1.
Climate-smart Approaches to Agriculture:
lessons from recent experience
Wendy Mann
Second FAO Knowledge Event on Climate-smart Approaches to Agriculture
Doha, Qatar, 1 December 2012

2.
Background
Funder: European Community
Duration: 1 January 2012 - 31 December 2014.
Partner countries: Malawi, Vietnam and Zambia
Type of project: country readiness to scale-up
climate-smart approaches to agriculture through
capacity strengthening
1

3.
Climate Smart agriculture
Project building evidence-based sustainable agricultural
development strategies, policies and investment frameworks to:
1. sustainably increase agricultural productivity and
incomes,
2. build resilience and the capacity of agricultural and
food systems to adapt to climate change,
3. seek opportunities to reduce and remove GHGs,
compatible with achieving national food security and
development goals.
4. encourage holistic approaches to FS, Ag. Dev and
CC
Climate smart approaches to agriculture:
 mitigation and carbon markets not central focus
 no blueprint for diverse contexts and capacities
1

4.
Project Framework
NEEDS PROJECT COMPONENTS OUTPUTS
a policy environment & RESEARCH COMPONENT
and agricultural Evidence
What are the synergies and tradeoffs
investments to improve between food security, adaptation and Base
mitigation from ag. practices?
food security and provide
resilience under climate What are the barriers to adoption and
Strategic
risk profiles of these practices
uncertainty
Framework
What are the policy levers to facilitate
adoption, risk reducing tools, and what
will they cost?
Investment
proposals
POLICY SUPPORT
COMPONENT Capacity
Identifying where policy
Building
alignment/coordination at the national
level is needed and how to do it
Facilitating national
participation/inputs to climate and ag
international policy processes
2

5.
Building What are relevant practices in
Assessing country that increase returns to
Blocks the situation farmers, reduce vulnerability to CC
& emissions growth
Understanding Guiding Investment
Barriers to Define the baseline to
Adoption determine benefits of Benefits: Food
these practices Security, Adaptation,
Test input, and Mitigation
institutional, Are CSA practices
information and being adopted? Identify
Costs
financial constraints If not, why not? synergies and
tradeoffs of
relevant
practices
How do Benefits &
Costs of practices
Managing Climate Risk profile of relevant compare?
CSA practices
Building Coherent
Risk Policies
Risk-reducing Policy Levers for
tools: safety nets,
Risk Adoption
insurance, Management Investment
diversification Analysis proposals
CSA Strategy:
Role of information Technical,
under a changing climate Institutional, and Financing
Economic Priorities

6.
A key feature: building strong links across
research, policy and investment for
policymakers and farmers
• The analytical tools used, depend on question being addressed.
• One approach is participatory scenario building:
• Develop a storyline or narrative for scenarios
• Identify key outcomes of interest
• Quantify scenarios
• Combine narrative scenarios with policy simulations
4

7.
Issues addressed by countries
Malawi and Zambia:
• Conservation agriculture/agro-forestry/livestock/soil & water conserv.
• Diversification of production (dairy, legumes)
• Smallholder irrigation management (Malawi)
• Safety nets and risk management (Malawi)
• Input use efficiency
• The role of agriculture as a driver of deforestation (Zambia)
Vietnam (Northern Mountains)
• Agro-forestry systems/land management practices to address
deforestation and unsustainable maize systems in uplands (erosion, land
landslides, loss of carbon from soil) and barriers to their adoption,
• Diversification of productive activities into perennial crops (such as
coffee and tea) with potential multiple benefits.
5

8.
Emerging Evidence: Zambia
Practices: Conservation agriculture (CA), i.e. planting basins/zero tillage
Adoption: Preliminary econometric analysis of barriers to adoption of CA
indicates that:
(1) Adoption remains very low: ~5-6% (sample size 4,187) and
~90% of CA adopters in 2004 abandoned it in 2008
(2) Adoption intensity is significantly higher for smallholders
(3) Strongest determinants of adoption are:
variable rainfall
Access to extension information on CA
Suggestive evidence: farmers adopt CA as a variability reducing (yield
smoothing?) practice
Further work is needed to understand better why these patterns occurred.
6

9.
Emerging Evidence: Malawi
Practices: improved maize varieties, inorganic and organic
fertilizers, legume intercropping, and agro-forestry (e.g.
Faidherbia albida)
Adoption: Important determinants:
– Land tenure positively correlate with OF,LI, AF
– Drought proneness positively correlate with AF&LI
Yields:
– Improved seed, legume intercropping & agro-forestry
positively correlate with productivity
– Significant synergies among all three practices
7

10.
Malawi: Building the evidence base on marginal
costs of agricultural-based mitigation
1. agronomy_dry
150
100 2. Integrated nutrient
management _dry
50
3. Tillage/residue
0 mgmt_dry
$/t CO2e
4. Integrated nutrient
-50
management_moist
-100 5. Tillage/residue
mgmt_moist
-150
6. agronomy_moist
-200
-250 7. agroforestry_dry
-300 8. agroforestry_moist
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
t CO2e abated/year 9. water mgmt_dry
10. water mgmt_moist
9

11.
How will Capacity be strengthened?
1. Research institutions and universities; support for MSc and PhD
students
2. Local institutions: extension, land tenure, traditional systems
3. National institutions:
planning, inter-ministerial
Ag, Env, Fin - dialogues
(participatory scenario
building tool)
4. Policy frameworks (CAADP,
ASWAp, NCP, Action Plan on
CC Response of Ag. and RD)
5. Ag Ministry staff attend
attend UNFCCC Talks
6. Stakeholder consultation,
interactive web-based
10
platform

12.
Thank you!
Thank you