Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Barriers to adoption: policy & institutional arrangements to support CSA

1,823 views

Published on

www.fao.org/climatechange/epic

This presentation was prepared to as background to the Scientific conference on Climate-Smart Agriculture held in Montpellier, France, on 16-18 March 2015.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Barriers to adoption: policy & institutional arrangements to support CSA

  1. 1. Barriers to adoption: policy & institutional arrangements to support CSA Leslie Lipper, Solomon Asfaw, Giacomo Branca, Andrea Cattaneo, Romina Cavatassi, Uwe Grewer, Misael Kokwe, Nguyen Van Linh, Wendy Mann, Nancy McCarthy, Adriana Paolantonio, George Phiri, Alessandro Spairani Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  2. 2. Outline of the presentation • Barriers to adopting what? • Changing weather patterns means farmers need to adapt • Though CSA is a site specific concept, there are key features of what it will take & specific barriers associated with them • Policy levers to reduce barriers • Policy coordination and financing needs 2
  3. 3. Barriers to what? • Changing agricultural production systems – Increase productivity, incomes, reduce variability and environmental damage – Covers a wide range of possible options/combinations • But goes beyond agricultural practices – Income diversification – Efficient charcoal production – Value chain management 3
  4. 4. Just to get an idea of the variation in agricultural practice sets farmers could adopt – evidence from Malawi 4 Freq. Percent T0 only 47 3.28 T1 + crop rotation no legumes 127 8.86 T2 + crop rotation with legumes 185 12.91 T3 + swc + other combinations (rot/cover crop/intercrop/residue ret) 323 22.54 T4 + agroforestry + other combinations (rot/cover crop/intercrop/residue ret) 129 9 T5 + agroforestry & swc + other combinations (rot/swc/cover crop/intercrop/residue ret) 105 7.33 T6 + crop rotation no legumes + residue retention/cover crop/intercropping 131 9.14 T7 + crop rotation with legumes + residue retention/cover crop/intercropping 121 8.44 T8 + residue retention 27 1.88 T9 + other combinations 6 0.42 T Total tillage 1,201 83.81 M1 + residue retention 29 2.02 M2 + crop rotation no legumes + residue retention/cover crop/intercropping 39 2.72 M3 + crop rotation with legumes + residue retention/cover crop /intercropping 20 1.4 M4 + crop rotation + residue retention/cover crop /intercropping/swc +agrof (CF) 45 3.14 M5 + swc + other combinations (rot/cover crop/intercrop/residue ret) 54 3.77 M6 + crop rotation + other comb 27 1.88 M7 + agrof + swc + other comb 12 0.84 M8 + agroforestry + other comb 5 0.35 M Total MSD 231 16.19 TillageMSD
  5. 5. Weather patterns: recent past in Malawi Coefficient of Variation of seasonal rainfall and temperature (1983-2012) 5
  6. 6. Zambia: change in onset of the rainy season 1983-2012 6
  7. 7. How various options impact crop yields under different climate effects Higher Yields Lower/Same Yields Reduced probability of yields<LR Average Average climatic conditions Legume intercrop Inorganic fertilizer Improved seed Crop rotation Inorganic fertilizer Improved seed Timely fertilizer access Delayed onset of rainfall Crop Rotation Improved seed Timely fertilizer access Inorganic fertilizer Legume intercrop Increased seasonal temperature Legume intercrop Timely fertilizer access Improved seed Inorganic fertilizer Legume intercrop Timely fertilizer 7
  8. 8. II. Although CSA benefits & costs are site specific – we can identify some universal characteristics of CSA practices and technologies … as well as the barriers to their adoption 8
  9. 9. CSA characteristic Examples and means Potential barriers Resource use efficiency Correct timing & dose of inputs Input recommendations for heterogeneous conditions Timely delivery of inputs Extension packages designed for specific agro-ecologies Increased resilience of agro- ecosystem Improved water holding & drainage capacity; Delay/time frame to build ecosystem services results in financing gap Labor constraints Coordination across landscapes Protect watersheds through tree planting Restore degraded lands through grazing mgmt Lack of social organizations to manage collective action 9
  10. 10. And in fact we do have lots of evidence of these types of barriers being important 10
  11. 11. Barriers Enablers Minimum soil disturbance Low income Extension information Collective action Legume intercropping Low income Distance to district center Extension information Land Tenure Collective action Crop Rotation Low income Extension information Agro-Forestry Distance to district center Labor cost Low income Tenure security Drought proneness Improved seed Uninsured risk Distance to district center Extension information Inorganic fertilizer Uninsured risk Lack of land tenure Distance to district center Extension information Barriers to & Enablers of Adoption: Zambia & Malawi 11
  12. 12. Uninsured risk a key barrier – especially for the poor Extent of CSA Practice Adoption as Likelihood of Extreme Weather Events Increase 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% ExtentofCSAPracticeAdopted Likelihood of Extreme Weather Event 12
  13. 13. Variable MSD Till Yield (kg/ha) 2,273 1,707 *** Gross margin ($/ha) 118 102 Cost of cash inputs ($/ha) 257 185 *** Labor use (family + hired) 53 37 *** Improved seeds (%/plot) 93 85 *** Subsidized fertilizer (%/plot) 60 60 Labor and capital barriers to adoption Evidence from Zambia Maize systems • Yield is higher under MSD in dry areas • MSD is more capital and labor intensive 13
  14. 14. Policy Levers and Outputs Extension Credit Infrastructure Input support Safety nets R & D … LEVERS OUTPUTS • Food Security • Adaptation • Mitigation 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 Mean of predicted adoption by SEA 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 RESPONSE • Farmers • Agribusines s • Markets • institutions BUDGET 14
  15. 15. Enablers 1 • Information (e.g. via extension, radio) but needs to be more effective esp for poor • Input supply (timely and amount --- input subsidy program design – agro-dealers) • Participating in organizations • Safety nets /insurance 15
  16. 16. Improved seed, soil and water conservation and collective action 16
  17. 17. Barriers to income diversification Barrier Effect Coefficient of variation of rainfall, 1983- 2010 (+++) Long term mean rainfall, 1983-2010 (mm) (+++) Rainfall anomaly, 2009-10 rainy season (- -) Access to extension service (+++) Access to Fertilizer subsidy (+++) Access to safety-net +/- 17
  18. 18. • Coordination between CC & Ag. Planning • Linking climate and agriculture finance Enablers II 18
  19. 19. 19
  20. 20. Climate finance Can represent a significant but small share of overall yearly investment requirements for agricultural growth 27 20
  21. 21. Summing up II - Weather variability is key determinant of which practices will give yield, stability and income increases - We already know a lot about the characteristics of the practices we need for CSA & the types of practices that can generate them under some condition 21
  22. 22. Summing up II • We also have a pretty good idea of which levers are key, but need more info on how to best operate them • We need to look beyond changing ag. Practice for CSA, but in many cases we will be dealing with the same levers • The scale & urgency of transformation needed indicates the need for enhanced (e.g. coordinated) policy & financing response 22
  23. 23. Thanks! www.fao.org/climatechange/epic

×