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.

Priorities for Public Sector Research on Food Security and Climate Change by Leslie Lipper, FAO and Philip Thornton, ILRI


Published on

Priorities for Public Sector Research on Food Security and Climate Change, Report presentation by Leslie Lipper, FAO and Philip Thornton, ILRI on April 12, 2013 at the Food Security Futures Conference in Dublin, Ireland.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Priorities for Public Sector Research on Food Security and Climate Change by Leslie Lipper, FAO and Philip Thornton, ILRI

  1. 1. How does climate change alter agricultural strategies to support food security? Philip Thornton (CGIAR/CCAFS) and Leslie Lipper (FAO) With contributions from Stephen Baas, Andrea Cattaneo, Sabrina Chesterman, KevernCochrane, Cassandra de Young, Polly Ericksen, Jacob van Etten, Fabrice de Clerck, Boru Douthwaite, Ashley DuVal, Carlo Fadda, Tara Garnett, Pierre Gerber, Mark Howden, Wendy Mann, Nancy McCarthy, Reuben Sessa, Sonja Vermeulen, Joost Vervoort
  2. 2. Structure of the presentation• Threats of CC to agricultural production systems• Responses to CC• Making transitions happen• How to monitor and evaluate?• Conclusions: priority areas for CGIAR and FAO Focus is on how CC changes our approach toagricultural transitions to support food security
  3. 3. 1 Threats of climate change toagricultural production systems
  4. 4. Threats of climate change to production systems:where are we going?Possible reasons for apparentslowdown in warming rate?• Internal climate variability• Assumed radiative forcings may need adjustment• Climate simulators are too sensitive to greenhouse gases• Observational uncertaintyGlobal heat balance : land  Trends are clear – mucheffects, ocean effects still to learn on the details Ed Hawkins,
  5. 5. Crop suitability is changing …Average projected % change in suitability for 50 crops to 2055 Lane & Jarvis, SAT eJournal, 2007
  6. 6. Climate-induced livelihood transitions may well result 20º 0ºAreas where cropping of anindicator cereal may becomeunviable between now andthe 2050s -- where farmers -20ºmay have to rely more onlivestock as a livelihoodstrategy? Jones & Thornton (2009) 0º 20º 40º
  7. 7. African agriculture in a +4 °C world Length of growing period (%) >20% loss 5-20% lossTo 2090, ensemble No change 5-20% gainmean of 14 climate >20% gainmodels Thornton et al. (2010)
  8. 8. Impacts of changes in climatevariability? Does it depend on scale? • At household level: may be catastrophic • At more aggregated levels: persistence of effects? E.g. land-use changes, regional livestock herd losses due to drought • Aggregation hiding substantial spatial heterogeneity • Equilibrium models versus dynamic approaches What’s the evidence base? Very poor – e.g. • IPCC (2007) – “effects of climate variability may be as great as changes in climate means” • SREX (2012) – 1 page (in 600) on impacts of climate extremes on food systems and food security
  9. 9. 2 Responses to climate change
  10. 10. Smallholders’ response to climate change Technologies and practices to increase resilience of agricultural systems: • Soil and nutrient management (e.g. composts, crop residues) • Improving water harvesting and retention (e.g. dams, pits, retaining ridges) • Understanding and dealing with changes in distribution / intensity of weeds, pests, diseases • Utilising different crops, breeds, wild relatives • Efficient harvesting to reduce post-harvest losses • Planting date management • Use of agroforestry species (soil benefits, dry season livestock fodder, income generation, carbon sequestering, …)
  11. 11. Smallholders’ response to climate change Diversification Livestock Livestock + Livestock + Results for a only irrigated ag irrigated ag + Group Ranch in OR business business Kajiado, Kenya Thornton et al. (2012)
  12. 12. Smallholders’ response to climate change “No regrets” technologies TRANSFORMATION “Complexity” of responding • New production system ADAPTATION • New livelihoods • New crops • Move location • New livestock • Migration species • Off-farm COPING diversification • Planting dates • Other varieties • Water management Degree of Climate ChangeLimits to “no regrets” at the farm level  Barriers, cost, need for collective actionand/or policy formulation (e.g. infrastructure development) Adapted from Howden et al. (2010)
  13. 13. Enabling farmers to act on seasonal forecast information Risk management• Improving forecast products for farmers• Kaffrine, Senegal: workshops to train farmers, identifying management responses• Wote, Kenya: testing combinations of advisories, training, delivery medium• Assessing impact on decisions, livelihoods
  14. 14. 3 Making transitions happen
  15. 15. Developing & promoting agricultural technologieso Urgency of developing/disseminating technologies embodying adaptation/mitigation while supporting ag. transitions for food securityo Greater emphasis on innovation an evolutionary-like process driven by ‘learning selection’ analogous to ‘natural selection’ (Douthwaite, 2002)o Changes to how we assess best options
  16. 16. Maize in Africa in a +1 °C world Sites with >23ºC would suffer even if optimally managed20,000+ maizetrials in 123research sites More than 20% loss in sites with >20ºC, under drought Lobell et al. (2011)
  17. 17. Building networks of innovation: Disseminating & selecting seeds of crops & varieties adapted to climate change Seed supply for adapted crops is limited; ICRISAT experimenting with private sector seed suppliers to increase supplyFarmer testing 3 wheat varieties as part ofBioversity Seed4Needs crowdsourcing cropimprovement for adaptation
  18. 18. Assessing best options for agricultural intensification: adaptation is an essential element• Results from Zambia analysis of HH data 2004-2008• Question- what are the barriers/drivers of adoption of sustainable land management?• Two practices focused upon: minimum soil disturbance (planting basins); crop rotationsResults: – Adoption remains very low: ~5-6% (sample size 4,187) – Significant dis-adoption: ~90% of CA adopters in 2004 abandoned it in 2008 – Adoption intensity is significantly higher for smallholdersStrongest determinants of adoption are: – variable rainfall – Delayed onset of rainy seasonadaptation benefits key to determining “best options”
  19. 19. Assessing best options for ag. intensification: mitigation co-benefits also importantSynthesis of literature comparing yield and soil carbon sequestration effects ofadopting sustainable land management practices in dry and moist areas Dry Agroforestry Moist Water management Tillage/residue management Nutrient management Agronomy 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 Yield: average marginal increase (%/year) GHG reduction (tCO2e/ha/year) (graph 1ton=100%)
  20. 20. Strengthening local institutions: e.g. how to improve the enabling environment?• Local institutions (formal & informal) are “enablers”• Three main areas where CC affects what we need to see from local institutions for enabling environments • Information dissemination (CC destroys info) • Risk management (CC increases risks) • Collective action (CC changes scale; intensifies need)
  21. 21. Information dissemination: priority actions– Seasonal forecasts: Extended coverage, better “translation, and prompt linking of seasonal forecast info to key outlets (youth, extension, women’s groups, etc.)– Extension: More attention/financing/innovation in extension role in information dissemination to support ag. technology and use of ICT– Crowd sourcing to improve data sources(e.g. IIASA global cropland map)– Enhancing farmer to farmer informationflows particularly in context of adaptation (e.g. varietal adaptation;indigenous practices)
  22. 22. Local institutions facilitate risk management in a number of ways: we need to identify best options under CC & strengthen Risk transfer category Adaptation strategies Institution-building opportunities Institution-building opportunities at the local level at higher levelsMobility Agropastoral, wage labour or Conflict mgmt e.g. croppers Residence & border controls involuntary migration vs. pastoralists Safe & fair transfers of Distribution & trade of ag Functioning of local informal remittances produce & inputs markets International trade controls & Support to local exit strategies tariffsStorage Water storage Participatory action research Incentives for affordable private sector innovation Food storage Local tenure & entitlements Knowledge systems for pests & Natural capital including Access to information diseases livestock & trees Food safety interventions Pest controlDiversification Diversification of agricultural Farmer field schools & other Public and private extension assets, including crop & locally-led innovation systems services livestock varieties, production technologies Microfinance Accessible banking & loan schemes Occupational diversification & Local business development skills training Skills retraining linked to job Household food management creation Dietary & other consumption choices Local future climate scenarios Consumer food knowledge & exercises preferences
  23. 23. Collective actionCollective action underpins:• Information dissemination• Risk management• Managing pooled resources (agro-forestry, changes in grazing/irrigation management, landscape level work)• Spreading innovations (social capital important determinant of production and marketing decisions)• Accessing financing (high transactions costs barrier to entry)Priority actions: Identifying how cc changes type and scale collective actions needed Broader understanding of multiple roles (risk mgmt, info sharing, access to resources) local institutions currently play Explicit integration of collective action needs in agricultural transition planning
  24. 24. Coordinated and informed policies• Policies that integrate CC and Ag for FS needed to achieve coordinated & effective actions• Contradictions between policy “silos” a problem• Promoting dialogue, joint positions (e.g. to UNFCCC) and national integrated strategies between CC, Ag and FS policy-makers needed• Tools for integrated planning useful to underpin needed dialogues (e.g. integrated land use planning, landscape)• Clarity/direction from policy-makers on key directions for change also needed (e.g. food self-sufficiency vs. trade, future of smallholders, rate/nature of urbanization/commercialization)
  25. 25. Participatory scenario building: a means of facilitating dialogue between policy and research Scenarios: what can happen Visioning: what should happen Create shared Uncertain vision for future regional Future (3) Different Different perspectives: Scenarios perspectives: Use Improve Feasible different types of capture different scenarios to scenarios’ vision, knowledge, alternative needs, explore usefulness robust experience Futures (1) aspirations pathways to policies and through quantification vision under strategies (4) and media (2) uncertainty (4) Improve scenarios based on use (5) Dissemination of scenarios, visions, strategies to key users (6)Figure 2. CCAFS scenarios strategy.
  26. 26. Assessing different options at different levelsRobustness, iteration Global visioning Global impacts activities Global Scenarios modelling Participatory Regional Scenarios Regional impacts scenario building modelling Household & Action research Farmer/village community perspectives impacts modelling
  27. 27. Increased access to financing• Overall investment resources for agriculture insufficient• Need for not just more, but better targeting and delivery mechanisms are needed• CC increases imperative of increased short run financing to achieve long term savings• Access to emerging sources of CC finance clearly important part of the solution• Need for country-driven responses to how this can best be linked to agricultural transitions for food security
  28. 28. Climate smart agricultural investments often require higher up-front financing to overcome barriers to adoption
  29. 29. 4 How to monitor and evaluate?
  30. 30. Increasing the outcome orientation of research … FAO Strategic Objectives CGIAR System-Level Outcomes • Contribute to the eradication of hunger, food insecurity and • Reduce rural poverty malnutrition • Increase food security • Increase and improve provision of • Improve nutrition and goods and services from health agriculture, forestry and fisheries in a • Ensure more sustainable sustainable manner management of natural • Reduce rural poverty resources • Enable more inclusive and efficient agricultural and food systems at local, national and international levels • Increase the resilience of livelihoods to threats and crises
  31. 31. Analysing food security in context of drivers and feedbacks Environmental feedbacks e.g. water quality, GHGs GEC DRIVERS Food System ACTIVITIES ‘Natural’ Producing Changes in: DRIVERS Processing & Packaging Land cover & soils, Atmospheric e.g. Volcanoes Distributing & RetailingComp., Climate variability & means, Solar cycles Consuming Water availability & quality, Nutrient availability & cycling, Biodiversity, Sea currents & salinity, Sea level Food System OUTCOMES DRIVERS’ Contributing to: Food Security, Environmental Security, and other Societal Interests Interactions Socioeconomic Food Food DRIVERS Changes in: Utilisation Availability Demographics, Economics, Socio-political context, Cultural context Social Food Environ Science & Technology Welfare Access Capital Socioeconomic feedbacks e.g. livelihoods, social cohesion Ericksen (2008)
  32. 32. Some food system adaptation metrics Key food system Strategies to Process Outcome Impact objective achieve this indicator indicator indicator Enhance More nutritious Farmers’ crop Foods with Diets contain nutritional food grown choices change greater more nutritious value nutritional value foods harvested Price of Pricing policies Households Diets contain nutritious food implemented. purchase more more nutritious reduced nutritious food foods More efficient Revise input Pricing policies Fertilizers use Less fertilizer use of scare prices implemented modified waste resources Implement land Tenure policies Land tenure Land used more tenure designed and more secure efficiently implemented Ericksen and Chesterman (2013)
  33. 33. Outcome indicators:how does CC affectwhat we’d like to see?Risk-adjusted returns toagricultural systems Do we have robust estimates of changes in climate variability into the future? Do we have adequate data and information on tropical farming systems (like the Farm Accounting Data Network of the EU)? Do we have adequate decision-analytic frameworks for smallholder farming households in developing countries? IPCC (2012)
  34. 34. Outcome indicators: how does CC affect what we’d like to see? Greenhouse gas emissions per unit of agricultural output  Do we have standardised methodologies, to help reduce the uncertainties inherent in such estimates?  Do we have adequate tools that can assess the trade-offs and synergies between agricultural activities (e.g. payments for reduced deforestation; mitigation co-benefits)?  Do we always understand who is bearing the costs and the benefits of different alternatives, and are these distributed in accordance with government policy objectives?
  35. 35. Outcome indicators: how does CC affect what we’d like to see? Identifying potential maladaptation well in advance  If adaptation is seen as a continuous process, do we have in place adequate monitoring systems to allow us to spot divergences in good time?  Do we have adequate adaptation planning frameworks that are relatively insensitive to uncertainties?Maladaptation: options that• disproportionately burden the most vulnerable• have high opportunity costs• reduce people’s incentives to adapt• set paths that limit future choices available to future generation Barnett & O’Neill (2010)
  36. 36. Outcome indicators: how does CC affect what we’d like to see? Changes in short-term food insecurity in the wake of climate shocks  Do we have robust and efficient ways of identifying food-insecure people and their targetable characteristics, particularly in the light of increased variability? Food security relative to the poverty threshold FAO (2012)
  37. 37. 5 Conclusions: priority areas for CGIAR and FAO
  38. 38. How can FAO and CGIAR effectively contribute to the agenda? 1 Enhanced understanding of how climate change may affect agriculture - Key input to global climate/food security models • Impacts on key staples and other crops and natural resources in developing countries • Interactions of changes in temperature, rainfall, atmospheric CO2 • Changes in incidence, intensity, spatial distribution of weeds, pests, diseases • Impacts on households of climate variability changes vis-à-vis changes in long-term means • Impact on agricultural technology/intensification patterns  Links to Global Change Community: climate, sustainability sciences
  39. 39. How can FAO and CGIAR effectively contribute to the agenda? 2 Evaluating options • Understanding the role of assets (physical, human, social) and collective action in managing climate risks, adaptation and mitigation • Assessing mitigation practices in different situations and impacts on resource use and commodity supply • Standardizing/simplifying Measuring/Reporting/Verification (MRV) and carbon footprinting methodologies for mitigation projects • Tools/frameworks/data that allow evaluation with respect to multiple objectives, multiple temporal and spatial scales
  40. 40. How can FAO and CGIAR effectively contribute to the agenda? 3 Promoting innovation and linking knowledge with action • Tools/analysis to identify, foster and effectively scale up successful innovation: social, institutional, technological • Extend social learning approaches critically relevant to achieving development goals: building on existing efforts and assessing results to build a commonly accessible evidence base • Develop capacity and use of multi-stakeholder scenario processes • explore key socio-economic uncertainties • develop storylines of plausible futures • quantitatively model these alternative development pathways  a linked science-policy interface  inputs to global climate/food security models.
  41. 41.