This is an appendix of a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Regional Environmental Change. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01462-2 I. Template for the first round of semi-structured interviews1 The study encompasses a vulnerability assessment of Navarre’s farmers and how such vulnerability is influenced by modern irrigation. The information obtained from the interviews will be used confidentially. Personal information is only retained for potential follow-up procedures in the future, if necessary. The interview lasts approximately one and a half hours. I ask for your permission to record the interview. Thank you. Interview number: Sector: Place: Introduction Could you please tell me? 1. Your name and birth year (I also indicated gender): 2. Literacy level of number of years studied: 3. Your profession: 4. How do you connect your work to the agrarian sector? 5. How long have you been working in the agrarian sector? 6. How would you classify farmers in this area? 7. Could you tell me four types of agrarian practices common in the area? 8. How happy would you say you are regarding your livelihood? Why? Vulnerability analysis and identification of key institutions Stress factors 9. Please tell me about main problems within the rural sector (processes, changes, challenges) you have had to face in the last decade 10. Would you consider climatic stressors to be especially important, such as floods, droughts, rainfall volatility? 11. Please, specify the frequency, intensity, length and main effects on the land and farmers (such as crop lost) 1 Though the interviews were conducted in Spanish, We are publishing the final questions as translated to English. If interested in reviewing the originals, they are available via the author. -1- 12. Please tell me which are the two or three most important stressors from what we have discussed; why do you consider these the most important? The following questions are linked to the two or three most important stressors mentioned: Exposure and sensitivity 13. How often do stressors occur? (Length of the phenomena/magnitude/scope) (If relevant) 14. Do these problems affect all the crops equally? Which stressors are more impactful for cereals and vineyards? 15. From the previous classifications regarding farmer typologies within the zone, which type of farmer would you say is most exposed to the aforementioned challenges? 16. Would you say farmers with land in irrigated systems are less exposed? Which farmers are more sensitive? Why? 17. For the different types of farmers discussed, what were the outcomes of the stressors? Would you say those changes affected the existing relationships among the different farmers? 18. Do you know if affected farmers received any kind of help (financial, physical) to face the impacts of the stressors? If so, who gave this aid? What was this aid for, exactly? 19. Do you know if some of those climatic or environmental changes were beneficial for the communities? Why or why not? Can you provide an example? Adaptive response 20. How did you react against those challenges? Could you avoid their effects? (selling, buying, emigrating) If so, how did you resist? (intensifying practices, diversifying crops, buying insurances, joining cooperatives, syndicates, asking for a credit) 21. Did you use rural knowledge to avoid being affected by stressors? Can you give me an example? 22. Have you started any additional activity (entrepreneurial) to absorb or ameliorate stressor’s effect? Which one(s)? 23. Would you like to change any of your current activities to be less affected by the mentioned stressors? 24. Do you think that adopting modern irrigation could improve your situation? How? (More crop production and therefore higher economic gains, stronger social networks) Why? Could you tell me differences (accessing the market, legal rights and general advantages) between having either rainfed or irrigated systems? 25. Was adopting modern irrigation autonomous/assisted; automatic/planned; active/passive; a strategic reaction? 26. Did you foresee the problem (e.g. stressors)? How did you react once it had happened? 27. Do you think your reaction was effective? Efficient? Fair for you and for the rest of farmers? -2- 28. Do you think your actions and modern irrigation have effects on the environment and for other people living in his area? Which effects and why? (Trade-offs) 29. Do you think some of the mentioned actions and modern irrigation could be mal-adaptation measures? Why? (Examples to prompt discussion: Do you think this may displace some farmers? Do you agree with your current cost of water? Do you think this transformation is displacing less costly, better options? Do you think modern irrigation creates more dependencies such as technological dependencies?) Adaptive capacity 30. Which factors determine your actions? Are they determined by ecological features such as soil type? Personal knowledge and skills? Personal problem formulation? Social networks? Family? Personal financial situation (savings, debts, subsidies)? 31. From the aforementioned factors, which one do you think is the most important one? Can you mention other crucial assets to adapt? 32. On what does access to the mentioned assets and resources depend? (Access to the mentioned assets and resources), are there formal organisations establishing conditions to get access? 33. Which type of obstacles do you find when trying to adapt to the previously mentioned stressors, or when searching for your livelihoods sustainability? (Examples of obstacles: age, emigration/immigration, globalisation, market introduction, land attachment, others) 34. Do you consider modern irrigation to be an obstacle or an aid to be able to adapt to the mentioned stressors? Institutions 35. Which organisations do you consider of key importance to solve rural sector problems? Would you highlight any practice, mechanism? 36. Who decides how to resolve problems within the rural sector? Are they individual/social decisions? Are there differences between those under irrigation and those under rainfed systems? 37. What are the main discussion themes? How are decisions made? Is there any assembly mechanism to make decisions? How often are those topics discussed? How those meetings are disseminated in order farmers notice and are able to participate in them? 38. Are there any organisations that you miss in the area? Why or why not? 39. Can you identify the main organisations and institutions that enhance modern irrigation? Which type of agriculture would you say is strengthened? (Intensification?) 40. How is water for irrigation managed? How can you be part of modern irrigation? What would you add, change or erase from modern irrigation operation? 41. Has this institution always existed? Is it substituting other one? Do you think it reaches its aims? -3- 42. Are property rights different under irrigated or rainfed systems? How does modern irrigation influence property rights? (if relevant) 43. How do you think modern irrigation influences land labour and market access? 44. How can you get access to a bank credit? Is it easily accessible? What were the minimum requirements? 45. Is there financial aid connected to modern irrigation? 46. What rate of uncertainty exists in this sector change? Why might there be uncertainty? 47. Is modern irrigation and the subsequent access to irrigation water a discussion topic in the area? Between the existing livelihoods? Are there any conflicts linked to this topic? Why are there conflicts? Which parties are involved and what are their positions? 48. How do you think modern irrigation influences farmers’ vulnerability to climatic and other types of stressors? Extra questions if time permits How is land redistributed, after the concetración de tierras? How the definition of the irrigated zone was initially made? Please tell me your opinion about the questions; what would you change and why? Who else would you suggest to speak with? -4- II. Participants in the first round of interviews The following Table describes the participants’ profiles of the first-round interviews. Listed first are diverse farmers, followed by mixed stakeholders’ profiles. Farmers were selected according to time invested in agriculture, type of crops, management approach, gender and age. ‘Other’ stakeholders were selected in relation to their involvement within the transformation to modern irrigation. Land management system (If Age Gender Area/zone Profile applicable) Southern Part-time; cereal I.1 Middle Female Rainfed Zone ecologic system Medium Full-time; wine I.2 Middle Male Irrigated and rainfed area farm/vineyard Northern I.3 Young Male New farmer Irrigated and rainfed area Northern I.4 Middle Male Full time Irrigated and rainfed area Northern I.5 Middle Male Full time Irrigated and rainfed area Northern I.6 Old Male Full time Cooperative president area Northern I.7 Middle Male Part time Irrigated system without installation area Southern I.8 Middle Male Full time Irrigated area Southern I.9 Old Male Retired Small plot area Medium I.10 Middle Female Part time Rainfed area Medium I.11 Middle Female Part time Traditional irrigated system area Conventional and ecological Southern I.12 Middle Male Full time farming under irrigated and rainfed area systems I.13 Young Female n/a n/a Technician of AguaCanal Responsible of lands concentration I.14 Middle Male n/a n/a of INTIA Responsible of agrarian farms I.15 Middle Female n/a n/a training of INTIA Responsible of Projects and I.16 Middle Male n/a n/a direction of canal work Head of agricultural production I.17 Middle Male n/a n/a (I+D) of INTIA Technician of the negotiated of soils I.18 Middle Male n/a n/a and climatology of Navarre Government Head of re-parceling negotiation of Rural development and I.19 Middle Male n/a n/a environment department of Navarre Government Member of Nueva cultura del agua I.20 Middle Female n/a n/a NGO -5- Land management system (If Age Gender Area/zone Profile applicable) I.21 Middle Male n/a n/a Manager of Artajona cooperative Technical head of the CPAEN I.22 Middle Female n/a n/a Ecological Agriculture Council of Navarre Northern Worker of a city council, councilor I.23 Middle Male Part time area of agriculture I.24 Young Female n/a n/a Member of a consumption group I.25 Young Male n/a n/a Member of a consumption group Technician of UAGN agrarian I.26 Middle Male n/a n/a union in Navarre Technician of EHNE agrarian union I.27 Middle Male n/a n/a in Navarre Member of a traditional irrigation I.28 Middle Female n/a n/a community Agrarian economist professor at the I.29 Middle Male n/a n/a University of Navarre <35: Young; 35-55: Middle-aged; >55: Old -6- III. Template for the second round of semi-structured interviews Introduction2 We are researching the governance and access to irrigation water. We analyse the evolution of the traditional irrigation to new irrigation from the Navarre Canal and the determinants of this transformation, as well as the effects of the Canal on irrigators and non-irrigators’ livelihoods. The information obtained from the interviews will be used confidentially. Your personal information is only retained for potential follow-up procedures in the future, if necessary. The data will be utilised to further understand the role that institutions have on the vulnerability of socio-ecological systems. The obtained information will be potentially published in a scientific journal which addresses these issues. The interview will last approximately one hour. I ask for your permission to record the interview Thank you. Interview Questions In the following questions I aim to understand how the system of irrigation in Miranda de Arga has changed over time; what are the causes of this evolution and the effects that it has on the farmers and/or affected owners’ lives. 1. Please tell how the access to water has changed with the new modern irrigation system compared to the traditional one (20 min) a. Are the same people obtaining access to water (resource and users boundaries)? b. How many users (before and now); for how long time do they have the concession; which is the main use given; what are the conditions for access to modern irrigation water? Is there any relevant change you would mention? c. How were/are the irrigation costs and benefits? d. How are water-use decisions made (in both systems)? (Is there any assembly?) e. How was/is the surveillance of the proper use of resources performed? Are there sanctions in case of infractions? f. Who does the water originally belong to? Who manages it? g. How were/are conflicts solved? (before and currently) h. How were/are existing enterprises nested? (Irrigation community, AguaCANAL, INTIA, CHE etc.) 2. What socio-economic factors have addressed the change into modern irrigation? a. Why have these changes been adopted, instead of an alternative? 2 Though the interviews were conducted in Spanish, We are publishing the final questions as translated to English. If interested in reviewing the originals, they are available via the author. -7- b. Which other processes/external institutions, have enhanced the shift from traditional irrigation to modernisation? c. What are some advantages and disadvantages of the transformation to modern irrigation? (Who are the beneficiaries? Who are disadvantaged?) d. Why is there conflict in the village? Could you explain contrasting narratives/viewpoints? 3. Which implications do those changes have on the farmers and owners’ vulnerability? a. What are some of the effects/changes have on your life, on your land management practices, on your yield, to your family structure… b. Which other factors (global) affect your livelihood sustainability i. Crop selection and climate, price fluctuations, exposure ii. Financial assets (insurances, subsidies, on property and rented land); knowledge (literacy and working experience) Interview tools Table 1 was used as an aid while stakeholders reported traditional and modern irrigation differences regarding the management of the organisations in charge and also concerning the rights and duties of the irrigation farmers. -8- Table 1 Notes used to aid interview conversation TRADITIONAL IRRIGATION MODERN IRRIGATION CREATION, AIM CREATION, AIM Origination Origination Who defines it Who defines it Who has rights to access Who has rights to access How are norms and rules developed (statutes) How are norms and rules developed (statutes) What use(s) is/are given to water What use(s) is/are given to water Conditions for the use of water Conditions for the use of water Who ensures proper use of resources Who ensures proper use of resources How are enterprises nested How are enterprises nested Water property (public, private, managed by…) Private property, managed by AguaCANAL How much water used, for what duration How much water used, and for what duration COMMUNITY LEADERS COMMUNITY LEADERS General board General board Government board Government board Irrigation board Irrigation board Terms of office Terms of office Voting Voting RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANTS Right to water (how to access, how much, how Right to water (how to access, how much, how are rights exercised) are rights exercised) Voting conditions Voting conditions Construction, repair and maintenance, police Construction, repair and maintenance, police and control costs and control costs Interview for policy-makers Questions With the following questions we are exploring the perception of the political process in the materialisation of the ‘Canal de Navarra’; both the modernisation of traditional irrigation as well as the transformation of the dryland into irrigated systems. Furthermore, I am investigating how different decisions have triggered the execution of the project and whose interests are taken into account. 1. Please, tell me how you see the decision-making process a. Whose interests are promoted i. Financial, social, cultural and/or ecological interests? ii. Large-scale farmers’ or rather small-scale owners’? iii. To progress (please define), modernity and efficiency claims? b. How did the facts take place over time? Please, mention the most important milestones for you. i. Norms and orders declarations 1. At what scale (local, meso-level, macro-level (European and national) 2. Are subsidies/incentives included? -9- 3. Co-lateral effects of the interventions c. Justice vs. efficiency i. Does the process sacrifice democratic governance at the expense of financial efficiency while maintaining the equality of the current power relations? d. Certain groups ability to acquire benefits from resources (compared to other groups or livelihoods) e. Restrictions and barriers identification to sustainable livelihoods opportunities i. Delivered information (how was it executed) ii. Time allotted for decision-making iii. Recognition of livelihood diversity iv. Decision-making participation (how, solely inform, voting) v. Results of geographical conditions; technical elections and political agreements vi. Appropriation, accumulation, transferability and resource distribution vii. Particular actors’ ability to influence others’ ideas and practices viii. Rights: ownership, heritage, use ... ix. Individual vs. collective petitions x. Conflict and cooperation over the benefits; previously constituted laws or resulting laws xi. Influence over the access due to: 1. Technology 2. Market access 3. Financial capital 4. Knowledge 5. Authority (legal systems that benefit some and harm others, how are they articulated) 6. Social relations: friendship, trust, reciprocity, dependency and responsibility) 2. What is your opinion regarding the project aim and how it has actually been conducted? 3. What opinion do you think others have regarding the project? Regarding the process of the decision-making groups with opposing interests to yours (what do they think and why) - 10 - IV. Participants in the second round of interviews The following Table describes the participants’ profiles of the second-round interviews. Listed first are diverse farmers and owners of Miranda de Arga village, which correspond to the existing livelihoods. Next are multi-scale formal organisation representatives with diverse political stances towards the modern irrigation project. Farmers were selected according to the survey cluster results, which categorised participants consistent with their land management practices and diverse viewpoints. Position towards modern Age Gender Profile irrigation I.1 Young Female Large scale intensive farmer In favour I.2 Young Male Large scale intensive farmer In favour Experienced I.3 Male Large scale intensive farmer In favour young Experienced I.4 Male Large scale intensive farmer In favour young I.5 Middle Male Full time farmer In favour I.6 Middle Male Full time farmer In favour I.7 Old Male Retired farmer In favour I.8 Old Male Retired farmer In favour I.9 Middle Female Small scale diversified Against and denied to sell I.10 Middle Male Part time farmer Against and displaced I.11 Middle Male Part time farmer Against and displaced I.12 Old Male Retired farmer Against and displaced I.13 Old Male Part time farmer In favour I.14 Middle Male Part time farmer organic farmers Against Former Miranda de Arga council I.15 Middle Female ? major Worker of Miranda de Arga I.16 Middle Male In favour cooperative Personal in charge of the I.17 Middle Male maintenance of the traditional In favour irrigation system Member of Navarre parliament I.18 Middle Male Against belonging to BILDU Member of Navarre parliament I.19 Middle Male In favour belonging to UPN <35: Young; 35-55: Middle-aged; >55: Old - 11 - V. Survey template Introduction3 Hello, my name is Amaia Albizua and I am developing a PhD about agrarian ecosystem benefits. This PhD program is coursed at the Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) and developed in the BC3 (Basque Centre for Climate Change), in Bilbao. Questions about your livelihood (strategies, socio-demographic information etc.) and your opinion about modern irrigation project and related institutions will be made. The information obtained from the survey will be used confidentially. Only myself will have access to the data and it will not be published online. Your personal information is only retained for potential follow-up procedures in the future, if necessary. The survey will last approximately one hour. I ask for your permission to record the conversation while filling the survey. Thank you. Though the interviews were conducted in Spanish, We are publishing the final questions as translated to 3 English. If interested in reviewing the originals, they are available via the author. - 12 - Characterising questions: Socio-demographic, human, natural, physical, social and financial assets General information 1 Gender 0=F; 1=M An sw ers 2 Village 1= Añorbe 8= Falces 15= San Martin de Unx 2= Obanos 9= Miranda de Arga 16= Beire 3= Puente la 10= Berbinzana 17= Ujué Reina 11= Olite 18= Pitillas 4= Artajona 12= Caparroso 19= Murillo el Cuende 5= Larraga 13= Marcilla 20= Santacara 6= Mendigorría 14= Peralta 21= Murillo el Fruto 7= Tafalla 3 Age Nº 4 Studies /Years of studies 0= Non primary education If university or professional studies, go to Q. 5 1= Basic and secondary education 3= Professional Training (2 years) 4= Professional Training (3 years or more) 5= University studies 5 Are/were your studies related to agriculture? 0=No; 1=Yes 6 Were you raised in a farmers’ family? 0=No; 1=Yes If yes, continue with Questions 7 and 8 7 From your agrarian knowledge, what percentage would % you say is from your heritage or learnt at home? 8 What percentage would you say is external (courses, % books, magazines, Internet…)? 9 How many years have you been working in this sector? Nº PROFILE 10 1. Employee of agriculture (T) 2. Full-time farmer ATP (Aa) 3. Part-time farmer (Ab) 4. Agriculture manager (G) a. Owner b. Non-owner 5. Retired From agrarian sector From other sector 11 Hours worked at highest peak (e.g. harvesting time) per Nº day 12 Did you have to stop working last year due to health 0=None problems? (Please tell me approximately how many 1= 0-5 days due to minor days) issues (e.g. colds) 2= 10-20 days (minor) 3= More than a month (moderate) 4= More than two months (serious) - 13 - 13 Do you have any chronic illness(es) that may 0=No; 1=Yes negatively affect your work? 14 Number of members in the household Nº 15 Is agriculture the only source of income in the 0=No; 1=Yes household? 16 How many household members work with you in Nº agriculture? 17 How many household members are economically Nº dependent on you? 18 Has any member of the household recently emigrated 0=No; 1=Yes in search of work elsewhere? (to another city or country)? 19 Do you have generational replacement to continue your 0=No; 1=Yes work? 20 Total land extension of the worked land Nº of Hectares: 21 Are you owner of the land you work? 0=No; 1=Yes; 2=Partially If partially, continue to Questions 22-24 (profiles A and G) 22 Percentage of worked land that you own Nº 23 Percentage of worked land that you rent (indicate if Nº communal land) 24 How many hectares do you work that are owned by Nº others 25 Do you have CAP rights? 0=No; 1=Yes; 2=Partially (%); -9=Don’t know 26 Do you have land that is not worked by you Nº personally? If yes, continue with Questions 27-32 (Profiles A and G) 27 Is someone else working that land? 0=No 1= Family or friends 2= Services enterprise 3= Cooperative 28 Do you receive any rent? 0=No; 1=Yes 29 Do you receive a proportional benefit regarding your 0=No; 1=Yes land area transfer? 30 Do you decide which crops to grow? 0=No; 1=Yes 31 Do you decide on the land management practices? 0=No; 1=Yes 32 Do you invest in the infrastructure? 0=No; 1=Yes 33 How many hectares do you own/rent in the modern Nº of hectares: irrigation transformed area? If >0, continue with Questions 35-39 34 Before modern irrigation installation, did you have any 0=No; 1=Yes other source of water access that permitted you to (well, raft, traditional irrigate? Which one(s)? irrigation) 35 Have you installed modern irrigation in your plots? 0=No; 1=Yes 36 Which type of irrigation do you perform? 1=Sprinkling 2=Dropping 3=Others 37 Do you share irrigation tanks with any neighbour? 0=No; 1=Yes If yes, continue with Questions 38-39 38 With how many? Nº of neighbours 39 Do you take turns to irrigate? 0=No; 1=Yes - 14 - 40 Do you rent agrarian machinery? 0=No; (Profiles A and G) 1=Tractor 2=Harvester 3=Small tools (e.g. hoe, etc.) 41 Do you share machinery due to not owning all the 0=No; necessary tools? 1= Tractor (Profiles A and G) 2= Harvester 3= Small tools (e.g. hoe, etc.) 42 What is your degree of participation within the 0= Non-member 3=Mediu cooperative? 1= Very low m 2= Low 4=High 5=Very high 43 What is your degree of participation degree within the 0= Non-member 3=Mediu syndicate? 1= Very low m If affiliated with a syndicate, go to Question 44 2= Low 4=High 5=Very high 44 To which syndicate do you belong? 1=UAGN 3=UCAN 2=EHNE 4=Other 45 Have you applied 0=No; for any of the 1= FEADER (Rural development European agrarian funds) following (CAP) subsidies? 2= FEAGA (Guarantee European agrarian funds) (CAP) Which one(s)? 3= Subsidies for agrarian farms modernisation (Navarre Government) 4= Subsidies for inversions on modern irrigation (Navarre Government) 5= Cooperative credit aids 6= CUMAS 7= Young farmers installation aids 8= Others (specify) 46 Do you contract any agrarian insurance? 0= No; 2= Hail insurance Please specify. 1= Climatic and 3= Others other insurance (specify) (integral) 47 Do you sell your products directly (without 0=No; 1=Yes (% of the total intermediaries)? produced crops) 48 Do you have any contracts with agro-industry? 0=No; 1=Yes - 15 - IRRIGATION RAINFED CROPS Ha Last Which fertiliser do you Ha Last Which fertiliser do you year? use? year? use? Winter Ha 0=No; 1=Nitrates 4=Sludge Ha 0=No; 1=Nitrates 4=Sludge cereals 1=Yes 2=Phosphates 5=Organic 1=Yes 2=Phosphates 5=Organic (winter- 3=Slurries 6=Others 3=Slurries 6=Others wheat / barley) Vineyards Ha 0=No; 1=Nitrates 4=Sludge Ha 0=No; 1=Nitrates 4=Sludge 1=Yes 2=Phosphates 5=Organic 1=Yes 2=Phosphates 5=Organic 3=Slurries 6=Others 3=Slurries 6=Others Corn Ha 0=No; 1=Nitrates 4=Sludge Ha 0=No; 1=Nitrates 4=Sludge 1=Yes 2=Phosphates 5=Organic 1=Yes 2=Phosphates 5=Organic 3=Slurries 6=Others 3=Slurries 6=Others Other Ha 0=No; 1=Nitrates 4=Sludge Ha 0=No; 1=Nitrates 4=Sludge 1=Yes 2=Phosphates 5=Organic 1=Yes 2=Phosphates 5=Organic 3=Slurries 6=Others 3=Slurries 6=Others 49 Between irrigated and rainfed crops, which one 1= More in irrigated systems; demands a higher quantity of fertilisers? 3= Equal 2= More in rainfed systems 50 Between irrigated and rainfed crops, which one 1= More in irrigated systems; demands higher amounts of pesticides?(quantity) 3= Equal 2= More in rainfed systems - 16 - Changes and challenges 0=Not at all 0=Not at all Has irrigation 1= Very low How does the change 1= Very low changed your life? 2= Low affect your land 2= Low 51 If yes, continue to 52 3= Medium management 3= Medium Questions 85-88 4= High practices? 4= High (+) / (-) 5=Very high 5=Very high 0=Not at all 0=Not at all 1= Very low 1= Very low How does irrigation 2= Low How does irrigation 2= Low 53 affect the crops 54 3= Medium affect your income? 3= Medium production level? 4= High 4= High 5=Very high 5=Very high 0=Not at all Is the absence of 0=Not at all 1= Very low control over prices 1= Very low Do you work longer 2= Low an important 2= Low 55 hours since the change 56 3= Medium challenge for you? 3= Medium to modern irrigation? 4= High If yes, continue to 4= High 5=Very high Questions 90-91 5=Very high 0=Not at all 0=Not at all How much does the How much does the 1= Very low 1= Very low absence of control absence of control 2= Low 2= Low 57 58 over prices affect over prices affect your 3= Medium 3= Medium your happiness income? 4= High 4= High levels? 5=Very high 5=Very high 0=Not at all 0=Not at all Is drought an 1= Very low How much does 1= Very low important challenge 2= Low drought affect your 2= Low 59 you have to face? 60 3= Medium land management 3= Medium If yes, continue to 4= High practices? 4= High Questions 93-96 5=Very high 5=Very high 0=Not at all 0=Not at all 1= Very low 1= Very low How much does How much does 2= Low 2= Low 61 drought affect the 62 drought affect to 3= Medium 3= Medium production level? your income? 4= High 4= High 5=Very high 5=Very high 0=Not at all 1= Very low Which years, among How much does it 2= Low the last ten years, 63 64 affect your happiness? 3= Medium were the hardest in 4= High this regard? 5=Very high Is the absence of 0=Not at all 0=Not at all official support an 1= Very low 1= Very low How much does it important challenge 2= Low 2= Low 65 66 affect to your you have to face? 3= Medium 3= Medium income? If yes, continue to 4= High 4= High Questions 99-100 5=Very high 5=Very high 0=Not at all How much does it 1= Very low 67 affect your happiness? 2= Low 3= Medium - 17 - 4= High 5=Very high Adaptation strategies after modern irrigation transformation 68 Did you change your lands to a rainfed area 0=No; 1=Yes; (Nº Hectares) after the transformation? 69 Have you decided to leave the agrarian sector 0=No; 1=Yes and begin a new profession? 70 Have you sold all or a portion of your lands? 0=No; 1=Yes (Nº Hectares) 71 Have you rented all or a portion of your lands? 0=No; 1=Yes (Nº Hectares) If yes, continue to Question 105 72 Who do you rent your lands to? 1= Family / Friends 2= Cooperative 3= Others 73 Have you partially left the agrarian sector? 0=No; 1=Yes If yes, continue to Questions 107-108 74 Please indicate the percentage of time 0 = None 3= Medium dedicated to land labour 1 = Very low 4= High 2= Low 5= Very high 75 Please indicate the percentage of rent obtained 0 = None 3= Medium from agrarian land 1 = Very low 4= High 2= Low 5= Very high 76 Have you bought new land under modern 0=No; 1=Yes (Nº Hectares) irrigation system? 77 Have you rented new land under modern 0=No; 1=Yes (Nº Hectares) irrigation system? 78 How much do you use INTIA advice aid? 0 = Not at all 3= Medium 1 = Very low 4= High 2= Low 5= Very high 79 Have you diversified your crops after modern 0=No; 1=Yes irrigation transformation? If yes, continue to Question 113 80 How many additional crops do you have Nº of crops currently compared to previous years? 81 Have you completed any training course to use 0=No; 1=Yes modern irrigation? 82 Have you joined with any other organisation 0=No; 1=Yes that provides aid for the modern irrigation use? 83 Have you joined with other farmers to create a 0=No; 1=Yes CUMA? 84 Have you asked for credit from any bank? 0=No; 1=Yes 85 Once the transformation is made, how much 0= None 3=Medium money can you save financially? 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 86 Have you changed land management practices 0=No; 1=Yes in search of increased soil quality? 87 Do you have any other project in mind to 0=No; 1=Yes (If yes, please specify) improve your livelihood in a near future? -9=Don’t know - 18 - Cognitive capacities 88 Please rate your satisfaction levels with agrarian 0= None 3=Medium activity. 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 89 Do you trust joining other farmers to perform agrarian 0= Not at all 3=Medium activity? 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 90 Please rate the level of difficulty in learning how to use 0= None 3=Medium the new technology. 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 91 Is age a factor when considering the adoption of new 0= Not at all 3=Medium land management options, i.e. modern irrigation? 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 82 Please rate your level of conservatism regarding land 0= None 3=Medium management practices? 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 93 Please rate the importance in which you attribute to your 0= None 3=Medium freedom; i.e. the power of decision-making and ability to 1= Very low 4=High work for yourself. 2= Low 5=Very high 94 Please indicate your level of attachment towards your 0= No 3=Medium land 1= Very low 4=High If answered Medium, High, or Very High, please 2= Low 5=Very continue to Question 128 high 95 Does your (high) level of attachment towards your land 0=No; 1=Yes; -9 Don’t influence your decision to sell it? know 96 What level would you rate on science? 0= None 3=Medium 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 97 Do you think administrative bureaucracy is an obstacle 0= No 3=Medium in maintaining your livelihood? 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 98 Do you share information regarding the climate, 0= No 3=Medium favourable land management practices, etc. with your 1= Very low 4=High neighbours? 2= Low 5=Very high 99 Do you have Internet access? 0=No; 1=Yes 100 Do you use the Internet to obtain information about 0=No; 1=Yes agrarian related topics? (Seed prices, Climate forecasts, subsidies, etc.) 101 If necessary, would you trust getting financial aid from 0=No; 1=Yes your family or friends? - 19 - Local perception about modern irrigation transformation process 102 Do you think that the ‘Canal de Navarra’ modern 0= No 3=Medium irrigation transformation is necessary? 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 103 Do you think the transformation is being developed in an 0= No 3=Medium adequate way? (write down comments) 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 104 Do you agree with the Phase One extension in the 0= No 3=Medium traditional irrigation lands? 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 105 Do you think adopting modern irrigation is necessary to 0= No 3=Medium avoid becoming obsolete in the sector? 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 106 Do you think your election to use modern irrigation was 0= No 3=Medium influenced by outside agencies? 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 107 Do you feel this decision makes you less vulnerable to 0= No 3=Medium climatic factors? 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 108 Do you think a consequence of modern irrigation 0= No 3=Medium transformation is that there are now less farmers for the 1= Very low 4=High same land-area? (write down reasons if commented) 2= Low 5=Very high 109 Do you think this kind of transformation only benefits the 0=No; 1=Yes; 2=to all but ‘professional’ farmer? this one specially; -9 Don’t know 110 Are you satisfied with the concentración de tierras 0=No; 1= Yes; -9 Don’t process? know 111 Do you know what your options are if you do not agree 0=No; 1= Yes; -9 Don’t with the concetración de tierras process? know; 2= Yes, but it might not make a difference 112 Do you think there are favouritisms in the concentración 0=No; 1= Yes; -9 Don’t de tierras and re-distribution processes? know 113 Have you missed out on procedural information regarding 0= No 3=Medium the process? 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 114 Do you feel as if you were given an appropriate amount of 0= No 3=Medium time to decide if you wanted to be included within the 1= Very low 4=High modern irrigation transformation? 2= Low 5=Very high 115 From your perspective, how has agriculture changed with Please specify. the introduction of modern irrigation? 116 Do you agree with the modern irrigation taxes? (Specify.) 0= No 3=Medium 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high - 20 - 117 Do you think modern irrigation will make you more 0=No; 1= Yes; -9 Don’t competitive in the market? know 118 Have you had any trouble with the plots’ ownership deeds 0=No; 1= Yes; -9 Don’t when the concentración de tierras was made? know 119 Please indicate how 1=I was the owner but I have no certificate to demonstrate it (I have lost rights) 2= I paid the council to obtain my rights 3= Other 120 Do you think it would be better if water came from 0=No; 1= Yes; -9 Don’t another source other than the Navarre Canal? (Specify.) know; 2= There was no other option 121 How long do you anticipate until you are able to see the 0=Never benefits of the irrigation transformation? 1=Short-term (1-5 years) 2=Medium-term (5-8 years) 3=Long-term (8-15 years) 4=Very long-term (>15 years) 122 Do you think modern irrigation affects positively 0=No; 1= Yes; -9 Don’t soil/environmental conditions? (Specify) know 123 Do you think modern irrigation influences negatively soil 0=No; 1= Yes; -9 Don’t environmental conditions?? (Specify) know 124 How do you think modern irrigation differently influences farmers and owners within that area? (Social effects) 125 Do you think communal land is affected in a different 0=No; 1= Yes; -9 Don’t way? know (Please specify) 126 Please mention the three weakest and + - two strongest features of modern irrigation (Please specify) Do you know anyone who has left the sector following the transformation to modern irrigation? (If so, please indicate how many people you have known in this situation, and provide names if possible) - 21 - Institutions 127 Do you view CAP positively (due to its subsidies)? 0= No 3=Medium 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 128 Do you view CAP negatively (due to its subsidies)? 0= No 3=Medium 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 129 Do you think the state government is of key importance 0= No 3=Medium to aid the rural sector? 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 130 Do you think the Navarre government is of key 0= No 3=Medium importance to aid the rural sector? 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 131 Do you think the existence of the organic agriculture 0= No 3=Medium board is important to commercialise these types of 1= Very low 4=High products? 2= Low 5=Very high 132 Please indicate the level of involvement you perceive the 0= None 3=Medium agrarian syndicates have for the defence of farmers’ 1= Very low 4=High interests? 2= Low 5=Very high 133 Please indicate the level of trust you have for agrarian 0= None 3=Medium syndicates 1= Very low 4=High 2= Low 5=Very high 134 To what extent do you think URA-Nueva Cultura del 0= None 3=Medium Agua is of key importance for farmers’ interests’ 1= Very low 4=High defence? 2= Low 5=Very high 135 To what extent do you think INTIA helps promote the 0= Non- 3=Medium sustainability of the Navarre agrarian sector? member 4=High 1= Very low 5=Very high 2= Low 136 To what extent do you think the role of the irrigation 0= Non- 3=Medium community plays in negotiating irrigation conditions? member 4=High 1= Very low 5=Very high 2= Low 137 To what extent do you think the agrarian cooperative is a 0= Non- 3=Medium key representative organisation for the farmers? member 4=High 1= Very low 5=Very high 2= Low 138 To what extent do you think CHE helps the agrarian 0= Non- 3=Medium sector? member 4=High 1= Very low 5=Very high 2= Low 139 To what extent are you satisfied with the council you 0= Non- 3=Medium belong to? member 4=High 1= Very low 5=Very high 2= Low 140 Do you think the village farmers are united? 0= Non- 3=Medium member 4=High 1= Very low 5=Very high 2= Low 141 Do you think there is union between farmers from 0= Non- 3=Medium different villages? member 4=High 1= Very low 5=Very high 2= Low - 22 - 142 Please, mention the three laws, norms, organisations you + - consider most important for helping farmers. And the three worst? (Please specify why) - 23 - VII. Vulnerability analysis Table 2 shows in its first column the different stress factors and the shock farmers in Itoiz-Canal de Navarra region face. Second column refers to the measure unit. Third column provides a definition of each stress factor and shock followed by a further definition in the fourth column; the potential outcome for each livelihood in the sixth column and the references used are showed in the last column. Table 2. Exposure to climate variability and market prices volatility Type of Unit of Variable definition Definition Potential Reference stress meas. outcome for livelihood Climate Celsius Mean standard deviation of the daily What changes imply for the distribution of inter- Food/income (Hahn et al. 2009; variability average maximum T by month annual agricultural productivity changes in the insecurity Ahmed et al. between 1925-2009 distributions of temperature 2010) Celsius Mean standard deviation of the daily What changes imply for the distribution of inter- Food/income (Hahn et al., 2009; average minimum T by month annual agricultural productivity changes in the insecurity Ahmed et al., between 1925-2009 distributions of temperature 2010) Mm Mean standard deviation of the daily What changes imply for the distribution of inter- Food/income (Hahn et al., 2009; average precipitation by month annual agricultural productivity changes in the insecurity Ahmed et al., between 1925-2009 distributions of precipitation 2010) Drought Mm Average number of drought in the last What changes imply for the distribution of inter- Food/income (Hahn et al. 2009; 10 years: Mean precipitation-ETP annual agricultural productivity changes in the insecurity Ahmed et al. Potential of Thorntwaite distributions of hydric stress Conflict over 2010; Maru et al. natural resources 2014) Prices Eur Mean standard deviation of the prices What changes imply for the distribution of inter- Income insecurity (O’Brien et al. volatility4 perceived by farmers for each crop annual agricultural income changes in the 2004; Haile et al. distributions of prices 2013) 4 Price volatility is the third analysed stressor. For each crop, Before doing this, it was important to subtract the inflation effect of the years prior to 2013, which was done using the annual average consumption prices index (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, 2015). Mean price divided by the standard deviation gives a ratio that can be compared with the mean annual inflation to interpret whether those fluctuations have a strong effect on the household economy. The standard deviation of crop prices was used to calculate exposure to prices volatility - 24 - Type of Unit of Variable definition Definition Potential Reference stress meas. outcome for livelihood (1995-2013) (sum of the STDEV of all the crops per farmer) Table 3 presents the variables, definition and how such variables mediate the intensity of climate related stressors as well as the references where these ideas can be found. Table 3. Sensitivity and adaptive capacity to climate variability related stressors Variable definition Unit of meas. Definition How the intensity of the stressor is mediated Reference Household members Ratio Number of incapable people The effect of the climate hazard and consequent (Hahn et al. 2009; economically who depend on the household crop lost would be higher if more people is Notenbaert et al. 2013; dependent (+)* affected Ifejika Speranza et al. 2014) Ha of grown crop Ha Area of the most sensitive crop The percentage of land that can be irrigated will (Ifejika Speranza et al. sensitive to lack of known in the area suffer less from climate variability 2014) precipitation (+)** Crop diversity (-) Number of Number of different crops Number of different crops planted by a household Hahn et al (2009) crops each farmers has make the household less sensitive since such crop Eakin and Bojorquez-Tapia will have different responses to hazards being (2008) variable their resistance to hazards * Confusion about who is an elder dependent and how many children are dependent when both parents worked ** Type of crops already account for this differences since they have different hydric necessities - 25 - Adaptive capacity Variable Unit of Definition How the intensity of the Reference measurement stressor is mediated Human Education: Level 0= No studies An individual equipped with knowledge The level of education (Eakin and Bojórquez- of literacy (+) 1= Primary to respond to stressors and shocks provides tools to react to Tapia 2008; Hahn et education climate hazards. al. 2009; Ifejika 3= Secondary Speranza et al. 2014) intermediate (Notenbaert et al. 4= Secondary up 2013) 5= University Education: No=0, Yes=1 An individual with a high level of This agrarian knowledge will (Eakin and Bojórquez- Agrarian studies knowledge about agricultural practices better equip individuals Tapia 2008; Ifejika (+) against stressors and shocks Speranza et al. 2014) (Notenbaert et al. 2013) Education: farming Ln(Years) Knowledge which provides a holistic Experience in farming (Ifejika Speranza et al. experience (+) perspective in response to stressors on provides farmers with 2014) farming knowledge to react Socio- Human workforce Number of Human labour The higher the number, the (Ifejika Speranza et al. demogra (+) relatives working higher the response 2014)(Notenbaert et al. phic in the farm 2013) Female headed 0=F; 1=M Recognition of the negative role that In a female-lead household, (Hahn et al. 2009) household (-) gender plays on socio-political relations she may encounter more (Notenbaert et al. within the sector; females are more obstacles in accessing 2013) severely impacted by this inequality information, thus able to react to stressors and shocks Age (-) Ln(Years) Age of the participant The older an individual, the (Eakin and Bojórquez- less likely it is to develop Tapia 2008) adaptation strategies (Notenbaert et al. 2013) Financial Agrarian land Percentage Percentage of land under legal right of Ownership does not (Eakin and Bojórquez- ownership (+) possession necessarily facilitate freedom Tapia 2008) of decision, the percentage of owned land is also important for certain decisions - 26 - Adaptive capacity Variable Unit of Definition How the intensity of the Reference measurement stressor is mediated Rented agrarian Percentage Percentage of rented land Renting land decreases (Eakin and Bojórquez- land (-) decision capabilities Tapia 2008) CAP Subsidy No=0, Yes=1 Communitarian Agrarian Policy subsides In the event of a climate (Eakin and Bojórquez- access (+) hazard resulting in crop loss, Tapia 2008) extra income allows for replacement purchases appropriate for their livelihood practices Irrigation subsidy No=0, Yes=1 Economic aid to promote irrigation Economic aid to ensure (Eakin and Bojórquez- access (+) farms’ resistance to hazards Tapia 2008) Modernisation No=0, Yes=1 Economic aid to promote modernisation Economic aid to ensure (Eakin and Bojórquez- subsidy access (+) farms’ resistance to hazards Tapia 2008) Integral agrarian No=0, Yes=1 Contracted coverage which protects the Compensation in the event of (Eakin and Bojórquez- insurance access insured from financial loss from any a climate hazard Tapia 2008) (+) meteorological hazard Hail agrarian No=0, Yes=1 Contracted coverage which protects the Compensation in the event of (Eakin and Bojórquez- insurance (+) insured from financial loss from hail hail Tapia 2008) damage Others agrarian No=0, Yes=1 Contracted coverage which protects the Compensation for other (Eakin and Bojórquez- insurance (+) insured from financial loss covering other hazards Tapia 2008) risks affecting agricultural production Physical Percentage of the No=0, Yes=1 Modern infrastructure for irrigation Competitive in terms of (Eakin and Bojórquez- area of crops efficiency land management Tapia 2008) irrigated Social Grade participation Cooperatives offer assistance with Integration within the (Eakin and Bojórquez- networks as cooperative 0=No',1='Low',3= accessing subsidies, cheaper feed and cooperative provides Tapia 2008; Ifejika member 'Medium',4='High energy, crop commercialisation, information and decision- Speranza et al. 2014) management guidance, etc. making competence (Notenbaert et al. 2013) Grade participation 0=No',1='Low',3= Syndicates defend farmers and help with Integration within the (Eakin and Bojórquez- as syndicate 'Medium',4='High access to subsidies, etc. syndicate provides Tapia 2008; Ifejika member information and decision- Speranza et al. 2014) - 27 - Adaptive capacity Variable Unit of Definition How the intensity of the Reference measurement stressor is mediated making competence. This (Notenbaert et al. membership/participation in 2013) social networks can increase other assets (insurance, subsidies) Grade of 0=No',1='Low',3= Recognition that an open communication The more information shared, Speranza et al., 2014 information shared 'Medium',4='High with neighbours and friends facilitates the higher adaptive capacity. with friends or response capacity and increases social Information and adaptive neighbours cohesion capacity are directly correlated - 28 - Table 4 presents the variables, definition and how such variables mediate the intensity of crop prices volatiliy effects over farmers’ vulnerability as well as the references where these ideas can be found. Table 4. Sensitivity to crop prices volatility related stressors Variable Unit of Definition How the intensity of the stressor is mediated Reference meas. Income Yes / No Agriculture accounts for 100% of Those with a varied source of income are more Hahn et al (2009) diversification * the expenses entering in the financially protected against agricultural price household volatility Household Ratio Number of individuals who are The higher the amount of people are impacted by (Hahn et al. 2009; Notenbaert members dependent on the household potential stressors and shocks, the more sensitive et al. 2013; Ifejika Speranza et economically the household will be. al. 2014) dependent (+) Crops Number of Number of different crops hold The more diverse the crops, the less sensitive the Hahn et al (2009) diversification crops by a household farmers will be if one crop is negatively affected Eakin and Bojorquez-Tapia (price rate, climate stressors) (2008) Percentage of the Percentage Percentage of the crops directly When crops are directly commercialised (at local (Isakson 2014) crops directly sold sold level), there is more stability, as international market fluctuations will only have indirect effects Contract with Yes / No Contract with agro-industry Comparative advantage to other farmers; having agro-industry ** the contracts and rights to grow and market particular vegetables *Percentage of income unknown **We did not account for the area under contract - 29 - Adaptive capacity Variable Unit of measurement Definition How the intensity of the Reference stressor is mediated Human Education: Level of 0= No studies An individual with the knowledge to Education level provides (Eakin and Bojórquez- literacy 1= Primary education anticipate price volatility and crop tools to better react against Tapia 2008; Ifejika 3= Secondary suitability price volatility Speranza et al. 2014) intermediate (Notenbaert et al. 4= Secondary up 2013) 5= University Education: farming Ln(Years) Set of knowledge that provides a Farming experience provides (Ifejika Speranza et al. experience holistic perspective in response to knowledge to react 2014) farming stressors Socio- Female headed 0=F; 1=M Recognition of the negative role that In a female-lead household, (Hahn et al. 2009) demogra household gender plays on socio-political she may encounter more (Notenbaert et al. phic relations within the sector; females obstacles in accessing 2013) are more severely impacted by this information, thus able to inequality react to stressors and shocks Age (-) Ln(Years) Age of the participant The older you are, less likely (Eakin and Bojórquez- it is that you will be able to Tapia 2008) develop adaptation strategies (Notenbaert et al. 2013) Financial Owned agrarian Percentage Percentage of land under legal right Being owner facilitates (Eakin and Bojórquez- land of possession freedom for decision Tapia 2008) Rented agrarian Percentage Percentage of rented land Renting land decrease (Eakin and Bojórquez- land (-) freedom for decision Tapia 2008) CAP Subsidy Yes / No Communitarian Agrarian Policy If there is a climate hazard (Eakin and Bojórquez- access subsides and they lose their crops their Tapia 2008) have an extra income entrance to buy new seeds or whatever strategy they follow - 30 - Adaptive capacity Variable Unit of measurement Definition How the intensity of the Reference stressor is mediated Irrigation subsidy Yes / No Economic aid directed to irrigation They have economic aid to (Eakin and Bojórquez- promotion make their farm more Tapia 2008) resistant to hazards Modernisation Yes / No Economic aid directed to They have economic aid to (Eakin and Bojórquez- subsidy modernisation promotion make their farm more Tapia 2008) resistant to hazards Social Grade participation 0= None; 1= Very low; Cooperatives help on accessing The more integrated in the (Eakin and Bojórquez- networks as cooperative 2= Low; 3=Medium; subsidies, cheaper feed and energy, cooperative the more power Tapia 2008; Ifejika member 4=High; 5=Very high commercialize crops, management to decide and be informed Speranza et al. 2014) guiding etc. (Notenbaert et al. 2013) Grade participation 0= None; 1= Very low; Syndicates defend farmers and help The more integrated in the (Eakin and Bojórquez- as syndicate 2= Low; 3=Medium; on access to subsidies etc. cooperative the more power Tapia 2008; Ifejika member 4=High; 5=Very high to decide and be informed Speranza et al. 2014) (Notenbaert et al. 2013) Grade of 0= None; 1= Very low; Recognition that an open The more information Speranza et al., 2014 information shared 2= Low; 3=Medium; communication with neighbours and shared, the higher adaptive with friends or 4=High; 5=Very high friends facilitates response capacity capacity neighbours and increase social cohesion - 31 - ub-components, components and overall VI to climate variability and drought. ponents and overall VI to climate variability and drought Small-scale Medium-scale Medium-scale Large-scale All All diversified rainfed organic intensive intensive farmers livelih livelih farmers (SDi) farmers (MRO) farmers (MI) (LI) oods oods Major Major Major Major mean mean mean mean Max. Min. comp. comp. comp. comp. nomic dependent 0.77 1.64 1.57 1.06 8.00 0.00 erse of number of 0.44 0.13 0.41 0.16 0.42 0.17 0.36 0.12 1.00 0.20 armers) maize (hectares) 0.52 10.68 33.16 27.81 1100 0.00 s) 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.00 no; 1=yes) 0.10 0.56 0.18 0.59 0.22 0.62 0.18 0.61 1.00 0.00 = 0-5 years), (2= 5- years), (4= 30- 3.43 3.33 3.52 3.71 5.00 1.00 s) -55 (3 >55 years) 4.08 3.94 3.91 4.02 4.51 3.09 ember working of the household 0.39 0.58 0.14 0.54 0.40 0.55 0.36 0.57 4.00 0.00 =male) 0.90 1.00 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.00 0=no; 1=yes) 0.70 0.91 0.93 0.94 1.00 0.00 tion subsidy (0=no; 0.11 0.52 0.40 0.38 1.00 0.00 subsidy (0=no; Small-scale Medium-scale Medium-scale Large-scale All All diversified rainfed organic intensive intensive farmers livelih livelih farmers (SDi) farmers (MRO) farmers (MI) (LI) oods oods Major Major Major Major mean mean mean mean Max. Min. comp. comp. comp. comp. ubsidy (0=no; 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.06 1.00 0.00 surance (0=no; 0.17 0.18 0.41 0.36 0.53 0.38 0.43 0.34 1.00 0.00 nce (0=no; 1=yes) 0.28 0.41 0.60 0.52 1.00 0.00 rance (0=no; 0.05 0.14 0.19 0.13 1.00 0.00 d land (0=no; 0.68 0.84 0.41 0.97 66.67 0.00 land (0=no; 1=yes) 0.18 1.85 0.46 0.44 30.00 0.00 1=yes) 0.39 0.40 0.62 0.70 0.76 0.80 0.56 0.64 1.00 0.00 stallation (0=no; 0.40 0.77 0.84 0.73 1.00 0.00 with neighbours 0.88 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.00 rship (0=no; 1=yes) 0.79 0.66 0.86 0.83 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.83 1.00 0.00 ip (0=no; 1=yes) 0.32 0.64 0.79 0.68 1.00 0.00 tion of the daily 6.88 6.74 6.68 7.20 7.80 5.02 emp by month (ºC) tion of the daily 5.01 0.65 4.92 0.62 4.82 0.61 5.08 0.56 5.38 3.32 emp by month (ºC) tion of the daily 131.0 131.1 131.6 119.8 147.20 108.10 n by month (mm) -223.0 -223.3 -219.8 -268.5 -126.3 -325.6 0.53 0.43 0.40 0.42 Table 6 presents results regarding the sub-components, components and overall VI to price volatility. Table 6. Sub-components, major components, and overall vulnerability index to price volatility Small-scale Large-scale All All Organic Intensive diversified intensive livelihoods livelihoods Major Major Major Major Major comp. Sub-components mean mean mean mean Max. Min. comp. comp. comp. comp. Unique income 0.33 0.36 0.48 0.46 2.00 0.00 Family member economic dependent 0.77 1.64 1.57 1.06 8.00 0.00 Crops diversity 0.44 0.44 0.41 0.46 0.42 0.48 0.36 0.43 1.00 0.20 Direct Sell 0.78 0.77 0.89 0.82 1.00 0.01 Livelihood strategies Agro industry Work 0.97 0.95 0.90 0.90 1.00 0.50 Studies 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.00 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.83 Human Work experience 3.43 3.33 3.52 3.71 1.00 0.00 Age7 4.08 3.94 3.91 4.02 4.51 3.09 0.80 0.80 0.78 Socio-demographic Gender 0.90 1.00 0.99 0.96 0.81 1.00 0.00 PAC 0.70 0.91 0.93 0.94 1.00 0.00 Modernisation subsidy 0.11 0.52 0.40 0.38 1.00 0.00 Irrigation subsidy 0.19 0.71 0.68 0.60 1.00 0.00 0.18 0.38 0.35 0.33 CUMA subsidy 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.06 1.00 0.00 Percentage of owned land 0.68 0.84 0.41 0.97 66.67 0.00 Financial Percentage of rented land 0.18 1.85 0.46 0.44 30.00 0.00 Physical Internet Use 0.39 0.39 0.62 0.62 0.76 0.76 0.56 0.56 1.00 0.00 Information shared with neighbours 0.88 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.00 Cooperative membership 0.79 0.66 0.86 0.83 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.83 1.00 0.00 Social Syndicate membership 0.32 0.64 0.79 0.68 1.00 0.00 Price volatility Exposure to price volatility 39.27 0.01 133.45 0.02 402.13 0.07 279.59 0.05 5721.71 0.00 7 Log age. - 34 - Small-scale Large-scale All All Organic Intensive diversified intensive livelihoods livelihoods Major Major Major Major Major comp. Sub-components mean mean mean mean Max. Min. comp. comp. comp. comp. VI_prices 0.46 0.36 0.36 0.38 - 35 - Table 7 and Table 8 present results regarding the sub-components, components and overall VI to climate variability and drought and crop prices volatility respectively after a standardisation process. I calculated the inverse of these variables when calculating the 7-component based VI since they counteract vulnerability. The original values, however, were used for the VI index calculation when aggregated in three components, since adaptive capacity is already included in the formula as a subtraction. Table 7. Indexed sub-components, major components, and overall vulnerability index to climate variability and drought Vulnerability climate variability Major Major Major Major Sub-component SDi MRO MI LMI Comp Comp Comp Comp Family members economic dependent 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.13 Crops diversification (inverse) 0.30 0.13 0.27 0.16 0.28 0.17 0.21 0.12 Ha of irrigated maize 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 Studies 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 Agrarian studies 0.10 0.56 0.18 0.59 0.22 0.62 0.18 0.61 Working experience 0.61 0.58 0.63 0.68 Age (log) 0.70 0.60 0.57 0.65 Family members working in the sector 0.10 0.58 0.03 0.54 0.10 0.55 0.09 0.57 Gender 0.90 1.00 0.99 0.96 PAC subsidy 0.70 0.91 0.94 0.93 Modernisation subsidy 0.11 0.52 0.38 0.40 Irrigation subsidy 0.19 0.71 0.68 0.60 CUMA subsidy 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.06 Integral Insurance 0.17 0.18 0.41 0.36 0.53 0.38 0.43 0.34 Hail Insurance 0.28 0.41 0.60 0.52 Other Insurance 0.05 0.14 0.19 0.13 Percentage of owned land 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Percentage of rented land 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.01 Internet use 0.39 0.40 0.62 0.70 0.76 0.80 0.56 0.64 - 36 - Vulnerability climate variability Major Major Major Major Sub-component SDi MRO MI LMI Comp Comp Comp Comp Modern irrigation installation 0.40 0.77 0.84 0.73 Info shared with neighbours 0.88 1.00 0.97 0.91 Cooperative member 0.79 0.66 0.86 0.83 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.83 Syndicate member 0.32 0.64 0.79 0.68 Mean standard deviation of daily average maximum 0.67 0.62 0.60 0.79 Mean standard deviation of daily average minimum 0.82 0.78 0.73 0.85 0.65 0.62 0.61 0.56 Mean standard deviation of daily average precipitation 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.30 Hydric deficit 0.52 0.51 0.53 0.29 - 37 - Table 8. Indexed sub-components, major components, and overall VI to price volatility Vulnerability price volatility Major Major Major Comp LMI Major Comp Sub-component SDi MRO MI Comp Comp Unique income 0.16 0.36 0.23 0.24 Family members economic dependent 0.26 0.33 0.18 0.20 Crops diversification (inverse) 0.25 0.44 0.27 0.46 0.21 0.48 0.23 0.43 Direct Sell (inverse) 0.78 0.77 0.82 0.89 Agro-industry work (inverse) 0.95 0.91 0.80 0.80 Studies 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.79 0.80 0.82 0.83 Working experience 0.61 0.44 0.68 0.63 Age (log) 0.66 0.44 0.68 0.56 0.80 0.80 0.78 0.81 Gender 0.90 1.00 0.96 0.99 PAC subsidy 0.70 0.91 0.94 0.93 Modernisation subsidy 0.11 0.52 0.38 0.40 Irrigation subsidy 0.19 0.71 0.60 0.68 0.18 0.38 0.35 0.33 CUMA subsidy 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.11 Percentage of owned land 0.35 0.09 0.01 0.19 Percentage of rented land 0.18 0.06 0.37 0.21 Internet use 0.39 0.39 0.62 0.62 0.56 0.75 0.76 0.56 Info shared with neighbours 0.88 1.00 0.91 0.97 Cooperative member 0.79 0.66 0.86 0.83 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.83 Syndicate member 0.32 0.64 0.68 0.79 Sum of all crops price volatility 0.06 0.01 0.30 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.15 0.05 - 38 - Table 9. VI to climate variability and drought contributing factors for the four types of livelihoods (IPCC, 2001) IPCC Small-scale Medium-scale Medium-scale Large-scale contributing diversified rainfed organic intensive intensive factors farmers farmers farmers farmers Sensitivity 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.12 Adaptive 0.39 0.52 0.56 0.52 capacity Exposure 0.65 0.62 0.61 0.56 VI_climate 0.035 0.015 0.007 0.005 Table 10. VI to price volatility contributing factors for the four types of livelihoods (IPCC, 2001) IPCC Small-scale Medium-scale Medium-scale contributing diversified rainfed organic Large-scale intensive farmers intensive farmers factors farmers farmers Sensitivity 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.43 Adaptive 0.48 0.61 0.63 0.59 capacity Exposure 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.05 VI_price -0.20 -0.27 -0.27 -0.24 VIII. Focus group template Introduction8 Thank you very much for your cooperation. I am sure each of you has much to contribute to this workshop and hopefully we can have a discussion in which we can learn from each other. Joining me today is Imanol Okiñena, a master student and collaborator in the centre where I work, and Begoña Renteria, a social worker and friend. The objective for the discussion is to better understand the access to irrigation water. To do this, I am interested in the different viewpoints and perspectives regarding the modernisation of irrigation in Miranda de Arga by analysing the comparison of traditional and modern irrigation. There are rules for the discussion. It is very important to be respectful of taking turns in speaking and adhering to the objectives of the workshop. It is particularly essential to maintain compliance with all participants. Please, let us maintain an environment of respect to everyone throughout the debate. 8 All the interviews were conducted in Spanish. Here, the questions are translated to English. If anyone wishes to view the original versions, they are available via the author. - 39 - I would appreciate if each participant can take approximately two minutes to introduce themselves and state the reason that each person is here today. I ask for your permission to record it. Thank you again for contributing. Traditional and modern system characterisation The first exercise consists of characterising each irrigation system. Please write down a brief description on the provided card focusing on the given categories: • Monitoring, surveillance and penalties regarding the proper management of irrigation water. How is this influenced/will influence the behaviour of users/biophysical conditions and its effect on irrigation farmer relations (cooperation, dependency). • Is the distribution of benefits and cost (rights and duties) properly balanced between irrigation farmers and/or external actors (concessionary company, Navarre Government, etc.)? • Water consumption (efficiency and effectiveness of the irrigation system) • Prices (commodification of land and water) • Community, insurance-related subsidies that may potentially favour some groups • Others Each participant will fill out their cards and place them with the corresponding topics, in the panels of traditional and modern irrigation systems. We will compare both irrigation systems. Finally, a brief descriptive summary will be made, followed by the debate. Advantages and disadvantages of both modern and traditional systems Now we will discuss some advantages and disadvantages of both systems. Respective to the topics from the previous exercise, we will examine a few related variables: social, economic, environmental, cultural and political aspects (empowerment, disempowerment). In the following panel we will document the advantages and disadvantages of the ideas discussed in the previous exercise. We must specify what kind of benefits they are (economic, environmental, etc.) and which group (among the different types of farmers) is either positively or negatively affected. Advantages and disadvantages may be related to three different types of farmers 9, which are representative of the different livelihoods in Itoiz-Canal de Navarra zone. Everyone has 10 min to think and then participants will stand up to draw up your ideas (represented by cards) and placed at each point you want to discuss. 9 I did not distinguish between large-scale and medium-scale intensive farmers and both were discussed as belonging to the same group. - 40 - Break Summary of the debate Discussion focus on the effect of the advantages and disadvantages among the plurality of actors involved: smallholders, intensive farmers, organic farmers. List of participants and brief description Here are the profiles of the focus group participants who were involved. Profile FG.1 INTIA technician in charge of the concentración de tierras FG.2 Land-holder in favour of traditional irrigation FG.3 Miranda de Arga neighbour, sustainable fluvial manager and member of the foundation Nueva Cultura del Agua FG.4 Miranda de Arga intensive farmer FG.5 Miranda de Arga organic farmer Note: This focus group was conducted in June 2015 in Miranda de Arga - 41 - IX. Characteristics of farmers livelihoods profiles Here is a summary of the main characteristics of farmers’ livelihood profiles (Albizua 2016). Table 11. Characterisation of the clusters regarding farmers’ land use management (N=364) Key variables to characterise clusters of farmers Cla/Mod Mod/Cla v-test Small scale diversified farmers (N=125) No irrigated maize conventionally fertilised 64.80 92.80 12.72 No irrigated (other) cereal conventionally fertilised 75.00 76.80 12.11 No irrigated maize (0 Ha) 64.50 87.20 11.66 No rainfed cereal (0 Ha 74.51 60.80 9.94 Low surface (0-5 Ha) of irrigated ‘other’ crops 69.51 45.60 7.42 No irrigated cereal (0 Ha) 47.23 88.80 7.33 Conventionally fertilised irrigated ‘other’ crops 64.20 39.69 5.86 Medium scale organic farmers (N=22) Organic fertilised rainfed cereal 100.00 68.18 9.56 Organic fertilised rainfed vineyard 100.00 40.91 7.05 Low surface (0-5 Ha) of rainfed vineyard 23.53 36.36 3.57 Organic fertilised irrigated maize 50.00 18.18 3.42 Organic fertilised irrigated ‘other’ crops 23.08 27.27 2.98 Low surface (>5 Ha) of rainfed vineyard 23.81 22.73 2.74 Large-scale intensive farmers (N=86) Mixed fertilised rainfed cereal 83.05 56.98 10.81 Mixed fertilised irrigated maize 67.95 61.63 9.71 Quite extend area (75 Ha) of rainfed cereal 60.61 46.51 7.23 Quite extend area (>50Ha) of irrigated maize 63.33 22.09 4.81 Medium scale intensive farmers (N=131) Conventionally fertilised irrigated maize 81.82 61.83 11.11 Conventionally fertilised rainfed cereal 64.20 79.39 10.21 Conventionally fertilised irrigated cereal 85.71 50.38 10.18 No rainfed ‘others’ (0 Ha) 42.47 96.95 6.04 Medium area of irrigated maize (10-50 Ha) 55.10 41.22 4.52 Small area of irrigated maize (5-10 Ha) 69.23 20.61 4.42 Small area of rainfed cereal (10-50 Ha) 54.02 35.88 3.93 Note: The mode is the value that appears most often in a set of data, in this case Cla/Mod refers to the part of the total population that is in the cluster. Mod/Cla refers to the most recurring value in the cluster. If the v-test (last column) is positive, it indicates that the category is over-expressed for the category; if the v-test is negative, it means that the category is under-expressed for the category. The v-test indicates the size differences between class and mode: the larger the number, the higher the representation of that variable is in the given cluster (in comparison to other clusters). - 42 - Table 12 Farming livelihoods across villages Farming livelihoods North Medium South Small scale diversified farmers (N=125) 54 44 27 Medium scale organic farmers (N=22) 6 12 4 Large-scale intensive farmers (N=86) 30 39 17 Medium scale intensive farmers (N=131) 21 40 70 - 43 -