstitute (Figure 1.2).6 The focus was on the frontline impacts of climate change: water and the minfed agricultural (maize) sec- tors. To develop a shared understanding of the scope and uncertainties of climate change, workshop participants were given information on likely climate futures and the range of projections. The specific process used and the accompanying spreadsheet tools originally developed by the Australian Greenhouse Office are described in 3 The oolectIVes ",""re to· 1) raISe awareness .oout climate cru nge ond ns ompao:;ts; 2) locilime network,ng arid COJIVTlllnlcallOn throug h the Cre8t>On 01 convnon IntereSt among key &Clo rs 8nd Interested partl.S; 31 omprOlie kr>OWl&dge 800ut the Sta!e 01 MocI>oac6n's ."$tl'"4 'lUlne~ ab il,ty to climate crunge _nd the related PIlO"toes 10( &chOn ; 4) budd CIIp""i'. among key stakehtHders lor SEA. as 3 tool 101 prepa' ing lhe SCCAP; and 5) promote a u",hed. cross·sectoral mec!1onlSm to oss .. t '" th. pa rncopatory de ·· lopment 01 climate polICY at lhe stat ...... el 4 The corrconents . re : Ii) doag nOSIS lehrnat. c!w",a sce .... "os. aml$$>On. lI"I\Ienl0 ry. atmosp he ric modeling al b~$'n lev~ .· n. r...... ge ne rat>On. bocK; limal>C modeling and h.alth) ; Iii) vu l ne r ob~,ty . I.,) adapt.lIOn. I",) mltlgat,on. (vi cl,rnata cru nge k tio n PI.n. Iv,) ecooom " ",strumen!s,oo ,,..,ent,,,,"s fa, climate crunge adaptallOn and m,t>aation. 300 Ivii l ,e s""rch 000 edocat>On 5 Australian Greenhouse Oflie. (20061 ; GOIierJ\JJ'\$nt 01 Australia. Department of the Environment 000 Hernage. Austr. "M Greenhouse Olliee· C~rna t e Change I ~s and RISk Maroagemen1. A Guode fo r Bus>ness and GOIiernment. Canberra 2000 6 For a tonal descnpnon see ("""essed on O<:tooe, 26. 20101; hnp.l/"teresoufces worlcbon~ . OI\O'WBlJResoufcesf21379& 12590115313251659S3S4·126S250262287,wBIC I.. rnalaW~ t e r -"9"cN R M.pd f CONFRONTING A CHANG ING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 11 greater detail in Annex 1.7 It demonstrated ways to examine the current Stare of knowledge and confidence levels of climate change projection s, and then illustrated how ri sks could be rated (Figure 1.3). A brief description of Michoacan and the climate threats thai il confronts is presented in the following chapter before the process and outcomes of stakeholder meetings are discussed . Figure 1.2: Selected Steps in Risk Identification, Analysis and Evaluation Select key eli...... '.,illIl.. ]· .· . "",,,,"'re, ~CipQlio., IIC) Cotdi6tllCe in tile lII ......ellll IMII' cliM.1I IHlLtificetion of " ' " of · .g. 'g,icuiture . nd W'II' ,. " ;;;:,:;, 'L."10.- An.lyse I.",lungl ... p'C" II.g. higher nlpotrlgpirlliOft I nd g"'II' crop wlter d_I nd; ION of WII" ill.or."" . nd reduc. d ..,pply) Bilk iI. tlrtCliorl 01 COIIMqNllCl h .lu'" Rill lConsequencl.., be 10_ tie.. due 10 W'ete,ItreM, Ind likeitlood likililMKld...,.1IIII on clHlfidence ill cliM. . .1d i. tr. . . .iuiotl MlCllllli. . Figure 1.3: Example of the Risk Matrix with Color Coding of Risk as a Function of Likelihood & Consequence 7 The bas.: stera"' devoeloll'lIQ the "s~ mat .... "",lucie (1) determnlfl\l ""pon.nl climate ""'roe fac~ In.llfe 'tievanl tor. SPIIC\j ~.~es tn.! m3V be impooCted t7v tnest factots; I.) "",nl,I\'111\1 ~1S""'" Cl\lIXIflUNI'.' 00 these ..... t>jes.IS) denl,f. ,ng edlptltlO<' 0!)100t1S tNlI reduu cl"".te vuIo">ed v""em " n patterns ore consU!lned by maxornOlaUon of wOle, use 3r>d lhe a bility cope WI1~ wOle, stress The n,- d""'llo n .n SOI l mo'Sture c~u.es >lre.le r sue.s v~ lu es.r.d Sl>e<'les lh.al ",e oble 10 m.xorn"e ...... ler uSe Wi ll h.a\te hlQhe' hlnt!SS CONFRONTING A CHANG ING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 21 3. Water, Agriculture and Climate Change 3.1 Introduction T he focu s of this chapter is o n the effect's of climate change on the sectors at the front lines of climate impacts: walcrand agriculture. l hc chapter begins by presenting the key institutional and policy frameworks that gov- ern the water resources in the country and [he state. It then describes thc climate threats and challenges, the risk management workshop and the robust adaptation options recommended at the workshop. The foUowing section turns to the agricultural sector and focuses on rainfed maize, an important livelihood resource. A recurring theme is that climate cllange often reinforces the need for efficiency-enhancing improvements and policies, mtherthan dem anding new init'iatives. Greater efficiency and economy in the usc of natural resources builds greater resilience to climate change and is therefore a prudent way of adapting in the face of significant uncertainties. 3.1.1 Water sector:The policy and institutional context Mexico has an exceptionally rob ust institutiona1 and policy framework in the water sector. Water management is the joint responsibility of the federal, regional, state, and municipal governments and involves a complex web of ac~ cou ntability. Federal policy established the overarching framework . At the federa l level, there is the National Water Commission (CONAGUA) and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMA RNAT ). At the regional level, there arc River Basin Organizations (RBOs), Councils, Commissions. and Groundwater Committees (COTAs). At the state level arc the State Water Commissions (CEAs) and operating at the local level arc the municipalities and service providers, as well as other Water User Organizations (e.g., Units and Irrigation Districts-sec Figure 3.1 below). Roles and mandates often overlap, but there is a growing trend towards subsidiarity; decisions are taken as closely as possible to the consumer. The Imlin inst'itution wilh federa1 responsibility for Wolter is CONAGUA, which is the feder.d authority responsible formamlging the W'.tterpoliey. The environmental protection ministry, SEMARNAT, has oversight over water quality and land management decisions. CONAGUA is both a federal regulator and the main bulk water supplier. It has been internationally recognized for its foresighted policy reforms and expertise in disaster management. Respon sibilities h ave also been devolved to River Basin Organizations . Reforms to the National Water Law, undertaken in 2004, resulted in the creation of 13 river basin o rganizations (formerly known as "hydrographic regionsn ) . The RBOs were conceived as specialized units within CONAGUA haVing the technical and admi ni stra~ tive autonomy to manage the assets and resources allocated to them by CONAGUA. The RBOs are responsible for formulating regional water policy. designing programs to implement that policy, aod operating the mechanisms for collecting fees. 23 Figure 3.1: Institutional Arrangements for Water in Mexico BASIN BASIN COUNCIL ORGANIZATION 1 COMMISSIONS. COMMIITEE & pnd OTA 8 (by Sub·BaSIn. mlcrobaSIn and acqUiferl RBOs may have different participatory entities, such as River Basin Councils (RBCs), the River Basin Commis- sions (RBCOs), the River Basin Committees (RBCOTs), and the AquiferTechnical Committees (COTAs in Spanish).9 Institutional armngements and legal fr.uneworks vary substantially amongclle States. Each State has its own law governing state water policy and management of water resources. States prepare six-year development plans which include priorities for the water sector. Most States have created an autonomous State Water Commission (Comision Estatal del Agua - CEA).lhese Commissions are autonomous entities that usually operate under the authority of the State Ministry of Public Works. While their mandates differ widely, they all have some authority and responsibility in water resources management. lO 1lle provision of walerand sanitation services fall s wicllin the purview of municipalities. Most municipalities have created water utilities (Organismos Operadores).lhe performance of water utilities varies widely among municipali- ties; some of them reach levels similar to those of the best performers in Latin America and the Caribbean while others have had more disappointing results. ' nle policy fmmework in the water sector is defined in three planning instruments: the National Development Plan (Plan Nacional de Desarollo - PND), the National I nfrastructure Program (Programa Nacional de Infraestrucrura - PN1), and the National Water Program (Programa Nacional H idrico - PN H).1he 2007-2012 National Development Plan rec- ognizes that water maybe a limiting £'lctor that constrains growth and compromises sustainable development.The National Infrastructure Program establishes priorities in several key infrastrucrure sectors, with an emphasis on coverage of drinking water and sewerage among marginalized and vulnerable populations. "[he National Water Program (PN H ) defines the wa- ter policy framework for the country.lhe Plan sets integrated water resources management objectives, strategies and goals aimed at achieving the sustainable use of water, recognizes its strategic value, and promotes environmental protection. II In Michoacan it is the State Water Commission (CEAC) that is responsible for coordinating and managing water resources in the river basins. C EAC is also responsible for coordinating with other line ministries and secretaries in the state, as well as with municipal, regional and federal authorities.l n 2009, C EAC published the ~ Panorama de los 9 The "..."n fun<:nOflS of these au"I ..,v bod,es are to review arod >""",de Input Ofl ocWme. _,med a! Impr""lOg water resource. ITIIOnageme n! . nd d.... elop(; ils, fTl3k"'>l ~" members e""" re Of rel....ant rssues _rod \lIVIr>Q thefTl & voICe en key 'SSU&$ ($uch as investment >"oori!,e., waler va luabon to es!,ma! e controt>u!"", amounts , !e-cI>nical asse.sme nt 01 waler ava ilab ilre than hall 01 the RBC.' members represe nt vanous lovef. of lI""errvnent, whde the re"""""""r repre sent. users arod socoety as a VYtloie The RBCs can help to resolve cOflllict. t,.,. dovelop lr>Q con.ensus amo ng va rIOUS Pl!rt,&S Involved erod recommerod lr>Q octlOnS to CONAGUA 10 Some . Iso h""" responsib,lot,e. In "nQ'!"""rod ,n !he >"""""'" 01 water s upp~.rod saMa!,Ofl SerVICe., .uch ·· (.1 the pr"","oon 01 !echnoca l a,s ls !.nce !O munlc,pahM. arod ""II"tIOn dIStrict. arod UM.; and Ibl moronoong of the perlorlTllOllCe of selYlCe >"""Klers, arod the operatoOfl of water dlSlnbut"'" systems arod b ulk waler supply 11 The '31ge,ed (IOa l is !O ;,>cr<-.« ''''."".. " from d .. b...,L,.. l XI06 .0;,0 p'''''''''' by 20 12. CONFRONTING A CHANGING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 24 recursos hidricos en cl estado de Michoacan," which provides an analysis of the current state of waters and scenarios up to 2030. 12 In addition to CEAC, two large RBOs are active in the state: Balsas and Lerma- Chapala- Pacifico. The state has 113 municipalities that are served by 21 operators of water supply, sanitation, and wastewater services. The institutional framework mirrors the federal structureP The State's current development plan defines state- specific priorities (Government of the State ofMichoac:in 2007b). 3.1.2 Water resources'· Michoacan encompasses two watersheds: the Lerma-Santiago- Pacifico (LSI)), with 68 municipalities, and the Balsas Basin, with 45 municipalities. The Lerma is among the most important sources of water for Mexico. Approximately 10 million people live in its catchment (Figure 3.2). The Lerma Chapala basin is the second largest source of surface water runoff in Michoacan and it generates approximately 25 percent of total annual runoff in the stateY The Balsas is the largest source of surface water runoff in Michoacan and it generates approximately 65 percent of total annual runoff in the state. 16 1he river is an important source of hydropower with two dams-~ E l l nfiernillo" and "La Villita"-which have an installed capacity of1 ,000 MW and 300 MW respectively, representing 85 percent of all the dams in the state, amounting to 1,525 MW. To protect the hydroelectric generating capacity of the dams there arc severe restrictions on surface water use in the Balsas Basin in MichoacanY 3.1.3The climate challenges Rainfall in llie state is uneven, bolll spatially and tempor.tlly. Mean annual evapo-transpiration (at 1824 mm), is higher than mean annual rainfall in most of the state (see Figures in Annex 1). Groundwater plays a crucial role in providing water supplies during the lean season and could be affected by climate change as recharge diminishes with more frequen t and prolonged droughts. 18 ' lhough floods are not uncommon, it is the risk of drought that is the key climate challenge for the state. To accommodate the variability of rainfall, the state has invested substantially in a stor- age infrastructure, but the storage buffer is insufficient to cover demands.lhis is partly because water is over-allocated even in years of average raint.ll, leaving little for periods of meager rain. 'nle challenges of water management are furdler illustr,ued in the volatility of annual runoffin die key basins. Fig- ure 3.3 illustrates variation of runoff from year to year {with data from one hydromet station in the Balsa Basin Station 18311, El Gallo).l'l&.lQ The figure compares mean annual rainfall with the standard deviation of rainfall from 1980 to 1997. The standard deviation measures the volatility of runoff.ll In Figure 3.3, the standard deviation exceeds the mean (typically by over 50 percent), suggesting that in most years precipitation is 50 percent less (or more) than the average. (Annexes 2, 3, and 4 illustrate this problem for the Alto Lerma Region, Medio Lerma Basin and Bajo Lenna Basin respectively) . .l.l 12 ThIs pla n w~s pr$par&d W1lh th ~ partlClpat'on of the Sme's Wat er Comm'SSlOn, Pf~tVIlr'Ig O f lic~. Ihe River Sa" n CommlSS'ons of the CUIl~I I 1aro C.rdenas and t h ~ ,rrlQ'ltion distr;ets 01 t he State. The Pfa n defines the works.nd actions t hat are required for two dlStloct pe riods 2008·2012, w ith. dehnouon of .nnual ,,,,est ments, .nd · seco nd pefloo cClVenng 2013-2030 I",est ments have bee n odenttfted for water supply, uwe rage, Won provoded In Visoon 21)30 C","pt.rs I ~nd 2 W1\h mtnOr fTlO.;lificanons, 4 F1ease sea odm""stratt\le arod suD-watershed hydrolog,c ooundanes Within the Slate of MicOOa<:an can be accessed I rom the V",,,,, document 15 MlChoacin hyd rolog o:;al maste, plan, 16 Midloadn hyd rologo:;al master plan 17 Water .,SlOn 2030, sect"", 4,6 18 Calculat""'. madebas&d on an ensemb le of 56 cl'male prOJIICuonslaU model., t hree scena riosl. comb ined w llha hyd rologiC81 model lCL IRUN 1 oIlustratelhat climate d1aoge 11, may d,m,n,sh 0< ","rease the recharge . Some models show on "",rease in base f low (proxy for rechalge l arod some.how. dec,ease However, almost all models slxlw lhal Mochoaca n Will become dner due to the combmed cha nges ,n potenttal evapo-transp ifat.,n arod preclpitahon 19 Most hyd romet stattoos are oownotream of a dam aoo Will illuotrat . ma naged llow W~, than natu- ral flows. The doos~ n statIOn should iflustrote Mtural rather than managed flows 20 The data are for ruooff f rom 1980 to 1 997 1001 precop,tat""') arod illustrat . Ihe challeng es laced IY'{ wate, manageme nl when conl r""ted With va, ,,b le supplies Ideall'l'.ooe wo uld want · longer data ".,t, but lor ,lIustran.e purposes 17 years IS sufk lent 21 The sta ndard dev i ~ t lOfl of ~ probability distrit)utlOfl is the sq uare root of the ""fiance (which exists fo< most probab if,ty dis- tribullO ns). It is corwe nlent to wor. Wllh as it os expressed on Ihe same uMs as the original data 22 Ase rule of Ihumb. tlo'lO-trurd. of.O data ~ r e Within o n ~ Standard devl/ltoon on etthe, side of th ~ mean. Thos ,son", true for GAUSS lo r normall d,stnbU I""$. W e would normal", I assume runoff to /Q lkow a different distribution w,th other cha racteri st~$ (faMr ta~s). but fo< illu Strational pUf!lOse. it seems 'ckose eoough ' to 8s5ume a norma l distribution. CONFRONTING A CHANG ING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 25 Figure 3.2: Hydrologic Regions and Sub-Regions in the State of Michoacim Cuencas Slibregiones Hidrol6gic" · · lZAAhoLerm. 12C Medio lerm. · ·. ;---: 12D Bejo Lerme 16A Rio Co.hll.yen. '--- 11 Costa de Micho.tin Rio Cuuamala ; _. -, '. _. ~ 18C Tepalc8Iepec RiO Cupalilizio Rio Tac i mbaro 10' , Baja Rio Balsn '. '. lbo, Ibo Ch., N Figure 3.3: High Intra-Annual Variations in Runoff Illustrated for a Hydromet Station in Balsas Basin 20110 ~ c 160,0 c c 1&0,0 · ..· " 140.0 ~ 120.0 · ~ c 100.0 c 2 00.0 · 0 · · ~ 60.0 40.0 10.0 0 J" Fob M" Ap' M., J"" J,I A,. S.p 0" No> 0" Average Standard . deviation · 31 .02 15.67 27.21 16,02 19.01 6.13 16.95 6.61 18.06 6.77 49.56 25,52 13Ua 65.27 163.12 82.01 1&4.44 59.04 9451 32.99 44.42 16.23 29.93 10.36 CONFRONTING A CHANGING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 26 3.2 Surface Water Infrastructure Mexico has demt with the challenge of yariable minfaU by providing significant surface water storage as a buffer ag".tinst lean periods. The sparsely populated Balsas Basin has large storage (used mainly for hydropower), whereas the Lerma basin in Michoadn contains much less. Figure 3.4 compares storage per person in Michoadn and its two major basins with storage figu res in other selected countries. 23 While caution must be exercised in drawing com parisons (storage capacity per person typically varies and often users may reside far from the basin), the storage available in the Lerma basin is less than what is available in South Africa, whereas storage in the Balsas Basin is high by international standards. 24 Storage infmstructure is compromised by high mtes of siltation. Over time, live storage tends to decline with si lt- ation. Figure 3.5 summarizes gross (design) storage and live (current) storage capacity per capita in the Lerma and Balsas Basins. l lte large hydropower dams in Balsas Basin and the largest dam in Alto Lerma are at 40 percent to 60 percent of their original design capacity. While siltation is a natural phenomenon, it is influenced by up-stream land use and could be exacerbated by climate change ifit leads to higher intensity rainfall. Deforestation, when combined with higher intensity rainfall, would shorten the economic life of these dams. Figure 3.4: Water Storage in Different Localities 9.000 , - - - 8,000 + - - - - 7,000+---- 6.000 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,000 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : c : c : - - - 4,000 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : - : = - - - - - ; c 3,000 +-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-" '~o _ _~ 2,000 + - - - - - - - - - - - c c c - - - 1.00~ t=;;",===:;':~;:::=jj~~L= Lerma South IMichoacan Africa Figure 3.5 : Gross and live Storage in Balsas and Lerma ' 'O O l==============~r1==- 10,000 6,000 +-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--1 4,OOO t:::==::=:::;;,;~=========:::jL 2,000 All0 Lerma Media Lerma Bajo Lerma Medio Balsas Bajo Balsas · Gross storage m3,lperson · Life Storage m3lperson 23 01 When compa ring IndiVidual countoes WI!h baSinS il must be remembered that storage capac,!y per person !Yll " ally vanes a 1 from bas", to baSin arod thaI very one n Ihe "'"'lor part of the popuIamn liVe ", other bas",s lor far awayl from tM storage The f igure is only for illu",atlve purposes 24 Howeve r. the storage In Balsas supports" IIIrQll I"rvdroelectric dam and is flO! fo r the pUrpose of supporting livelihood, of the people in!M ws", CONFRONTING A CHANG ING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 27 3.3 Water Use Agriculture is the dominant wo.lter user in both basins and hydropower is the dominant non-consumptive user. Other consumptive water uses include the commercial and domestic sectors. Non-consumptive uses of surface water are for ecosystem services, fisheries, tourism and recreation. Usage patterns are summarized in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 (Annex 5 gives th e equivalent data for consumptive water use in the Balsas Basin). Overall, there is a pattern of over-allocation of surface water, even without an allowance for crucial environmental services. The hydrological master plan indicates that there needs to be an allocation for ecosystem services, but this is yet to occur. Table 3.1: Consumptive Water Use by Water Source and Economic Sector for Lerma Basin CommercIal. Mm3/year Agnculture DomestIc and public Total Industnal and other Total In Mm3/year 1,499 143 101 1.744 Lerma·Santiago baSin (surfacel 914 47 56 1.018 Groundwater Lerma-Santiago B 585 96 44 725 Surlace wa ter share of tota l 52 .4% 2.7% 3.2% 58.4% Groundwater share of total 33.6% 5.5% 2.6% 4 1.6% Share ofTolal by sector 86.0% 8.2% 5.8% 100.0% Table 3.2: Surface Water Use by Basin and Economic Sector 3.4 Current and FutureWater Balance Adapting to future climate change will depend on the capacity to balance rising water demands with variable water supplies. A particular concern in preparing for this outcome is the uncertainty in the projections of future precipita- tion. Climate models project a wide variety of possible precipitation levels, for any given emission trajectory. To capture this uncertainty, climate projections were used from the models with the driest;S the wettest/ 6 and the medianl7 outcomes (Table 3.3). Each model generates a different baseline for a world with and without climate change. Table 3.3 summarizes the key climate data; these were entered into a hydrological model, MI PRODO H , which generated projections of water balances. Technical details can be found in Box 3.2. 3.5The Water Challenge The simulations are instructive; even without climate change, there is considernble unmet demand for water. Climate change has the potential to magnil)r the water deficits. The simulations (Box 3.3 and Annex 6 for groundwater) il- lustrate the surface and groundwater problem for the Lerma basin . In the best (wettest) model projections, climate 25 Ca lled ipsl_cm4, thiS rnod$ l l$ conStrUCIed ar>d malma lned by Ihe InStlMe Pierre Simon L&place in France 26 ThIS model IS called gfd,-cm 2_0 It was constructed alld IS maintained by the Geophys ;;:s Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at NOAA {US Nationa l Oceanic alld Atmosp heric hJmlnlStr.mn) 27 Called MI ROC3_Z·H R, 11'11, model waS con.trUCIed ar>d IS m<,mta,ned",. COOperMlve effort by a nurrber of Ja!nlnese pU~" ogen<;les CONFRONTING A CHANGING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 28 Table 3.3: Input Oata from Climate Into the Hydrolo gic Model Mid estimate of Dry estimate for Wet estimate for Climate vanable and model Current climate climate change future climate future climate Change in mean annual te mperature 0 +1. 5"C + 1.5"C +1.3°C Change in mean annual precipitation 0 -5% -18% + 8% Potential Evapotran spiration (PEn 0 + 5% + 5% +3% Box 3.1 :The Hydro logica l Model To analyze the possible future effects of climate change on water availability in the state of Michoacan, a dy- namic simulation model known as NModellntegrated Forecasting Water Demand and Supply" (MIPRODOH) was used. The model was developed by CONAGUA and is built on Powersim. It integrates data on water availability in rivers, watersheds and aquifers, and municipal-level data on water demand for urban public use, irrigation districts and irrigation units, as well as industrial use. Policy variables include: levels of efficiency in water distribution, consumption per capita, population growth, and coverage of service. Based on assumptions about these policy variables in addition to climate variables, it is possible to construct scenarios on supply and demand of water up to 2030. Chapter 2 presented the median climate scenario. Two steps are added to assess water demand and supply. First, from the full range of climate scenarios (based on all models for the A 1B scenario) the projections from driest, the wettest and the median outcomes were selected (Table 3.3). Climate information was superim- posed on a hydrologic model to infer the possible impacts on water supply. Water demand is held along a constant business-as-usual path for water demand, so the changes derive from climate-induced variations in water supply estimated by the model. change may result in unmer demand being held at its current high level, while in the worst (driest), the unmer demand win rise to almost 2,000 hm3 in the Michoacan part of the basin alone. Climate change may severely strain an already unsustainable siruation of excess demand. The general message is that the water deficits will grow in magnitude with dimate change, so policy needs to ba1ance demand with supply. 'nle available Sl'or..ge capacity has hislOrically coped with annual variat'ions. However, with economic growth comes increased demand fo r water and the State face s a chailenge in dealing with variations in precipitation . With limited multi-year storage capacity in Michoacin, the policy implication is clear: reforms arc needed to cope with variable and even possibly declining water supplies while addressing rising demands. CONFRONTING A CHANG ING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 29 Box 3.2: Sens itivity to Alternative Futures Uncertainty looms large in climate projections, so an important priority of the workshop was to assess the ro bustness of responses to alternative climate futures. The illustration below shows the variability of out· comes in one catchment For some variables, such as precipitation, there is little convergence of results. Fo r temperature, there is greater agreement w ith all projectio ns, indicating a rise in all parameters. The Climate Moistu re Index (CM/) also declin es, indicating a drier futu re as a combined result of ch anges in precipitation, temperature and po tential evapo·transpira tio n (PET). This reinforces th e uno regret nature of th e options U that were the focus of earlier d elibe rations. Me xico Bas in 8321 in 2030 I~ r===~==~~~~--------------------------------~------' 3 1.5 100 1 : -:- -:- BBT - ,8 , 1.5 - : B:~ ~ B ~ ~i- -- ~~I ~~~~ 0.5 o o e : -. .- - . " " , ·0.5 , , , -I : ....:... ·1.5 -100 '-;==--'-:-::=:;--'-;==--'-;-;c=:;--'-;==--'---;-;:=:;:-''---==-'----;;=~ -5 A2AlbBI A2AlbBI A2AlbBI AZAlb Bl A2AlbBI AZAlbBl A2AlbBI A2AlbBl Runoff 10% 90% Groundwater Precip PET Temp CMU x101 Top of Box: 75th Percentile Middle line: median legend Bottom of Box: 25th percentile Red Crossh airs: model Whiskers: extreme v~ lues ou tliers 3.6 Responding to Climate Change Impacts in the Water Sector: the Stakeholder Response Allhe workshop, srakeholders were presented wilh scientific infonnation about the mnge of possible future climate outcomes and the hydrological implications. 1lle participants were sector specialists with knowledge of the hydrologi- cal master plan for Michoacan .l he stakeholders evaluated impacts, vulnerabilities and finally adaptation options using the methodology described earlier (Figure 1.2 in Chapter 1). The workshop identified climate risk characteristics based on an assessment of their likelihood of occurrence and magnitude ..IS Impacts were inferred for the key parameters of concern: water quantity, water quality, infrastructure, health, and ecosystems. Annexes 7 through 10 illustrate the risk assessments with color-coding for the likelihood of occurrences and responses. l9 11lere was consensus that climate change would place stress on the systems and intensity existing problems. The policy implication is that many of the adaptation policies for the future are relevant today. Adaptation options were ranked and prioritized based upon immediacy of impact and robustness to alternative climate futu res. M any of the 28 This WlOS cok;l""od&d l or e~se 01 COlTljlle henSI(>rI With r&d be"", "exueme'r li' e" ," d~, ' or~ .... e reoresenu.... "ve rv like,,- conliden<;e. ol$ .... e $S " 11'e "" coolidence. $nd vellow as "low" conf,den<;e 29 Annexas 8. 9. nd 10 are complementary e,e,c"es add res" .... tile robustness 01 ,esults These lISt" numbel of \h,.... S that could Ileppen.nd Annexes 9 and 10 could Ileve ~",en dlffelem v.lues WIth clll'n/lte ch ..... e but ~ n $wels h...,e been the same. A cave~t is in ordel, The "",r'stoop IS ioas&d On "e""en opi nH)n" .nd ~S$eSSmentS . re subl&>:' t""'. But it does provide a forum for generatlrog COf1se nsus. nd buy.l n Th IS approach has been ext enSive" used by plann.ng .uthollbas In the U.s. . nd othar countri es. The dlStl .... UlShlng featu'e 01 the "I>!>",ach In MIC!>oac. n IS that tile assassments are looserI 01 M IPROOOH Into sce no"os for future water bala nce, . This provided. common , fact·bas&d background fOl' ,heir eXl"lrt io..dQme n" CONFRONTING A CHANGING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 30 Box 3.3 : Surface Water and Climate Change Each model produces different results with and without climate change. Below, graph A depicts the results from " mid climate change model" for the state of Michoacan and graph B depicts the same scenario for the entire basin (rather than just the part within the s tate of Michoacan). Graph C shows the results from the model that give the wettest projections and 0 the driest projections. The red line shows the forecast deficit for each model without climate change and the blue line shows the fo recast deficit with climate change. Unmet demand 10. $uflac e water Unmet demand 1m $uriace water A Le.ma ·Sa nti~go-Pac ifi co ( Mi c hoac~n ) B le.ma· Santia go·P~c ifi co (tot~l ) "'0 1.600 BOO 1,600 700 1,400 600 1,200 .£: 400 ~ BOO 300 600 200 400 100 100 o o With climate c h a ~ge (mid) - W~hokll cl imate c ha~ge With clima te cha ~ge (mid) - W~hokll cl imate cha~ge Unmet demand 10. suflace water Unmet demand lor s urlate Wit · · Le.ma·Sa miag o-Pac ific o (Mi choaclin) .. m . : " P " 100 ~~~~~:'::·.:s:m;:'::.:':'~;f~;':':(M:;:':,~'~"~.~(~~~~ D 2,500 C -- 600 1.00 500 1,500 ~ 400 M E ~ .£: 300 1,000 200 100 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 500 ~- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~"~.~.~.~~~~~~~'O~ O~ With clima te cha ~ge (mid) - W~hokll cl imate cha~ge With climate cha nge (mid) - Wrthokll climate ch8~ge proposed adaptation measures are of the "no - regret~ variety, implying that they would be worth doing even without climate change. H owever, identifying the appropriate policy is only the first step in determin ing the broad contours of a respo nse. l nis needs to be complemented with decisions on the fi ne details of policy-the magn itude of investment, timing and location. It was agreed that this would require considerably more information (on costs and benefits, including the potential cost or option value of waiting for more information), and would need to be considered in a sequel to this workshop ..lO 'nte adaptation options discussed were clustered into fi ve broad categories, as follo w.31 3.6.1 Improved efficiency of water use This category includes die usua] efficiency-enhancing activities: reduced losses in irrigation systems and improved timing of water availability. Eliminating policy distortions was a further priority. Examples included the "new power tariff~ (that subsidizes the use of power for water abstraction). To gain support fo r such reform s there would need to be compensation for losers. W ater pricing for irrigation was another area of reform to bring escalating irrigation demands in line wi th varying water supplies. A first step proposed was to review concessions that are about to expire to determine 30 It is plaMed t hat an expel! team "". specify the proposals. assess the" costs.rId benef,ts .·rId determine the cost of,..,t er>acting the measu.es This doc umentatton would then be considered 3r1d pnorn"atoon def,ned on. new IM)'k.shop 31 A hst of adaptahon measures proposed by the IM) rk.shop c. n be Iourld in An nex 10 CONFRONTING A CHANG ING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 31 renewal conditions. Once the over-allocation problem is addressed, the expansion of Water Banks would help con- solidate efficiency gains. Environmental flows remain another overarching concern with the potential to diminish the natural resilience of ecosystems to climate stressors. The 2009 hydrological master plan for Michoacan acknowledges the need for environmental flows but stops short of quantifying these. 3.6.2 Infrastructure investment and operations Investments in additional storage and reducing the leakage from urban networks arc among the measures needed to achieve greater efficiency in W'ater usc. Standards and measures to retai n rainwater could be encouraged to augmen t the supply of water. Irrigation canals could offer some options to reduce leakage. But this would reduce groundwater infiltration and not necessarily increase total supplies of water. Similarly, certain measures, such as the installation of drip irrigation, may increase the efficiency at the farm level; this may not lead to an overall reduction in water use, however. Current operational rules for dams are driven by concerns for power generation and could be reviewed and possibly revised in the light of climate change. l he dams in Michoacan remain vulnerable to increased siltation with the higher intensity precipitation that is projected for the future, coupled with deforestation. 3.6.3 land use. reforestation and improved agricultural practices Land usc was identified as a major issue for watersheds. Land use change also impacts the local climate and thus generates important feed-back loops. An improved understanding of these was seen as important in determining adaptation responses. Similarly, agricultural practices were identified as being important for both bio-diversity and water quality (see Annex 11). For example, elimination of burning agricultural residues with the concurrent forest fires could have major positive impacts on ecosystems threatened by climate change. 3.6.4 Improved planning, early warning systems and monitoring Investment in infonnarion systems usually generates high rerurns. t he participants noted the need for including early warning systems, guidelines and monitoring of ecological systems, as well as better information on climate outcomes. 3.7 Responding to Climate Change Impacts in the Agricultural Sector A parallel session of the workshop explored the implications of climate change in agriculture. "[his subsection begins by presenting the background to the sector. It then describes the climate threats and challenges and elaborates on robust adaptation measures that were identified in the workshop. 3.7.1 The current situation Rural incomes and development prospects in Michoacan arc closely interrwined with the fortunes of agricul- ture. Especially vulnerable are the ejidatarios, farmers with small land holdings who typically cultivate maize on rain fed farms. Climate change would likely add to the many challenges these farmers already face, such as declining farm-gate prices, rising input costs, and irregular rainfall. Accordingly, the focus of the workshop was on the impacts of min fed maize. Sustainable rurnJ development is a priority of [he Government of Mexico and climate cllange is recognized as a major challenge. The National Agricultural Sector Program (2007-2012) identifies climate change as a strategic prob- lem which demands immediate attention . Responses are identified in Alianza Contigo, a program of the .Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries (Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganaderia y Pesca - SAGARPA). At the state level, the institution in charge of agriculture is the Rural D evelopment Ministry (Secretaria de D esarollo Rural - SEDRU). SEDRU is responsible for the planning, design and implementation of policies. J1 32 The Stale Com"",ss,,, n for Flural Development was created In 200, on the baSIS of the State Flural Development Law d ecree. Fundacooo Produce IS a producers' oroa""atooo that promotes ~nd ma nages research prOJect s tor tile rura l sector; it ...... s created in 1996 The State Ecology CommISsIOn IS a perma nent publ ic COIlsultanon forum ""ntuuo,,"" ,red by the Sta'e E"",ronmMt ar>d N at ur ~1 Fle$OUrc ~ Prote<:tion law_ CONFRONTING A CHANGtNG CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 32 Figure 3.6: ENSO Impact on White MaizeYield in the State (1980 to 2008) 2.25 2.20 2.15 · El nii'io 2.10 2.05 Neutral · S 2.00 " :! 1.95 1.90 · · La Nina All Years 1.85 1.80 1.75 EI Nino Neutral La Nina All years EI Niiio yea rs: 1982, 1987, 1991. 1992, 1993, 1994, 1997, 2002.2004, 2006 La Nina years: 1988, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2007, 2008 Figure 3.7 : Standardized Rainfall Index in Summer (green and brown bars) and White Maize Yield (red line) for Michoacim (1980 to 2008) ,., 05 2.5 - WASP3 . 0.' 2.0 -. 0.3 1.5 ~ 0.2 l.L. 1.0 ~ 0.1 A It. f\ '" u. 0.5 ;i E ,- uI' . '1 ~\.- · ~ 0 " " · /Il\. o ~ ·i -0.1 -0.5 J 'g -0.2 -1.0 · a:: -0.3 · -15 -0.4 -0.5 ,\I y -2.0 -2.5 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 -3.0 5c 30 c) it COinCides With increased competing plant s lB) temperatu re 18) - Increases the - Increased productivity emergence or growth with water availability 1+) of pests, diseases and competing plan ts lA) - The presence of excess mOis ture increases the -Increased productivity 1+) emergence or growth of pests, diseases and competing plan ts 1M) - Increases the fISk that -Increases survival rate the development cycle and distribution of pests does not Itt lEI even at higher altitudes lA) CONFRONTING A CHANG I NG CLIMATE I N MICHOACAN 35 3.7.3 Key adaptation measures The following is a summary of the priority adaptations: Improved crop management (spacing, tillage, fallows, fertilizer, crop rotations and, irrigation). Ways to lower risks from changing climate conditions include familiar management techniques that need to be scaled up and are well known (Conde et at. 2006). Erosion management will become more important as r.tinfall intensity is likely to increase. Information is a vital tool in guiding planting and farming decisions. This is especially important in the ENSO affected areas. Using the observed climate information combined with statistical forecasts and soil moisture projections, crop decisions can be enhanced and the reduced risk from climate variability will have yield payoffs. Pests, weeds and diseases are widespread and their incidence and severity vary according to climate conditions (CIMMYT 2010). For example, the risk of increase of wireworm during mild weather, combined with high moisture and poorly drained soil, is significant. Integrated pest management has been a successful approach used in many parts of the world in addressing high risk periods. In addition to other management practices, such as genetic modification for insect and disease resistance, best management practice involving crop rotations and soil management, and monitoring, coordinating and scheduling activities will benefit agricultural production . Documenting changes in existing ranges of pests, weeds and diseases as they occur \vith temperature change and altitude is a key part of monitoring. Establishing agro-forestry areas to harbor populations of natural predators to pests is also an adaptation that can be sustainable. 'Illere are high payoffs to investment in research on more climate-resilient crops and cull'ivars. Extension work demonstrating best practices for different agro-ecological regions is a useful way to catalyze the process of adapting to climate change.1l1is would highlight best performance under varying climate conditions that could help transform the agriculture industry. Whal is clear from this list is the priority given 10 adaptations thai genenue immediate benefits and promote cur- renl sustainability. 111is is economically prudent, given the high levels of uncertainty about the climate impacts on maize and the current high variability. Also relevant was the focus on inputs and determinants of climate resilience (soil, weeds, fertility) to assure more robust outcomes that address the root causes of the problem. 3.7.4 Conclusions 'Ille fUlure c1imale of Michoacan is uncenain, and the potentiaJ outcomes span a broad range of c1imale possibilities. Learning to adapt to such uncertain outcomes calls for flexible approaches that respond to new information. The workshop participants noted that the climate risk management approach, with its scientific content and matrix tools, provided a powerful instrument for achieving consensus on issues that are complex and often divisive. 'Ille exercise suggested thai climate change in Miehoacan would nOI aJler tile type and characler of refonns needed to build a more resilienl and sustainable economy. A recurring theme was that often climate change strengthens the need for efficiency-enhancing improvements and policies, rather than demanding new initiatives. Greater efficiency and economy in the use of natural resources builds greater resilience to climate change and is therefore a cost-effective way of adapting when there are large uncertainties. As an example, measures to improve water efficiency are needed now to address imbalances in water demand and supply. With climate change, there is even greater urgency to control escalating demands . It is no surprise that the participatory approach guided by scientific information led to a strong convergence on "no-regrct~ options that arc resilient to alternative climate futures . CONFRONTING A CHANGING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 36 4. Recommendations P rudence in responding to the threats of climate cllange calls for a portfolio of measures that allow for mid- course changes and adaptive responses. A broad range of measures is needed because there is no single solu- tion or "si lver bullet~ that can adequately cushion the state from the uncertain impacts of climate change. A successful policy response would need to include an emphasis on: (i) information on climate risks and impacts, (i) adaptive institutions with the capacity for horizontal and vertical integration, and (iii) climate-sensitive infrastructure. Together these would allow for responses that are sequenced and calibrated to known threats and uncertain risks of climate change. A sequenced approach that builds on new information is desirable because the potential effectiveness of individual measures is uncertain. Investing in In!ormation.]n a context of uncertainty, information has an especially high economic value and is required for guiding long-term decisions. Experience has shown that the economic returns to investment in better hydrological and meteorological information arc extremely highY The hydrometric J4 and meteorological stations in the state need to be upgraded and automated. Improved projections of climate change also demand a greater understanding of complex linkages. For instance, when watersheds arc degraded climate impacts can worsen, so there is a need for assessing these system-wide linkages. l here is also a need for more information on the costs of adaptation, on agronomic-climate inter- actions, and on the economic impacts of adaptation measures. For such information to be useful in guiding decisions, it needs to be delivered in a form that is comprehensible and useful to decision makers.1his calls for a formal instirutional framework that can share information with stakeholders and policy makers. the risk workshop summarized in this report is one vehicle for generating consensus and could be scaled up and further refined in the future. Empowering Institutions. ' Ihe broad impacts of climate change suggest the need for strengthening and expanding the functions of the Comite l ntersectorial de Cambio Climarico y Desarrollo Sustentable. ' Ihe Comite could develop a working group with the purpose of identifying adaptation measures and addressing the potential sectoral interlinkages and impacts of these measures on different sectors. lhis is especially important as climate impacts arc broad and cut across many sectors. lhis study has demonstrated that recommendations stemming from one sector could have nega- tive impans on others. Irrigation efficiencies can be reduced by protecting irrigation canals. But this could diminish infiltration rates to recharge aquifers, further exacerbating the supply and demand gap in the water sector. 1l1e Comite is well placed to address such sectoral spillovers. Harmoniz ing Priorities. Adaptation is a local challenge and local solutions need to work in harmony with national policies. A large number of the adaptation measures prioritized by the experts require a strong policy framework and support from the federal leveL One example is the pricing of water. Another is the incorporation of environmental 33 Global assessments SU \Illes! be nellHost rat>:)s ol!en as hig h as 10-20 {V>IorId Bank 2010) 34 Bv 200s. 49 out 01 128 slatlOns NO <>:)t been UlIllZed due to lad of fund.ng lo r the ir opera!"", and m31nle'laoce Fu~ thermo 30 cl - Not signi ficant ~B I - Increased risk of mortality of - Outbreaks of pests, diseases plant s and competing plants ~B) - Risk of low pollmation If it coinc ides w ith increased tempe rature (B) Increase In average tempera- F1 F3 F4 ture (0 5 to 15 degrees) - Moderate increase in - Increase productivity w ith - Increases the emergence biotic activity ~M), 1 w ith good +) wa ter availabilit y ~ + ) or growth of pests , diseases practices and competing pl ants ~A) - BJ.impacts greater IMI Increese in average G1 G3 G4 reinfell (-5 to +3%) - increases water availability - Increased product ivity (+1 - The presence of excess mOIS- and performance hi tu re increases the emergence - Delay or preven- or growth of pes ts, diseases tion of tillage (AJ and competing plants (M) Increased temporal and Hl H3 H4 spatial variability of the hydrological cycle -In areas With poor dram- - Increases the risk of the devel- - Increases surVival rate and age excessive rainfa ll opment cycle does not fit ~E) dlstnbutlon of pest s even genera tes losses (E) at higher altitudes (A) CONFRONTING A CHANGING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 50 Annex 9: Impact Risk & Vulnerability Matrix of Climate Change for Water. Biodiversity & Heatth Increased evapo- transpirat ion and decomposit ion and ment slty decreased wate r eutrophicat ion · Increase In the · Changes In mlgra- availability · Increases the BOD disperSion of ai r tlon routes / decreased OD pollutants · Negative impact Increases use and · Reduces prob- on biodiversity demand fo r wate r Higher concentra- lems of cold- related due to reduction tions of tox ics due Illnesses of spawning areas to higher evapora- · Increase peSt and changes in t ion, all leading problems pollination. to a deterioration II · Increase of pol- · Decreased storage luted runoff capacity verSlty · Modification of the · More complicated · More st ress on nat ural process of treatment of wate r by plants and animals infilt rat ion surface water t urbidity. · Flooding and · Increased · Wa ter t reatment siltation can cause plants do not support changes In ecosys- large f lows tem functioning · EconomiC losses for damage to infras truc- tu re and se rvices More frequent Increased fre- Increased for- heat waves quency of bacterial est fi res (DAYS > 30 c) spores and fungi Increased forest that Increase the fragmentation due frequency of to migration of resPi ratory infec- people t o areas less tions of the skin warm and more and conjunctivitis su ited to agricultura l Infrastruct ures may Continued presence Additional stress not perform the of diarrhe al dise ase on ecosystems services fo r which they were inten ded If or example sewers) CONFRONTING A CHANG I NG CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 51 Annex 10: Adaptation to Climate Change for Water, Biodiversity & Heatth Studtes to determine the degree of dam- age to biodiverSity as a baSIS for formulatll"lQ plans for conservallon Review Infrastruc- I pnonty to upper watersheds ture vulnera~lltles conservation of and secunng the ecosystems that help Infrastructure against reduce the impact river banks to of floods (we tlands floodll"\g Ilna~l- ltv to deal With high and mangroves). Land use planning. intenSIty precipitatIOn Standards that RevISIOfl control encourage retenllon capa~htles of eXisting and water Inflltrallon Infrastructure Encourage multiple use of dams Revlewoperat- 11"\9 rules for the management of waste- ReductIOn of water treatment water losses. to reduce load M~ ..... ont !!VOId exposure to heat WII,," heat waves (DAYS> · Oral rehydration. ,.<) · Vaccines to prevent tetanus. treatment ," MaXimize effICiency Monltonng biosys- and build the Infra- tems and populatIOns structure neces- sary, 11"1 partICular additional storage CONFRONTING A CHANGING CLIMATE IN MICHOACAN 52 Annex 11: "No Regrets" & "Climate Justrtied" Actions (Adaptations) For Crop Systems HNo RegretsH Climate Justifled* Improve crop Yie ld and management (by adjustment of rr:m spacing, planting densit y, staggenng planting times, va rying Breeding and selection of varieties with greater heat tolerance plant maturation varieties to suit more frequent w armer and drier conditions: all being yield intensification methods) Implement crop choice on maximised wate r Breeding and selection of varieties with greater drought tolerance use ef ficiency and profit per unit area Breedin g and selection of va rieties with Improve legume/pasture phase In rotations greater pest and disease tole rance Improve soil management Izero ti llage, ero- Increased investment In weed management Slon COrltrol, cont rolled traff ic) Improve fe rtilizer management (fertiliser ap- Establish shelterbelt s plication, type, and timingl, Improve capture and conse rvation of mois- Agro-forestry establishment ture through organic maner Imulctung) Monito r and incorporate early waming systems (especially if rain is unlikely) and adjust decisions Other to capture opportunities and reduce risks Intercrop PreP