This document outlines an assessment of climate-smart agriculture (CSA). It discusses indicators for measuring CSA's contributions to food security, adaptation, and mitigation. It provides examples of successful CSA projects from FAO and others, including those focusing on improved rice cultivation techniques in Vietnam, drought-tolerant maize varieties in Africa, and livestock insurance programs in Kenya and Ethiopia. The document concludes with instructions for a breakout group exercise to further assess the CSA potential of case studies.
2. Outline
I. Assessing CSA
• Food Security
• Adaptation
• Mitigation
II. CSA Success Stories – FAO
III. CSA Success Stories – Others
IV. Breakout Group Exercise
3. Assessing CSA
Food Security
• Identify indicators to measure FS contributions of
interventions
– Productivity of crops, livestock, fisheries, forestry products
– The stability of production under climate stress
– Improvements in crop/total income
– Availability of a diverse & nutritious diet
– Access to markets to improve availability
• Compare with business as usual scenario
– Including costs & benefits
4. Assessing CSA
Adaptation
Altering exposure Reducing Sensitivity Improving adaptive capacity
• Assess impacts and map
hazard zones
• Conduct proper land and
wateruse planning
• Protect watersheds and
establish flood retention zones
• Change cropping patterns
Mitigation
• Develop or adopt suitable
crop, plant and animal
varieties
• Improve irrigation and
drainage systems
• Diversify cropping and
agricultural activities
• Adopt disaster-prevention
• Develop adaptive strategies
and action plans
• Diversify sources of
household income
• Improve water and other
infrastructure systems
• Establish disaster and crop
insurance schemes
CO2
rate of deforestation and
forest degradation,
adoption of improved
cropland management
practices (soil conservation)
CH4, N2O
improved animal production and
management of livestock waste,
more efficient management of
irrigation water on rice paddies,
improved nutrient management on
cropland
Sequestering carbon
restoration of degraded soil,
increased organic matter inputs
to cropland, improved forest
management practices,
afforestation and reforestation,
agro-forestry, improved
grasslands management
5. Quantifying and targeting mitigation in ag:
The FAO EX-Ante Carbon balance Tool (EX-ACT)
• An Excel based tool to quantify the amount of GHGs released or
sequestered from activities in the AFOLU sector
• Requires activity data on agricultural practices, resource use and
land use change
• Calculates estimated GHG impacts in tonnes of CO2-equivalents
largely using the IPCC 2006 guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories
• Allows project designers to adjust investment projects to
simultaneously provide economic and mitigation benefits
• http://www.fao.org/tc/exact/ex-act-home/en/
The EX-Ante Carbon balance Tool (EX-ACT): Logic and Application
6. Conservation
agriculture
Watershed
management
The EX-Ante Carbon balance Tool
EX-ACT Training Workshop
www.fao.org/tc/exact
Adapted crop
and farming
practices
Irrigation and
water
management
Crop and
income loss
risk
management
Disaster risk
management
(flood,
drought...)
Livestock and
grassland
management
Management of
irrigated rice
Synergies:
Main agriculture options
Adaptation
Mitigation
8. Preserving the Agro-forestry system
on Mount Kilimanjaro
What makes it Climate Smart?
Food and income: to be improved via conversion to certified organic
coffee farming; introduction of vanilla as a high value additional cash crop;
and introduction of trout aquaculture along the canals of the irrigation
system.
Adaptation: Rehabilitation of the irrigation system to reduce water loss
and to cope with longer dry seasons due to climate change; training in
sustainable land management.
Mitigation: Sustainably managed “Kihamba” system increases carbon
storage.
10. Andean agriculture:
the importance of genetic diversity
What makes it Climate Smart?
Food and income: to be increased and stabilized through genetic
diversity
Adaptation: Traditional terraced farming systems maintain soil fertility
and improve the resilience of the agro-ecosystem while providing
suitable breeding stocks needed to adapt production to climate change
Mitigation: This program does not aim to provide mitigation benefits.
12. A landscape approach for policy making,
planning and monitoring-Kagera river basin
What makes it Climate Smart?
Food and income: to be improved through restoration of degraded
lands, increased production and use of agricultural biodiversity
Adaptation: A participatory multi-sector process to asses and map land
degradation and sustainable land management (SLM) to improve
adaptation
Mitigation: Carbon sequestration though incorporation of trees and
improved crop & livestock management
13. Carbon finance to bring back grasslands
in Three Rivers region of China
271
Households
22,615
ha
14,354
sheep
9,216
yaks
…are part of the project to improve livelihoods and resilience through
sustainable grassland management and better livestock marketing
while receiving carbon credits
What makes it Climate Smart?
Food and income: Improved pastures feed more animals and people.
Upgraded husbandry and marketing add value to products.
Adaptation: Restoring degraded grassland builds resilience to climate
change by increasing soil moisture and nutrient retention.
Mitigation: Thriving grasslands are a huge carbon sink. In its first 10 years,
the mitigation potential is estimated at 63,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide
equivalent per year.
15. Drought-Tolerant Maize for Africa
DTMA
>100 DT
maize
varieties
Released
in 13
countries
20-30%
more
yield
>2 million
smallholders
More than 2 million smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa are now
growing drought-tolerant maize varieties that build resilience and increase
yields and productivity
What makes it Climate Smart?
Food and income: Drought-tolerant maize varieties are increasing yields
even under moderate drought conditions, thus raising income for farmers.
Adaptation: The new varieties will enable farmers to cope with more
frequent droughts projected as a result of climate change.
Mitigation: Farmers could potentially reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
combining the use of drought-tolerant maize with practices such as no-till
agriculture/agroforestry.
17. Alternate wetting and drying
for more efficient rice farms in Vietnam
Reduce
water use
up to 30%
Reduce
methane
emissions
by 48%
Potential
for 3.2
million ha
Decrease
input use
MARD’s 2011 policy aims for 3.2 million hectares of improved rice cultivation
with AWD by 2020
What makes it Climate Smart?
Food and income: AWD maintains productivity & lowers water use and
emissions. Reduced input use (water, fertilizers, insecticides) decreases
costs and thus raises incomes.
Adaptation: Reducing water use by up to 30% through AWD enables rice
farmers in areas with growing water stress to continue to cultivate rice
without adverse impacts on yield.
Mitigation: AWD decreases the methane emissions by around 50% from
rice cultivation
18.
19. Index-based livestock insurance for
climate resilience in Kenya and Ethiopia
Based on
real-time
satellite
data
Productive
safety net
Involve
commercial
insurers
Incentivize
investments
IBLI was first piloted in northern Kenya in 2010, then following the success of
the pilot it was expanded into southern Ethiopia in 2012
What makes it Climate Smart?
Food and income: Droughts and other extreme weather events are
marked by food insecurity, and the pay-outs received from IBLI enable
pastoralists to fulfil their food needs.
Adaptation: Insurance increases pastoralists’ resilience to extreme
weather.
Mitigation: This program does not aim to provide mitigation benefits.
20.
21. Breakout Session:
Assessing the CSA potential of case studies
1. Asses the local situation: climate change,
agriculture, food security
• What are priorities?
2. Identify contributions to all CSA pillars
3. Identify indicators for measurement &
monitoring
• Which existing data sources?
• Additional data & analysis needs?
• Barriers to adoption?
4. Identify synergies and/or tradeoffs
5. Identify potential funding sources
6. Report to the plenary
22. Guiding Questions
1. Which dimensions of food security are
addressed by project?
2. Adaptation to slow onset CC or extreme
events?
3. If there are mitigation co-benefits: does it
aim to decrease emissions and/or increase
sinks/sequester carbon?
4. What are institutional enabling factors/
barriers to adoption?
5. Policy bottlenecks if any?
Identifying adaptation benefits from any specific agricultural development activity, we need to have an idea about how climate change is projected to affect that location and agricultural system, as well as about the effectiveness of strategies for reducing vulnerability and increasing adaptation to such changes. For mitigation we need to understand the increase in emissions that could be expected under a conventional agricultural growth strategy, as well as the reduced growth or absolute reduction in emissions that could be achieved under an alternative strategy.
4 R’s of fertilizer efficiency: right product, right dose, right placement, right timing
Identifying adaptation benefits from any specific agricultural development activity, we need to have an idea about how climate change is projected to affect that location and agricultural system, as well as about the effectiveness of strategies for reducing vulnerability and increasing adaptation to such changes. For mitigation we need to understand the increase in emissions that could be expected under a conventional agricultural growth strategy, as well as the reduced growth or absolute reduction in emissions that could be achieved under an alternative strategy.
The “Kihamba” agroforestry system covers 120 000 hectares of Mount Kilimanjaro’s southern slopes. The 800 year-old system stands out among agroforestry systems as one of the most sustainable forms of upland farming. Without undermining sustainability, it has been able to support one of the highest rural population densities in Africa, providing livelihoods for an estimated one million people. As an ecologically compatible cash crop, coffee allowed the agroforestry system to adapt successfully to the emerging cash economy. However, in the 1990’s, coffee prices on the world market plummeted at the same time as pests and diseases were increasing. Additionally, many coffee shrubs had reached an age (over 50 years) when they produce less beans. These factors led to a sharp decline in productivity and profitability. It is estimated that 20 percent of coffee cultivations in the area have been abandoned. If this continues, it will have massive environmental and socio-economic implications in the landscape around Mount Kilimanjaro especially on food security, carbon storage, water catchment and soil erosion.
Rethinking sources of cash income. Three interventions were agreed on: a) conversion to certified organic coffee farming; b) introduction of vanilla as a high value additional cash crop; and c) introduction of trout aquaculture along the canals of the irrigation system.
• Rehabilitation of the irrigation system to reduce water loss and expansion of the capacity of storage ponds to cope with longer dry seasons due to climate change.
• Training in sustainable land management.
• The interventions in coffee management alone are expected to increase farm cash income by 25 percent in three years.
The GEF funded, FAO-led Global Partnership Initiative on conservation and adaptive management of “Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems” (GIAHS), in coordination with the Ministry of Environment, other local institutions and the participation of local communities, is helping value these ingenious agricultural technologies to guarantee their conservation, while providing sustainable development conditions for present and future generations of Andean peoples. With these actions, FAO aims at developing appropriate technologies and measures to address the impact of climate change while strengthening the food and nutrition security of local families for current and future generations. The FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture adopted a “Programme of Work on Climate Change and Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture” to promote the understanding of the roles and importance of genetic resources for food and agriculture in food security and nutrition and in ecosystem function and system resilience in light of climate change.
The goal of the Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (Kagera TAMP),
funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and implemented by FAO, is to adopt an integrated ecosystem
approach for the management of land resources in the Kagera River Basin. The Basin is shared by Burundi,
Rwanda, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania. Through a landscape approach the project helps restore
degraded lands, sequester carbon, adapt to climate change and use agricultural biodiversity in a sustainable
way while improving agricultural production, rural livelihoods and food security.
The herding households can choose a combination of management options, such as selectively reducing grazing, sowing grasses or storing winter hay. The project also supports profit-boosting measures like improved feeding, post-farm processing and marketing activities. The aim is to raise the productive potential of more than 22 000 hectares of degraded land—while still protecting producers’ income in the near term.
Partners and funding sources
The FAO partnered with CAAS, ICRAF and NWIPB to develop the carbon accounting methodology, which was subsequently validated by the Verified Carbon Standard.
Key lessons and impacts
The FAO’s new carbon accounting system can be used around the world to secure carbon finance for up-front investments in sustainable grazing.
To entice herders to participate, projects need to deliver net economic returns. This also helps to link climate change mitigation with rural development objectives.
Strong institutions for monitoring and enforcement are crucial to ensure reliable, verifiable carbon benefits.
Started in 2006. CIMMYT and IITA’s diverse group of partners from both the public and private sectors helped avoid the bottlenecks that often slow efforts to get improved crop varieties to farmers.
More than 2 million smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa are now growing these new maize varieties and hybrids.
Farmers are reporting yields 20–30% above their traditional varieties, despite dry conditions.
MARD’s 2011 policy aims for 3.2 million hectares of improved rice cultivation by 2020.
Partners and funding sources
The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and various national partners have been involved in the development and testing of AWD, funded by the Global Rice Science Partnership (GRiSP) and other programmes. In Vietnam, the MARD’s extension services support roll-out of AWD.
Field demonstrations across multiple countries showcased AWD’s benefits to farmers and policy makers and ensured buy-in at multiple levels.
AWD offers multiple wins for farmers, reducing costs associated with watering, fertilizer and insecticide application.
In contrast with conventional insurance products, IBLI tracks local forage conditions using real-time, publicly available satellite data (‘greenness maps’) to determine the severity of drought, predict area-average livestock losses and calculate policyholders’ indemnity payments. When the contractual threshold—or ‘strike’ point—of forage loss or predicted livestock mortality is reached, the IBLI contract is triggered and policyholders receive a pay-out proportionate to the number and type of animals insured and the severity of vegetative loss and expected herd loss in the policyholder’s geographic area. Thus, IBLI aims to provide a productive safety net for households affected by livestock loss and help them effectively manage the resulting shock. IBLI may also incentivize investment in livestock and nourish the economy in pastoral areas.
IBLI has been piloted in the Marsabit district of northern Kenya since 2010, with the active participation of a Kenyan insurer and technical support towards product design from Cornell University and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). NOTE: that 40% of the premium was subsidized by donors