Analytically we are comparing multi-outcome "footprints" across types of interventions and their emergent properties (such as vulnerability), as well as looking at the jointness of outcomes (can we have livelihoods, food security and biodiversity at the forest edge?). We will plot pairs of outcomes against each other to identify patterned trade-off relatioonships/functions. We also want to understand the drivers behind outcomes.
The tools we are using are modeling global scenarios (PIK, IIASA), the IMPACT household decision-making model (via Mariana for the SAMPLES protocol-related analysis), GIS and spatial analysis. We are also monitoring projects to assess their empirical outcomes.Protecting Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity in the World's WatershedsGlobal priorities for the protection of ecosystem services and biodiversity. Map shows all ecosystem-service indices combined and all biodiversity indices combined (Hotspots, Global 200, and EBA). Watersheds are split into four categories: mutual-high priorities (MHP; red) for protection of both ecosystem services and biodiversity; high priorities for protecting ecosystem services (ESP; blue); high priorities for protecting biodiversity (BCP; green); and mutual-low priorities (MLP; gray/black) for protecting both ecosystem services and biodiversity. White areas are not included in our analysis. Color intensity varies in each category to reflect the quartiles of values in that category with dark-light corresponding with the top-bottom quartiles (Supporting Information).
Assessing adaptation, mitigation and risk management options at multiple scales Lini Wollenberg, Philip ThorntonCGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) Systems tools workshop, Wageningen, February 2013
Outline• CCAFS background• … at different spatial scales• … at different temporal scales• … in different domains (of knowledge, modes of enquiry, …)• Concluding remarks
CCAFS objectives 1. Identify and develop pro-poor adaptation and mitigation practices, technologies and policies for agriculture and food systems. 2. Support the inclusion of agricultural issues in climate change policies, and of climate issues in agricultural policies, at all levels.
The CCAFS Framework Adapting Agriculture to Climate Variability and Change Technologies, practices, partnerships and policies for: Improved 1. Adaptation to Progressive Climate Environmental Improved Change Health Rural 2. Adaptation through Managing Livelihoods Climate Risk Improved 3. Pro-poor Climate Change Mitigation Food Security 4. Integration for Decision Making • Linking Knowledge with Action • Assembling Data and Tools for Analysis and Planning • Refining Frameworks for Policy Analysis Enhanced adaptive capacity in agricultural, natural resource management, and food systems
… different spatial scales What are the trade-offs and synergies between benefits and costs (social, economic, nutritional, environmental) at: • Household, community levels and • At national, regional, global levels?Many examples: new technology production increases productprices decrease social benefits for urbanites individual producerdisbenefits, so no adoption …
Assessing different options at different scalesImportance of iteration; and which are robust? Global visioning Global impacts activities Global Scenarios modelling Participatory Regional Scenarios Regional impacts scenario building modelling Household & Action research Farmer/village community perspectives impacts modelling
… different temporal scales Are there trade-offs between benefits and costs (social, economic, environmental) between: • Coping with disasters now (drought, flood) • Managing seasonal risk • Adapting to increasing decadal temperatures?Many pathways to “maladaptation”: actions that increase GHG emissions;that disproportionately burden the most vulnerable; that have highopportunity costs; that reduce incentives to adapt; that limit choicesavailable to future generations (Barnett & O’Neil, 2009)
Managing climate risk · 2 >> Indexed crop & livestock insurance Trade-offs, synergies? • Avoids cost of verifying losses • Overcomes the problems of moral hazard • Farmers’ assets are protected from climate shocks • Impacts on longer-term local prices, local commodityIn indexed insurance schemes, payouts are based on supply, on the environment? a meteorological index (e.g., rainfall) correlated with agricultural losses, rather than on observed losses.
Adaptation to progressive climate change · 1 >> Farms of the future Trade-offs, synergies? • Sharing knowledge through cross-site farmer visits and participatory crop and livestock trials • Climate similarity mediated via socio-economic, politico- cultural similarities and differences Climate analogue tool to identify places • Do longer-term adaptations whose current climates correspond to the make sense next season? future of a chosen locality
… different domains• The need to find synergies between mitigation and adaptation• The need to balance indigenous knowledge / experience with new science• The need to balance technology and process (social learning …)
Social learning tools and approaches Individual Network SystemFacilitating “Search Conferences” (5) Collaborative learning exercise (9) Participatory techniques forInteraction mentoring farmers’ Role playing games (1, 3) Participatory techniques combined with social representatives (22) learning approaches (7) Joint interactive use of a single Coordination platforms, influence model (3) Facilitating public participation (7) especially at regional level (18?) Develop partnerships, engage in action research (10) Field visits, virtual role playing, project and policy simulation exercises (12)Capturing Framing/reframing exercise (14) Field visits (22)LessonsKnowledge Actors Platforms (3) Development of a knowledge network (12) Combining farmer-producedManage- resource maps of catchment Workshops for joint knowledge ICT-tools (14) areas (16)ment production (4) Collective perceptive maps (14) Card sorting techniques (3) Hexagon modeling (3)Simulation Agent based social simulation (3) Future scenarios workshops (8) Companion Modeling approach (1) Harvey (2013)
Low emissions development· 3 >> Governing mitigation trade-offs in agriculture- forest landscapes Trade-offs, Synergies? • Intensify agriculture to Food Security Livelihoods conserve tropical forests? • Forest C and ES at expense of Mitigation and sustainability expansion in South, CO2 in North • Intensification lowers GHG/kg, but increases inputs and pollutants •
Rethinking agricultural efficienciesTest innovations in supply chain Footprint of Analytics outcomes and efficiencies Emergent properties Trade-offs e.g. sustainability policies, development investments, agricultural credit, certification, industry CSR initiatives, awareness campaigns Per ha, kg, person UVM Gund Institute Initiative (Ricketts, Galford, Mendez, Farley ) with University of Michigan (Agrawal, Newton)
Strategic questions for mitigation1. How to avoid trade-offs: Low emissions development • SAMPLES HH modeling (ICRAF-ILRI-IRRI) • IIASA- LED priorities • U. Michigan- jointness of outcomes
Strategic questions cont.2. Land for food v. energy v. forests • Meeting energy needs: energy-food crop intermodel comparison (PIK and ILRI) • Geography of adaptation: impacts of elevation change by perennial crops (CIAT)
Concluding remarksPriorities for attention• Develop systems approach to link TO analysis• Sustainable intensification efficiencies and sustainability under climate change• More understanding of options and impacts from (1) short-to long-term and (2) benefits and costs across social groupsChallenges• Costs of measuring multiple dimensions• Managing process for understanding and applying local stakeholder values in specific places