climate change and development learning platform
TRANSCRIPT
www.iied.org 1
EVENT PAPER
Climate change and development learning platform Lusaka, Zambia, 19-21 August 2014 – Workshop Report
www.iied.org 2
EVENT PAPER
Contents
Contents 2
Summary 3
Acronyms 5
List of Participants 6
DAY 1 8
Session 1: Introduction and context 8
Session 2a: Sharing experiences 22
Session 2b: Climate finance 38
DAY 2 45
Session 2b: Climate finance – continued 45
Session 3: Smallholder farming and climate smart agriculture 45
Session 4: Learning platform case studies 47
Session 5: Household energy 50
DAY 3 50
Session 6: Field visits 50
Session 7: Steps forward – design and planning for Learning Platform 54
Annexes 56
Annex 1 Workshop evaluations ........................................................................................... 56
Annex 2 Workshop programme ........................................................................................... 65
Annex 3 Summary of main points from four country presentations for IA climate change learning platform, Lusaka workshop, 19-21 August ............................................... 70
www.iied.org 3
EVENT PAPER
Summary
The Learning Platform was initiated in April 2014 at the Limerick Inception Workshop where a range of themes and learning objectives of interest to Irish Aid were identified. At the first Regional Workshop in Tanzania (June 2014) the focus was on methods to integrate climate change into development programming. The second Regional Workshop in Zambia focused on the climate resilience of smallholder agriculture and household energy systems. The scope of the second regional workshop was to:
• Build on the training and learning started in Limerick and Tanzania on household food and energy
systems
• Focus on climate resilient, sustainable smallholder agriculture
• Introduce pro-poor climate mitigation & „green‟ energy access
• Contribute to the development of guidance notes on integrating Climate Change into Development
programming and Climate Smart Agriculture
• Agree Case Studies The meeting was attended by Irish Aid staff and GO and NGO partners from Zambia, Lesotho, Malawi, Uganda and Mozambique, plus staff from Irish Aid HQ and IIED facilitators. The workshop programme included sessions on:
• Recap on learning from previous meetings
• Review of experiences to date of addressing food security through climate-smart / climate adapted
agricultural programming
• Climate finance – tracking and reporting
• Identify Learning Platform case studies on climate and development
• Smallholder household energy and carbon credits
• Visits to Kasisi Agricultural Training Center (KATC) – about 45 km from Lusaka. Training of famers
in climate smart agriculture (including agroforestry and organic farming). http://kasisiagriculture.com/
and Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust (GART) – about 60 km from Lusaka. Research on
Conservation Agriculture. http://www.gartzambia.org/
• Conclusions and next steps. Ambassador Finbar O‟Brien in his opening address pointed to the need to draw out lessons on how to protect the most vulnerable people. He indicated that Irish Aid will continue to strengthen its work on climate resilience across its programmes. And that this will help inform engagement with global climate change policy developments. The workshop was a good opportunity to identify how and how well Irish Aid and partners are addressing the climate resilience of smallholder agriculture. Several areas were identified where more work is required to effectively integrate climate into Irish Aid‟s agricultural development programming including screening portfolios, revision of CSPs and assessment of CSP delivery. The initiatives of Irish Aid Malawi on improved cook stoves, carbon credits and links with social protection served as an example for an activity addressing multiple objectives (reducing emissions, saving money, improving health and reducing the labour burden on women)that other programmes might integrate into their support of poor rural families facing climate change challenges. The work led from HQ on reporting climate finance flows was discussed and draft country reports reviewed. The agreed workshop outputs and next steps are:
• Early one page summary of workshop, to be followed by a full report to be circulated for participants
review by Monday 1st September.
• Finalise the country climate finance reports before end of August.
• Web-based component of learning platform o Compile survey findings and results o Finalise design with IIED o Launch – before end of 2014 calendar year (ideally before COB).
www.iied.org 4
EVENT PAPER
• Seminar for Irish Aid staff in Limerick, linked by VC to Dublin and the missions and a briefing for the
SMG – date to be set according to SMG calendar, sometime late October 2014
• Briefing on Learning Platform to be prepared for Heads of Mission meeting in January 2015
• Case studies: Tigray, Ethiopia case study to start in October. Tanzania case study to be designed by
end of September. Scoping field visit to Northern Province in Zambia to immediately follow the
Lusaka workshop. Discussion with Malawi programme on a longitudinal study to consider linkages
between social protection (cash transfers) and climate resilience.
• Draft guideline on how to integrate climate into CSPs to be developed by IIED by end of 2014.
• An update note on climate resilient smallholder agriculture will be drafted by IIED by end of 2014.
• Irish Aid will discuss how a climate oriented review of quarterly reporting from key partner countries
can be established and included in the Climate Change and Development quarterly reports.
• IIED will provide technical support to the Uganda CSP development process and the integration of
climate change (October).
• The option of holding the next meeting of the Irish Aid Learning Platform back to back with the
Community Based Adaptation conference in Nairobi 23rd to 30th April, 2015, will be assessed.
www.iied.org 5
EVENT PAPER
Acronyms
CAADP Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme
CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resources Management (Network of Zambia)
CC Climate Change
CCA Climate Change Adaptation
CF Conservation Farming
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CS Climate-Smart
CSA Climate-Smart Agriculture
CSO Civil Society Organisation
CSP Country Strategy Paper
DAC Development Assistance Committee (of OECD)
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
F4A Framework for Action
FIS Farm Input Subsidy
FFS Farmer Field School
GCCA Global Climate Change Alliance
GHG Green House Gases
HQ Headquarters
IA Irish Aid
IALDP Irish Aid Local Development Programme (in Northern Province of Zambia)
IIED International Institute for Environment and Development
LDC Least Development Country
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MRV Measuring, Reporting and Verifying
NAMA Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action
NAP National Adaptation Programme
NAPA National Adaptation Plan for Action
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
RBM Results Based Management
REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
SHA Self Help Africa
SME Small and Medium Enterprise
UNCBD United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
UNCCD United Nations Convention on Combat of Desertification
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
WRI World Resources Institute
www.iied.org 6
EVENT PAPER
List of Participants
NAME* POST ORGANISATION COUNTRY
Lovely Chizimba Vulnerabilities advisor Lilongwe Malawi
Aidan Fitzpatrick Head of Development Lilongwe Malawi
Senard Mwale Project Manager - Climate Change Adaptation
Concern Universal Malawi
Louis Kawenda Agriculture and Food Security Advisor.
Malawi
Koeti Sousa Serodio Vulnerabilities advisor Maputo Mozambique
Palmira Vicente Rural Development Advisor Maputo Mozambique
Magarida Graciete Simbine
Project Manager -CARE CARE's multi country Adaptation Learning Program (ALP)
Mozambique
António Fernando Sabão Agronomic Engineer - technician responsible for technological transfer, wrt conservation agriculture
Provincial Directorate of Agriculture in Inhambane
Mozambique
Matela Thabane Local Staff Maseru Lesotho
Relebohile Mabote Caritas Lesotho Lesotho
Mampho Thulo Rural Self Help Development Association
Lesotho
Mwyia Mundia Livelihoods, Food and Nutrition Advisor
Lusaka Zambia
Patricia Malasha Policy & Strategy Coherence Advisor
Lusaka Zambia
Kaputo Chenga Governance Advisor Lusaka Zambia
Patrick McManus Head of Development Lusaka Zambia
Milimo Mwiba Program Officer Lusaka Zambia
Albert Mate Sustainable Agriculture & Rural Livelihood Coordinator
Self Help Africa Zambia
Eliab Simpungwe Country Manager Harvest Plus Zambia
Brian Chalilunda District Agriculture Coordinator
Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock
Zambia
Zenebe Mekonnen Assistant Country Director of Programmes
Concern World Wide Zambia
Shadreck Mwale Principal Agricultural Officer-crops
Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock
Zambia
Eugene Kabilika CARITAS Zambia
Teddy Kabunda Humanitarian Programme Coordinator
OXFAM Zambia
Kate O'Donnell Technical Advisor Kampala Uganda
Gemma O'Reilly Consultant on Climate Change, UNFCCC process and climate finance
Consultant TSSP Ireland
Barbara Adolph Principal Researcher, Natural Resources Group
Facilitator - IIED UK
Simon Anderson Head Climate Change Group
Facilitator - IIED UK
Adrian Fitzgerald Deputy Director - Environment and Climate Change Unit
Thematic Sectors and Special Programmes
Ireland
Angela O'Doherty Executive Officer Thematic Sectors and Special Programmes
Ireland
Paula Kenny Desk Officer- Hunger Unit Thematic Sectors and Special Programmes
Ireland
Lisa Walshe Deputy Director - Hunger Unit
Thematic Sectors and Special Programmes
Ireland
www.iied.org 7
EVENT PAPER
Bronagh Carr Focal person for Research & Appraisal
Policy Planning & Effectiveness Section
Ireland
Naomi Campbell Junior Professional Intern - Limerick
Thematic Sectors and Special Programmes
Ireland
John Geraghty Agricultural Consultant Consultant TSSP Ireland
Niamh Kavanagh Desk Officer - Africa Section Irish Aid Ireland
Pieter Terpstra Vulnerability & adaptation WRI Washington DC
*Contact information available upon request
www.iied.org 8
EVENT PAPER
DAY 1
Session 1: Introduction and context
Welcome
Vincent Ziba from the Community-Based Natural Resources Management Network of Zambia
(CBNRM) welcomed the participants and wished them a successful workshop.
Simon Anderson from the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) welcomed the
participants. He pointed out that detailed reports of the Limerick and Tanzania workshops are already
available and a similar report will be prepared for the Zambia workshop. A workshop evaluation will be
done at the end.
Introductions
Participants introduced themselves and their interest. The following groups interests into a number of
sub-categories. See also pre-workshop questionnaire in Annex 1 for details of participants‟
expectations, as expressed before the workshop.
Sharing experience, reflection and learning (17)
Share and learn
Share experiences (x 2)
Share experience on CSA
The platform itself for institutional learning
Opportunity to reflect on learning in preparation for new strategy
Learn from other countries and from colleagues
Reflect on what we do and how to do things better
Learn from country programmes re CSA and connect dots
Bring key learning from country programmes into international policy processes
How Southern African countries are addressing CC
Absorb and learn – new to the topic
Learn about barriers and enablers
Learn from other countries
Learn how other countries are dealing with climate scheme
How to do things better in own countries
Networking (as I facilitate a platform for NGOs working on environment and climate change)
Practical tools / know-how on CC and agriculture / CSA (7)
Food security and agriculture – how to adapt to Climate change
Get field evidence on how CSA can improve farmers‟ lives
Bring practical dimension of CSA into discussion
Tangible tools and practical results to take forward
Case studies and see what practical results and challenges there are
Conservation agriculture and how it can contribute to cc adaptation
How to bring about resilience
Policies, institutions, governance (6)
Governance side of NR
Rural extension and how it can deliver climate adaptation to farmers
How to make policy makers prioritise CC
Training and capacity development for CC
Research and extension with relation to farm based research and farmer to farmer extension models
to increase adoption and scaling up
www.iied.org 9
EVENT PAPER
How research can link up with extension to scale up CSA and help farmers overcome challenges of
CC
CC integration into planning / programming (5)
How to incorporate CC into planning
Improve programming
Integration of CC into country programming
Integration of CC into development programming in different countries
How to integrate CC into sustainable intensification
Understanding CC, CCA, CSA and related concepts (5)
Understand climate change
Understand CSA and the technologies for it
Understand aspects of resilience
Climate resilience and climate smart agriculture
Learn about CC and un-learn „wrong‟ concepts picked up
Adoption and scaling up (3)
How to support adoption of climate smart (CS) practices
Scaling up climate change adaptation (CCA)
Adoption of CSA practices – how to improve it?
IA specific issues (2)
IA Institutional engagement on climate change
IA Research strategy and research into policy and practice
Climate finance (1)
Climate adaptation financing and how to programme it
Opening Remarks
His Excellency Mr. Finbar O‟Brien, Ambassador of Ireland in Zambia
I would like to welcome all of you to this three day workshop, particularly I would like to welcome our
colleagues from the Government of Zambia and Government colleagues from other countries of the
region. I would like to acknowledge our partners from Mozambique, Malawi, Lesotho as well as
colleagues from Uganda, and South Africa. A particular welcome to our colleagues from other Missions,
to IIED from the UK and to our colleagues who travelled from Ireland. And welcome to all the
colleagues from the Embassy of Ireland here in Lusaka.
IIED has prepared this workshop based on the first Climate Change and Development Learning
Platform workshop held in Limerick in April and the regional workshop held in Tanzania in June. IIED is
one of the leading think-tanks in the world on Climate Change and Development and we are very
pleased that they have accepted to work with us to jointly build this Learning Platform on Climate
Change and Development.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently issued three reports from their
Working Groups that say the effects of climate change are already occurring on all continents and
across the oceans. The world, in many cases, is ill-prepared for risks from a changing climate. Food
crop yields are falling and climate change has “negatively affected wheat and maize yields for many
regions”.
Cereal price increases following climate extremes compound the problems and the poorest sectors of
our society suffer the most.
Ireland‟s new International Development Policy “One World One Future” (OWOF) identifies Climate
Change and Development as one of six Priority Areas of Action. Sustainability is a core value of the
Policy, “ensuring that Ireland‟s interventions bring real benefits over the long-term, are environmentally
sound and address the causes of poverty rather than just the symptoms”.
www.iied.org 10
EVENT PAPER
While climate change and environmental degradation are global phenomena, poor people and poor
countries are generally the most vulnerable. This is because they rely heavily on their environment for
their basic needs, such as food, water and fuel.
In April 2013 colleagues from our partner countries provided a rich and important contribution at our EU
Presidency conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Climate Justice. It was agreed at that conference that
it would be useful to have a platform to build our collective capacity (Irish Aid and Partners) on the
issues of climate change policy and programming and to capture, share and build on some of the great
initiatives being supported through our country programmes.
To that end, we have developed a programme of capacity building and learning on climate policy and
practice and support the development of the Climate Change and Development Learning Platform to
identify lessons from our programmes in Key Partner Countries and incorporate them into programme
planning and our international policy dialogue.
The Learning Platform started with the workshop in Ireland in April this year and many of you
contributed to that work. Today is the second of two regional workshops, the first was held in Tanzania
in June, which focused on integrating Climate Change into our programmes and will build our capacity
to incorporate sustainability by strengthening adaptation to the worst effects of climate change in least
developed countries where we work.
The work over the next three days will look at Climate Smart Agriculture and household energy needs.
We must relate this work to address the practical needs of the most vulnerable households and
communities in Zambia and the other countries of the region. This workshop will be successful if it
draws out solutions that work for poor people and if it contributes to improving our ability to support
vulnerable communities to adapt to the adverse effects of a changing climate on their livelihoods and
wellbeing.
The learning platform will build up our body of knowledge and over the coming four years, contribute to
strengthening climate resilience across our programmes. The case studies, climate finance reports and
the climate change and development documentation to be produced through the learning platform will
help to inform our engagement with climate change policy internationally.
I wish you a successful workshop.
Climate Change and Development Learning Platform - Recap of Learning Platform so far (Naomi
Campbell, IA)
See file “S1 Climate Change Learning Platform Recap Naomi Campbell 14082014.pptx”
Workshops
• Limerick Inception Workshop (April 2014) identified a range of possible themes and learning
objectives of interest to Irish Aid
• First Regional Workshop in Tanzania (June 2014) focused on integrating climate change into
development programming
• Second Regional Workshop in Zambia (August 2014) will focus on Climate Smart Agriculture and
introduce smallholder household energy systems.
Agreed next steps
• Consideration & decision on how best to provide Learning Platform members with electronic
information and documentation
• Plans for climate integration processes in country programmes to be agreed by Irish Aid offices
• Preparation of case studies and work in Ethiopia, and Tanzania
• Medium-term Work Plan for the Learning Platform
Objectives for the Zambia Workshop
• Build on the training and learning started in Limerick and Tanzania on household food and energy
systems:
www.iied.org 11
EVENT PAPER
• Agree Case Studies drawing on the IIED visits to Ethiopia, Uganda and Tanzania
o Focus on Climate resilient, sustainable (Climate-Smart) Agriculture
o Introduce Pro-poor climate mitigation & „green‟ energy access
o Contribute to the development of guidance notes on integrating Climate Change into
Development programming and Climate Smart Agriculture
Expected Outcomes
• Increased Knowledge & understanding of the relevant topics
• Increased „know how‟ of ways to integrate Climate Change into Programmes and increase adoption
of Climate Smart Agriculture by smallholder farmers.
• Increased understanding/new ideas/plans for engaging with policy makers, donors and other key
stakeholders to shape public policies and investments
• Increased understanding of where to find additional support, information, tools & contacts
Expected Products
• A draft guidance note on integrating climate change into development programme planning.
• A draft guidance note on integrating Climate Smart Agriculture into Irish Aid partner programmes.
• A draft note on the next steps on smallholder household energy systems.
• Agree the terms of reference for two case studies
Discussion
Q: Will IA partners be able to access the IA intranet to have access to all the documentation?
A: IIED will host the platform for IA HQ, country offices and partners. It will be by invitation only, so not
open access.
C: The workshop is an opportunity to share experiences and to agree what information should be part
of the platform.
Objectives of the learning platform, process so far, and re-cap on climate integration (Simon
Anderson, IIED)
Simon made an introductory presentation on “Objectives of the learning platform, process so far, and
re-cap on climate integration” (see file “S1 Objectives of the learning platform process so far.pptx”).
The Irish Aid Climate and Development Learning Platform…
• focuses on relating country level engagements to international policy frameworks,
• includes training programme to increase Irish Aid staff and partner‟s capacity to incorporate climate
change into development programming and improve tracking and reporting of climate change
activities.
• The longitudinal nature of the learning process requires that the learning platform operates for at
least the next four years, 2014 – 2017, with each year building on the previous year‟s learning.
• Incorporates workshops, field visits, documentation and publication of case studies, a web-based
component for gathering and sharing learning and dissemination of key lessons to inform
international climate change dialogue.
The outputs and outcomes of the platform are:
• Document learning from across partner countries:
o inform delegations to the climate negotiations;
o promote debate on best practice on local CC adaptation;
o incorporate lessons into Irish Aid development programming.
• Case studies to inform public opinion on the importance of CC in the run up to the UNFCCC COP 21
and beyond.
www.iied.org 12
EVENT PAPER
• Assist Irish Aid to gain a full understanding of the global situation, the relevant international policy
frameworks and how best to support Least Developed Countries to address effects of CC on food
and energy security.
• Improve the tracking of climate finance and quality of Ireland‟s reporting to the Irish public,
international bodies and partners.
Sequence of LP meetings and other actions:
• Limerick LP planning meeting conclusions
o Plans for Regional Meetings - Tanzania “integrating climate into development programming” and
Zambia “Climate smart agriculture”.
o Place technical information on integrating climate into development programming onto the web-
based platform
o Scoping of possible case studies on climate and development
o Complete and submit a plan for the Learning Platform
• First Regional meeting – Dar es Salaam
o Ambassador Gilsenan “take stock of how well IA is addressing climate and consider what more
needs done.”
o Plans for integration at country programme level
o Set of case studies to inform the Learning Platform – Ethiopia, Tanzania
• Other actions
o Case study scoping Tigray, Ethiopia – Research into use project TARI (the study will focus on IA
support to agricultural development and how it is being translated into CSA. CC challenge: There
is a bimodal rainfall pattern in NE Ethiopia, but short rains have disappeared).
o Agreement to proceed with Tanzania case study – Approaches to pastoralism and climate
o Meeting with IA office in Uganda to plan support on integrating climate into CSP and potential
case study
o Proposal for web-based information access for LP
Simon encouraged participants to engage with each other and with IIED, e.g. contacting us by email if
they have any issues, questions etc.
The learning process will be of a longitudinal nature over the three year period. No one knows exactly
how to integrate CC into programming, and the learning platform will provide a safe space for doing so.
Ireland is leading the way in Europe by maintaining its development commitment at a time of crises -
most other European countries have not done that and Ireland has been quite modest about this.
www.iied.org 13
EVENT PAPER
Getting development/ adaptation balanced in response to escalating climate challenges
Climate development/ adaptation phases
Climatic variability is increasing but addressing development deficits can be enough to enable people to deal with climatic variability (not extremes tho‟). This is roughly equivalent to the „no regrets‟ stage.
Climate effects demand adaptation specific responses that back-stop social development strategies such as social protection and sectorial development policy.
Further escalation of climate effects will then demand proper mainstreaming of climate across the board of development planning and implementation – this is climate smart development.
Further down the escalation road where far more radical adaptation measures will be required to minimise the loss and damage to lhds, HH assets, sectors and national economies.
What is integration & why do it?
What do we mean by integration?
• Routinely considering climate change in development planning, i.e. development & implementation
of plans, strategies, policies, laws, programmes, projects (i.e. development interventions) that might
be „climate-sensitive‟ or „climate-relevant‟
What does it involve?
• Identify & addressing risks (& opportunities*) associated with CC
Why do we do it?
• To make sure that development is viable and sustainable, and to secure desired development goals,
in face of evolving climate hazards and risks
Entry points for integration:
www.iied.org 14
EVENT PAPER
• National/regional plans, strategies, investments, programmes, policies
• Sector programmes, plans, strategies
• Community level development / projects
• Project cycle - planning and implementation
• Institutional decision-making in an organisation
• Portfolio screening of development interventions
See also GIZ, 2013. A Closer Look at Mainstreaming Adaptation factsheet
Steps for integrating climate into development programming
a) Establish enabling conditions, build capacity, generate/disseminate information
b) Engage stakeholders, raise awareness, build partnerships
c) Identify/assess relevant current climate hazards & associated risks/vulnerabilities
d) Identify/assess potential future climate hazards (as relevant to context)
e) Evaluate need to modify development intervention
f) Identify, prioritise, select, implement risk management/adaptation measures
g) Monitor, learn & evaluate success of climate and development interventions
Key processes/steps in integration
• Question to participants: How well do you manage climate risk e.g. in Zambia? Are you improving?
It‟s useful to reflect on the extent of climate risk – where there is low CC risk, there is perhaps no
need for specific adaptation actions. But this should be an informed choice based on an analayis of
the risks for different groups.
• Integration of CC adaption into development programming is essential to have efficiencies – it is not
a solution to have separate projects. The steps (diagramme above) can help guide the process.
• None of the IA countries represented have done a comprehensive climate risk assessments. It is not
known whether CC models converge e.g. for Zambia. If there is high convergence on models it
means that predictions can be made with more confidence. It is important to assess how projected
impacts will affect the livelihoods of people.
www.iied.org 15
EVENT PAPER
OECD guidance
Multiple levels: National, Sectoral, Project, Local
(Policy Guidance on Integrating CC Adaptation into Development Cooperation, OECD, 2009)
It is important to integrate interventions at these different levels. Question: Where to IA interventions „sit‟
– at what level?
www.iied.org 16
EVENT PAPER
One world, one future (Bronagh Carr, IA)
See file “S2 Presentation FfA for CC Workshop.pptx”
The presentation made in Lusaka included some additional information, which is still “work in progress”
and has therefore not been included in this report.
New policy commitments
• Maintain the aid budget at current levels, while committed to 0.7%
• Deepening engagement with Irish Institutions and whole-of-government approach
• Greater prioritisation, rationalisation and focus
• Tighter framework of goals and priority areas of action
• Stronger emphasis on fragile states (SL to become a Key Partner Country)
• Making a difference at the country level – and transitioning our approach - building stronger
economic partnerships (Africa Strategy)
• Strengthening transparency and accountability
• Putting learning & evidence into use
• Effective communication and achieving results
Ireland’s policy for international development
• Our vision: „A sustainable and just world, where people are empowered to overcome poverty and
hunger and fully realise their rights and potential‟
• Our values: Sustainability, Effectiveness and results, Equality, Human rights, Accountability,
Partnership, Coherence
3 Goals
• Reduced hunger and stronger resilience
• Sustainable development and inclusive economic growth
• Better governance, human rights and accountability
7 Priority Areas for Action 1. Global hunger 2. Fragile states 3. Climate change 4. Trade and economic growth 5. Essential services 6. Human rights and accountability 7. Humanitarian assistance
Why a Framework for Action?
• To set out the framework for collective action on the policy and to define a common approach to
priority issues (a level of uniformity)
• To provide the basis for policy and programming decisions up to 2017
• To prioritise and agree actions needed to implement the policy
• To provide us with a basis for measuring performance and being accountable (both internally and
externally)
• To agree and decide upon institutional implications of new policy
Structure
• Part A: A set of high level outcomes at Goal level with key result areas to provide us with basis for
programming and measuring/ reporting on performance
• Part B: Seven priority areas for action each with key institutional standards that have to be met in
order to meet high level outcomes
• Part C: The institutional systems and structures needed to implement policy commitments most
effectively & efficiently
Part A
www.iied.org 17
EVENT PAPER
Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3
Reduced Hunger, Stronger Resilience
Sustainable Development, Inclusive Economic Growth
Better Governance, Human Rights and Accountability
10 High Level Outcomes
1 When crises and conflicts
occur, the loss of life is minimised and human suffering is alleviated
2 Poor citizens, communities and states are better
prepared for, better able to
cope with, and better placed to
recover from stresses and
shocks
3 Poor
individuals families, and communities
have improved food and nutrition security
4 Better
functioning climate
resilient food systems and markets are accessible to and benefit
the rural poor
5 Developing
country economies are more
inclusive and sustainable
(social, economic
and environment)
6 Developing
countries are better able to use domestic resources to
reduce poverty
7 Poor and
marginalised citizens are
better able to attain a
decent living, including improved health and education outcomes,
and increased
and improved employment
opportunities.
8 Inequalities
between women and
men in accessing resources
and benefits of
development are reduced
9 Public
governance systems and structures are
more responsive
and accountable to citizens, in particular the
poor and marginalised
10 Poor and
marginalised citizens
realise their rights and actively
participate in the
development of their
societies.
Part B – example
Climate
Change
1. Ireland‟s development
cooperation programme
incorporates climate change
priorities (which effectively
contribute to international
engagements and meeting
Ireland‟s climate change
commitments)
A. Irish Aid‟s development cooperation objectives and
experience informs a coherent all of government
approach to climate change
B. Ireland‟s financial contributions are in line with
international reporting standards and are responsive to
adaptation and mitigation priorities of Least Developed
Countries
2. Irish Aid programmes
supports partner
governments and
communities to become
more resilient to and better
prepared for the adverse
effects of climate change
A. Irish Aid policy and programming at country level
supports better planning for and awareness of the
adverse effects of climate change
B. Increased focus in Irish Aid programming on the
adoption of climate smart technologies for household
food and energy systems by rural communities
C. Irish Aid programming supports innovation in KPCs on
promoting low carbon green economies
D. Irish Aid programming leads to strengthened capacity
at community level to conserve and sustainably use
biodiversity and secure local eco-systems
Part C – the institutional issues: How will it be used?
• Will set the agenda for all planning and review processes
• To track performance („forming a picture‟) across the programme – internal and external reporting
• To prompt decisions on appropriate functions and structures
www.iied.org 18
EVENT PAPER
Irish Aid Research Strategy (Bronagh Carr, IA)
See file “S2 Presentation Research Strategy for CC Workshop.pptx”
Context
• Emerged organically from existing partnerships and policies
• Influenced by strengthened focus on effectiveness and results – demand for evidence
• Commitment characterised by:
• Significant financial contribution
• Diverse portfolio of established institutional linkages
• Increased human resources
Strengthening Existing Partnerships…. and building new relationships, e.g. with
• CGIAR
• Secure livelihoods research consortium
• Young lives
• IDS (Institute of Development Studies)
• iavi (International Aids Vaccine Initiative)
• MMV (Medicines for Malaria venture)
• EFA GMR (Education for all global monitoring report
• IIED
Embedded in Policy Priorities
• White Paper Review: consultations with research partners
• OWOF emphasises:
Maximising our Impact
Importance of institutional learning & building evidence
Ensuring impact on policy and practice
• The Strategy:
Firmly embedded in the priorities of OWOF
Linked to High Level Outcomes and Framework for Action
Strong cross-divisional linkages and evolving modalities
Opportunity to link to FPR through building relationships with Irish Institutions
Objective 1: To build evidence, new and existing, on Irish Aid priorities for poverty reduction - 7
Research Themes
Global Hunger – what we will do.....
• support research on better understanding the root causes of hunger and under-nutrition and the
links between hunger and other development challenges.
• target investments in research, including products that help prevent and treat undernutrition during
the first 1000 days.
• support pro-poor, demand-led agricultural research including with institutions in our Key Partner
Countries, placing emphasis on dissemination at country level.
• invest in formative research into behaviours and underlying causes driving under-nutrition and use
the findings for policy and planning.
Climate Change and Development...what we will do.....
• invest in research to better understand how best to meet the challenges of climate change, the
interconnections between it and other development concerns.
• support and advocate for research on climate adapted seeds, drought resistant crops, and
alternative household energy.
• support research that explores the governance and political economy of climate change responses
to better understand the entry points for improved policy and practice.
• develop a joint learning platform on climate resilient household food and energy systems across Key
Partner Countries using this learning to inform Ireland‟s international policy engagements on
Environment and Climate Change.
www.iied.org 19
EVENT PAPER
Objective 2......what we will do.....
• review and, where appropriate, deepen our existing partnerships and identify new partnerships.
• work with all of our partners to promote more effective research communication.
• advocate for better and more systematic communication of results findings and recommendations.
• work with our research partners to develop and plan communication strategies that are credible and
convincing.
• stipulate our expectations of timely communication through research updates, policy briefs and clear
policy application.
• ensure that all research outputs funded by Irish Aid are open access and freely available
Objective 3:...what we will do......
• attach particular importance to research that takes account of the views and voices of local
communities and individuals.
• promote approaches that are more southern-led, responsive to country priorities, with results
evident at country level.
• promote stronger collaborations between Irish and international research institutions and those in
our partner countries to build networks ensuring that all joint country partnerships make explicit their
expected results from research capacity building.
• facilitate collaborative partnerships between academic institutions in Ireland with their counterparts
in our partner countries.
• explore opportunities for collaborative partnerships between two or more p
Requirements for Delivery
• Baseline resources
• Dedicated responsibility and budget
• ...while also working differently
• Linked to institutional learning and practice
• Cross-divisional function
• External Reference Group
• Close engagement with Irish Aid‟s Senior Management Group
Next Steps
• Internal and external communication through leveraging key planned events
• Embed within the new Framework for Action and internal restructuring
• Setting up of Internal Research Working Group and External Reference Group
Climate Smart Agriculture: Concepts, challenges and opportunities (Barbara Adolph, IIED)
The purpose of this presentation was to introduce the concept of CSA to ensure that participants have a
common understanding of the challenges and opportunities associate with CSA (see presentation “S1
IA Lusaka Session 1 CSA V2 150814.pptx”)
Outline
1. Aims and objectives of CSA – a triple win?
2. The political economy of CSA
3. New concept, old principles: Building on local knowledge and good practices
4. Implications for national level programming
5. Potential questions to explore through the IA learning platform
Agriculture is both…
• …a significant cause of climate change, directly responsible for 12-14% of GHG emissions (or 30%
when considering land-use change), and…
www.iied.org 20
EVENT PAPER
• …a victim of climate change, with farmers around the world already facing an uncertain future as a
result of rising temperatures, changing patterns of rainfall and the shifting distribution of pests and
diseases
CSA tries to do it all
• Integrating the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental)
by jointly addressing food security and climate challenges:
1. sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and incomes;
2. adapting and building resilience to climate change;
3. reducing and/or removing greenhouse gases emissions, where possible.
(FAO 2010: “Climate-Smart” Agriculture. Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and
Mitigation. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1881e/i1881e00.pdf)
However, there are trade-offs between the different components of CSA. So are the three dimensions
of equal importance, and should they be achieved simultaneously?
Proposition: Food security and resilient livelihoods first and foremost
• Fairness argument: The poorest people with the least food security should not bear the additional
burden of mitigation, whilst the richest countries are producing the highest emissions (“polluter pays”
principle)
• Scale argument: Africa is contributing to only 4% of global GHG emissions (but more than 60% of
these emissions are due to deforestation, land degradation and land use change)
• Incompatibility argument: Mitigation measures may limit adaptation potential by reducing flexibility (in
particular if tied to farm level carbon credit schemes)
• Competition for resources argument: If funds are diverted from adaptation to mitigation measures,
food security for all may not be achieved, and poorest producers are the least likely to benefit from
mitigation supporting measures
Who supports what? A simplified picture
All three dimension have equal weight
Productivity and incomes for smallholder farmers
should come first
• World Bank group
• FAO
• Some governments in the North
• Companies investing in or advising
on carbon credit systems
• AU / CAADP* and African governments
• Most INGOs: OXFAM, CARE etc.
• Some civil society and food sovereignty groups
in Africa (incl. ROPPA, La Via Campesina –
who reject carbon markets**)
* http://www.nepad.org/foodsecurity/news/3361/millions-african-farmers-benefit-new-climate-smart-agriculture-
alliance
** http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/actions-and-events-mainmenu-26/-climate-change-and-agrofuels-
mainmenu-75/1082-la-via-campesina-call-to-durban
New concepts, old principles
• CSA builds on sustainable agriculture, resilience and adaptation
• Many agric practices used for SA and CC adaptation also have (some) mitigation benefits (e.g. use
of organic fertilisers, soil conservation, re-forestation)
• Concept of ecosystem services – to be applied to GHG emissions?
www.iied.org 21
EVENT PAPER
• Key role for farmers and governments in developing appropriate interventions (based on both local
and scientific knowledge) and the enabling environment to take these to scale
• Main threat: If mitigation dimension of CSA limits adaptation options for farmers, it may become a
hindrance rather than a support to food security and resilience
Integrating CSA into national policy
• Integrated, context-specific assessment of drivers of unsustainability and GHG emissions, potential
CSA interventions – with emphasis on identifying synergies and trade-offs – and major barriers to
their implementation
• Strengthening institutions and infrastructure that promote sustainable practices in farming, forestry,
and fishing systems, efficient, equitable food chains, and enhanced governance systems to manage
common resources, strengthen land tenure, and improve ecosystem services;
• Establishing a strategic framework for coordinating key actors in development and implementation of
policy and market measures and blended financing sources to incentivize CSA practices and to
reduce and respond to disaster risk
• Building multi-scale capacity for information systems including research and development, advisory
services, information technologies, and monitoring and evaluation.
• Reinforcing adoption of CSA approaches in national policies in a coordinated way through
international organisations
Adapted from: Negra 2014: Integrated National Policy Approaches to Climate-Smart Agriculture. Insights from
Brazil, Ethiopia, and New Zealand (CCAFS Report 11), http://ccafs.cgiar.org/publications/integrated-national-policy-
approaches-climate-smart-agriculture-insights-brazil#.U-zdZE90xD8
www.iied.org 22
EVENT PAPER
CSA framework for mapping IA interventions
Session 2a: Sharing experiences
The purpose of this session was for IA country teams and partners to present the work they are doing,
using the following guidance provided by the workshop facilitators:
• The presentation should highlight the main lessons you have learnt from integrating CC into your
programming to support smallholder agriculture and food security – either as an agricultural
programme, or as a component of other sectoral programmes (e.g. social protection, education,
environment). We propose the following key questions:
1. How is CC affecting smallholder agriculture and food security in your country and who are the
target groups of your (food and agricultural) programmes?
2. At what stage of integrating climate change into your (agricultural) development programming
are you and how do you do it (both mitigation and adaptation)?
3. What approaches seem to work and why?
4. Which ones don‟t seem to work and why?
5. What lessons are you drawing from this for future programming?
• If feasible, please prepare this presentation jointly, with one of you (probably the country focal point)
taking the lead to coordinate / collate ideas from the other three and to present during the workshop.
• The presentation should not take more than a maximum of 10 minutes (we will be strict with time
keeping!) and can be done in whatever format you like – a „free‟ talk, a powerpoint presentation, a
poster that you explain, etc.
The business of adaptation – The role of the private sector in adaptation to climate change
(Pieter Terpstra, WRI)
See file “140816_The Business of adaptation.pdf”.
www.iied.org 23
EVENT PAPER
Contents
• Who is the “private sector”?
• Why focus on the private sector?
• Role of the private sector in adaptation
• Catalyzing engagement
Some statistics from low and middle income countries
• Up to 95-99% of all businesses are small (<250 employees)
• Small businesses provide up to 80% of jobs
• Informal businesses outnumber formal businesses
• 75% of poor and vulnerable people live in rural areas and 80% of them are dependent on agriculture
Role of the private sector in adaptation
• Resilient small businesses contribute to a resilient community
o Income
o Continuity
• Specific role in adaptation:
o Risk management
o New products and services
Climate risks for small businesses
• Most small businesses are dependent on natural resources; many are located in floodplains or
coastal zones
• Short time horizon
• Limited capacity to analyze climate risks
• Businesses are adapting but not sufficiently and not fast enough
Barriers to investment
Interventions
1. Awareness and Knowledge
2. Technical Assistance and Training
3. Laws and Policies
4. Public-Private Partnerships
5. Small Business Partnerships
6. Collaboration with other stakeholders
7. Public Spending on Infrastructure
8. Grants
9. Direct Investment
10. Market Support
www.iied.org 24
EVENT PAPER
11. Price Signals
12. Subsidies, Tax Reliefs, and Carbon Credits
13. De-Risking
14. Loans and Microfinance
15. Seed Capital
Integrating private sector in adaptation policies and strategies
• Prioritize sectors and engage private sector actors in policy design
• Identify sector specific drivers and barriers
• Design interventions to address barriers in a comprehensive way:
o Knowledge
o Technical
o Financial
o Market Access
• Focus on strengthening businesses and income diversification
Discussion
• Information for awareness and risk assessment is generally lacking.
• The intervention types that government organisations can make are linked to the different types of
barriers
• Strategies for integrating the private sector into adaptation strategies: Induce private sector to invest
in their own resilience and that of their local economy and communities
• Q: We have tried previously to move farmers from subsistence to market engagement. What would
motivate the private sector to invest in adaptation process? A: Investing in adaptation would link up
the value chain to support adaptation through buying outputs
• Q: What is the entry point for private sector involvement? A: Climate risk management is the most
important one.
• There is a need to engage with smallholder farmers / SMEs, not just with big multi-national firms.
There is an important role for informal businesses, generating more employment – those who are
„left out‟ by public sector?)
• One of the barriers is that information is not targeted to businesses
Climate Smart Agriculture Programming in Lesotho (Mampho Thulo, Relebohile Mabote, Matela
Thabane and Peter Hogan, IA and partners)
See file “S2 IA CC learning platform Lusaka WS LESOTHO.ppt”.
Climate Change Impacts to smallholder farmers in Lesotho
• The contribution of agriculture to GDP has declined over time from 20% 30 years ago to 8%
currently. The crops and livestock sector contributes 2.3 % and 4.1 % to GDP respectively.
• Despite the decline, agriculture still remains an important sector for supporting livelihoods of
smallholder farmers in Lesotho.
• Lesotho is already vulnerable to the impact of extreme weather conditions, heavy rains and floods,
drought heat stress, hail, snow, strong winds and early and or late frost. There is already a trend of
gradual increase in annual mean temperature is likely whilst a moderate reduction in autumn/winter
rain and a moderate increase in spring/summer rain.
• These changes will also increase the risk of vector and waterborne diseases. With overall impact of
slowdown of economic growth and threaten our gains in social development.
• The impacts of climate change to smallholder farmers are further compounded by the current
declining agricultural productivity, land degradation, increasing fallow land and poor governance
(NSDP 2012/13-2016/17)
Integrating Climate Change into development programming
• Lesotho has identified adaptation to climate change as one of the key strategies in her NSDP
2012/13 - 2013/14.
www.iied.org 25
EVENT PAPER
• Our development programming addresses climate change adaptation options in a sustainable
development context whilst also achieving mitigation of greenhouse gasses.
• Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) is a key response to the increase in vulnerability of small holder
farmers in Lesotho.
• Climate Smart Agriculture specifically refers to interventions which address the following 3 key pillars
• Sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and incomes
• Adapting and building resilience to climate change
• Reducing and/or removing greenhouse gas emissions, where possible.
• Our target group is the smallholder farmers –women, men and young people living in the rural areas
of Lesotho.
• We are expecting change not only of living conditions, but also at their position –voice and respect in
society.
Approaches that seem to do work
• Demonstrating technologies that work in our context to generate evidence.
o Conservation Agriculture
o Livestock integration (animal feed and village poultry)
o Homestead gardening
• Empowerment of small-holder farmers.
o Solidarity/immediate relief activities
o Capacity building-informing, awareness creation, mobilizing, organizing into groups/networks,
advocacy.
o Take advantage and support incubation of emerging value chains.
• Joint-up approaches between CSOs, Government, Farmers‟ organisations and private sector)
o CA task force.
Why it works for us
• The strategies (strategic service deliveries, organizational capacity and advocacy) complement each
other. One strategy cannot work in isolation.
• Smallholder farmers begin to take control of their livelihoods and begin to semi-commercialize.
• The approaches promote protection of household assets.
• Platforms for learning, sharing and collective bargaining for all involved at local, national, regional
and international level.
Approaches that do not seem to work and why
Approach Challenges
Direct Seed Distribution without linkage to seed
supply networks.
• It creates apathy. No long term
impact/outcomes
Voucher for Work/Food for Work
(without clear ownership over land)
• No long term impact/outcomes
• no ownership projects collapse.
Direct Technology Transfer (without formation of
farmers/community groups) and by-passing
Government extension
• No support to sustain technology
• No further development and
enhancement.
Focusing on local farming community only, without
linkage to national/policy level
• No elevation of concerns/input
Livelihoods projects/Income generation (without
market linkage)
• Gains not sustained/advanced
Lessons learnt
• Complementary action is required in different sectors.
• Complementary action is required at multi levels ( community, meso and macro).
• Organised and informed engagement and participation of the poor.
• Value chains are emerging- in village chicken, livestock feed and seed multiplication
www.iied.org 26
EVENT PAPER
RSDA Field Day Climate Smart Agriculture: Inspiration for Future Policy and Investment
A highly successful initiative was the CSA Field day which promoted a range of technologies and
livelihoods options that addressed the vulnerability caused by climate change. The day was attended by
Ministers, Regional partners-GART, MPs and over 400 participants and demonstrated Conservation
Agriculture, Feed Mixing for livestock production, Village Poultry and Seed Multiplication.
Standardisation of Conservation Agriculture Resources
As members of the National Conservation Agriculture Task Force RSDA and Caritas use standardise
CA training and promotion materials. The materials are used by all organisations training or
implementing CA to ensure standardisation of approach.
Integration of CA modules into National curriculum
Through engagement with the National Curriculum Development Committee the Task Force was
successful in integrating CA modules into the newly developed national curriculum which is currently
being rolled out. In addition a couple of hundred teachers have been trained in CA through
demonstrations.
Discussion
• All farmers are smallholders in Lesotho due to the and tenure system
• CC effects are not well understood and documented.
• Policy framework exists but implementation is problematic – emphasis on the “how” (process of
implementation) should be the future of CSA development.
• Good list of what works and what does not!
• Emphasis on linkages between local to national for coherence. Complementarity of approaches by
„outside‟ actors
Smallholder „climate smart‟ and climate change Learning Workshop Lusaka, Zambia –
Presentation by Irish Aid Malawi team (Louis Abinala Kawenda, IA)
See file “S2 IA CC learning platform Lusaka WS MALAWI.ppt”.
Presentation outline
i. Operating Context: Climate Change.
ii. Policies & Legal Frameworks in Malawi: Development/Agriculture/Climate Change
iii. Target Group(s) of food and agriculture programmes
iv. Effects of climate variability on target group(s)
v. Stage of integrating climate change and how?
vi. Working approaches- Strategies
vii. Approaches not working well
viii. Lessons for future programming
Operating context
• Malawi is among the countries most prone to adverse effects of climate change ranked among 16
countries of „extreme risks‟ to climate change impacts in the world (Maplecroft, 2012).
• The country experiences erratic weather => more incidences of late starts to the rainy season,
droughts, torrential rain/storms and floods as well as epidemics.
www.iied.org 27
EVENT PAPER
Background: Natural Disasters in Malawi (1980-2010)
Number of People affected by Drought and Floods (1980-2010)
Policies & Legal Frameworks in Malawi
• Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS II);
• National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA),
• Agriculture Sector Wide Approach (ASWAp);
• Food Security Policy,
• National Irrigation Policy and Development Strategy, National Forest Policy,
• draft National Disaster Risk Management Policy, draft National climate Change Policy,
• National Social Support Policy,
• National Environmental Policy,
Irish Aid Malawi Goals and Objectives (CSP 2010-2014)
Goal
• Households are better nourished, food secure and less vulnerable to poverty.
Objectives
• Households benefit from better nutrition, increased crop diversity and improved productivity adapted
to climate change- Pillar 1 (Agriculture & Nutrition)
• Households have increased resilience to poverty and to the adverse effects of climate change –
Pillar 2 (Resilient)
• Improved enabling governance environment promotes accountability and inclusive growth – Pillar 3
(Governance)
www.iied.org 28
EVENT PAPER
Irish Aid Malawi Programme Works in Agric, Nutrition & CC adaptation
• Orange Fleshed Sweet Potato – Contains Vit A
• Cassava – A Dry Spell tolerant crop
• Conservation Agriculture Pays!
• Conservation Agriculture with trees- conserve moisture and improve soil texture and fertility
Target Group(s)
BROADER Target group
• Ultra poor
• Poor
• „Better off‟
Among the broader category;
• Female Headed Households.
• Child Headed Households.
• Elderly Headed Households.
• People living with HIV/AIDS.
• Land constrained households i.e. more than 60% of the rural households own less than 0.1 hectares
of land.
• Labour Constrained i.e. Households with people living with HIV/AIDS are usually labour constrained.
• Pregnant and lactating mothers.
• Under five children
• Commercial seed producers ( Public- Private Partnership).
• Able bodied households – with manpower to work on agricultural production.
• Physically challenged.
• Farmer groups – associations and cooperatives.
Effects of climate variability on the target group (s)
• Reduced crop yields – due to frequent hazards and disasters ( floods, droughts) leading to
increased food insecurity situation: recurrent food insecurity.
• Reduced levels of income – due to reduced crop yields affecting agricultural produce marketing.
• Increased occurrence of diseases rending agriculture production.
• Loss of households assets i.e. due to floods.
• Increased malnutrition i.e. due to inadequate dietary intake.
• Limited access to safe water i.e. Boreholes get dry in a drought prone situation.
• Loss of livestock due to high temperatures.
• Loss of agricultural productive land- increasing flood prone areas.
Stage of integrating climate change and how?
• Situational analysis – include questions relating to the effects of climate change on smallholders.
• Country Strategy papers- include resilient building
• Programme Design level – climate change mitigation and adaptation is integrated.
• Programme appraisal – check whether climate change adaptation and mitigation has been
integrated
• Budgeting process- budgets include resilient building.
• Implementation level – resilient building interventions are equally prioritized.
• Monitoring and evaluation level – special attention on resilient building.
• Impact assessment level – how different interventions have contributed towards resilient building
• Re-design stage – whether there is need to integrate climate change adaptation and mitigation
Working Approaches- Strategies
• Awareness creation and Capacity building
• Small scale irrigation
• Promotion of drought tolerant crops
• Crop diversification
• Promotion of early warning system -for floods and droughts
• Promotion of income generating activities i.e. VSLA
• Use of energy saving stoves
www.iied.org 29
EVENT PAPER
• Safety nets – cash transfers
• Agro forestry – fertilizer trees, fuel wood trees, fruit and folder
• Strengthening farmer research linkages- early maturing and disease resistant varieties
• Policy engagement
• Networking and collaboration
• Joint programming i.e. ECRP
WHY? - Immediate results
What is not working well?
• Climate smart agriculture i.e. Conservation Agriculture (understanding and adoption)
• Environmental rehabilitation through afforestation- survival rate still a challenge
• Integrated soil fertility management technologies i.e. Scaling up of legume – based.
• Re-allocation of people in a flood prone situation i.e. Limited social services.
WHY?
• Long term benefits – limited preference
• Cultural beliefs
Lessons for future programming
• Sustainable Integrated programming i.e. Permaculture
• Innovative programming i.e. linking folder to livestock
• Use of „super‟ lead farmers
• Capacity building
• Participatory research
• Joint programming
Approaches to climate smart / climate adapted smallholder agriculture for food security in
Mozambique (Palmira Vicente, Irish Aid, Maputo)
(See file “S2 IA CC learning platform Lusaka WS MOZAMBIQUE.ppt”.
1. How Climate Change is affecting smallholder agriculture and food security in Mozambique
• Crop failure due to floods, erratic rainfall/long periods of draught
• Strong winds/cyclones destroy fruit trees and causes loss of crops
• Droughts and floods also causes loss of pasture and loss of livestock
• New pests and diseases affecting the crops and animals
2. Target groups of our programmes
• Small scale farmers working in groups and associations
• Socially, economically and politically excluded rural women experiencing food and nutritional
insecurity and highly dependent on natural resources
3. Stage of integrating climate change into agricultural development programming (both mitigation and
adaptation)
• In some programs very early stages: dissemination of CC concepts to target groups; sensitization of
rural communities‟ including local leaders, training and field demonstrations on adaptation strategies.
• Some programs have been supporting farmers to build adaptative capacity: in collaboration with
local partners, local NGOs, Ministry of Agriculture and Research Institutions are promoting
Conservation Agriculture (CA), drought tolerant varieties, water harvesting, planting of trees,
improved storage facilities with the aim to reduce the impacts of CC
• Advocacy for integration of adaptation to CC in the planning process and budgeting
3.1 CC adaptation related interventions
• Conservation agriculture: minimum tillage, use of mulch, green manure/cover crops, intercropping
and crop rotation, and use of organic compost.
www.iied.org 30
EVENT PAPER
• These practices reduce the impact of draughts as soil is kept covered throughout the year thus
reducing evaporation and runoff; builds soil organic matter which contributes to improve soil texture,
moisture retention, water filtration and soil fertility. Reduction of crop failure, increase on yields and
therefore improvements on food security and nutrition.
3.2. CC adaptation related interventions
• Conservation agriculture practices – mulching/ compost/ green manure- cover crops
• Promotion of draught tolerant Varieties
• Water harvesting and irrigation systems (for agriculture and livestock)
• Crop diversification (Vegetables)
• Planting of trees to revitalize deforested areas
• Promotion of improved storage facilities for grains to reduce post-harvest losses due to storage in
poor conditions and pest attack.
• Promotion of beekeeping and other income generation activities do not encourage use of
uncontrolled fires which can contribute to CC
4. Approaches that seem to work and why
• Farm field schools: Farmer Field Schools guide farmers to undertake practical experiments of side-
by side comparisons between common farming techniques and CA practices and select those that
are most appropriate for their own situations, giving them more control in a difficult and changing
situation. With this approach farmers, , especially women, build their confidence and capacity to
experiment, and deepen their capacity to adapt to economic and environmental changes.
• Green manure/ cover crops: An alternative to mulch to cover the soil, it involves use of live species
and decreases workload as in many places it‟s increasingly difficult to find enough grass and when
available, the work involved in cutting the grass and then carrying it to their fields a task typically
assigned to already overburdened women is tremendously laborious
• PITTA (integrated program of technologies transfer) - In at least one hectare extension workers
makes demonstrations of technologies (Conservation agriculture, demonstration of new varieties
and other technological messages) taught to farmers through periodical visits and field days, where
they have the opportunity to observe and discuss with the extension workers.
5. Approaches which don’t seem to work and why
• Training and Visit System (T&V) – In this system agricultural extension workers visit farmers on fixed
days; is costly, top-down oriented and limited in terms of scope and participation
• Use of Grass to cover the soils (Mulch): not efficient in big areas > ¼ ha as it is very laborious and
difficult for adoption by women
Lessons we are drawing from this for future programming
• Field days open to all the community members, local leaders and government representatives
contribute to increase adoption not only by participants but also by non-members and is
recommended to include them in future programs
• FFS approach increases women confidence and contribute to their empowerment and should be
linked to other services such as access to inputs and markets
• REPETE (periodical review meeting for agricultural technologies) - Researchers, extension workers
and farmers jointly identify their needs for investigation purposes
• Gender approaches under farmer field schools increases women confidence and empowerment
• Promotion of discussion forums/ workshops to discuss various approaches (institutionalise and scale
up successes)
• The impacts of conservation agriculture can only be observed after at least two farming seasons and
therefore quick wins approaches such as improved varieties should be integrated into the system to
scale up adoption
Discussion
• Mozambique has a CSO platform on CC
www.iied.org 31
EVENT PAPER
• Farmer Field Schools are being used for CSA, plus field days, [- the convergence of adaptation from
bottom-up and Farmer Participatory Research, plus women‟s involvement – opportunity of CC
responses]
• CSA as a vehicle for women‟s involvement
• Legume adoption – mulching with grass etc. in more labour intensive than using cover crops e.g.
mucuna.
• T&V too expensive
• Grass as a cover crop did not work for larger areas.
• CSA through conservation agriculture needs to be assessed in the medium, not short term.
Climate Change Workshop Zambia Presentation (Albert Mate, Self Help Africa)
(See file “S2 IA CC learning platform Lusaka WS ZAMBIA.pptx”.)
Irish Aid Climate change focus
CGIAR overall research priorities
www.iied.org 32
EVENT PAPER
CGIAR CSA priority pillars
CGIAR consortium – Irish Aid funded Northern province project climate smart research priorities
SHA – Interventions and results
1. Livelihood diversification
• Changing character of smallholder households activity portfolios and income sources.
• Supports households to better manage environmental and economic uncertainty
• Widening people‟s options, reduces reliance on a particular natural resources
• Enable farmers recognize the importance of vertical and horizontal links within the value chains-
2. Sustainable land management
• Application of Sustainable Land Management (SLM) practices.
• Key resource soil and water which support crops and animals production and productivity.
• Improve physical and chemical properties that influence soil fertility.
• Addition of organic matter to the soil to improve Soil Carbon Storage
• Improve the soil „s water holding capacity reduces run- offs that cause soil erosion-
3. Seed systems
• Seed system provides greater resilience and sustains crop production at smallholder farmers level
www.iied.org 33
EVENT PAPER
• Seed security (availability, quantity, quality and affordability) is key determinant to agricultural output.
• SHA SAI Model looks at increasing community access to a range of traditional, locally adapted and
as strategy to Climate adaptation-
4. Ecosystems management – IPM
• Apply IPM which is an ecosystem approach that combines different management strategies and
practices to grow healthy crops.
• It controls pests and keep them at acceptable level (action threshold) with respect to economics,
health and environmental requirements.
• This IPM is founded on the idea that the first and most fundamental line of defence against pests
and diseases in agriculture is healthy agro ecosystem- Agro biodiversity
5. Functional landscapes approach
• Management tool for sustainable management of wetlands and catchments in Zambia
• water security, provision, groundwater replenishment and purification.
• climate change mitigation, adaptation and carbon sequestration;
• Improve resilience through erosion control and sediment transport contributing to land formation;
food and livelihood security -
6. Energy saving technologies
• To reduce deforestation through use of energy saving stoves
• To reduction in charcoal making and use
• Improved pasture management –
Conclusions
• More than 95% of the Climate Change related activities are towards Climate Adaptation.
• They are aimed at building resilience of farmers households and the communities
• Very little is done to mitigate the impacts of Climate Change
• Very limited capacities among staff to determine reduction of emissions to the atmosphere or
storage in the soil
Group work on key aspects of integrating climate into agricultural development planning
Following the country presentations, four discussion groups were formed around the following five
topics:
1. Trade-offs and synergies among productivity, resilience and emissions reductions
2. Investments by smallholders for longer term in CSA
3. Local to national linkages for CSA
4. How to go to scale with CSA?
5. How to assess climate risks and opportunities in CSA?
Group 1 – Trade-offs and synergies among productivity, resilience and emissions reductions
How to identify
• Screening existing and planned portfolios of development interventions
• Review NAPAs and government strategies
• Comprehensive climate analysis to identify trade-offs required – specialist inputs required.
• Generate lists of no-regrets and no-brainers
How to address
• For Trade-offs
• Research
www.iied.org 34
EVENT PAPER
• Risk identification and management involves targeting
• For Synergies
• Research
• Promote, bring to scale
• Communicate – know your audience and sell to their interests
Group 2 – Investments by smallholders for longer term in CSA
• Need for incentives
• Awareness raising
• Diversification
• Soil and water management
1. Incentives
• Land tenure and land rights
• Most access to land is customary and there is no ownership of land to encourage investment
• Gender aspect; access and control
• Lack of clarity of benefits: Immediate clear benefit in adopting CSA compared to conventional
agriculture usually not clear
• Cultural barriers: Sometimes increase in production is associated with other cultural issues
• Investment in technology: Some technology requires investment that goes beyond capacity of
smallholders
2. Awareness
• Local level based advocacy, e.g. seed; basic NRM practice promotion
• Use radio for raising awareness; training of trainers, working with traditional leaders
• Initiate group level discussion to promote knowledge
• Use of the government extension system
• Awareness on nutrition
• FFS and use of demonstration plots
• Education curriculum on CSA
3. Diversification
• Promoting farm-level diversification to address varied household needs (e.g. crop-livestock
integration)
• Promote diversification from nutrition and food security point of view
• Advocating for diversification to be part of policy (e.g. maize and legume)
• Subsidy to some inputs / technologies that work
4. Soil and water management
• Promote use of crop residues
• Promote mulch (dead and live – green manure)
• Minimum tillage
• Promotion of basic agriculture and nutrition in schools • Promote water harvesting technologies • Promote crop rotation • Fallowing in areas where there is access to land • Promote drip irrigation • Terracing • Vetiver grasses for soil erosion control
Group 3 – Local to national linkages for CSA
Evidence from grassroots to policy makers • Local level research by/ with local people and indigenous groups • Documentation and packaging of grassroots issues e.g. policy briefs, radio programmes
www.iied.org 35
EVENT PAPER
• NGOs to facilitate farmer/ decision maker contacts
How can CSA be planned bottom-up • Awareness raising farmers on CSA and process of planning • Build farmers‟ capability to lobby and influence • Coordinate with local authorities • Start from what is already there • Methods e.g. FFS, farmer exchanges and visits, farmer/ researcher forum, farmers groups around
crops and/ or other shared interests
Entry points for influencing policy development • Need knowledge on how public budget processes work and target decision-makers • Identify open spaces at sub- and national levels for influence e.g. DDCC in Zambia, parliamentary
committees, sector advisory groups • Coordination of those that want to influence e.g. connecting up farmers groups
Group 4 – How to go to scale with CSA?
• Maintaining women‟s involvement • Equitable distribution of costs and benefits • Role of research and development organisations
1. Concepts
- Definition of scaling up / scaling out: o Scaling up is about increasing reach across institutions and levels
Increase range of actors supporting / promoting CSA : Government, farmer organisations, private sector etc.
o Scaling out is about geographical scale and numbers: Increase area under CSA Increase number of adopters
- What is scaled up? E.g. all three principles of conservation agriculture, or knowledge and understanding / capacity for CSA
- Important to differentiate between (a) processes supporting the adaptation and adoption of CSA practices (such as capacity development, multi-stakeholder platoforms etc.), (b) actual CSA practices and their adoption, and (c) the impact from the adoption of these practices on rural households / income / nutrition and food security
2. Research
- Three roles: o Research to understand the context under which CSA is being promoted (land tenure,
gender roles, etc.) o Research on specific practices (and the costs of benefits from their adoption – including
labour, food, etc. and the initial investments needed for them) o Research on research uptake, research –extension – farmer linkages etc. (including
case studies of where CSA uptake has worked or hasn‟t worked)
- Research is done at different levels by different people – researchers (on station and on-farm), farmers (own experimentation and innovation), practitioners and facilitators (NGOs, extension workers, facilitators). Not all of this is documented
- For research to be influential (in changing narratives, policies, investments etc.) it needs to be owned by the research users (e.g. government), not presented to them at the end
- Farmer roles have an important role in undertaking or even commissioning research (example Brazil: A lot of the research done on conservation agriculture there is commissioned by farmer orgs).
- Research findings need to be simplified or rather translated into a format that is accessible to farmers and other research users.
- Not all evidence comes from research – evidence also comes from farmers (e.g. community stories) and from learning platforms such as the IA one, where practitioners share experiences (e.g. examples of successful integration of CC into policy)
www.iied.org 36
EVENT PAPER
3. Research-policy / user linkages and research communication
- Scaling up requires building of capacities (e.g. via task forces or agricultural working groups – but they are not always embedded into national planning processes), and developing and using evidence.
- Research and policy makers can be linked via platforms, partnerships, communities of practice etc. where they can share experiences and discuss evidence
- A possible process could be to test and pilot CSA processes and practices, monitor and evaluate their performance and the communication of the results. All this needs time and resources, and therefore it is often not done properly.
- Evidence needs to be packaged / presented in a customised way for different actors who have different levels of understanding and capacity, and different interests
- The conventional research => extension => farmer pipeline approach (“transfer of technology”) isn‟t really working and there is a need for much more experiential learning and feedback loops between the different actors – including farmers‟ needs being effectively articulated.
4. Policy
- There is a need for coherent policies – pulling in the same direction (rather than e.g. have the MoA promote bovine or tractor tillage, whilst the MoE is promoting conservation agriculture)
- In many countries policies around CC and CSA exist, but for various reasons (capacities, political will etc.) they are not being implemented
- There are competing priorities for government investments – e.g in Malawi, the FIS (Farm Input Subsidy) uses up 60% of the agricultural budget – so not much left for other work. In such cases, can CSA piggy-back on such programmes, in particular when they have a lot of political support?
- Not clear whether FIS is overall climate smart or not. It increases the use of inorganic fertilisers (so increases GHG emissions), but it also results in higher yields on existing agricultural land and thus contributes to reduces land use changes, which are a main sources of GHG emissions.
5. Politics and the political economy - It is important to understand the political agenda – e.g. the FIS is a presidential agenda and
thus receives a lot of support
- Incentives / motivating factors for each group of actors involved in scaling up CSA need to be understood and used when interacting with them
- Example of political economy: Private sector firms are sometimes not interested in producing CA implements, as it will reduce their tractor sales – so they may lobby against CSA adoption
6. Other factors
- It is useful to look at where scaling up has worked. E.g. village saving and loans have been very successful – they provide quick results. The FIS programme and watershed management programmes in some countries have been successful because of strong government buy-in
- Example of conservation agriculture in Latin America: Land degradation was the cause for the adoption of CA, not economic factors. Subsequently there has been wide adoption of CA with very little government support – it was mostly due to farmer- to farmer extension and later on due to private sector interest (e.g. in Australia)
- Awareness is important to change narratives and attitudes to CSA. Need to use advocacy tools, such as field days and demonstration plots. Part of the wider capacity development agenda.
7. Women and CSA
- Women as drivers of CSA – therefore need to demystify the idea that CSA will increase labour requirements (it does in the short term, but reduced labour needs in the longer term)
- Women involvement is generally low in CSA, but it is context specific. Whilst women are the main agricultural workers, the conservation agriculture plots / demo plots are usually owned by men
- Land rights are crucial for adoption of CSA practices – farmers won‟t invest if they don‟t have secure tenure.
www.iied.org 37
EVENT PAPER
Group 5 – How to assess climate risks and opportunities in CSA?
Mozambique • AEZs (Agro-ecological zones) • Drought proneness (maize areas) • Sustainability of staples? • Crops and varieties selection • Cash crop alternatives • Drought tolerance • Diversification • Water storage • “Default” actions, then risks from local consultation • Current risks • Longer-term mindset difficult for local people because current problems are severe • Increased frequency of extreme weather events • Led to experiential learning from floods • Knowledge management centre being established – so trends analysis will be done
• Downstream country dependent on others
Zambia
• Environment protection start: Control of slash and burn, licenced charcoal selling
• Conservation agriculture for soil and water management – now for agriculture and climate
• CRMgt methods from northern countries need to be adapted for southern countries
Lesotho
• High levels of land degradation despite of environmental programmes of government
• Drought has become the norm – but inadequate government response
• Civil society awareness and longer term view => but responses?
• Productivity problems addressed through input subsidies
• Water resources management for wetlands to supply RSA
• Externally led APPs e.g. Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP),
Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA)
• CR (Climate resilience) info not being used by government organisations
Uganda
• Government has set up climate change unit but small budget allocation to AG
• CADA work at local levels – mainly on disaster risk reduction (DRR)
• Policy and budgetary alignment poor
• Political push a threat to rangelands? Political vs technical solutions
Malawi
• District contingency plans – but RRs lacking
• Minimal CC and meteorological services => Early Warning Systems and forecasts, but what is the
response?
• How to get reliable impact data?
Cross-cutting issues
• Policy priorities in development deficit situations are short term and unlikely to be affected by climate
risks.
• Some climate policy formulation is happening, but implementation lagging far behind.
• NAPAs and NAPs have looked at climate risks.
• Sub-national public planning processes are important for managing climate risks, but have less
information and capability to manage climate risks than the national level.
• Knowledge gaps on climate risks limiting. Reliable information and capability for climate risk
management needed.
• What links are there among Met Services and line ministries so that climate information can be
provided. Capacity of line ministries to use climate information to assess risk and plan responses.
www.iied.org 38
EVENT PAPER
• Planning ministries can indicate to line ministries what they should take into account in forecasting
spend, this is then consolidated by having a climate budget code and resource allocation.
• Reacting to events is easier than pre-empting climate effects – works for extreme weather events
but not for slow-onset effects.
• Addressing climate risks has been by default rather than deliberate. The next stage is to have „add-
on‟ type responses.
• Is the capability to manage risks developing in sync with the emergence and escalation of climate
risks?
• Climate finance access can act as an incentive to climate risk assessment if support contingent on
risk assessment.
• What relevant is CSA to pastoral and other non-crop based systems?
Session 2b: Climate finance
Climate and Environment finance: Tracking Support, OECD-DAC Codes & Rio Markers (Gemma
O‟Reilly, consultant)
This session consisted of two parts. On day 1, Gemma gave a presentation about her work for IA on
climate finance tracking (see “S2 - rio markers IA Lusaka wshop DayI 2014.gor.pptx”) and gave draft
country reports to Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia (unfortunately the Lesotho report was lost by the
hotel staff and a replacement version could not be produced on time). The country teams then spent
some time reviewing the reports and noting comments, which were discussed on day 2 in the morning.
Outline
• My work with Irish Aid on tracking
• Why do we track/monitor environment expenditures?
o The Rio Conventions and Commitments
• The OECD DAC definitions
• How & When to mark
• Documentation & Design
• Results of the 2013 Mapping
My work with Irish Aid
• Mapping environment in 2013 expenditures
o Rio Markers
o Agriculture, REDD
o DRR
• Projecting 2014 & 2015 climate expenditures
• Country Reports
www.iied.org 39
EVENT PAPER
Ireland’s Rio & Other Commitments
Why track?
• Commitment to MRV climate finance, CBD, CCD
• Keep track of progress towards quantified financial targets
• Keep track of action on priority policy issues Monitor Effectiveness, assist accountability => Robust reporting requires a consistent approach OECD DAC definitions
• Mitigation
o Reducing GHG emissions
o Protecting Sinks
o Movement to low carbon development path
• Adaptation
o Reducing vulnerability
o Maintaining or increasing adaptive capacity and Resilience
• Biodiversity finance
o Protecting or enhancing ecosystems
o Promoting Natural Resource Management
o Sustainable Agriculture and Water use
• Desertification
o Rehabilitation of land, vegetation cover, forestry and water resources
o Sustainable management of land & water resources, sustainable irrigation
• Overlaps & Co-benefits are allowed
www.iied.org 40
EVENT PAPER
Documentation and design
• The aim is Climate Proofing expenditure and improving outcomes
• Does the activity qualify? Should the activity qualify?
o Create and improve co-benefits!
• Is the activity in line with priorities described in NAPAs/NAMAs/NAPs/NBSAP?
o Then put it in the project documentation!
o Be explicit
• Programme support documentation helps focus effort Documentation and marking
• Code at point of the RP2A – important to establish this practice now because new system will
require it.
• Rio Coding is additional to Sectoral coding
www.iied.org 41
EVENT PAPER
• Is it principal, significant or not targeted?
o Principal (Score 2) - Would the activity/project have happened otherwise? Is it the main focus?
o Significant (Score 1) – is part of the activity in line with elements of the definition?
o Does it not qualify? Then mark it zero!
• Principal vs Significant; different ways to think about it
o How much of the expenditure was relevant? Country reports
• Climate Change
o Recent climate trends – all have already experienced CC
o Projections of future climate
o Adaptation; National Adaptation Plan of Action
o Other relevant climate information
• Biodiversity
o National Circumstances as described by country
o NBSAP, Priority Actions
• Desertification and Land Degradation
o National Action Plan
• Irish Aid supported projects, programmes 2013-15, and Civil Society... Findings; Typical Irish Aid Bilateral Environment Activities
• Climate Change
o Conservation Agriculture
o Diversification of livelihoods
o Efficient Cook-stoves & Renewable Energy
o Agro-forestry and afforestation
o Early Warning Systems
o Capacity Building
o Disaster Risk Mgmt
• Biodiversity
o Natural Resource Management
o Water & Soil Conservation
o Forestry
o Integrated Catchment Mgmt
• Desertification and Land Degradation
o Soil & Water Mgmt
o Planting trees incl. N fixing trees
o Irrigation Results of the 2013 Mapping; Irish Aid Bilateral Support
2013 Climate Finance
UNCBD Biodiversity
UNCCD Desertification
UNISDR Disaster RM
Ethiopia 15,425,000 6,950,000 6,815,000 11,450,000
Lesotho 500,000 75,000 75,000 Malawi 5,102,794 2,960,000 975,000 3,761,746
Mozambique 1,815,523 605,145 1,262,878 492,790
Sierra Leone 326420.5 234250
326,421
Tanzania 3,250,000 2,750,000 2,500,000 0
Uganda 757,422 350,000 0 472,423
Vietnam 3,392,275 600,000 0 2,790,000
Zambia 1277782.345 1,316,487 710,416 775,000
31,847,217 15,840,883 12,338,294 20,068,379
www.iied.org 42
EVENT PAPER
Results of the 2013 Mapping; Climate
2013 Climate Finance Adaptation Mitigation
Agriculture & Adaptation
Climate Capacity Building
Climate Technolo-gy
Agroforestry, Afforestation & REDD
Ethiopia 15,425,000 14,425,000 7,325,000 3,350,000 6,700,000 725,000 6,575,000
Lesotho 500,000 500,000 425,000 500,000 0 0 0
Malawi 5,102,794 4,332,794 3,820,000 4,925,000 2,835,000 260,000 610,000
Mozambique 1,815,523 1,815,523 1,187,878 895,290 275,000 200,000 100,000
Sierra Leone 326,421 326,421 0 326,421 326,421 326,421 0
Tanzania 3,250,000 3,250,000 2,450,000 3,250,000 2,400,000 2,000,000 2,950,000
Uganda 757,423 407,423 350,000 407,423 607,423 0 0
Vietnam 3,392,275 3,390,000 502,275 200,000 2,715,000 0 600,000
Zambia 1,277,782 886,295 1,277,782 976,295 960,416 250,000 396,711
31,847,217 29,333,454 17,337,935 14,830,428 16,819,259 3,761,421 11,231,711
Results of the 2013 Mapping; Projections
Climate Finance 2013 Climate Finance 2014 Climate Finance 2015
Ethiopia 15,425,000 11,820,000 11,570,000
Lesotho 500,000 0 0
Malawi 5,102,794 2,850,000 2,600,000
Mozambique 1,815,523 1,257,500 500,000
Sierra Leone 326,421 0 0
Tanzania 3,250,000 1,085,000 885,000
Uganda 757,423 0 0
Vietnam 3,392,275 2,715,000 2,215,000
Zambia 1,277,782 1,250,000 1,250,000
31,847,217 20,977,500 19,020,000
Results of the 2013 Mapping; We plan to consult with you over the course of this workshop to receive feedback
www.iied.org 43
EVENT PAPER
Results of Mapping Exercise; CSOs
Country Total Concern Worldwide Trócaire GOAL
Self Help Africa Others
Afghanistan 292,221 292,221 Burundi 90,000 90,000 Bangladesh 120,000 120,000 DRC 594,626
594,626
Eritrea 128,215
128,215 [1]
Ethiopia 1,331,642 345,000 266,149 381,364 230,353 108,776 [2]
Guatemala 353,478
353,478 Honduras 572,999
572,999
Central America 731,371
731,371 Haiti 308,070 308,070
India 526,751
403,798 122,953 Kenya 490,476
97,737 215,992 176,746
Liberia 420,000 420,000 Mozambique 200,000 200,000 Malawi 1,669,214 216,000 637,684 494,288 321,242
Niger 208,998 208,998 Nicaragua 332,108
332,108
Pakistan 213,930
213,930 P.R. Korea 303,333 303,333
Rwanda 644,466 97,028 547,438 Sudan 647,768 551,723
96,045
South Sudan 172,024
172,024 Sierra Leone 622,450 159,206
463,244
Somalia 463,000 463,000 Chad 531,029 531,029 Tanzania 119,300
119,300 [3]
Uganda 484,283
245,579 238,704 55,000 [4]
DR Congo 868,787 868,787 Zambia 497,531 256,109
241,422 Zimbabwe 798,297
540,681 257,616
[1] Vita [2] Vita [3] Oxfam [4] Action Aid
Totals
Total Support 14,736,367
Concern Worldwide 5,430,504
Trocaire 5,291,999
GOAL 2,449,105
Self Help Africa 1,208,467
Others 411,291
www.iied.org 44
EVENT PAPER
Results of Mapping Exercise; CSOs in Key Partner Countries
Country Total Concern Worldwide Trócaire GOAL
Self Help Africa Others
Ethiopia 1,331,642 345,000 266,149 381,364 230,353 108,776 [2]
Liberia 420,000 420,000 Mozambique 200,000 200,000 Malawi 1,669,214 216,000 637,684 494,288 321,242
Sierra Leone 622,450 159,206
463,244 Tanzania 119,300
119,300 [3]
Uganda 484,283
245,579 238,704 55,000 [4]
Zambia 497,531 256,109
241,422 Zimbabwe 798,297
540,681 257,616
[2]
Vita [3]
Oxfam [4]
Action Aid Other new areas to think about...
• Disaster Risk Reduction
o New DAC-Marker in advanced development.
• Capacity Building
• Private Finance
• Technology Transfer Further Information
• Thanks for Help in Gathering Documentation!
• My Email: [email protected]
• OECD Rio Markers: Web-page for Definitions, Handbook & Examples;
http://www.oecd.org/dac/environment-development/rioconventions.htm
www.iied.org 45
EVENT PAPER
DAY 2
Session 2b: Climate finance – continued
Participants provided the following feedback on the draft climate finance reports:
Mozambique
• The reports are a very important tool
• Keep simple as it is, otherwise mistakes may creep in
• At country level, they are an important tool to show what we are doing, also for policy dialogue e.g.
environment sector not reported because it is funding from DoE.
• Can use report to create rationale for access to sitting on government committees on climate change
and environment
• Also budget support – how to include it?
• It allows showing everything that IA is doing and can thus be used as communication tool.
• Some mistakes have been found in the report.
• Include scholarships that are climate related
*OECD guidance on counting budget support as climate finance?
Zambia
• Great to have it. A good start
• CSP listing: “scale up nutrition, SUN” project – plans will include CC aspect
• Concern worldwide: get IA support for conservation agriculture promotion in Northern province
• Need to get better/more coherent at country level
• Also look at including support from HQ in country reports
Malawi
• Useful document
• Also – budget support question how to include
• Could also include a piece on the humanitarian context which is key part of the country context in
Malawi whereby the annual problem on hunger gap (which is related to issues of drought) is
addressed
• Implementation of „one world‟ strategy; indicators such as actions on household energy can be
reported against.
• Useful tool to communicate with partners and to challenge them. Want to share with them but need
to be clear about where figures come from.
• CSO figures are not included in the summary figures on the front of the report but are still reported
on in the main report.
Session 3: Smallholder farming and climate smart agriculture
What are the challenges involved in taking a climate-smart agriculture approach to integrating
climate into agricultural development programming? Simon Anderson, IIED
This session was to ignite discussion on the key challenges of climate-smart agriculture, and its use as
a framework for integrating climate into agricultural development planning. The following issues were
raised.
• Smallholder agriculture faces many problems other than climate change. These include insecurity
on land tenure, limited access to resources (credit, land, insurance etc.), poor market access,
diminished extension services, low levels of public investment in R+D, and competition for markets
with subsidised agriculture in northern economies.
• ”Alternatives” to CSA (i.e. agricultural intensification pathways that are high in emissions and not necessarily well adapted to CC) have considerable private sector and national public policy support
www.iied.org 46
EVENT PAPER
and investment e.g. GM, inorganic fertilizers, large-scale fossil fuel intensive mechanization and irrigation, etc.
• CSA antecedents e.g. Conservation Agriculture, LEISA (low external input sustainable agriculture), organic farming and permaculture, have not reached high adoption rates nor impact. So lessons from these initiatives need to be learned and new ways to promote CSA found. While technology adoption rates can be fast in developing countries, as is the case with mobile phones, adoption of climate adaptation technologies in key development sectors is low. For example, to ensure global food security in the face of more frequent climate shocks, a majority of farmers will need to adopt climate adaptive practices. According to CGIAR research, during the past 15 years adoption rates for many agricultural innovations are around 1% of farmers per year. To ensure a maximum number of smallholder farmers become more resilient through climate-smart practices and technologies, there needs to also be a significant public policy response that supports inclusive public private partnerships and effective extension services to reach the most remote and vulnerable
• CSA needs to reach the poor (climate vulnerable) smallholders - often considered reluctant adopters of new technologies.
• CSA needs to achieve scale - high adoption status at community, watershed and national levels over time to be effective.
• Advocates of CSA are currently not farmers nor developing country governments, but multi-lateral
organisations, INGOs and donors.
• Going to scale on soil and water conservation – a foundation stone of CSA – requires large-scale
public sector investments e.g. West Africa stone bunds and „greening the Sahel‟, Ethiopia Tigray
terracing, India watershed management.
Building upon the material presented earlier on in the workshop, a mind map of questions of CSA as a
component of integrating climate into of development programming was discussed. This is presented
below.
www.iied.org 47
EVENT PAPER
The discussion then went on to consider how well CSA fits into IA‟s integrating of climate into
development programming. The flow chart below illustrates some of the questions and responses that
might help answer this question.
The discussions concluded that there was the need to assess approaches to CSA from the perspective
of developmental outcomes. Given the wide diversity of possible CSA approaches and the need to
generate context specific support to pro-poor agricultural development IA would need to invest in an
institutional framing of CSA and to then look at how a common approach could be tried across different
locations in priority countries and assess the effectiveness of this approach.
Session 4: Learning platform case studies
The IA Learning Platform will use a series of case studies to deepen shared understanding of how best
to integrate climate into development programming. This session “Identify Learning Platform case
studies on climate and development” was used to discuss the methodologies to be used, the choices of
case studies to be taken forward first, and to gauge the interest of Country Programmes to identify
further cases.
The purpose of the documented case studies is to inform partners and the public, of Ireland‟s Climate
Change programmes and to inform public opinion on the importance of addressing Climate Change
globally in the run up to the Paris 2015 Climate Summit and beyond.
From a review of methodologies in the literature the Adaptation Actions Cycle framework has been
identified as a useful way to approach support to climate adaptation. The framework developed in
Australia is shown below.
www.iied.org 48
EVENT PAPER
From this framework spring a series of questions that can help understand climate adaptation as a
process that contributes to the management of climate risks within development processes. These
questions are:
• What is the nature of vulnerability and the perceived risk?
• Who or what adapts? What do they adapt to and why?
• How do they adapt (processes) what are the opportunities for adaptation?
• What are the costs and/ or benefits of the adaptation decisions?
• What implementation methods and resources are used?
• What constrains or incentivises implementation?
• What impacts result?
• How well do they adapt?
• How does the system change?
• What are the plans for the future?
The case studies will collate and assess experience, learning and evidence - then document this for
sharing across the learning platform. Questions to address through case studies:
I. The development context and the current and anticipated climate challenges to development,
II. The entry points chosen for the process of integration,
III. The purposes and objectives of the integration,
IV. How the integration is being carried out – who is involved, the actions taken by key
stakeholders,
www.iied.org 49
EVENT PAPER
V. The process will be assessed using the adaptation action cycle framework (see list of question
above),
VI. The expected changes to the institutional and technical aspects of climate risk management
through the integration process,
VII. And finally, the anticipated outcome of the integration process in terms of the beneficiary
population of climate vulnerable households and communities (steps VI and VII will draw from
the Tracking Adaptation Measuring Development methodology see: www.iied.org/tracking-
adaptation-measuring-development/)
The first case study proposed is the „research into use‟ initiative of the Tigray Agricultural Research
Institute (TARI) in Ethiopia.
The case study should add value to the Irish Aid supported initiative that TARI is implementing. The
case study should collate evidence and learning and document this for wider sharing within the Irish Aid
Learning Platform, with organisations involved in the implementation of the Agriculture component of
the Climate Resilience and Green Economy strategy, and more widely. The case study is not seen as
an evaluation – it will identify, generate and share learning.
The TARI case study has been initiated and it will proceed along the following lines:
• Documentary review of the reports etc. from the TARI research to analyse the trajectory of the
initiative, the decision points at which the initiative strategy was developed, and the ways that
climate was integrated into the research and extension process
• Design and implementation of a review of the climate integration (using the TAMD approach).
– Ways that climate information was used in the climate risk management that the research
responds to,
– Development of research and extension policy and strategy includes climate change, and
the capacity development undertaken of the research and extension staff.
– Work with TARI researchers to develop an explicit theory of change to show how
agricultural research and extension supports to climate resilient agriculture. The review will
also identify with key stakeholders the key questions to be addressed in the case study.
• A survey and PRA in selected kebeles to explore:
– the adoption of and benefits attained from the technologies developed by TARI,
– the impact on this technology adoption on the climate resilience of the farming households,
– and to develop with the farmers groups a theory of change of how they believe agricultural
research and extension can best support climate resilient agriculture.
• Workshop with TARI and key partners where the results of the first three activities will be presented
and discussed. At this workshop a final report will be outlined.
• Draft final report will then be prepared and submitted to TARI and IA for feedback.
• Following revision of the case study final report it will be presented to the IA Learning Platform, and
if appropriate to CRGE stakeholders in Ethiopia.
Other cases have been identified for study. In Tanzania it is proposed to carry out a comparison of
approaches to supporting pastoral groups address climate change. In Malawi a study of the alignment
of social protection and food security measures is proposed. These will take place in 2015.
www.iied.org 50
EVENT PAPER
Session 5: Household energy
Malawi‟s Learning to date in supporting the roll out of energy efficient cook stoves was presented by
Aidan Fitzpatrick (HoD) and Lovely Chizimba (Vulnerability Advisor).
The energy context of Malawi from household focus (food, water and energy):
93% of total energy demand is met by Bio-mass
Households consume 84% of energy
99% of household energy from bio-mass
Low electricity production and distribution - 7%
There are both population and environmental pressures
Total Government expenditure on energy was Kw74O cost billion US$1.85 Billion
IA is supporting an energy efficient cook-stove engagement. It is part of the Livelihoods programme and in partnership with CU. The initiative looks at alternate livelihoods / community production groups. There was strong earlier technical engagement by GiZ. There is an emerging carbon market with private sector interest. IA is interested in energy efficient stoves because savings to households can be 3-5kgs/day of wood fuel, that translates into 6-13 trees/yr, Kw350/wk, and 3mts of Carbon /yr. Traditional 3 stone stoves provide just 10% of heat to the cooking pot. The improved stoves provide (Chitetezo Mbaula) 31% of heat. User satisfaction is high due to 98% improvement in air quality, less smoke, and 96% safer due to reduced scalds and burns.
Key Developments Government policy support 2 million by 2020. Set up of: Cook stove Taskforce, Mbaula Network, Annual cook stove work-camp, EnDev/MAEVE and urban roll out National Plan / Roadmap Health Studies LSTM (pneumonia) and North Carolina (Indoor air pollution)
Next Steps are to improve private sector engagement, get the carbon finance right for stoves, bio-mass production, and WASH.
Aim is to deliver benefits to communities by 750K stoves by end 2016, support for CU engagement in energy Unit, Taskforce and SCT. Support experimentation by TCD in thermo dynamic stoves.
Lessons to date and looking to the future – need to find ways to tap into carbon finance, facilitate government leadership, secure private sector engagement. Also to recognise potentials beyond stoves to bio-mass, WASH and solar energy. These can bring multiple benefits to environment, human health, gender equality, and livelihoods.
However, these potentially transformative pathways to environmental and climate impacts have received limited donor interest to date.
DAY 3
Session 6: Field visits
Summary of visit to the Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust (GART)
The field visit to GART started with an introduction by the GART Deputy Director, Mr Douglas Mono,
followed by a presentation by the Senior Agronomist, Mr Simunji Simunji (see also file “GART field visit
IRISH AID.ppt” and the GART web site http://www.gartzambia.org/)
GART is a public-private partnership between the Ministry of Agriculture, Zambia, and the Zambian
National Farmer Union. Its mission is “to contribute to optimisation of the production, commerce and
trade of crops, milk, chicken, goats and where possible their by-products and income security of the
www.iied.org 51
EVENT PAPER
target beneficiaries through Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) programmes for
market-oriented small-, medium- and large-scale male and female farmers as well as youths, who
include those affected or infected by HIV/AIDS.”
The Trust is part of the Zambian National Agricultural Research System (NARS) and undertakes both
„demand-led‟ contract research for the private sector (seed companies etc.) and research on public
goods funded by the Zambian government and donors. Most of the latter is focused on smallholders
and includes research and training on Conservation Farming, dairy production, multi-purpose trees and
others. The research undertaken includes the following:
(1) Conservation Farming – responding to the 1991-94 drought, this became a national priority in
the agricultural zones 1 and 2 (rainfall less than 1000 mm). CF is meant address problems of
high input prices (in particular fertiliser) and HIV
Aids (by requiring less labour in the longer term
through labour saving technologies such as
herbicide use).
(2) Smallholder livestock systems – mostly
focusing on chicken and goats, to improve the
nutrition of farmers and people living with HIV /
Aids, as well as increasing household incomes
(3) Local seed systems – including local
vegetables, orange-fleshed sweet potatoes,
pumpkins and bio-fortified crops. This is largely
funded by CIDA.
(4) Increasing levels of zinc in nutrition
through application of zinc sulphate on wheat,
pearl millet and sorghum
(5) Commercial farming – crossing local breeds
with improved breeds of cattle, and training of
cooperatives.
The workshop participants subsequently visited a
demonstration of ripping and pot holing (part of CF)
and the small-scale dairy training unit, before meeting a
group of women who are members of the Zambian
Conservation Farming Union (CFU).
The workshop participants made the following
observations during the visit:
• GART does not employ any economists – the
research focuses on technical feasibility and yield,
but there is no systematic assessment of the costs
and benefits from the adoption of GART tested
technologies in a smallholder farming context.
GART is aware of this weakness and intends to increase its capacity for economic and financial
assessment of technologies.
• Very little of the research undertaken by GART is specifically developed for smallholder farmers.
This is because the Trust relies on undertaking contract research for commercial companies to
generate revenue. “Demand-led” refers at GART to research demanded by these companies and
not research demanded by smallholder farmers. There is in fact no farmer involvement in research
priority setting. The assumption is that smallholder farmers‟ interests will be considered by donors,
who fund research on national priority problems such as soil fertility.
• GART is not responsible for ensuring that its research outputs reach smallholder farmers, but it
organises a range of training and public awareness activities such as field days to demonstrate the
technologies developed or tested on-station.
www.iied.org 52
EVENT PAPER
• The women from the CFU reported enormous income increases from conservation farming. There
was not enough time to follow up with details, but the yield increases reported and incomes
achieved (from maize production under CF) appeared unrealistic (e.g. a farmer buying a car and
building a large house after 3 years of CF on 5-6 ha).
Summary of visit to the Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre (KATC) and collaborating farmers
The visit was kindly arranged by the IA office in Lusaka and provided a very good addition to the
agenda of the workshop allowing us to speak directly to senior members of staff of the training centre
and to various women farmers who the Centre is engaged in supporting.
The Kasisi Agricultural training Centre focuses on building knowledge and skills in organic agriculture.
They carry out research on various technologies of organic farming, they maintain demonstration sites
where different technologies can be seen, and they provide many different training courses for farmers,
extension workers, students and government staff from Zambia and surrounding countries.
The Centre was initiated by Scottish missionaries and still receives support from Scotland in the form of
technical backup and more recently resources through the Scottish Government‟s Climate Justice
Fund.
The main technologies we saw and discussed during the visit were related to soil and water
conservation, mulching and green manures, vegetable gardening, agro-forestry and organic fertilizer
and pro-biotics production.
The Centre has supported the establishment of two cooperatives of women and men vegetable
producers who collectively manage large intensively cultivated and irrigated areas on the periphery of
the Centre. Direct sales to the public and to the only organic produce retailer in Lusaka have been
established. However, farmers reported that organic produce so far in Zambia does not attract a
premium price.
The second visit was to an organic farm run by a women and her household. The farm produces
products for consumption and sale from annual and perennial crops. Small livestock were also being
reared under an organic regime. The farmer has attended course at the Centre and now provides a
place for field visits from the Centre. Scarce and instable rains and a lack of ground water for irrigation
were major constraints to productivity.
Overall the visit showed how important the links among research, development and training are for
what is a marginalised form of agriculture.
Feedback from field visits
After the field visit, participants exchanged their impressions along a number of pre-agreed themes:
Cost and benefits of CSA, targeting of interventions, scaling up, M&E, value chain development, gender
and climate risks.
1. Costs and benefits – GART
• Farmers and agronomists have different perceptions of Costs and benefits. E.g. researcher said
benefits only after 3 years, farmers said they are immediate. Farmers talk about increased yield and
income.
• Farmers are doing things incrementally across their land area
• Use existing trusted communicators to disseminate the message they know
• Opportunity cost of labour needs factored in appropriately into SOA vs Conv comparisons
2. Targeting – GART
• Stated focus was poorest – but scale of technology probably not appropriate for the poorest.
• Some work on nutrients production for unwell HH members
• Demand led research – where demand comes from commercial enterprises
www.iied.org 53
EVENT PAPER
3. Targeting – Kasisi
• 30% target for involvement of women farmers – this is being exceeded, better adopters
• Teachers targeted also as training of trainers
• Most farmer adopters those with a certain level of land holding and able to commit to time
investment in high labour demand SOA.
• Farmers targeted that are “vulnerable but viable”. GoZ MoA definition – viable are those can adopt
technologies, vulnerable not able to farm but have association with viable farmers.
• Tradition leaders consulted on who should be beneficiaries.
• Incentives used (as soft loans) to get involvement in SOA cooperatives.
• Questions as to sustainability of SOA adoption.
4. Scaling-up – Kasisi
• 1000 people trained each year – many 5 day courses, and trainees from surrounding countries.
• 3 functions – training, research to support training, advocacy. Advocacy required because GOs do
not recognise SOA – policy vacuum. Resources not there to scale up thru GO channels. GO
participant response – half of regions currently being supported on conservation agriculture. SOA
policy is under development.
• SOA scaling-up hindered by the effort required to establish SOA systems.
• Some scaling-up of components of SOA that individual farmers choose to adopt.
• Key incentive to adopt SOA is that external input costs and significantly less.
• Demand side pull for scaling up if consumers demand SOA products – currently no price differential
for SOA.
• Use of radio for promotion of SOA.
5. Scaling-up – GART
• Claimed high adoption rates of „CA‟ – but no validation.
• Incremental benefits from yr1 stated by farmers.
• Incentives provided – free improved seeds.
6. M+E – GART
• Longterm impact monitoring needs not matched by time-scale of funding sources.
• Little evidence on adoption rates and impact of adoption on HHs. Not M+E system in place to
capture these aspects.
• No assessment of resilience and emissions changes.
7. M+E – Kasisi
• No linkages to Met Services for seasonal forecasts etc.
8. Value chains – Kasisi
• Certification options being explored.
• Few outlets for SOA products in Lusaka. Some links to supermarkets.
• Attention to product processing to better link into value chains.
• Subsistence production high priority – SOA provides a better distribution of production across the
calendar – and therefore provide labour needs more continuously.
• High mark up on products along value chain that does not benefit producers.
9. Gender – Kasisi
• Women inclusion policy – target of 30% being exceeded.
• Childcare needs taken into account in training formats.
• Women as model farmers.
• Leadership of farmers groups showed male dominance.
www.iied.org 54
EVENT PAPER
10. Other – Kasisi
• Challenge to deal with conflicts
• Free-riding on others adoption of SOA etc. not well managed.
• Conviction behind SOA of „living in harmony with nature‟. Need to understand the values behind the
Kasisi centre as a shaping, success factor.
• Knowledge transfer seems to be happening – but requires more interrogation.
11. Climate risks
• Only general reference to risks. SOA seen as panacea.
• Issues around water resources to support intensified SOA through irrigation.
Session 7: Steps forward – design and planning for Learning Platform
The next steps in the IA Learning Platform were discussed. These are summarised in the Gantt chart
on the next page below.
www.iied.org 55
EVENT PAPER
Plan of work for IA LP
2014 2015 2016
Activity O
ct
No
v
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Ap
r
May
Jun
Jul
Au
g
Sep
Oct
No
v
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Ap
r
May
Jun
Jul
Au
g
Sep
Support for CSP cycle
Uganda
Zambia
others
Case studies
Ethiopia
Tanzania
Malawi
others
Guidance notes
CC Inte-
gration
CSA
others
Workshops
Seminars
Web-based info exchange
support to LDC Group LDC women delegates
support to CBA conferences
www.iied.org 56
EVENT PAPER
Annexes
Annex 1 Workshop evaluations
Summary of pre-and post-workshop evaluation questionnaires
The aim of the pre-workshop evaluation was to capture the main expectations and areas of interest of
the participants as well as to establish the existing skill and knowledge base so that workshop sessions
and presentations could be better tailored to the needs and requirements of the participants. A total of
22 pre-workshop questionnaires and 30 post-workshop questionnaires were returned.
The responses indicated a demand for information and knowledge with regard to CSA ranging from
concepts and theory to impact, limitations, best practice sharing, options and approaches.
Other participants voiced some very general expectations ranging from climate change basic concepts
to mainstreaming, financing, policy options, impacts and M&E, reflecting different knowledge on the
subject. Insights from IA programmes were also expected. Different levels of intervention from
community level to policy making are mentioned.
The assessment of previous skills indicates a wide range of skills/experiences represented ranging
from international policy engagement to promotion of cooking stoves at community level. Main focus is
on agricultural sector, and little energy expertise is indicated. Several case studies and project
experiences exist among participants, with some specific CSA experiences.
The main expected outputs (in order to relevance from pre-workshop questionnaire) were the following:
Understanding current approaches to climate smart agriculture: 18 participants considered this as
important, and after the event 12 participants were very satisfied in terms of expectations met regarding
this issue, 15 were quite satisfied and 2 were not satisfied.
Common understanding of the learning platform: 13 participants ranked this as very important in
the pre-workshop questionnaire and 13 participants very satisfied in terms of expectations met
regarding this issue, 16 were quite satisfied and 2 were not satisfied
Recommendation for thematic development in Learning Platform: 11 participants ranked this as
very important in the pre-workshop questionnaire and 10 participants very satisfied in terms of
expectations met regarding this issue, 13 were quite satisfied and 4 were not satisfied
Agree set of case studies and guidance for implementation 10 participants ranked this as very
important in the pre-workshop questionnaire and 3 participants were very satisfied in terms of
expectations met regarding this issue, 14 were quite satisfied and 9 were not satisfied. This is quite a
large number of dissatisfied participants and it would be important to further look into reasons for this.
Share IA experience on smallholder household energy and carbon credits 7 participants ranked
this as very important in the pre-workshop questionnaire and 11 participants very satisfied in terms of
expectations met regarding this issue, 16 were quite satisfied and 1 were not satisfied.
The most relevant sessions based on anticipated/ post-workshop ranking were:
• Session 2: Sharing experiences of addressing food security through climate-smart / climate adapted agricultural programming 19/19
• Session 3: “Smallholder farming and climate smart agriculture “15/21 • Session 4: “Learning platform case studies” 9/5 • Session 5: “Household energy” 11/14 • Session 6: “Field visits” 16/23 • Session 7: “Steps forward – design and planning for Learning Platform” 14/6
This ranking underlines the importance of the topic of CSA and shows the high appreciation of the field
visit amongst participants.
The final workshop evaluation was based on 30 returned questionnaires. The evaluation focused on the
satisfaction of participants with the event, the strengths and weaknesses and suggestion for the
www.iied.org 57
EVENT PAPER
development of learning platform and next steps. The table below summaries the satisfaction level of
the participants. It is encouraging to note that most participants were satisfied or quite satisfied. Three
participants were not satisfied with the balance of practical and conceptual issues presented, which will
be further explored in the “Strengths and Weakness” section of the workshop summary, as there were
several suggestions to be even more practical focused.
Very
satisfied
Quite
satisfied
Not
satisfied
Total
How satisfied were you with the session‟s content? 7 21 1 29
How relevant were the objectives of the sessions to
your work?
15 13 28
How satisfied were you with the balance of
practical and conceptual inputs?
4 11 3 18
Key strengths identified focused on the relevance and importance of the chosen topic and on the
opportunity to share experiences. The diversity of participants, organisations and experiences
represented at the event was mentioned as excellent for sharing as was the active participation of all
workshop members. It was also mentioned that the event offered a great opportunity to bring IA staff
closer to their partner organisations.
In terms of facilitation it was mentioned that the technical expertise of facilitators was highly appreciated
and that overall the facilitation was very good. It was also mentioned that the link to the previous event
in terms of information provision was appreciated.
The field visit was seen as an important element of the event as it strengthened the practical focus and
helped to understand concepts.
Weaknesses pointed to a general time issue. More time would be required for the field visit and also
time for most sessions was too short or there was a mismatch in terms of content and time available.
More time for discussion and group work was requested and also more emphasis on the country
presentations. Overall there was a feeling that the program was too crowed for the time available and
that some afternoon sessions went on for too long.
Day 1 was perceived as too heavily based on presentations, which was very tiring and also didn‟t help
to grasp the concepts. More hands on learning would be appreciated. There was also a feeling that the
concept of CSA was not properly defined and that boundaries to SA should be clearer. Another
weakness was the use of too technical jargon which could become a barrier for learning. The use of
more simple terminology would be favoured.
Suggestions for improvement of facilitation:
Suggestions for further improvement of the facilitation included improved time management and some
more flexibility in terms of accommodating emerging issues. A number of participants mentioned more
group work and group discussion as the learning is enhanced in smaller groups.
There were also several suggestions in terms of hand-outs provided in advance and the use of audio
and visual material during sessions. Some of the materials provided could be simplified and coherence
of material could be improved.
More energizers would be helpful to maintain participants‟ concentration and separate break-out rooms
would improve group work.
The concepts of CSA and SA should be more clearly defined at the beginning of the workshop and in
general it would be good to define key concepts at beginning of the sessions.
The field visit should take place on day 2 and should be extended to a full day, as this would help to
understand the issues faced by stakeholders which would improve access to the workshop content.
www.iied.org 58
EVENT PAPER
The table below provides an overview of participants‟ satisfaction with facilitation, session lengths and
field visit. The majority of participants were either very or quite satisfied.
Session organisation and facilitation Very satisfied Quite
satisfied
Not satisfied
Session‟s facilitation 13 17
Lengths of sessions 5 20 5
Organisation of the field visit 20 7 2
In terms of facilities and workshop administration the feedback was very positive. The majority of
participants were very satisfied with the venue and logistical aspects.
Facilities and administration Very satisfied Quite
satisfied
Not satisfied
General satisfaction with the venue (rooms, venue,
meals)
18 9 2
How satisfied were you with the pre-workshop
communication and organisation?
22 7
What actions will be taken as a result of the event?
The majority of participants are planning to share new approaches with colleagues and apply within
their project/ programs. This involves the development of action points, the assessment of current work
for mainstreaming opportunities and also the documentation of best practice. Many participants also
mention the need for further learning and exploration of concepts discussed. This could involve
clarification of concepts with HQ or follow up with IIED colleagues. Exploration of funding opportunities
for CSA and other CC activities is also on the agenda.
Future expectations of the Learning Platform
The majority of participants expect an sustained and increased sharing of knowledge and information.
The platform is perceived as an opportunity for increased technical support and learning.
Important characteristics are mentioned in terms of the quality of exchange. The platform is seen to be
more inclusive and providing increased opportunity for mutual learning between HQ and partners. It is
also seen as an opportunity to bring climate change debate closer to practitioners and poor people and
to facilitate an engagement between IA and governments on CC. The inclusion of more farmer
experience is envisaged though the case studies.
In general the platform could raise the CC profile of IA and increase communication and linkages
between partners.
Pre-workshop evaluation (22 responses)
Expectations Climate-smart agriculture: Some specific expectations with regard to CSA ranging from concepts and theory to impact, limitations, best practice sharing, options and approaches.
• CSA approaches used by different countries and their effectiveness • gain insight on climate smart agriculture particularly how it actually addresses the
production demand of the smallholder farmers who have limited access to agricultural technologies and operate under climate stress.
• learn about where CSA limitations lie (if any) in terms of improving food and nutrition security
• learn about specific CSA programmes‟ impacts on nutrition, especially stunting.
www.iied.org 59
EVENT PAPER
• Learn how to integrate CSA in country context • Improved Theoretical and technical Knowledge in Climate Smart agriculture • Learn best practices from other country programs regarding climate smart
agriculture. How it is implemented in practice, lessons learned and how to overcome bottlenecks.
• Options of Climate Smart Agriculture appropriate for Zambia and what can smallholder farmers apply.
• Learn more about climate-smart agriculture and CSA programmes in Irish Aid‟s Key Partner Countries, including different approaches, and efforts we have made to date in successfully integrating climate into agricultural development planning and programming
Climate change adaptation/ mitigation/mainstreaming Some very general expectations here reflecting different knowledge on the subject ranging from climate change basic concepts to mainstreaming, financing, policy options, impacts and M&E. Insight from IA programmes expected. Different levels of intervention from community level to policy making are mentioned.
• What is IA stand/guidance in relation to CCA in programmatic approach (what are IA related policies/strategies to guide common approaches)
• Benefit from lessons (successes, challenges and failures) shared by other missions
• learn how climate change affects livelihoods depending on what country people live in and whether they live in a rural, urban, coastal, setting etc. and what solutions are available to combat climate change.
• Mainstreaming climate change into development programming • provide grounds for a common understanding (HQ and country programmes)
of climate change and agriculture • knowledge on Climate change, origins, its effects and options for mitigation
and adaptation • Integrating Climate Change in development programming particularly in
Agriculture, how this can be done? • learn more about how climate change is impacting on development
initiatives in the agriculture and food security sectors. • share experiences and knowledge relevant to enhancing resilience to climate
change among local communities while informing policy option for decision makers
• Lesson learning/ sharing across partner countries to inform IA Malawi programming
• Learn what can be done to track climate financing • Improving understanding of households energy programmes • In order to ensure that climate change and environment are not taken for granted
as “mainstreaming” an idea on what are the best indicators and monitoring tools that can be used on our daily basis as well as that ensure we keep on check with other sectors would be useful
• Learn more about Irish Aid and other participant‟s activities in the region. Better understanding of the development challenges in East Africa.
• Linkages between climate change, disaster risk management and food security/ agriculture.
• To understand elements that bring about resilience for the rural poor and how these can be supported by development agents
• The level of mitigation that a developing country like Zambia can do and the implication for financing
• The difference between Climate Change Adaptation and Climate Change Mitigation measures
www.iied.org 60
EVENT PAPER
Skills/ experience
Wide range of skills/experiences represented ranging from international policy engagement to promotion of cooking stoves at community level. Main focus on agricultural sector, little energy expertise. Several case studies and project experiences among participants. Some specific CSA experiences.
• how Ireland has successfully integrated CSA and sustainable agriculture into these processes, in particular into the post-2015 sustainable development goals, UN resolutions and EU-wide policies on food security and nutrition
• the design of projects aimed at improving household food security cognisant of the impacts of climate change
• involved in the implementation of climate smart agriculture in Zambia • Concern has started implementing conservation agriculture in Western
province of Zambia • few agricultural initiatives that we are implementing in our projects that are
climate smart and provide food and nutrition security • Knowledge in Conservation agriculture • knowledge on (international) adaptation finance flows and mechanisms, my
work on private sector adaptation, especially on MSMEs as well as my development experience in Senegal, and Bangladesh.
• Background and experience in environment and climate change • PROSAN programme approach in Mozambique • Practical knowledge in promotion of improved cook stoves • General understanding of climate related household food security challenges
and programs to address these challenges • African (Tonga People, Southern Zambia) indigenous knowledge on
environment protection • Case study of CSA in Lesotho • experiences about design and implementation of resilience programs and a few
best practices • experience of public services for rural extension, such as PITTA (integrated
program of technology transfer) and field days in approach with smallholders • experience in the area of agriculture and on how climate change and
environment is addressed by both the country and Irish Aid programme • Farmer field school approach to build farmers adaptive capacity and scale up
adoption of new farming practices • Best practices on conservation agriculture • Methodology on how farmers can run simple experiments to evaluate the
effect of climate smart practices • Community linked experiences ranging from impacts to practical adaptation
choices accrued by communities. Also the strategic discussions and choices being considered by the National framework for climate change response in Zambia as well as challenges in adaption finance flows both domestic and international
• Knowledge in conservation agriculture key principles, climate smart agriculture practical interventions at the smallholder level, global warming – climate change i.e. drivers of the same, disaster risk reduction as one of the frameworks of addressing climate change through DRM cycle.
• sustainable agriculture practices, including Conservation Farming as part of
Conservation Agriculture
What take back from WS
CSA specific
• A good understanding of climate smart programmes across the Irish Aid programme and to the ability to feed key learning from them into international and regional negotiations and processes
• Different approaches to climate smart agriculture and how they address food security of the poor.
• A good understanding of how these CSA programmes can or have improved food and nutrition security, and the incomes and lives of poor smallholder
www.iied.org 61
EVENT PAPER
farmers and their households and communities. • Best advocacy approaches/ways to scale up adoption of climate smart
agriculture by other organizations and integration climate smart agriculture on government policies and plans.
• Knowledge on CSA , Better understanding of key aspects of “climate smart” agriculture
• Clear commitment to invest in local actions that empowers communities with resilient choices in their livelihoods, incomes and ecosystems
• Networking and sharing/ cross-learning • opportunity to link up with other and establish network to share experience after
the workshop • Opportunity for cross learning on energy and climate smart agriculture
Climate change general
• Have a better understanding of climate change issues and possible solutions. • How to mitigate climate change effects on smallholder farms • Learning - understanding – contextualising the hunger and climate change
complexity. • Field visits. The issue of training of farmers on climate change as well as
investigation on conservation agriculture • Guidelines on how to integrate climate change into programming and having
seen examples of good case studies as well as contacts for other actors for knowledge sharing in the future
• clear guidance and concrete recommendations on what each country will be doing to integrate the matter in the programmes
• Guidelines on how to integrate climate change into programming and having seen examples of good case studies as well as contacts for other actors for knowledge sharing in the future
• Understanding of Irish Aid‟s support for resilience and adaptation programs for the rural poor
Most relevant outputs
• Understanding current approaches to climate smart agriculture 18* • Common understanding of the learning platform 13 • Recommendation for thematic development in Learning Platform 11 • Agree set of case studies and guidance for implementation 10 • Share IA experience on smallholder household energy and carbon credits 7
* No of mentioning in questionnaire
Most relevant session
Session 2, 3 6 and 7 are rated as most relevant which supports the importance of field visit and the next steps for learning platform. Session 2: Sharing experiences of addressing food security through climate-smart /
climate adapted agricultural programming 19 Session 3: “Smallholder farming and climate smart agriculture “ 15 Session 4: “Learning platform case studies” 9 Session 5: “Household energy” 11 Session 6: “Field visits” 16 Session 7: “Steps forward – design and planning for Learning Platform” 14
Other topics/ comments
• Funding or financial opportunities for developing countries like Zambia in Climate Smart Agriculture
• Available global funds for climate change adaptation activities in Africa-Zambia in particular
• Snapshot of IA policies that should/can further guide CCA approaches in our programmatic work.
• Ways of monitoring and evaluating the achievement of implementing Climate Smart Agriculture in various countries
www.iied.org 62
EVENT PAPER
• What brings about resilience for the rural poor? How broad or narrow should a resilience program be?
• household energy and work being done in this area • A session on the role of the private sector • Linkage between climate change, disaster risk management and food security • Policy and legal enhancement of climate change as programming as to be
supported by this • Integration of climate/ weather information on climate smart agriculture • Interrogating approaches that have not delivered effectively and draw lessons
from them – learning from bad practice • Need to improve relationship and understanding of Smart Agriculture and
Agroforestry • hope the workshop will be experience focused on help to share the learning
from different countries related to the climate smart agriculture • Group work to replace field visit – there is need to have a field visit to practical
purpose rather than assimilation • Interactive group work during session time will be vital
Other issues mentioned:
• If there is a package for climate change budgeting I would very much appreciate if it is shared with us.
• On Session 2, I would like to participate in both of the parallel sessions after lunch on Tuesday (Day 1 of the Platform 14.00 - 15.30), Is there 1.5 hours that could be found elsewhere in the programme to hold these parallel sessions again, so that those of us who want to do both could do the 2nd one at a later time over the 3-day Platform?
• Pity that the field visit to Concern‟s RAIN programme was shelved...
• Presentation from the Climate Change Network Representation or their participation what are they doing in Zambia
Post-workshop evaluation (30 responses)
Very
satisfied
Quite
satisfied
Not
satisfied
Total
Session content and objectives
How satisfied were you with the session‟s content? 7 21 1
How relevant were the objectives of the sessions to
your work?
15 13
Did the event meet your expectations of intended
outcomes?
Gain common understanding of the learning
platform
13 16 2
Understanding current approaches to climate smart
agriculture
12 15 2
Share IA experience on smallholder household
energy and carbon credits
11 16 1
Agree set of case studies and guidance for
implementation
3 14 9
Recommendation for thematic development in
Learning Platform
10 13 4
www.iied.org 63
EVENT PAPER
How satisfied were you with the balance of
practical and conceptual inputs?
4 11 3
Which of the Sessions (2-7) were the most relevant and useful for you?
Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5 Session 6 Session 7
19 21 5 14 23 6
Overall impression of the event
Good opportunity to share and discuss , but not enough time to cover all aspects and very tight
agenda, excellent learning opportunity
Key strengths:
• Relevant and important for work 4 • Good to share experiences 6 • Good intro from institutions and field
work • GOOD ORGANISATION 4 • Diversity of participants/experience • Technical expertise of facilitators • Very good facilitation 3 • Field visit 2 • Practical focus • Developed common understanding • Active participation of all members 2 • Participatory approach • Linking to previous event • Participation of IA staff in partner
countries 2 • Presentation on Household Energy
was excellent and energetic!!
Key weaknesses:
• More time for field visit 3 • Because of diversity of participates not
possible to accommodate all perspectives. • Often lack of time to sum-up sessions • Some sessions too technical 2 • More time for sessions 2 • Too little interactive group work especially on
Day 1 -3 • Session 1 and 2 mainly PPP 2 • More time for plenary discussion 2 • Role of other stakeholders not covered • Agenda too packed – session past 5.30 pm 4 • Technical jargon can be a barrier to learning 3 • Not always clear on learning outcomes • Some key terms not accessible 3 • Some sessions to much information • More clarity of CSA concept 3 • Some sessions dominated by a few • Too technical for non-agricultural background • Reference material required • Lack of clear action points • Sometimes too focused on IA policies and
practices living partners out • Not enough time for country presentations
Session organisation and facilitation Very
satisfied
Quite
satisfied
Not satisfied
Session‟s facilitation 13 17
Lengths of sessions 5 20 5
Organisation of the field visit 20 7 2
What could be improved in terms of facilitation?
• Time management 7 • Use visual/audio material in sessions • Hand-outs in advance • More group discussion and work 5 • Evaluation of sessions was dominated by a few • Use more energizers 2 • Separate break-out rooms • Define key concepts at beginning of the sessions • Concept of CSA and SA more clearly defined at beginning • PM sessions more group work • Field visit on Day 2 and more time for it 3 • Some more flexibility to accommodate emerging issues • Simplification of material • Clarity of tasks could be improved • Coherence of material should be improved
www.iied.org 64
EVENT PAPER
• Sessions too crowed • More time to country presentations • Make links to carbon finance • Slower pace in some presentation – fit content to time available
What actions will you be taking as a result of the event?
• Share approaches with colleagues and apply with farmers 5 • Field work observations shared with partners • Apply some concepts in work 3 • Learn more on issues explored 6 • Mainstream CC in programs • Develop action points for implementation, • Documentation of best practice and key challenges of CSA • Clarify CSA concept with HQ • Obtain information on funding climate change activities • Establish Zambia hub • Reflect on concepts • Reflect on implementation in Zambia • Reviewing screening and appraisal approach • Screening programs for CC integration and trying climate change finance tracking • Follow up with IIED colleagues on specific topics
What are your future expectations of the Learning Platform?
• A lot of discussion and learning and knowledge sharing 5 • Share more information on CSA • Increased interaction between HQ and missions for mutual learning • More general climate change issues discussed • Will be more inclusive • Engagement of IA with governments on CC • Bring debate close to practitioners and poor people • Increase learning through technical support on web 4 • Should become central sharing point • Include more farmer experience • Increase communication and linkages • Increased guidance • Meet face to face at least once a year
• Raise IA profile on climate change Facilities and administration Very
satisfied
Quite
satisfied
Not satisfied
General satisfaction with the venue (rooms, venue,
meals)
18 9 2
How satisfied were you with the pre-workshop
communication and organisation?
22 7
www.iied.org 65
EVENT PAPER
Annex 2 Workshop programme
This is the second Regional Meeting under the Climate and Development Learning Platform. It will focus on (1) smallholder climate smart agriculture and how this addresses food security of the poor, and (2) ways to integrate climate change into development programming, in particular in the agricultural sector.
The main objective is to enable Irish Aid country programmes to identify how best to take account of climate effects on development investments and interventions, in particular in the field of smallholder agriculture and food security.
The outputs of the meeting will be increased knowledge on smallholder “climate smart” agriculture, how to integrate climate into development programming, and plans at country programme level for better integration. The meeting will also assess and finalise plans for case studies to inform the Learning Platform.
Date Session Details Objectives and outputs Person(s) responsible
Day 1 - Tuesday 19 August
Session 1: “Introduction and context”
8.30 Arrival and Registration
8.45 Welcome and
introductions
CBNRM forum and IIED to welcome participants who
will introduce themselves and their expectations of the
meeting.
Simon Anderson (IIED)
Vincent Ziba (CBNRM)
9:00 Opening remarks Opening remarks by Ambassador Finbar O‟Brien
CBNRM forum and IIED Presentation and finalization of
workshop programme
Ambassador O‟Brien
Simon Anderson (IIED)
Vincent Ziba (CBNRM)
9:30 Recap of the learning
platform so far
An overview of the objectives of the learning platform
and the process so far, including recap of Limerick and
Tanzania workshops and the design of the case studies
in Ethiopia and Tanzania. Presentation on Irish Aid
Framework for Action and Research
To establish a common understanding of the learning platform by sharing what has been done so far and what learning has emerged
Simon Anderson (IIED)
Naomi Campbell (Irish
Aid)
Bronagh Carr (Irish Aid)
10:30 Break
11:00 Climate smart agriculture - What is Climate Smart Agriculture and what can it learn from previous small-holder oriented innovation support processes?
To clarify some key concepts Barbara Adolph (IIED)
Session 2a: “Sharing experiences”
11:30 Review of experiences to
date of addressing food
Presentations by participants and by facilitators - Irish Aid country programmes and development
To introduce participants to a range of options for climate smart
One presentation per country, 10 min each:
www.iied.org 66
EVENT PAPER
Date Session Details Objectives and outputs Person(s) responsible
security through climate-
smart / climate adapted
agricultural programming
partners present their approaches to climate smart / climate adapted smallholder agriculture for food security
- One presentation per country
smallholder agriculture for food security. Provide the opportunity for participants to assimilate and to develop an understanding of different current approaches.
1. RSA and Lesotho
2. Malawi
3. Mozambique,
4. Zambia, plus
5. WRI
13:00 Lunch
14:00 Working groups on key
aspects of integrating
climate into agricultural
development planning
- awareness and information on climate change; - ways of working with governments and policy
development;
- governance for climate change responses; - working within sectors – health, nutrition, agriculture,
water (gender is a crosscutting theme for all)
To enable participants to share
learning and experience for climate
smart smallholder agriculture for food
security.
Simon Anderson or
Barbara Adolph (IIED)
15:30 Break
16:00 Feedback from working
groups
Facilitated plenary discussion Lessons are shared and validated by participants
Simon Anderson or
Barbara Adolph (IIED)
Session 2b: “Climate Finance”
17:30 Climate finance – tracking
and reporting
Presentation and discussion To provide participants who did not attend the Limerick or Tanzania workshops and who have not had any exposure to this topic before with an understanding of how IA tracks and reports on climate finance
Gemma O‟Reilly (IA
consultant)
18:15 Closing
Evening Cocktails and traditional dance Vincent Ziba (CBNRM
network)
Day 2 - Wednesday 20 August
8:30 Climate finance – tracking
and reporting - continued
Reporting back by countries Gemma O‟Reilly (IA
consultant)
9:15 Recap of previous day One or two participants reflect on learning from day 1 Barbara Adolph (IIED)
www.iied.org 67
EVENT PAPER
Date Session Details Objectives and outputs Person(s) responsible
Session 3: “Smallholder farming and climate smart agriculture ”
9:30 Climate change and
smallholder agriculture
- Group work (country teams or crosscutting) to unpack what CSA means for IA programming (where and how it supports IA strategy and where its limitations lie in supporting food security and nutrition)
To critically examine the concept of CSA and establish what it has to offer for IA
Barbara Adolph and
Simon Anderson (IIED)
10:30 Break Barbara Adolph (IIED)
11:00 Feedback from group
work
Plenary Barbara Adolph (IIED)
Session 4: “Learning platform case studies”
12:00 Identify Learning Platform
case studies on climate
and development
Facilitator presentation and discussion - Update on the LP the case study scoping
- Selection of cases to take forward - Agree next steps
To assess what case studies should
be taken forward and how this should
happen. Agreed set of case studies
and guidance for implementation.
Simon Anderson (IIED)
13:00 Lunch
Session 5: “Household energy”
14:00 Smallholder household
energy and carbon credits
Presentation and discussion to capture IA learning. To share IA learning on the topic and
agree on what the learning platform
will do on this topic in the future
Simon Anderson or
Barbara Adolph (IIED)
Aidan Fitzpatrick (Irish
Aid)
Session 6: “Field visits”
15:30 Zambia background Short background presentation on Zambian cc and
agricultural development context.
Followed by plenary discussions / questions and
answers
To provide participants with an understanding of the national context (preparation for field visits)
Vincent Ziba and Mwiya Mundia
16:00 Break
16:30 Introduction to field visit Brief introduction of sites to enable participants to choose where they want to go
Vincent Ziba and / or Mwiya Mundia (possibly
www.iied.org 68
EVENT PAPER
Date Session Details Objectives and outputs Person(s) responsible
sites
with field site reps from GART /
17:00 Group work to prepare
field visits
Each group to prepare checklists for field work Simon Anderson or
Barbara Adolph (IIED)
17:30 Closing
Evening Reception hosted by Ambassador Finbar O‟Brien
Day 3 – Thursday 21 August
7:00 (tbc) Field visits Details tbc; proposed:
- Kasisi agricultural Training Center (KATC) – about 45
km from Lusaka. Training of famers in climate smart
agriculture (including agroforestry and organic
farming). http://kasisiagriculture.com/
- Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust (GART) –
about 60 km from Lusaka. Research on Conservation
Agriculture. http://www.gartzambia.org/
To apply some of the learning to a
real-life scenario.
Vincent Ziba and Mwiya Mundia
13:30 Lunch
14:30 Capturing the learning
from the field visit
Facilitated discussion
- Discussion of findings during field visit - Points of learning to take away to own country - Conclusions and recommendations to the Learning
Platform
To assess what was learned from the
field visit. Conclusions on what was
learned and recommendations for
thematic development in the
Learning Platform.
Simon Anderson or
Barbara Adolph (IIED)
16:00 Break
Session 7: “Steps forward – design and planning for Learning Platform ”
16:30 Plan next steps in
Learning Platform
Facilitated discussion
To plan next steps in the Learning
Platform Agreed next steps
Simon Anderson or
Barbara Adolph (IIED)
17:30 Evaluation of the meeting Evaluation form completion. To evaluate the meeting. Simon Anderson or
www.iied.org 69
EVENT PAPER
Date Session Details Objectives and outputs Person(s) responsible
Discussion of process and outputs. Evaluation information for analysis. Barbara Adolph (IIED)
18:00 Conclusions and words of farewell Patrick McManus and
Adrian Fitzgerald (Irish
Aid)
18:15 Brief 20 minute meeting of Irish Aid staff: Missions and HQ Adrian Fitzgerald
www.iied.org 70
EVENT PAPER
Annex 3 Summary of main points from four country presentations for IA climate change learning platform, Lusaka workshop, 19-21 August
Barbara Adolph, IIED
1. Climate change is happening – felt changes are adding to existing vulnerabilities (floods, droughts, strong winds, increased mean temperature, changes in rainfall pattern). CC impact on agric: Diseases and pests, land degradation
2. Government policies: Adaptation and mitigation (CSA), wide range of policies and initiatives
3. Target groups of IA CC interventions: • Smallholder farmers (women, men, youth) (L); • Household that are female-headed, child-headed, elderly-headed, land constrained, labour
constrained, able bodied ; People living with HIV/AIDS, physically challenged, pregnant and lactating mothers, children <5 ; Commercial seed producers – PPP, farmer groups – associations and cooperatives (Ma)
• Small scale farmers working in groups and associations; socially, economically and politically excluded rural women experiencing food and nutritional insecurity and highly dependent on natural resources (Mo)
• IA partner SHA is doing wealth ranking and livelihoods zoning to identify target group (Za)
4. Intended impacts • Changes in livelihoods and voice / respect in society (L) • Protection of household assets (L) • better nutrition, increased crop diversity and improved productivity adapted to climate change;
increased resilience to poverty and to the adverse effects of climate; improved enabling governance environment promotes accountability and inclusive growth (Ma)
• Knowledge generation, increasing productivity, improving nutrition (Za)
5. What works • CSA processes (how):
• Policy engagement incl. advocacy for integration of adaptation to CC in the planning process and budgeting; networking and collaboration , joint programming (Ma, Mo)
• Conservation Agriculture taskforce = multi-stakeholder platform linking actors across sectors and levels (L)
• Working with Agric research programmes and strengthening farmer-research linkages (Ma, Za)
• Awareness raising, sensitisation, dissemination of CC concepts to target groups and local leaders (Mo)
• Training on adaptation strategies (Mo); Capacity development of farmer organisations (L, Ma) • Demonstrations (L, Mo, Za - CA) • FFS (farmer field schools) – also good for women‟s inclusion - Mo • Standardisation of approach e.g. CSA training (L) • Incorporation of CA into curricula (L) • Participation of the poor (L)
• CSA tools and practices (what): • Value chains / commercialisation (L) /; storage facilities (Mo) • Relief activities (L); safety nets and cash transfers (Ma) and income generating activities (Ma,
Za, Mo) e.g. bee keeping • Practices and methods that gives immediate results (Ma) • Water harvesting or small scale irrigation, drought tolerant crops, crop diversification (Ma, Mo) • Conservation agriculture – mulching, green manure, cover crops (Za, Mo) • home gardens, livestock integration, biofortified crops (Za) • Promotion of specific crops (OFSP, cassava) (Ma) • Energy saving stoves (Za, Ma) • Agroforestry, tree planting (Ma, Mo) • SWC, SLM, ISFM, FLA (Za) • Seed systems (Za)
www.iied.org 71
EVENT PAPER
• IPM (za)
6. What doesn‟t work • Aid-dependent interventions (seed, food for work, income generation etc.) (L) • Technology transfer outside govt system (L) • Local level work without link to national policy (L) • CSA / mitigation; ISFM, afforestation – low uptake (Ma) • Resettlement of people from flood prone areas due to limited social services (Ma) • Determine reduction of emissions to the atmosphere or storage in the soil as a result of IA
interventions (Za) • Labour intensive technologies – e.g. mulching (Mo) • T&V system (Mo) – too costly
**************************
Potential questions / issues for discussion during group work – day 1
1. How to manage the trade-offs between the three objectives of CSA (equal importance? Different weights? Sequencing?) and achieve scale
2. How to monitor and evaluate impact? 3. How can programmes incentivise the adoption of practices that will only provide benefits in the long
term (e.g. tree planting, soil and water conservation, integrated soil fertility management)? 4. How can IA most effectively engage with national level policy processes to ensure scaling out of
interventions? 5. How to identify the appropriate target group(s) for interventions and address trade-offs between
working with the poorest or working with those who have more resources?