Evaluating watershed service availability under future management and climate change scenarios in the Pangani Basin

Watershed services are the benefits people obtain from the flow of water through a watershed. While demand for such services is increasing in most parts of the world, supply is getting more insecure due to human impacts on ecosystems such as climate or land use change. Population and water management authorities therefore require information on the potential availability of watershed services in the future and the trade-offs involved. In this study, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is used to model watershed service availability for future management and climate change scenarios in the East African Pangani Basin. In order to quantify actual “benefits”, SWAT2005 was slightly modified, calibrated and configured at the required spatial and temporal resolution so that simulated water resources and processes could be characterized based on their valuation by stakeholders and their accessibility. The calibrated model was then used to evaluate three management and three climate scenarios. The results show that by the year 2025, not primarily the physical availability of water, but access to water resources and efficiency of use represent the greatest challenges. Water to cover basic human needs is available at least 95% of time but must be made accessible to the population through investments in distribution infrastructure. Concerning the trade-off between agricultural use and hydropower production, there is virtually no potential for an increase in hydropower even if it is given priority. Agriculture will necessarily expand spatially as a result of population growth, and can even benefit from higher irrigation water availability per area unit, given improved irrigation efficiency and enforced regulation to ensure equitable distribution of available water. The decline in services from natural terrestrial ecosystems (e.g. charcoal, food), due to the expansion of agriculture, increases the vulnerability of residents who depend on such services mostly in times of drought. The expected impacts of climate change may contribute to an increase or decrease in watershed service availability, but are only marginal and much lower than management impacts up to the year 2025.

Are land sparing and land sharing real alternatives for European agricultural landscapes?

There is a lively debate on whether biodiversity conservation and agricultural production could be better reconciled by land sparing (strictly separating production fields and conservation areas) or by land sharing (combining both, agricultural production and biodiversity conservation on the same land). The debate originates from tropical countries, where agricultural land use continues to increase at the expense of natural ecosystems. But is it also relevant for Europe, where agriculture is withdrawing from marginal regions whilst farming of fertile lands continues to be intensified? Based on recent research on farmland biodiversity we conclude that the land sharing – land sparing dichotomy is too simplistic for Europe. Instead we differentiate between productive and marginal farmland. On productive farmland, semi-natural habitats are required to yield ecosystem services relevant for agriculture, to promote endangered farmland species which society wants to conserve even in intensively farmed regions, and to allow migration of non-farmland species through the agricultural matrix. On marginal farmland, high-nature value farming is a traditional way of land sharing, yielding high quality agricultural products and conserving specialized species. To conserve highly disturbance-sensitive species, there is a need for nature reserves. In conclusion, land sparing is not a viable olution for Europe in both productive and marginal farmland but because of different reasons in each type of farmland.