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.

WBCSD CSA Workshop - Climate Resilience In Agricultural Systems: How Do We Track Progress
 And Outcomes?

261 views

Published on

B1: Climate Resilience In Agricultural Systems: How Do We Track Progress
 And Outcomes? is by Osana Bonilla-Findji - science officer for CCAFS CSA Practices and Technologies Flagshp.
Presented at the WBCSD Climate Smart Agriculture workshop at the University of Vermont, Burlington, VT on 27 March 2018.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

WBCSD CSA Workshop - Climate Resilience In Agricultural Systems: How Do We Track Progress
 And Outcomes?

  1. 1. Impactful and Measurable Progress on CSA in Corporate Value Chains Workshop 27-28 March 2018 1 B1: CLIMATE RESILIENCE IN AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS: HOW DO WE TRACK PROGRESS AND OUTCOMES? Osana Bonilla-Findji Science Officer, CCAFS CSA Practices and Technologies Flagship Day 1 | 27 March 2018 13:30
  2. 2. Framing presentation on Climate Resilience in agricultural systems and how it can be operationalized and measured 2 SESSIONS’ AGENDA Participants feedback on the applicability and feasibility of the proposed metrics Guest presentation “Integrating resilience into Value- chains” by Stephanie Daniels (SFL) Looking at synergies and trade-offs: CSA Programing and indicator tool
  3. 3. Challenges to stability and sustainability Agricultural communities, systems and businesses
  4. 4. Challenges to stability and sustainability Labor Market Price Risks Operations PolicyPhytosanit. Labor Market Price Climate variability and change Operations Policy Phytosanita ry 4
  5. 5. Current climate related impacts (Lobell et al.2011) 5 Associated with prices volatility
  6. 6. Projected climate impacts by 2030 • Possible large losses in production potentials and production areas up 15% by 2050 • Some banana regions (WA) and maize growing regions in (Southern Africa) will require complete transformation within the next 10 years. • And risk to become highly unviable by the end of the century (30% of Maize/ Banana areas; 60% Bean areas) (ECLAC 2009, Lobell et al 2008, Thornton et al 2010, Wratt et al 2008 (Rippke et al 2016. NCC) 6
  7. 7. Changes in cocoa suitability by 2050 in Ivory Coast • ca. 25% of current production regions (390,000 tons/y) are located in areas projected to be unsuitable by the 2050s. (Bunn et al. 2018 Project report) 7
  8. 8. Resilience definition in the CC context (Douxchamps et al 2017). Climate resilience (internet searches) COP 2009 Resilience • Voted the “development buzzword” (2002) according to devex.com but entails lots of confusion. Climate resilience often synonym for adaptation or in place of vulnerability reduction (risk reduction context) IPCC 2012 : “ability of a system and its component parts to anticipate, absorb, accommodate or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner” • Debate about its definition in the context of climate change and its applicability in reality • Ecological Resilience definition (Holling, 1973) but also link to Sustainable livelihoods. 8
  9. 9. • A more elaborated concept embraces the ability not simply to bounce back but also to adapt and transform • A practical way to operationalize climate resilience is to understand it as a dynamic capacity of a system (e.g., ag landscape; community) … Operational climate resilience definition to adapt to, change and to potentially transform, Adapt (adjust)) Transform to absorb the impacts of climate-related shocks and stressors (floods, droughts, storms, erosion, land degradation, heat, and water stress) Climate-related shocks&stressors Absorb (persistence) in a way that enables the achievement of development outcomes Development Outcomes Improve incomes, inclusive growth sustainable livelihoods (adapted from Bené 2012, 2015) Resilience capacities of vulnerable system (dynamics and can occur simultaneously) 9
  10. 10. Resilience capacities 1. Absorptive capacity: includes all the various risk management strategies used by which individuals, households, groups, to moderate or cope with the impacts of shocks on their livelihoods and basic needs. 2. Adaptive capacity reflects the ‘capacity to learn, combine experience and knowledge, adjust responses in a pro-active way to changing external drivers and internal processes, and continue operating’ 3. Transformative capacity, i.e., the capacity to create an enabling environment that constitutes the necessary conditions for systemic change. Through: - investment in good governance - infrastructure - formal / informal social protection mechanisms - basic service delivery - policies/regulations 10
  11. 11. Challenges to operationalize • Different definitions, not universal indicator • Dynamic & long term nature • Multiple scales (ind, hh, community, landscape) & levels - the effect of a shock/stressor on a target population also depends of other non-direct beneficiary actors responses • Resilience capacities affected by different elements at play: - Context-specificity - System sensitivity (attributes) - Livelihood capitals (social, economical, human, physical and natural) available at a given place/time. • Difficulty to establish counterfactuals (baselines change over time) – what might have been avoided through the implementation of adaptive measures. • Quantifying impact attribution of a resilience building intervention • Many actors (interlinked sectors) have different requirements • Data collection costs & measure 11
  12. 12. Pragmatic entry point The aim should not be to measure the Resilience property of our system (quite complex) but rather ……. to assess practical ways to identify existing and/or potential interventions that can “enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability*” of agricultural farming communities and landscapes in the context of climate variability and change (*Adaptation Goal, Paris Agreement 2015) in order to better track their results and related outcomes over time Rather than seen as an end, resilience building should be seen as a PROCESS, a MEAN that allows to improve efforts towards contributing to development targets/outcomes (incomes/livelihood and well-being). 12
  13. 13. Mainstreaming resilience: applying its lens to value-chain interventions • Key questions for resilience lens examination (design phase) Resilience TO WHAT (Shock type)1 Resilience WHERE (geography/scale, target stakeholder, gender)2 Resilience FOR WHAT (target outcome)3 Resilience HOW - What resilience capacities, livelihood capacities and attributes already exist in the target system? - What resilience capacities need to be built/strengthen? - Which capitals, attributes are needed to build/strengthen resilience capacities? 4 13
  14. 14. Stressor Applying the resilience lens Target outcomes • resilient communities & landscapes, sustainable livelihoods that successfully respond and recover from these shocks 14
  15. 15. Applying the resilience lens Stressor ü Capacity building ü Knowledge and technology transfer ü Supporting services and tools vulnerability adaptive capacity (capital, assets) Short term (moderate risk) and stronger long term changes Adapt TransformCope ++ ability to respond 15
  16. 16. Applying the resilience lens Stressor ü Capacity building ü Knowledge and technology transfer ü Supporting services and tools Farmers, ag. entreprises • Productivity & Stability • Increase efficiency (reduce waste) • Climate-proof operations • Create share value for entire value chain Target outcomes 16
  17. 17. Resilience building interventions (How) Transform the enabling environment (longer term) by enhancing governance and conditions for resilience, through investing in § Governance, trading relationships, formal safety nets § Access to Infrastructure/services § Policies, regulations ** Some of which are also beneficial for FLW reduction!) (** FLW in harvesting) Capacity to Absorb (persistence) Cope through Risk management § Changes or adjustments in varieties/breeds § Crop/livestock insurances § Use cash saving Capacity to Adapt (adjust)) Proactively respond to changes in external drivers, sustaining/improving productivity and continue operating: § Livelihood diversification § Adoption of improved-climate proofed technologies and soil, water, nutrient mngt practices § Access and use of climate information § Access to market and financial services Capacity to Transform 17
  18. 18. Wide range of climate-smart technological and institutional options Practices, technologies, climate services Market, institutional and policy based processes https://csa.guide18
  19. 19. Low impacts – incremental adaptation (Coping capacities) Impact gradient reflecting climate risk • Shade and irrigation • Improved crop • Pest and diseases, shade, soil, water and fertility management 19
  20. 20. Intermediate impacts – pro-active (Adaptive Capacities) Impact gradient reflecting climate risk • Breed new varieties • Diversification into Robusta coffee or other tree crops. 20
  21. 21. High impacts – adaptation unfeasible Impact gradient reflecting climate risk • Move from diversification to replacing crops • Emigrate to other region • Off farm employment 21
  22. 22. Theory of change for resilience building • Different companies' engagement and investment models with suppliers (chain of traders, providing services, investing in certification) can be reflected in different underlining TOC related to resilience building interventions. • Focuses thematic areas / entry points (SFL, 2015) Knowledge Transfer Capacity building Supporting services 22
  23. 23. Logframe for M&E of resilience-building interventions Climate change drivers and risk Natural resources and ecosystems Ag. Production, Post- harvest and Trade Ag. Livelihods Applying resilience principles provides the opportunity to plan, implement and evaluate from a novel, more comprehensive and flexible perspective Scale Operation Individual, household, community, system level Individual, household, community, system levelOperation Activities (outputs) Outcomes (resilience capacities) Impact (effective response) Inputs Resilience programming design (Béné et al. 2015) Output • # and % of farmer trained • Provision of services CIS/ financial services to farmers(%) • Extent of agroecological approaches (Ha, % oper., % supply) • % women in prod. org Outcome • Yield stability • Water use efficiency • Fertilizer nutrient use efficiency • Annual crop losses • Average income Impact • # people below poverty line (SDG) • Average income of small-scale food (SGD) • Welfare among supplier farmers and wider community Examples Indicators types 23
  24. 24. Resilience/Adaptation Indicators and link to SDGs ØStrong connection between adaptation and development actions and goals. ØNeed to inclusion of standard indicators of (sustainable) development performance to track progress towards reduced vulnerability and enhanced adaptive capacity (FAO 2017) • Post Paris Agreement: Framework and methodology for Tracking Adaptation in Agricultural Sectors & list of 111 process and outcome Indicators (FAO 2017) • Takes account of ongoing national efforts for reporting to major international mechanisms (including the UN’s SDGs and Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction) 24
  25. 25. FAO’s framework and methodology for Tracking Adaptation in Agricultural Sectors (FAO 2017) Revision, additions and edits led to a selection of 28 Indicators to monitor adaptive capacity/resilience Cost$ Metric accuracy / “perfectness” “Less is More” Principle 25 Tracking: • Climate impacts • Resilience processes • Outcomes
  26. 26. Suggested indicators: Agricultural production systems Source: FAO, 2017 The choice upon users’ needs, relevance and availability of data Indicator type (M&E logframe) Resilience capacity Source and SDG, SFDRR match 15 suggested indicators 26
  27. 27. Suggested indicators: socioeconomics institutions and policy making 7 + 6 suggested indicators 27
  28. 28. Background WBCSD/CCAFS work Based on work under WBCSD’s work stream to improve businesses’ ability, a CCAFS Study (2016): • Proposed a simple framework and sets of recommended indicators, to trace, measure and monitor CSA progress towards the WBCSD Ambitions under the three pillars • Did a stock-take of the current status of progress, both globally and among WBCSD member companies. 28
  29. 29. Resilience pillar in the WBCSD Statement of Ambition “Strengthen the climate resilience of agricultural landscapes and farming communities to successfully adapt to climate change through: • Agro ecological approaches appropriate for all scales of farming. (activity 1) • Maintain long-term relationships based on fairness, trust (activity 2) • Empowering women (Activity 3) • Transferring skills and knowledge (Activity 4) 29
  30. 30. 30
  31. 31. Highlights & Conclusions 31 • There is insufficient company or global data to monitor the resilience and welfare of agricultural communities and landscapes under climate change. • A high priority is collection of activity data on provision and adoption of positive environmental (e.g. agroecological) and social (e.g. climate information and financial) approaches among farmers
  32. 32. Suggested indicators: Agricultural production systems Source: FAO, 2017 The choice upon users’ needs, relevance and availability of data Indicator type (M&E logframe) Resilience capacity Source and SDG, SFDRR match 15 suggested indicators 32
  33. 33. Suggested indicators: socioeconomics institutions and policy making 7 + 6 suggested indicators 33
  34. 34. Key messages • Resilience programing and measurement can be more pragmatically operationalized if seeing as a dynamic process aiming to increase adaptive capacities (capabilities) to deal, anticipate, or respond to sort and longer term climate related shocks and uncertainty • Metrics and reporting efforts should seek to integrate and strengthen existing processes and M&E strategies • Resilience analysis adds to vulnerability analysis in at least two domains: § Identification of existing capacities (absorptive, adaptive and transformative) § Analysis of the responses put in place following (or in anticipation of) the climate shocks/stressors identified Shifts emphasis from a perception of passive, vulnerable “victims” of an event, to an “active” agent reacting to that event. 34
  35. 35. Key messages (II) • Adaptation M&E is increasingly recognized by the UNFCCC as an important step of the process of adapting to CC • Parties, public and private sector lack a common indicator frameworks, to track progress towards the Paris Agreement Adaptation Goal • The proposed M&E Adaptation Framework and selected indicators presented in this session are expected to help move forward ongoing discussions (including private sector!) to fill this gap. 35
  36. 36. Impactful and Measurable Progress on CSA in Corporate Value Chains Workshop 27-28 March 2018 3 6 B2.APPLYING CLIMATE RESILIENCE METRICS IN YOUR COMPANY Osana Bonilla-Findji Science Officer, CCAFS CSA Practices and Technologies Flagship Day 1 | 27 March 2018 13:30
  37. 37. CSA Programming and Indicator Tool Designing and monitoring CSA programs Global demand: To increase the effectiveness of CSA interventions we need good approaches for programming and better metrics for tracking outcomes and impacts
  38. 38. • Provide common framework to guide for agriculturally focused programs/donors on the design of CSA interventions • Provide a robust and transparent process to examine to which extent a specific program addresses the three CSA pillars • Support the selection of appropriate indicators to measure progress and monitor impact The CSA programing and Indicator tool Productivity Adaptation Mitigation Objectives
  39. 39. Key findings • Database of over 378 CSA-related indicators (FAO, DFID, GIZ, IFAD-ASAP, World Bank, USAID); Contribution to each CSA Pillar identified • Indicators for: Adaptation (81%), Productivity (40%); significant lack of indicators relating to mitigation outcomes. • Adaptation/Resilience: § Indicators are largely geared towards risk management, technologies, information and enabling environment; § Potential adaptation (uptake) measured over actual adaptation (outcome) § Generally, lacked the ability to show a change over time, § multidimensional nature of resilience (economic, financial, social..) often not factored into the measurements. § Very few indicators specifically addressing seed varieties, crop insurance and financial indicators geared towards the adoption of CSA technologies and practices 39
  40. 40. Step 1 Questions to be addressed & intentionality of desired outcomes
  41. 41. Results summary and visualisation3 Practical uses ü Assess ü Compare ü Plan
  42. 42. Questions Answers & 43
  43. 43. 0 50 100 150 200 D FID Adaptation… D FID International… D FID C hars… D FID International… FAO production… FAO resilience… G IZ IFAD -ASAP U SAID /FtF U SAID /Standard… W B (C SA-R es…C C AFS-…C C AFS… N ew Agency's indicators relative contribution to CSA objectives (%) Productivity Adaptation Mitigation 0 50 100 150 200 D FID Adaptation Fund D FID International… D FID C hars… D FID International… FAO production… FAO resilience… G IZ IFAD -ASAP U SAID /FtF U SAID /Standard… W B (C SA-R es… C C AFS-R eadiness… C C AFS R esilience… N ew Agency's indicators types (%) Readiness Process Outcome Productivity Adaptation Mitigation DFID Adaptation Fund 0 100 0 DFID International Climate Fund 25 100 0 DFID Chars Livelihood Programme 38 81 0 DFID International Climate Fund 25 100 0 FAO production strategic objective 67 50 17 FAO resilience indicators 75 100 0 GIZ 17 84 2 IFAD-ASAP 17 67 17 USAID/FtF 89 63 0 USAID/ Standard Foreign Assistance Indicators 13 81 25 WB (CSA-Res indicator) 59 77 41 CCAFS- Readiness (Wollemberg et al. 2015) 36 82 31 CCAFS Resilience (Hills et al 2015) 43 100 4 New 59 71 58 Readiness Process Outcome DFID Adaptation Fund 16.7 6.7 53.3 DFID International Climate Fund 25 50 50 DFID Chars Livelihood Programme 12.5 68.8 31.3 DFID International Climate Fund 25 50 50 FAO production strategic objective 0.0 41.7 66.7 FAO resilience indicators 62.5 62.5 62.5 GIZ 54.4 75.6 22.2 IFAD-ASAP 16.7 33.3 83.3 USAID/FtF 20.0 82.9 34.3 USAID/ Standard Foreign Assistance Indicators 21.9 62.5 37.5 WB (CSA-Res indicator) 9.1 50.0 59.1 CCAFS- Readiness (Wollemberg et al. 2015) 100.0 75.0 0.0 CCAFS Resilience (Hills et al 2015) 0.0 73.9 30.4 New 22.4 65.9 34.1 44

×