CCAFS: An Overview and UpdateFAO 6 July 2011

The challenge

1. Identify and develop pro-poor adaptation, risk management and mitigation practices, technologies and policies for agriculture and food systems.

2. Support agricultural issues in climate change policies, and of climate issues in agricultural policies, at all levels.

CCAFS objectives

CGIAR + Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP).

the partnership

Theme 1. Adaptation to Progressive Climate Change

Theme 2. Managing

Climate Risk

Theme 3. Pro-poor mitigation

Theme 4. Integration for decision making

Climate variability and changeImproved

environmentalbenefits

Improvedlivelihoods

Improvedfood security

Trade-offs and synergies

1. Adaptation to progressive climate change2. Adaptation through managing climate risk

3. Pro-poor climate change mitigation

Technologies, practices, policies and capacity enhancement:

4. Integration for decision making

Enhanced adaptive capacity in agricultural,

NRM & food systems

Place-based field and policy work

Indo-Gangetic Plains:Parts of India, Bangladesh, Nepal

Regional program leader: Pramod Aggarwal

East Africa:Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia

Regional program leader:James Kinyangi

West Africa:Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Niger

Regional program leader:Robert Zougmoré

Some results

Climatic analogue tool identifies where the climate today is a likely analogue to the future climate at another location.

Evaluate whether successful adaptation options in one place are transferrable to a future climatic analogue site.

Improving Delivery of Seasonal Forecasts

• Knowledge and tools for effective delivery of seasonal forecasts• Increased understanding of the ways in which farmers incorporate climate information into decision making

What CCAFS outputs?

By teaching farmers how to interpret and use tailored probabilistic seasonal forecasts, we can build upon indigenous risk management strategies as well as the innovative capacity of farmers to respond to climate variation. We also learn more about how new technologies can add value to farmers’ decision making processes.

Why is it useful?

Integration for decision making:

A tool to generate daily data that are characteristic of future climatologies for any point on the globe

What CCAFS outputs?

To aid planning & drive agricultural impact models to inform resource allocation

Why is it useful?

™

http://gismap.ciat.cgiar.org/MarkSimGCM/

The Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Knowledge Network platform is a portal for accessing and sharing current agricultural adaptation and mitigation knowledge.

• Location and description of the 36 CCAFS benchmark sites • 31 video testimonials • 13 stories reflecting realities on the ground • 18 photo sets (>400 photographs).

Initial content

The AMKN Platform

Better agricultural GHG estimates1,000 t CO2e/yr, from land-use change, livestock, nitrogen fertilizer consumption

and fires in grazing lands (CCAFS-Winrock Study: Brown et al 2011)

Region CountryLand-Use Change

LivestockNitrogen Fertilizer

Grazing Area Burned

TotalTotal

from NC*East Africa Ethiopia 7,339 41,966 339 1,254 50,897 32,728

Kenya 1,812 11,988 323 232 14,356 12,088 Tanzania 1,833 13,935 42 1,736 17,546 28,017 Uganda 1,112 6,204 18 524 7,858 5,797

Subtotal 12,097 74,093 722 3,745 90,657 78,629

West Africa Burkina Faso 273 8,779 18 306 9,377 4,501 Ghana 1,664 1,865 55 491 4,076 4,637 Mali 440 9,270 64 241 10,015 7,036 Niger 31 10,405 14 9 10,460 6,231 Senegal 369 3,364 84 249 4,066 4,514 Subtotal 2,778 33,683 235 1,297 37,993 26,919

Grand Total 14,874 107,776 957 5,043 128,649 105,548

Mapped distribution of increases in cropland area for East Africa 2001 - 2006

Brown et al, 2011

Improving measurement further

• Reduce scale of analysis and focus on key agricultural areas of each country

• Get higher resolution and more accurate data for land cover/land use and area burned

• Improve monitoring:– number of ruminant animals– quantity of N fertilizer used– carbon stocks of burned areas of grazing lands

Improving benefits from carbon market projects involving farmer

Lessons- Real benefits from yields, not payments ($2/yr or less) -Need to decrease costs and risks: pre-existing institutions, upfront finance critical

- Link to supporting interventions (efficient stoves, new fuelwood species >protect carbon trees)

-Monitoring livelihoods not most projects’ priority

7 projects In collaboration with Ecoagriculture, ICRAF:• Cocoa Carbon Initiative, Ghana• Vi Agroforestry, CARE, TIST, Kenya • Humbo Reforestation Project, World Vision, Ethiopia• Ecotrust, NFA, Uganda

Source: Kissinger 2011

Role

of a

gric

ultu

re in

RED

D+

Policy Needs: 2011 Nat’l WorkshopsGhana, Mali, Kenya and Ethiopia)

Foundational Needs• Basic data for climate predictions, GHG emissions,

impacts• Baselines and inventory of existing practices• Potential of agriculture for adaptation and mitigation• Priority sectors or interventions for green development• Reduction targets• Food security, adaptation and mitigation indicators• Tools for measuring GHG emissions and soil carbon• Identifying incentives for action: adaptation and

mitigation

Policy priorities• Decision support tools• Mainstream CC into development planning

and budget• Build on existing knowledge and projects: put

existing technologies in to wider practice• Enhance intersectoral, multiscale

communication, negotiation and coordination

Big policy questions

• What are drivers of climate change and how to influence them? Separate effects of climate change from other drivers of poverty, food insecurity and emissions.

• Economic implications of options to support climate change?

• How to change attitudes and behavior?

Other CCAFS mitigation research• Baseline emissions and scenarios–site level• GHG quantification - Simple and cost effective MRV (w/MICCA) - Livestock system inventory methods - Regional capacity building • Incentives (w/MICCA) - Costs, benefits and adoption barriers - Delivery mechanisms• Intensification of cocoa farming to reduce deforestation ( IITA, Ghana)

How to quantify, assess and communicate tradeoffs?

Afforestation policySoil carbon content

Forest cover

Species richness

Groundwater recharge

GHG mitigationFood affordability

Food nutritional value

Food local production

Food exchange

-3

2

Incr

ease

Dec

reas

e

Some questionsIs agricultural mitigation practicable by smallholders?

How can we move towards 'low climate impact' agricultural development?

What incentives and incentive delivery mechanisms are required to support mitigation by smallholders?

How can we develop more integrated and holistic approaches to MRV on farms and landscapes?