Csa epic implementation

Climate Smart Agriculture:
FAO-EPIC Approach to Implementation
Aslihan Arslan, PhD
aslihan.arslan@fao.org
Natural Resource Economist, EPIC Team
Leslie Lipper, Wendy Mann, Solomon Asfaw, Giacomo Branca, Louis Bockel, Andrea Cattaneo, Romina Cavatassi,
Uwe Grewer, Misael Kokwe, Nancy McCarthy, George Phiri, Alessandro Spairani and Linh Nguyen Van
Presented at the Climate Change Governance Course, Centre for Development Innovation
Wageningen UR,
17 September 2014
www.fao.org/climatechange/epic
1

Overview 2
1. Recap CSA Pillars & Prioritization
2. Building Blocks of CSA Approach
• Evidence base
• Policy component
• Finance options
3. EC - CSA Project in Malawi, Zambia, Vietnam
4. Key messages

Recap: CSA Pillars 3
An approach to
developing the
technical, policy and
investment conditions
to achieve sustainable
agricultural
development for food
security under climate
change.

Too Many Objectives? 4
• Prioritizing the multiple objectives of CSA depends
on the role of agriculture in economy and society.
• In low income, highly agriculture-dependent
economies, where CC impacts are estimated to be
significant and negative, CSA approach to
agricultural growth
– prioritizes food security
– incorporating necessary adaptation, and
– capturing potential mitigation co-benefits

The Building Blocks for CSA Success:
An FAO country-based approach 6
i. Assessing the situation: CC impacts and viable
CSA options
ii. Understanding barriers to adoption of CSA
practices
iii. Analyzing mitigation potential
iv. Analyzing costs & benefits
v. Managing climate risk
vi. Defining coherent policies
vii.Guiding investment

Assessing site-specific CC impacts on agriculture 7
Rainfall variation and maximum seasonal temperature in Tanzania

Classic barriers to technology adoption 8
• Tenure Security: lack of tenure security and limited property
rights (limits on transfer), may hinder technology adoption
• Limited Access to Information, e.g. very low levels of
investment/support for agriculture research and extension. CC
adds uncertainty.
• Up-front financing costs can be high, whilst on-farm benefits not
realized until medium-long term
– Local credit markets very thin
– Local insurance options very limited

Short run trade-offs & long run win-win
Baseline net income Current net income
B. Investment Barrier to Adoption
Time ==>
Temporary net loss to farmer
New management practices introduced
Source: FAO 2007
9

Short-run tradeoffs stronger for poorer farmers
Baseline net
income
Size of herd
NPV/HA over 20
years
No years to positive
cash flow
No of years to positive
incremental net income
compared to baseline
net income
($/ha/yr) ($/ha) (number of years) (number of years)
Small 14.42 118 5 10
Medium 25.21 191 1 4
Large 25.45 215 1 1
Source: Wilkes 2011
10

What is a CSA enabling policy environment? 11
Recognizes & accommodates multiple objectives
Increasing food security,
Adapting to climate change,
Reducing emissions growth
Evidence-based and context-specific
Identifying potential CC impacts at sub-national level
Facilitates responses based on local conditions and participation
Focusses on overcoming locally relevant barriers to adoption
Copes with uncertainty
Focus on risk management
Values adaptive capacity; flexibility

CSA Approach to policy coherence 12
• Mainstreaming climate change into agricultural policy a
prominent feature of CSA policy
– CC integration into agricultural policy is still limited
• CC and AG policies not always well aligned due to failure
to recognize and manage trade-offs that may result in
policy contradictions.
• This could potentially hinder AG access to CC financing
• Sectors beyond ag also important: social, economic,
disaster risk reduction, fishery & forestry

Examples of policies to support CSA 13
• Support data and analysis
to better identify strategies
w. food security, adaptation
and mitigation benefits at
local scale.
• Support seed development
and supply to improve
adaptation
• Build enabling environment/incentives to support adoption of CSA
practices/strategies
• Address information barriers: seasonal forecasts, extension, crowd
sourcing, farmer-to-farmer info sharing
Dry
300 200 100 0
Agroforestry Moist
0 100 200 300
Water management
Tillage/residue management
Nutrient management
Agronomy
Yield: average marginal increase (%/year)
GHG reduction (tCO2e/ha/year) (graph 1ton=100%)

Financing for CSA 14
• Major financing gap to meet current agricultural policy
objectives (w/out CC)
• Public sector investment to agriculture is often not well
targeted to meet objectives
• Both adaptation and mitigation actions in agriculture are
projected to lead to significant increases in need for
financing although there is a large range in estimates

Public investment in agriculture per worker 1980-2007:
declining/low in key regions 15
Source: SOFA 2012, FAO

The role of climate finance for CSA
• Can bring a small, but significant share of new finance to
agricultural sector of developing countries.
• Financing mechanisms and institutions are only now being
developed: there is opportunity to shape them to support CSA
• Needs to support specific features of CSA:
– Financing for long term transitions
– Focus on resilience vs. average productivity gains
– Attention to efficiency of input/resource use
– Focus on adaptive capacity/flexibility
16

CSA, UNFCCC & Financing
• Agriculture largely absent in negotiations
• Land use change issue most prominent
• Climate financing instruments separate adaptation
and mitigation (NAPA, NAMAs)
• Some emerging opportunities for CSA:
– Green Climate Fund
– GEF 6
– Biocarbon fund
17

CC financing channels under UNFCCC 18

New opportunities
Global Alliance for CSA (ACSA) 19
“Support efforts at global, national and local levels to sustainably
use agricultural systems to achieve food and nutrition security
for all people at all times, taking account of the need for
adaptation in response to current, near and long term effects of
climate change, as well as mitigation to reduce its threat to
global food security.”
• Food security-focused, agriculture-driven and action-oriented
• Includes FAO, WB, IFAD, WFP, NEPAD, many countries
• Stakeholder consultations are held this year
• Launch next week at the UN Climate Summit in NY

20
FAO-EC Project
Climate Smart Agriculture:
Capturing synergies between
food security, adaptation and mitigation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmGDvpKzAeU

Background on the project
21
• 2009 FAO initiated program of work on FS and CC for
Copenhagen
• Indicating considerable potential to capture synergies and link
CC finance to agriculture
• 2010-2011 Initiation of discussions between EC, FAO &
potential natl. partners, project development &
background technical studies
• 2012 Project initiated in Malawi, Zambia and Vietnam
• 2013 Evidence base, policy support and capacity
development activities
• 2014 Evidence base, scenario building workshops and
investment proposals & planning for 2nd phase

NEEDS
Develop a policy
environment & an
agricultural
investment strategy
to attain increased
food security and
provide resilience
under climate
uncertainty
Project Framework
RESEARCH OUTCOMES
COMPONENT
1 CSA solutions for different
Climate data: Climate variability and
uncertainty in predictions
Statistical analysis: climate shocks,
producer behavior, adoption and
institutions
2
Policy simulations: using cost/benefit
surveys of CSA “entry points”
3
Legal & Institutional appraisal:
mapping institutional relationships.
4
contexts
Appropriate instruments for
prioritization, financing, and
adoption
Development of an investment
proposal.
Capacity to implement a CSA
strategy
Outputs
An evidence base for
implementation of CSA
A strategic framework to
guide action and
investment on CSA.
POLICY SUPPORT
COMPONENT
Horizontal coordination across
relevant national ministries
1
Vertical coordination between
national and international
2
Capacity building for more evidence-based
and integrated policy-making
3
CSA investment proposals
and possible financing
sources, including climate
finance.
www.fao.org/climatechange/epic 22

Participatory process: Potential CSA options 23
Malawi and Zambia:
• Conservation agriculture with agro-forestry
• Soil & water conservation
• Diversification of production (dairy, legumes)
• Livestock
• Safety nets and risk management
• Input use efficiency
• The role of agriculture/charcoal as a driver of deforestation
Vietnam (Northern Mountains):
• Conservation land management practices for maize systems in
the uplands
• Diversification into high value coffee and tea

1. Analysis of exposure and sensitivity to climate risk in recent years
Data Sources 24
• Rainfall (1983-2012): Dekadal (10 days) rainfall data from
Africa Rainfall Climatology v2 (ARC2) of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center
(NOAA-CPC)
• Temperature (1989-2010): Dekadal avg, min & max
temperatures of the European Centre for Medium-Range
Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)
• Soil: Soil nutrient availability and soil pH levels from the
Harmonized World Soil Database (HWSD)

Climate Variables
• Rainfall:
1. Growing Season Total
2. Coefficient of variation (across 29 years)
3. Onset of the rainy season: 2 dekads of ≥ 50mm rainfall
after October 1.
4. Dry spells: # dekads with <20mm rain during
germination&ripening
5. False onset: a dry spell within 20 days of after the onset
• Temperature:
1. Growing season average
2. Growing season max
3. Indicator if Tmax ≥ 28 °C
References:
Tadross et al. 2009. “Growing-season rainfall and scenarios of future change in southeast Africa:
implications for cultivating maize. “ Climate Research 40: 147-161.
Thornton P., Cramer L. (eds.) 2012. “Impacts of climate change on the agricultural and aquatic
systems and natural resources within the CGIAR’s mandate.” CCAFS Working Paper 23.
25

Zambia: Rainfall variability by agro-ecological region (AER) 26

Zambia: Max temperature by AER 27

Zambia: % rain shortfall in growing season 28

Zambia: onset of the rainy season 29

Zambia: Maize Yields (kg./ha) by AER & Year 30
0
.0002 .0004 .0006 .0008
Maize Yields by AER Maize Yields by AER
0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000
2004 2008
x
AER I AER IIa
AER IIb AER III
Graphs by year

Zambia
31
2. Analysis of barriers to adoption and yield impacts
• Data: Household panel data from 2004 & 2008 (sample size
4,187) + Climate data
• Practices: Minimum soil disturbance(MSD), crop rotation (CR)
– MSD Adoption remains very low: ~5-6%
– Significant dis-adoption: ~90% of adopters abandoned in 2008
– Adoption intensity is significantly higher for smallholders
• Adoption: Strongest determinants are
– Variability of rainfall
– Delays in the onset of rains
– Extension information
 evidence that farmers adopt MSD & CR as an adaptation (yield
smoothing?) practice

32
Zambia cont…
Impacts on Yields:
• Climatic variables significantly change the impacts of practices
• No significant impact of minimum soil disturbance on yields,
probability of low yields or shortfall
• Crop rotation negatively correlated with yields, except in
regions with high rainfall variability
• Legume intercropping is robustly correlated with higher yields
• Inorg fert and improved seeds increase yields, except under
variable rainfall and high season max temperatures
• Timely delivery of fertilizer is the most robust determinant of
higher yields and lower probability of yield shortfall

33
Malawi
• Data: The Integrated Household Survey, 2010 (12,288
households) + Climate data
• Practices: improved maize varieties, inorganic fertilizers,
organic fertilizer, legume intercropping, and agro-forestry
•Adoption: Important determinants
– Land tenure positively corr with org fert, legume int,
agroforestry
– Drought proneness positively corr with legume int &
agroforestry
•Yields:
– Improved seed, legume int & agroforestry positively
corr with productivity
– Significant synergies among all three practices

3. Analysis of mitigation potential: Malawi example
34
Developing spatially-differentiated & practice-specific GHG mitigation
estimates (with University of Aberdeen & FAO-AGAL)

4. Cost-Benefit Analysis 35
• Representative farm budget models to simulate economic
profitability of different crop and livestock technologies (CSA vs
conventional ag)
• Nationwide household surveys on costs&benefits for a range of
CSA and conventional farming practices (crop and livestock) and
agro-ecologies.
• Benefit-cost analysis modelling synergies and tradeoffs between
climate change mitigation and food security
- Linking crop and livestock profitability with natural resource
availability and socio-economic household indicators
- Estimating production efficiency and analyzing the effects of
selected policy incentives
- Developing Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) curves and
identifying least-cost investment options

5. Understanding Risk Management Options 36
• Assessing potential of social safety net programs to
affect adoption
• Simulation model to assess effectiveness of different
risk management options on adoption
 Different types of insurance programs
 Direct payments
 Micro-finance
 Diversification

6. Supporting Country Policies
Strengthening national policy frameworks for CSA implementation
Objective 1: Enhancing climate change and agricultural policy alignment
in support of CSA
Policy Dialogue & Institutional mapping to analyze agriculture in draft CC and
ag policies and recommend adjustments to CC policy on agricultural adaptation
and mitigation, to ensure consistency with agricultural policy. Support
institutional coordination
Objective 2: Supporting development of CSA strategy
Support to Agricultural Sector Planning on strengthening CC in next iteration of
programmes, especially identification of climate-smart activities
Objective 3: Supporting capacity to link international and national policy
issues
Project has supported participation of Min of Ag staff at UNFCCC negotiations
with briefing notes to inform participants prior to every session. Article on
negotiations prepared for Climate Policy and Practice 2012

7. Guiding investments 38
• Developing investment proposals for all 3 countries
• GEF funding co-financed by WB / IFAD is targeted
• Adding a CSA component to ongoing food
security/poverty reduction/livestock improvement
projects
• Scaling up existing CSA activities (at delivery
mechanism and on the ground level) identified
through the phase 1 of the project

KEY MESSAGES 39
• Climate change is already impacting agriculture and generally negatively so we
need to move quickly to maintain/enhance agriculture’s ability to support food
security
• The focus of ag development policies need to shift from average gains to resilience
given that CC is already affecting all aspects of food security
• Climate change impacts are quite differentiated – effective ag policy for adaptation
depends on time frame and CC impacts
• More research is needed to better understand site specific mitigation & adaptation
impacts and the potential role of climate funds
• Institutions that support research, information dissemination, risk management and
coordinated action across global players (Global CSA Alliance, CSAA in Africa...)
are crucial
• A country-level evidence-based approach as FAO-EPIC approach is an important
step towards transitioning to CSA at all levels

40
Thank you!

Csa epic implementation

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Csa epic implementation

Similaire à Csa epic implementation (20)

Plus de FAO

Plus de FAO (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Csa epic implementation

Notes de l'éditeur