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.

Csa epic implementation


Published on

This presentation was prepared to conduct a training session on Climate-Smart Agriculture at the University of Wageningen, The Netherlands, in September 2014. It provides an overview of the FAO approach to implementing CSA at country level developed through the EPIC programme.


Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Csa epic implementation

  1. 1. Climate Smart Agriculture: FAO-EPIC Approach to Implementation Aslihan Arslan, PhD Natural Resource Economist, EPIC Team Leslie Lipper, Wendy Mann, Solomon Asfaw, Giacomo Branca, Louis Bockel, Andrea Cattaneo, Romina Cavatassi, Uwe Grewer, Misael Kokwe, Nancy McCarthy, George Phiri, Alessandro Spairani and Linh Nguyen Van Presented at the Climate Change Governance Course, Centre for Development Innovation Wageningen UR, 17 September 2014 1
  2. 2. Overview 2 1. Recap CSA Pillars & Prioritization 2. Building Blocks of CSA Approach • Evidence base • Policy component • Finance options 3. EC - CSA Project in Malawi, Zambia, Vietnam 4. Key messages
  3. 3. Recap: CSA Pillars 3 An approach to developing the technical, policy and investment conditions to achieve sustainable agricultural development for food security under climate change.
  4. 4. Too Many Objectives? 4 • Prioritizing the multiple objectives of CSA depends on the role of agriculture in economy and society. • In low income, highly agriculture-dependent economies, where CC impacts are estimated to be significant and negative, CSA approach to agricultural growth – prioritizes food security – incorporating necessary adaptation, and – capturing potential mitigation co-benefits
  5. 5. The Building Blocks for CSA Success: An FAO country-based approach 6 i. Assessing the situation: CC impacts and viable CSA options ii. Understanding barriers to adoption of CSA practices iii. Analyzing mitigation potential iv. Analyzing costs & benefits v. Managing climate risk vi. Defining coherent policies vii.Guiding investment
  6. 6. Assessing site-specific CC impacts on agriculture 7 Rainfall variation and maximum seasonal temperature in Tanzania
  7. 7. Classic barriers to technology adoption 8 • Tenure Security: lack of tenure security and limited property rights (limits on transfer), may hinder technology adoption • Limited Access to Information, e.g. very low levels of investment/support for agriculture research and extension. CC adds uncertainty. • Up-front financing costs can be high, whilst on-farm benefits not realized until medium-long term – Local credit markets very thin – Local insurance options very limited
  8. 8. Short run trade-offs & long run win-win Baseline net income Current net income B. Investment Barrier to Adoption Time ==> Temporary net loss to farmer New management practices introduced Source: FAO 2007 9
  9. 9. Short-run tradeoffs stronger for poorer farmers Baseline net income Size of herd NPV/HA over 20 years No years to positive cash flow No of years to positive incremental net income compared to baseline net income ($/ha/yr) ($/ha) (number of years) (number of years) Small 14.42 118 5 10 Medium 25.21 191 1 4 Large 25.45 215 1 1 Source: Wilkes 2011 10
  10. 10. What is a CSA enabling policy environment? 11 Recognizes & accommodates multiple objectives Increasing food security, Adapting to climate change, Reducing emissions growth Evidence-based and context-specific Identifying potential CC impacts at sub-national level Facilitates responses based on local conditions and participation Focusses on overcoming locally relevant barriers to adoption Copes with uncertainty Focus on risk management Values adaptive capacity; flexibility
  11. 11. CSA Approach to policy coherence 12 • Mainstreaming climate change into agricultural policy a prominent feature of CSA policy – CC integration into agricultural policy is still limited • CC and AG policies not always well aligned due to failure to recognize and manage trade-offs that may result in policy contradictions. • This could potentially hinder AG access to CC financing • Sectors beyond ag also important: social, economic, disaster risk reduction, fishery & forestry
  12. 12. Examples of policies to support CSA 13 • Support data and analysis to better identify strategies w. food security, adaptation and mitigation benefits at local scale. • Support seed development and supply to improve adaptation • Build enabling environment/incentives to support adoption of CSA practices/strategies • Address information barriers: seasonal forecasts, extension, crowd sourcing, farmer-to-farmer info sharing Dry 300 200 100 0 Agroforestry Moist 0 100 200 300 Water management Tillage/residue management Nutrient management Agronomy Yield: average marginal increase (%/year) GHG reduction (tCO2e/ha/year) (graph 1ton=100%)
  13. 13. Financing for CSA 14 • Major financing gap to meet current agricultural policy objectives (w/out CC) • Public sector investment to agriculture is often not well targeted to meet objectives • Both adaptation and mitigation actions in agriculture are projected to lead to significant increases in need for financing although there is a large range in estimates
  14. 14. Public investment in agriculture per worker 1980-2007: declining/low in key regions 15 Source: SOFA 2012, FAO
  15. 15. The role of climate finance for CSA • Can bring a small, but significant share of new finance to agricultural sector of developing countries. • Financing mechanisms and institutions are only now being developed: there is opportunity to shape them to support CSA • Needs to support specific features of CSA: – Financing for long term transitions – Focus on resilience vs. average productivity gains – Attention to efficiency of input/resource use – Focus on adaptive capacity/flexibility 16
  16. 16. CSA, UNFCCC & Financing • Agriculture largely absent in negotiations • Land use change issue most prominent • Climate financing instruments separate adaptation and mitigation (NAPA, NAMAs) • Some emerging opportunities for CSA: – Green Climate Fund – GEF 6 – Biocarbon fund 17
  17. 17. CC financing channels under UNFCCC 18
  18. 18. New opportunities Global Alliance for CSA (ACSA) 19 “Support efforts at global, national and local levels to sustainably use agricultural systems to achieve food and nutrition security for all people at all times, taking account of the need for adaptation in response to current, near and long term effects of climate change, as well as mitigation to reduce its threat to global food security.” • Food security-focused, agriculture-driven and action-oriented • Includes FAO, WB, IFAD, WFP, NEPAD, many countries • Stakeholder consultations are held this year • Launch next week at the UN Climate Summit in NY
  19. 19. 20 FAO-EC Project Climate Smart Agriculture: Capturing synergies between food security, adaptation and mitigation
  20. 20. Background on the project 21 • 2009 FAO initiated program of work on FS and CC for Copenhagen • Indicating considerable potential to capture synergies and link CC finance to agriculture • 2010-2011 Initiation of discussions between EC, FAO & potential natl. partners, project development & background technical studies • 2012 Project initiated in Malawi, Zambia and Vietnam • 2013 Evidence base, policy support and capacity development activities • 2014 Evidence base, scenario building workshops and investment proposals & planning for 2nd phase
  21. 21. NEEDS Develop a policy environment & an agricultural investment strategy to attain increased food security and provide resilience under climate uncertainty Project Framework RESEARCH OUTCOMES COMPONENT 1 CSA solutions for different Climate data: Climate variability and uncertainty in predictions Statistical analysis: climate shocks, producer behavior, adoption and institutions 2 Policy simulations: using cost/benefit surveys of CSA “entry points” 3 Legal & Institutional appraisal: mapping institutional relationships. 4 contexts Appropriate instruments for prioritization, financing, and adoption Development of an investment proposal. Capacity to implement a CSA strategy Outputs An evidence base for implementation of CSA A strategic framework to guide action and investment on CSA. POLICY SUPPORT COMPONENT Horizontal coordination across relevant national ministries 1 Vertical coordination between national and international 2 Capacity building for more evidence-based and integrated policy-making 3 CSA investment proposals and possible financing sources, including climate finance. 22
  22. 22. Participatory process: Potential CSA options 23 Malawi and Zambia: • Conservation agriculture with agro-forestry • Soil & water conservation • Diversification of production (dairy, legumes) • Livestock • Safety nets and risk management • Input use efficiency • The role of agriculture/charcoal as a driver of deforestation Vietnam (Northern Mountains): • Conservation land management practices for maize systems in the uplands • Diversification into high value coffee and tea
  23. 23. 1. Analysis of exposure and sensitivity to climate risk in recent years Data Sources 24 • Rainfall (1983-2012): Dekadal (10 days) rainfall data from Africa Rainfall Climatology v2 (ARC2) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center (NOAA-CPC) • Temperature (1989-2010): Dekadal avg, min & max temperatures of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) • Soil: Soil nutrient availability and soil pH levels from the Harmonized World Soil Database (HWSD)
  24. 24. Climate Variables • Rainfall: 1. Growing Season Total 2. Coefficient of variation (across 29 years) 3. Onset of the rainy season: 2 dekads of ≥ 50mm rainfall after October 1. 4. Dry spells: # dekads with <20mm rain during germination&ripening 5. False onset: a dry spell within 20 days of after the onset • Temperature: 1. Growing season average 2. Growing season max 3. Indicator if Tmax ≥ 28 °C References: Tadross et al. 2009. “Growing-season rainfall and scenarios of future change in southeast Africa: implications for cultivating maize. “ Climate Research 40: 147-161. Thornton P., Cramer L. (eds.) 2012. “Impacts of climate change on the agricultural and aquatic systems and natural resources within the CGIAR’s mandate.” CCAFS Working Paper 23. 25
  25. 25. Zambia: Rainfall variability by agro-ecological region (AER) 26
  26. 26. Zambia: Max temperature by AER 27
  27. 27. Zambia: % rain shortfall in growing season 28
  28. 28. Zambia: onset of the rainy season 29
  29. 29. Zambia: Maize Yields (kg./ha) by AER & Year 30 0 .0002 .0004 .0006 .0008 Maize Yields by AER Maize Yields by AER 0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000 2004 2008 x AER I AER IIa AER IIb AER III Graphs by year
  30. 30. Zambia 31 2. Analysis of barriers to adoption and yield impacts • Data: Household panel data from 2004 & 2008 (sample size 4,187) + Climate data • Practices: Minimum soil disturbance(MSD), crop rotation (CR) – MSD Adoption remains very low: ~5-6% – Significant dis-adoption: ~90% of adopters abandoned in 2008 – Adoption intensity is significantly higher for smallholders • Adoption: Strongest determinants are – Variability of rainfall – Delays in the onset of rains – Extension information  evidence that farmers adopt MSD & CR as an adaptation (yield smoothing?) practice
  31. 31. 32 2. Analysis of barriers to adoption and yield impacts Zambia cont… Impacts on Yields: • Climatic variables significantly change the impacts of practices • No significant impact of minimum soil disturbance on yields, probability of low yields or shortfall • Crop rotation negatively correlated with yields, except in regions with high rainfall variability • Legume intercropping is robustly correlated with higher yields • Inorg fert and improved seeds increase yields, except under variable rainfall and high season max temperatures • Timely delivery of fertilizer is the most robust determinant of higher yields and lower probability of yield shortfall
  32. 32. 33 2. Analysis of barriers to adoption and yield impacts Malawi • Data: The Integrated Household Survey, 2010 (12,288 households) + Climate data • Practices: improved maize varieties, inorganic fertilizers, organic fertilizer, legume intercropping, and agro-forestry •Adoption: Important determinants – Land tenure positively corr with org fert, legume int, agroforestry – Drought proneness positively corr with legume int & agroforestry •Yields: – Improved seed, legume int & agroforestry positively corr with productivity – Significant synergies among all three practices
  33. 33. 3. Analysis of mitigation potential: Malawi example 34 Developing spatially-differentiated & practice-specific GHG mitigation estimates (with University of Aberdeen & FAO-AGAL)
  34. 34. 4. Cost-Benefit Analysis 35 • Representative farm budget models to simulate economic profitability of different crop and livestock technologies (CSA vs conventional ag) • Nationwide household surveys on costs&benefits for a range of CSA and conventional farming practices (crop and livestock) and agro-ecologies. • Benefit-cost analysis modelling synergies and tradeoffs between climate change mitigation and food security - Linking crop and livestock profitability with natural resource availability and socio-economic household indicators - Estimating production efficiency and analyzing the effects of selected policy incentives - Developing Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) curves and identifying least-cost investment options
  35. 35. 5. Understanding Risk Management Options 36 • Assessing potential of social safety net programs to affect adoption • Simulation model to assess effectiveness of different risk management options on adoption  Different types of insurance programs  Direct payments  Micro-finance  Diversification
  36. 36. 6. Supporting Country Policies Strengthening national policy frameworks for CSA implementation Objective 1: Enhancing climate change and agricultural policy alignment in support of CSA Policy Dialogue & Institutional mapping to analyze agriculture in draft CC and ag policies and recommend adjustments to CC policy on agricultural adaptation and mitigation, to ensure consistency with agricultural policy. Support institutional coordination Objective 2: Supporting development of CSA strategy Support to Agricultural Sector Planning on strengthening CC in next iteration of programmes, especially identification of climate-smart activities Objective 3: Supporting capacity to link international and national policy issues Project has supported participation of Min of Ag staff at UNFCCC negotiations with briefing notes to inform participants prior to every session. Article on negotiations prepared for Climate Policy and Practice 2012
  37. 37. 7. Guiding investments 38 • Developing investment proposals for all 3 countries • GEF funding co-financed by WB / IFAD is targeted • Adding a CSA component to ongoing food security/poverty reduction/livestock improvement projects • Scaling up existing CSA activities (at delivery mechanism and on the ground level) identified through the phase 1 of the project
  38. 38. KEY MESSAGES 39 • Climate change is already impacting agriculture and generally negatively so we need to move quickly to maintain/enhance agriculture’s ability to support food security • The focus of ag development policies need to shift from average gains to resilience given that CC is already affecting all aspects of food security • Climate change impacts are quite differentiated – effective ag policy for adaptation depends on time frame and CC impacts • More research is needed to better understand site specific mitigation & adaptation impacts and the potential role of climate funds • Institutions that support research, information dissemination, risk management and coordinated action across global players (Global CSA Alliance, CSAA in Africa...) are crucial • A country-level evidence-based approach as FAO-EPIC approach is an important step towards transitioning to CSA at all levels
  39. 39. 40 Thank you!