CCAFS Selection of New Regions


Published on

Presented at CG Contact Point Meeting in Bonn, 9 June 2011.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CCAFS Selection of New Regions

  1. 1. CCAFS Selection of New Regions Bonn, June 2011
  2. 2. Next round of region selection <ul><li>Final CRP7 proposal </li></ul><ul><li>A process to identify, by the end of 2011, two further target regions for starting activities and baselines in 2012 </li></ul><ul><li>Three further regions to be identified during 2012, with activities and baselines being undertaken starting in 2013 </li></ul><ul><li>ISPC comments on CRP7 proposal </li></ul><ul><li>Too much dilution of effort: identify just two further target regions by the end of 2011 </li></ul>
  3. 3. Selection criteria proposed for the next set of regions ( Nairobi launch meeting May 2010 and MT meeting Feb 2011) <ul><li>Regions that complement the current regions so that CCAFS is a global program (complementarities related to geographical spread, agricultural potential, coverage of agroecological zones, nature of the adaptation challenges, …) </li></ul><ul><li>Regions with high potential for pro-poor mitigation </li></ul><ul><li>Regions with hotspots of vulnerability and climate change </li></ul><ul><li>Regions with high potential for innovation, adoption and impact </li></ul><ul><li>Regions in which there is sufficient institutional support to implement a regional research-for-development program </li></ul>
  4. 4. Process to select new regions <ul><li>1 A global vulnerability assessment report (June) </li></ul><ul><li>2 A document with the draft selection criteria, the list of potential target regions, and the proposed process (June) </li></ul><ul><li>3 Design (July) and implement (August) an activity to evaluate each candidate region according to the criteria using objective methods (if available) or expert judgment (if not) for the following stakeholders: </li></ul><ul><li>(a) Contact points and 5-8 global partners </li></ul><ul><li>(b) CCAFS Management Team </li></ul><ul><li>(c) CCAFS Independent Scientific Panel </li></ul><ul><li>4 Circulate to partners for final feedback (MT, October) </li></ul><ul><li>5 Final decision by the CIAT Board (November) </li></ul>
  5. 5. Existing regions Bangladesh, India, Nepal (Pakistan) Indo-Gangetic Plain Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cote d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo Western Africa Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda Eastern Africa Sample countries (with “Medium” or “Low” HDI) Region
  6. 6. Candidate regions Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Federated Micronesia Oceania Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Viet Nam South-Eastern Asia Afghanistan, Maldives,Pakistan, Sri Lanka South Asia (expansion) China, Mongolia Eastern Asia Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan Central Asia Bolivia, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname South America El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua; Dominican Republic, Haiti Central America & Caribbean Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe Southern Africa Egypt, Morocco, Sudan; Syria, Yemen Northern Africa & Western Asia Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, DR Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Sao Tome & Principe Middle Africa Sample countries (with “Medium” or “Low” HDI) Region
  7. 7. Candidate region evaluation Criteria Regions Rate low / medium / high / unknown with a sentence of explanation Ask respondents to do all candidate region or a subset
  8. 8. Are there objective inputs to the process? - 5 Institutional support - 4 Potential for innovation and impact Vulnerability mapping report 3 Hotspots of food system vulnerability (1) Areas with high mitigation potential of the natural system (above ground biomass, soil C potential, wetlands and organic soils, degraded areas, grasslands, forest boundaries …) (2) Areas where existing or potential practices create high emissions - interventions could have high impact (livestock densities, areas with high fertilizer use, large areas of wet rice, …) 2 Potential for pro-poor mitigation Agro-ecological zones, human populations and rates of change, populations in poverty, agricultural potential, … 1 Complementarities Information that could be used Criterion
  9. 9. 3 Hotspots of vulnerability Exposure of populations to the impacts of climate change (hi, lo) Sensitivity of food systems to these impacts (hi, lo) Coping capacity of populations to address these impacts (hi, lo) x x Agricultural land areas from 35 ⁰S to 45 ⁰N (Ramankutty et al., 2008) plus LGP>60 days Proxy: % stunting (40%) Proxy: % cropland (mode 16%) Proxies: several climate change thresholds
  10. 10. Vulnerability domains for the LGP delta >5% threshold Domain Area (km2) Population LLL 4,508,660 40,275,900 LLH 13,120,500 102,357,000 LHL 1,412,400 89,935,000 LHH 3,321,920 219,658,000 HLL 13,248,100 126,387,000 HLH 22,374,000 155,368,000 HHL 5,172,800 369,162,000 HHH 5,078,220 238,567,000
  11. 11. Next steps <ul><li>Comments on the process (now) </li></ul><ul><li>Circulation of material to contact points and other stakeholders, and evaluation of candidate regions (July-August) </li></ul><ul><li>Synthesis of results of the evaluation exercise and writing up (October) </li></ul>