Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Van wijk ccaf_ssites_modelingworkshopamsterdam_2012-04-23
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Van wijk ccaf_ssites_modelingworkshopamsterdam_2012-04-23

1,304
views

Published on

Presentation from the CCAFS Farm-household Modeling workshop - Amsterdam, 23-35 April 2012

Presentation from the CCAFS Farm-household Modeling workshop - Amsterdam, 23-35 April 2012

Published in: Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,304
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. CCAFS site description
  • 2. CCAFS Sites• Three regions at the moment: – East Africa – 6 sites – West Africa – 5 sites – South Asia – 4 sites• CCAFS site portfolio available at http://ccafs.cgiar.org/where-we-work
  • 3. East Africa
  • 4. West Africa
  • 5. South Asia
  • 6. Type of data available• General characterisation • Household level (140 household per site) • Village level (1 village per site) • Organisational level (10-15 organisations per site)• Detailed characterisation • Household level: basic indicators on welfare, information sources, livelihood/agriculture/natural resource management strategies, needs and uses of information • Village level: focus group discussions, socially differentiated, on resource access, organisational landscapes, sources of information • Organisational level: provision of services and information to farming communities • All tools and data available at http://ccafs.cgiar.org/resources/baseline-surveys• Envisaged: for smaller number of households and communities: • Small group of farms: quantitative measurements of production (IMPACTlite?)
  • 7. CCAFS view on HH model outcomes• Design, targeting and evaluation of a range of interventions for adaptation, mitigation and risk management – livelihood diversification as a strategy for adaptation: • Technologies • Enterprises • NRM practices – index-based insurance – varietal adjustment versus need for crop substitution
  • 8. CCAFS view on HH model outcomes• Evaluation of – Economic implications of a range of adaptation options – What trade-offs/synergies exist with food security – Cumulative effect of climate and other stochastic drivers on asset/wealth accumulation or depletion• Key terms here are risk and resilience, in terms of – Economic performance – Food production
  • 9. More detailed info for three CCAFS sites• We will use these as test cases to see which key steps are needed to develop HH model framework to analyse aspects related to risk and resilience of these systems with CC
  • 10. Kagera Basin, Tanzania, East AfricaSteep rainfall gradient, high (>1400mm) along Lake Victoria rapidly declining to low inWestern Rakai and Isingiro (<1000mm). Low vulnerability, rain-‐fed annual small-‐holderfarming systems along lake, mid-‐hill perennial mixed coffee agro-‐forestry in Rakai, largearea highly vulnerable small-‐holder farming and agropastoralism Western half of Rakai andIsingiro.Rakai District known for increasing climatic variability, Isingiro for vulnerable dryland-agropastoralism. Heavy deforestation, reduced river flow and water stress. Bimodal rainfall,increasing variability. Farmers do not know when to plant and are planting fewer acres ofannuals. Many have resorted to planting with each rain, resulting losses of seeds and labor.Communities tend to survive more on perennials and cassava.Cattle migrate in from Tanzania, heavy grazing pressure. Cattle corridor tending to get dryer.Staples: maize, bananas, cassava, beans, potato, sweet potato, potato. Cash: coffee, tobacco,sugar cane.Mitigation: Agro-‐forestry, carbon sequestration through pasture management.Adaptation: Species/varieties adapted to new climatic conditions, soil and waterconservation.Risk: Food insecurity, vulnerability to climatic variability. Vulnerability, nutrition and HIV.Marketing and trade opportunities to decrease vulnerability. Harvesting, storage, processingopportunities to smooth consumption and sales.
  • 11. Kaffrine, Senegal, West AfricaThe area is in the transition zone from the Sahelian towards the Sudan Savannah zone withannual rainfall averages of around 500 mm in the northern, around 600 mm at Kaffrine, andaround 800 mm in the southwestern part of the area; dominant soils are deep sandy(“Dior”); predominant cropping systems are based on pearl millet, peanut and cowpea, allgenerally not intensified and cropped without agricultural input. In the south, peanut isintensified using inputs, and maize, sorghum, lowland rice and sesame are also cropped.Small Jatropha and fruit areas. Some agro-‐pastoralism.Main constraints to agricultural production are high rainfall variability, poor soil fertility, noattractive markets and high poverty levels with low access to capital. They explain thepredominance of extensive farming systems. Climate change impacts are expected to belarge.
  • 12. Nepal, IGPThe Terrai is considered the food basket of Nepal. Agriculture accounts for 80% of theeconomic activity, key crops are rice, wheat and maize; Terrai accounts for 43% of the totalcultivated land in Nepal, agriculture is mostly reliant on rainwater for irrigation. Annualrainfall across the sampling frames ranges from 1000-‐2100mm.The terrain is prone to recurrent climate related disasters such as floods, droughts, hot andcold waves, and pest and disease epidemics. Additional issues include rapid populationgrowth, shrinking farm size, unplanned agriculture in these hazard-‐prone sites, poorinfrastructure.Climate change impacts are expected to pose a significant additional threat, increasing thevulnerability to food insecurity.
  • 13. Summary• Diverse sites, diverse problems• Towards a framework with a set of models that can deal answer the type of questions posed by CCAFS for these sites• A single HH model can not deal with all these sites and questions
  • 14. Towards a framework• Component models (soil, crops, livestock, cash) exist• Questions exist around – Interactions between socio-economic variables and biophysical variables (e.g. labour and production) – Modeling decision making – Modeling of risk and resilience in combination with assessing trade offs
  • 15. Can we define a coherent set ofquestions that can be answered using a coherent set of models?• Which indicators?• Which interventions?• Site – specific evaluations or across site comparisons?• Model complexity / questions asked by CCAFS / site diversity / data availability