csa epic implementation

Climate Smart Agriculture:FAO-EPIC Approach to Implementation

Aslihan Arslan, [email protected]

Natural Resource Economist, EPIC Team

Leslie Lipper, Wendy Mann, Solomon Asfaw, Giacomo Branca, Louis Bockel, Andrea Cattaneo, Romina Cavatassi, Uwe Grewer, Misael Kokwe, Nancy McCarthy, George Phiri, Alessandro Spairani and Linh Nguyen Van

Presented at the Climate Change Governance Course, Centre for Development InnovationWageningen UR,

17 September 2014www.fao.org/climatechange/epic

1

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.fao.org/climatechange/epic

www.fao.org/climatechange/epic

1. Recap CSA Pillars & Prioritization2. Building Blocks of CSA Approach

• Evidence base• Policy component• Finance options

3. EC - CSA Project in Malawi, Zambia, Vietnam4. Key messages

Overview 2


Recap: CSA Pillars 3

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


Too Many Objectives? 4

• Prioritizing the multiple objectives of CSA depends on the role of agriculture in economy and society.

• In low income, highly agriculture-dependent economies, where CC impacts are estimated to be significant and negative, CSA approach to agricultural growth– prioritizes food security – incorporating necessary adaptation, and – capturing potential mitigation co-benefits


The Building Blocks for CSA Success:An FAO country-based approach 6

i. Assessing the situation: CC impacts and viable CSA options

ii. Understanding barriers to adoption of CSA practices

iii. Analyzing mitigation potential

iv. Analyzing costs & benefits

v. Managing climate risk

vi. Defining coherent policies

vii.Guiding investment


Assessing site-specific CC impacts on agriculture 7

Rainfall variation and maximum seasonal temperature in Tanzania


• Tenure Security: lack of tenure security and limited property rights (limits on transfer), may hinder technology adoption

• Limited Access to Information, e.g. very low levels of investment/support for agriculture research and extension. CC adds uncertainty.

• Up-front financing costs can be high, whilst on-farm benefits not realized until medium-long term– Local credit markets very thin– Local insurance options very limited

Classic barriers to technology adoption 8


Short run trade-offs & long run win-win

B. Investment Barrier to Adoption

Time ==>

Baseline net income Current net income

Temporary net loss to farmer

New management practices introduced

Source: FAO 2007

9


Short-run tradeoffs stronger for poorer farmers

Baseline net income

NPV/HA over 20 years

No years to positive cash flow

No of years to positive incremental net income compared to baseline

net income

($/ha/yr) ($/ha) (number of years) (number of years)Small 14.42 118 5 10

Medium 25.21 191 1 4Large 25.45 215 1 1

Source: Wilkes 2011

Size of herd

10


What is a CSA enabling policy environment? 11

Recognizes & accommodates multiple objectivesIncreasing food security, Adapting to climate change, Reducing emissions growth

Evidence-based and context-specificIdentifying potential CC impacts at sub-national levelFacilitates responses based on local conditions and participationFocusses on overcoming locally relevant barriers to adoption

Copes with uncertaintyFocus on risk managementValues adaptive capacity; flexibility


CSA Approach to policy coherence 12

• Mainstreaming climate change into agricultural policy a prominent feature of CSA policy – CC integration into agricultural policy is still limited

• CC and AG policies not always well aligned due to failure to recognize and manage trade-offs that may result in policy contradictions.

• This could potentially hinder AG access to CC financing• Sectors beyond ag also important: social, economic,

disaster risk reduction, fishery & forestry


Examples of policies to support CSA 13

• Support data and analysis to better identify strategies w. food security, adaptationand mitigation benefits at local scale.• Support seed developmentand supply to improve adaptation• Build enabling environment/incentives to support adoption of CSA practices/strategies• Address information barriers: seasonal forecasts, extension, crowd sourcing, farmer-to-farmer info sharing

0100200300

Dry

0 100 200 300

Agronomy

Nutrient management

Tillage/residue management

Water management

Agroforestry Moist

Yield: average marginal increase (%/year)

GHG reduction (tCO2e/ha/year) (graph 1ton=100%)


Financing for CSA 14

• Major financing gap to meet current agricultural policy objectives (w/out CC)

• Public sector investment to agriculture is often not well targeted to meet objectives

• Both adaptation and mitigation actions in agriculture are projected to lead to significant increases in need for financing although there is a large range in estimates


Public investment in agriculture per worker 1980-2007: declining/low in key regions 15

Source: SOFA 2012, FAO


The role of climate finance for CSA

• Can bring a small, but significant share of new finance to agricultural sector of developing countries.

• Financing mechanisms and institutions are only now being developed: there is opportunity to shape them to support CSA

• Needs to support specific features of CSA:– Financing for long term transitions– Focus on resilience vs. average productivity gains– Attention to efficiency of input/resource use– Focus on adaptive capacity/flexibility

16


CSA, UNFCCC & Financing

• Agriculture largely absent in negotiations• Land use change issue most prominent• Climate financing instruments separate adaptation

and mitigation (NAPA, NAMAs)• Some emerging opportunities for CSA:

– Green Climate Fund– GEF 6 – Biocarbon fund

17


CC financing channels under UNFCCC 18


New opportunities

“Support efforts at global, national and local levels to sustainably use agricultural systems to achieve food and nutrition security for all people at all times, taking account of the need for adaptation in response to current, near and long term effects of climate change, as well as mitigation to reduce its threat to global food security.”

• Food security-focused, agriculture-driven and action-oriented

• Includes FAO, WB, IFAD, WFP, NEPAD, many countries• Stakeholder consultations are held this year• Launch next week at the UN Climate Summit in NY

19Global Alliance for CSA (ACSA)


20FAO-EC Project

Climate Smart Agriculture:Capturing synergies between

food security, adaptation and mitigation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmGDvpKzAeU




21

• 2009 FAO initiated program of work on FS and CC for Copenhagen• Indicating considerable potential to capture synergies and link

CC finance to agriculture• 2010-2011 Initiation of discussions between EC, FAO &

potential natl. partners, project development & background technical studies

• 2012 Project initiated in Malawi, Zambia and Vietnam• 2013 Evidence base, policy support and capacity

development activities • 2014 Evidence base, scenario building workshops and

investment proposals & planning for 2nd phase

Background on the project

www.fao.org/climatechange/epic 22

Develop a policy environment & an agricultural investment strategy to attain increased food security and provide resilience under climate uncertainty

OUTCOMESRESEARCH COMPONENT

NEEDS

Statistical analysis: climate shocks, producer behavior, adoption and

institutions

2

Policy simulations: using cost/benefit surveys of CSA “entry points”

3

Legal & Institutional appraisal: mapping institutional relationships.

4

Climate data: Climate variability and uncertainty in predictions

1 · CSA solutions for different contexts

· Appropriate instruments for prioritization, financing, and adoption

· Development of an investment proposal.

· Capacity to implement a CSA strategy

An evidence base for implementation of CSA

A strategic framework to guide action and investment on CSA.

Outputs

POLICY SUPPORT COMPONENT

Horizontal coordination across relevant national ministries

1

Vertical coordination between national and international

2

Capacity building for more evidence-based and integrated policy-making

3

CSA investment proposals and possible financing sources, including climate finance.

Project Framework


Malawi and Zambia:

•Conservation agriculture with agro-forestry •Soil & water conservation•Diversification of production (dairy, legumes)•Livestock•Safety nets and risk management•Input use efficiency •The role of agriculture/charcoal as a driver of deforestation

Vietnam (Northern Mountains):• Conservation land management practices for maize systems in

the uplands • Diversification into high value coffee and tea

23Participatory process: Potential CSA options


1. Analysis of exposure and sensitivity to climate risk in recent years

• Rainfall (1983-2012): Dekadal (10 days) rainfall data from Africa Rainfall Climatology v2 (ARC2) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center (NOAA-CPC)

• Temperature (1989-2010): Dekadal avg, min & max temperatures of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)

• Soil: Soil nutrient availability and soil pH levels from the Harmonized World Soil Database (HWSD)

Data Sources 24


Climate Variables• Rainfall:

1. Growing Season Total2. Coefficient of variation (across 29 years)3. Onset of the rainy season: 2 dekads of ≥ 50mm rainfall

after October 1.4. Dry spells: # dekads with <20mm rain during

germination&ripening5. False onset: a dry spell within 20 days of after the onset

• Temperature:1. Growing season average2. Growing season max3. Indicator if Tmax ≥ 28 °C

References: Tadross et al. 2009. “Growing-season rainfall and scenarios of future change in southeast Africa: implications for cultivating maize. “ Climate Research 40: 147-161.Thornton P., Cramer L. (eds.) 2012. “Impacts of climate change on the agricultural and aquatic systems and natural resources within the CGIAR’s mandate.” CCAFS Working Paper 23.

25


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


Zambia: Max temperature by AER 27


Zambia: % rain shortfall in growing season 28


Zambia: onset of the rainy season 29


0.0

002

.00

04.0

006

.00

08

0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000

2004 2008Maize Yields by AER Maize Yields by AER

AER I AER IIa

AER IIb AER III

kden

sity

YI_

ma

izei

mp

x

Graphs by year

Zambia: Maize Yields (kg./ha) by AER & Year 30


31

2. Analysis of barriers to adoption and yield impacts

• Data: Household panel data from 2004 & 2008 (sample size 4,187) + Climate data

• Practices: Minimum soil disturbance(MSD), crop rotation (CR)– MSD Adoption remains very low: ~5-6%– Significant dis-adoption: ~90% of adopters abandoned in 2008– Adoption intensity is significantly higher for smallholders

• Adoption: Strongest determinants are– Variability of rainfall– Delays in the onset of rains– Extension information

evidence that farmers adopt MSD & CR as an adaptation (yield smoothing?) practice

Zambia


32


Zambia cont…Impacts on Yields: • Climatic variables significantly change the impacts of practices• No significant impact of minimum soil disturbance on yields,

probability of low yields or shortfall• Crop rotation negatively correlated with yields, except in

regions with high rainfall variability• Legume intercropping is robustly correlated with higher yields• Inorg fert and improved seeds increase yields, except under

variable rainfall and high season max temperatures• Timely delivery of fertilizer is the most robust determinant of

higher yields and lower probability of yield shortfall


33


Malawi• Data: The Integrated Household Survey, 2010 (12,288

households) + Climate data• Practices: improved maize varieties, inorganic fertilizers,

organic fertilizer, legume intercropping, and agro-forestry• Adoption: Important determinants– Land tenure positively corr with org fert, legume int,

agroforestry– Drought proneness positively corr with legume int &

agroforestry• Yields: – Improved seed, legume int & agroforestry positively corr

with productivity– Significant synergies among all three practices


3. Analysis of mitigation potential: Malawi example34

Developing spatially-differentiated & practice-specific GHG mitigation estimates (with University of Aberdeen & FAO-AGAL)


4. Cost-Benefit Analysis 35

• Representative farm budget models to simulate economic profitability of different crop and livestock technologies (CSA vs conventional ag)

• Nationwide household surveys on costs&benefits for a range of CSA and conventional farming practices (crop and livestock) and agro-ecologies.

• Benefit-cost analysis modelling synergies and tradeoffs between climate change mitigation and food security- Linking crop and livestock profitability with natural resource

availability and socio-economic household indicators- Estimating production efficiency and analyzing the effects of

selected policy incentives- Developing Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) curves and

identifying least-cost investment options


5. Understanding Risk Management Options 36

• Assessing potential of social safety net programs to affect adoption

• Simulation model to assess effectiveness of different risk management options on adoption Different types of insurance programs Direct payments Micro-finance Diversification


6. Supporting Country Policies

Objective 1: Enhancing climate change and agricultural policy alignment in support of CSA Policy Dialogue & Institutional mapping to analyze agriculture in draft CC and ag policies and recommend adjustments to CC policy on agricultural adaptation and mitigation, to ensure consistency with agricultural policy. Support institutional coordination

Objective 2: Supporting development of CSA strategy Support to Agricultural Sector Planning on strengthening CC in next iteration of

programmes, especially identification of climate-smart activities

Objective 3: Supporting capacity to link international and national policy issues

Project has supported participation of Min of Ag staff at UNFCCC negotiations with briefing notes to inform participants prior to every session. Article on negotiations prepared for Climate Policy and Practice 2012

Strengthening national policy frameworks for CSA implementation


• Developing investment proposals for all 3 countries• GEF funding co-financed by WB / IFAD is targeted• Adding a CSA component to ongoing food

security/poverty reduction/livestock improvement projects

• Scaling up existing CSA activities (at delivery mechanism and on the ground level) identified through the phase 1 of the project

7. Guiding investments 38


KEY MESSAGES 39

• Climate change is already impacting agriculture and generally negatively so we need to move quickly to maintain/enhance agriculture’s ability to support food security

• The focus of ag development policies need to shift from average gains to resilience given that CC is already affecting all aspects of food security

• Climate change impacts are quite differentiated – effective ag policy for adaptation depends on time frame and CC impacts

• More research is needed to better understand site specific mitigation & adaptation impacts and the potential role of climate funds

• Institutions that support research, information dissemination, risk management and coordinated action across global players (Global CSA Alliance, CSAA in Africa...) are crucial

• A country-level evidence-based approach as FAO-EPIC approach is an important step towards transitioning to CSA at all levels


40

Thank you!

http://www.fao.org/climatechange/epic

csa epic implementation

Education

csa success

faoepic approach

climate smart agriculture

ec csa project

role of agriculture

agriculture research

sitespecific cc impacts

fao countrybased approach