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.
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.
Challenges to stability and sustainability
Agricultural communities, systems and businesses

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.
Current climate related impacts
(Lobell et al.2011)
5
Associated with prices volatility

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.
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.
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.
• 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stressor
Applying the resilience lens
Target outcomes
• resilient communities &
landscapes, sustainable
livelihoods that
successfully respond and
recover from these
shocks
14

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.
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.
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.
Wide range of climate-smart technological
and institutional options
Practices, technologies, climate services
Market, institutional and
policy based processes
https://csa.guide18

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.
Intermediate impacts – pro-active
(Adaptive Capacities)
Impact gradient
reflecting climate risk
• Breed new varieties
• Diversification into
Robusta coffee or
other tree crops.
20

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Suggested indicators: socioeconomics
institutions and policy making
7 + 6 suggested indicators
27

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.
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

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.
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.
Suggested indicators: socioeconomics
institutions and policy making
7 + 6 suggested indicators
33

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.
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.
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.
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.
• 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.
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.
Step 1
Questions to be addressed &
intentionality of desired
outcomes

41.
Results summary and visualisation3
Practical uses
ü Assess
ü Compare
ü Plan

42.
Questions
Answers
&
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