Todd rosenstock-climate-smart-agriculture panacea-or-propaganda-
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
3 likes•1,006 views
Todd Rosenstock & Christine Lamanna- Global Landscapes Forum Lima COP 20 presentation. http://www.landscapes.org/glf-2014/agenda-item/day-2-dec-7/six-parallel-multi-stakeholder-discussion-forums/using-climate-smart-technologies-scale-climate-smart-agriculture-practices-2/
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Similar to Todd rosenstock-climate-smart-agriculture panacea-or-propaganda-
Similar to Todd rosenstock-climate-smart-agriculture panacea-or-propaganda- (20)
More from World Agroforestry (ICRAF)
More from World Agroforestry (ICRAF) (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Todd rosenstock-climate-smart-agriculture panacea-or-propaganda-
- 1. Climate-smart agriculture: panacea or Agroforestry propaganda? Nutrition security Poverty alleviation Natural resource Todd Rosenstock & Christine Lamanna Improved cook-stove Conservation agriculture Increased yields Soil quality & carbon Reduced degradation & erosion Dietary diversity Intercropping Participatory approach Global Landscapes Forum Lima, Peru | 7 Dec. 2014
- 2. Global Alliance for CSA: 500 million smallholders NEPAD Vision 25x25: 25 million in Africa by 2025 Photo: CCAFS
- 3. Meta-analysis: 65 practices/15 indicators Key word search Abstract title review Full text review Data extraction/analys is 144,567 papers 16,254 papers 6,100 papers ~120,000 data points
- 4. Studies with indicators for at least one component of CSA Random sample of 815 studies
- 5. Studies with indicators for at least two components of CSA Random sample of 815 studies
- 6. Studies with indicators for all three components of CSA Random sample of 815 studies
- 7. ● ● ● ● ●● Agroforestry (AF) Leguminous AF Inorganic fertilizer Diet management Increasing protein Alternative feeds −0.5 0.0 0.5 Effect size CSA Effects of CSA on food security are variable and can be + or - Random sample of 130 studies -60% 0 +60%
- 8. Synergies and tradeoffs between food security and adaptation with CSA Food security Tradeoffs 0.5 Synergies 46% 32% 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 6% 16% -0.5 Adaptation Tradeoffs Mean effect from random sample of 130 studies (55 comparisons)
- 9. t.rosenstock@cgiar.org Financial support CCAFS IFAD CIFOR-EBF FAO-MICCA Thank you Collaborators: K Tully, C. Corner-Dolloff, E Girvetz, M Lazaro, A Jarvis, P Bell, S Chesterman, S MacFatrige, H Strom, A Madalinska, A-S Eyrich, C Champalle, W English, A Akinleye, A Poultouchidou, A Kerr, H Neufeldt
Editor's Notes
- Over the next ten minutes, convince you Mapping the location of the 6,000 studies that met our criteria shows geographic and topical clustering in relatively few locations and around relatively few measures of CSA, indicating potential for bias and highlighting gaps in the evidence for desired CSA objectives (e.g., gender inclusiveness). Furthermore, outcomes vary widely among studies and locations and are far from clearly positive or negative, suggesting the ‘climate-smartness’ of practices needs to be considered for local conditions and objectives to be meaningful. Co-located, cross-outcome research tends to be sparse except for a few outcome-by-practice combinations. Thus, grand conclusions about synergies and trade-offs among CSA components may be unsupported. This meta-analysis provides a useful benchmark of CSA’s scientific basis and can support the transition from hype to meaningful impact on the ground.
- GASCA: 500 million farmers NEPAD: 25 million farmers Development activities are based on a fundamental assumption that there is a signifcant scientific basis of CSA. That is there thre
- Only 3 of the studies had adaptaion and mitigation data. 2 of the 3 showed synergies, one tradeoffs.