Showing posts with label adaptation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adaptation. Show all posts

Friday, April 20, 2012

$100 million of climate smart smallholder #agriculture for Vietnam #CBA6

by Jeffrey A. Brez

This afternoon at the 6th Global Community-Based Adaptation conference in Hanoi, Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) and IFAD shared their experience in making IFAD’s 2012-2017 strategic planning document for Vietnam climate smart. (these documents at IFAD are known as “Results Based Country Strategic Opportunities Programmes” or COSOPs). IFAD’s portfolio in Vietnam focuses on the poorest rural communities, including ethnic minorities and women headed households, and is now worth about US$257 million, with another USD100 million of investments anticipated over the 2012-2017 period.



MARD was represented by Prof. Dr. Trieu Van Hung, Director General of their Department of Science, Technology and the Environment. IFAD was represented by Roshan Cooke, Regional Climate and Environment Specialist for the Asia and Pacific Region.



Dr. Trieu (click above to view his 1-minute video statement) made the point that Vietnam is expected to be among the countries hardest hit by climate change, and that the agriculture sector is one of the most vulnerable. According to the National Climate Change Strategy, from 2001-2010 “damages caused by disasters like floods, storms, flash floods, landslides, inundations, droughts and saltwater intrusion have been significant: 9500 dead and missing people; and an asset loss of about 1.5% of GDP each year.” Given that the majority of Vietnam’s poor women and men live in rural areas and depend on agriculture for their livelihoods – and that agriculture is particularly vulnerable to natural disasters - supporting community-based adaptation is crucial to help buffer their livelihoods.

My colleague Roshan Cooke (in the photo above) explained IFAD’s ambitious approach. The “Climate Smart COSOP,” he said, will ensure that all of the investments that IFAD supports in Vietnam are climate-smart. This will be done through, among others, the following interventions: support to the policy making process to ensure that the climate vulnerability of poor rural communities is effectively addressed through MARD’s policy frameworks; integration of climate change adaptation responses into the provincial level Socio-Economic Development Plan (SEDP) for determining budget allocations; identification of adaptation pathways for diversification of livelihoods; and scaling up of autonomous adaptation actions that rural poor people are innovating.

Several presentations were made and the following discussion was lively. Issues raised included how to address the “surplus of rural population in farming,” how to balance focus between smallholder farming and opportunities in the rural non-farm economy (and beyond), and how to fill the knowledge gap on local level impacts of climate change in rural areas.

I have learned a tremendous amount here, through a field trip to Hoa Binh province to visit a COHED project (biogas, alternative off-farm livelihoods for women and community-based eco-tourism, disaster preparedness drills) THANK YOU TO THE COHED TEAM, and great conference sessions that included an amazing Red Cross-designed game to raise awareness about disaster risk reduction and planning THANK YOU PABLO SUAREZ and JULIE ARRIGHI, and a session to practice pitching climate change stories to journalists, led by IIED – THANK YOU MIKE SHANAHAN and DRAGONS including Pakistan's AFIA SALAM of www.speakforchange.org.

CBA6 has two more days left! Follow the LIVE WEB STREAM or enjoy the blogs and vlogs and other interactive materials - and learn and share along with the rest of us.

Find out more here about how IFAD is supporting smallholders and poor rural people in Vietnam.

Want to read the IFAD COSOP for Vietnam? You won't regret the time spent. Click here and scroll down to Vietnam 2012. Available in Arabic, English, French and Spanish.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Climate smart agriculture, additionality and business as usual

by Dr. Bruce Campbell, Director, CGIAR Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)

In one workshop session at the Bonn SBSTA one participant said “We are doing nothing new”. In the Second Global AgriKnowledge Share Fair, held late last month at IFAD headquarters in Rome, participants in one session felt that “perhaps 80% of climate smart agriculture (CSA) is made up of what we already know how to do and are trying to do”. I realise this refers to the proven technologies and practices that can be called upon in CSA, but we also have to consider “additionality”. “Additionality” is a keyword in climate change negotiations. Additionality can be defined as the extent to which a new input adds to the existing inputs (instead of replacing any of them) and results in a greater aggregate. The word is applied to climate finance – the call for developed countries to provide, “new and additional” climate change financing to developing countries. And it is also a key word applied to mitigation interventions – the interventions must reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to business as usual (or compared to the agreed baseline). Additionality is less frequently applied to adaptation, but even here it has been raised; and it is only time before metrics will be needed to show how climate finance has improved adaptive capacity (e.g., see the chapter on MRV in the Meridian Institute Report on Agriculture and Climate Change) http://www.climate-agriculture.org/~/media/Files/Projects/CCAg%20microsite/Agriculture%20and%20Climate%20Change%20Scoping%20Report%2012%20July%202011.pdf).

So why is “climate-smart agriculture” additional to business as usual? CSA includes the explicit recognition that there are three (or more) outcomes that are sought, two of which are climate-related. There are the business as usual outcomes associated with agricultural development – e.g. production increases, improved agricultural markets, enhanced food security, empowered farmer organisations etc. Then there are the climate change outcomes – enhanced adaptation to climate change, and enhanced contribution of agriculture to climate change mitigation.

And, invariably, when we seek to enhance more than one outcome there will be trade-offs that have to be dealt with. To illustrate some of these – rising temperatures in the Indo-Gangetic plains mean that wheat may need to be planted earlier, but the easy way to do that is to burn the rice residues of the previous crop, thus increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Movement of potato farmers up the Andes to escape the pests and diseases from a warming world will result in the destruction of carbon-rich grasslands. Crop insurance may help deal with crop failures due to extreme events in the short term, but may in the long term be maladaptive – the real solution being more transformative adaptation (changing crop species, out-migration etc). So, CSA is different from business as usual in that the trade-offs amongst production increases, adaptation and mitigation are explicitly recognised and dealt with, both for short and long time scales.

CSA is also not business as usual in terms of the partnerships needed to foster outcomes.
The climate science community and meteorological departments need to be more closely involved with the agricultural community – for providing meaningful seasonal, near-term and decadal forecasts of climate which are essential if adaptation to increased variability and progressive climate change is to be successful. Given the predicted increase in frequency and severity of extremes, much more attention has to be given to climate risk management. This also needs better partnerships with the crisis response community and insurance sector. We also have to bring in a completely different group of scientists – those dealing with measuring greenhouse gas emissions.

There are many technologies and practices that are known that can be brought to bear on CSA. But CSA is not business as usual, as there are also many technologies and practices that are not climate-smart! Fertiliser subsidies may enhance food production outcomes but will often result in increased greenhouse gas emissions. Building large irrigation schemes in regions where rivers are likely to dry will do nothing for adaptation over the longer term. Promoting crops and livestock that are increasingly difficult to grow in specific agro-ecological zones is not climate-smart.

Markets in a climate-smart world are likely to be different. Many western diets are poor for human health and the environment. There is increasing recognition that eating habits will need to change. Fat taxes are being introduced. There are campaigns about “carbon footprints”. This trend is likely to intensify. In a climate-smart world, developing countries will need to improve the efficiency of production methods for export products if they are to compete; or may need to shift to alternative products that have less of an environmental impact.

Climate-smart agriculture is likely to be very different in different places. In some regions of the world we have to expect greenhouse gas emissions to increase, given the significant yield gaps that exist. But even here it is not business as usual, as the emissions per unit food produced will likely be lower than under business as usual. In other regions of the world, especially in developed countries, CSA will involve de-intensifying agriculture to reduce the environmental footprint. In some parts of the world, we can expect incremental adaptation as varieties change and as cropping systems are altered. In other parts we can expect transformative adaptation as industries move and transform; as new crops are brought in; as major shifts occur between livestock and crops.

CSA will bring in new policies. This is already the case in some countries. For example, we see “carbon farming initiatives”. NAMAs and NAPAs are widespread and are increasingly giving more attention to agriculture. REDD+ plans are recognising agriculture as a driver of deforestation and we can expect greater attention to the details of how to solve this – involving policies and actions in the forestry and agriculture sectors.

CSA is also about visioning an uncertain future world, and about acting on those visions. While we may know many of the solutions to today's problem’s, we now have to plan for the next decade – with rising temperatures and more extreme events. Seasonal forecasting and long term climate projections are, unfortunately, riddled with uncertainty (though we can expect this situation to improve with further research). Tools are now being put in place that will help development practitioners and service providers to farmers envision a future world. With a click on a site on a map you should be able to get a series of predictions about future climates. With a click on a site you should be able to see places which can be visited to get a glimpse of the likely future climate for your site. Farmer-to-farmer visits can be organised to such analogue places to exchange views on how farming may have to shift.

CSA is also about a new research agenda. There are many new research issues that need urgent attention. We need downscaled climate projections that work for those involved in agriculture. We need much better seasonal forecasting for climate risk management. We need enhanced index-based insurance products. Farmers, extension workers and development planners need the decision support tools to help navigate the trade-offs amongst production goals, adaptation goals and mitigation goals. We need basic information on the costs of different options (to take a case in point, the costs of soil carbon sequestration in Australia range from $10-50/ton CO2. Such lack of precision is having major implications for policy development). And CSA means a new wave of attention to breeding – breeders need to think about what is needed in 10-20 years time, with crop-specific strategies. The implications of climate change on pests and diseases is a major area for research.

CSA is not business as usual. It has many dimensions of additionality. But there are plenty of proven technologies and practices that can be promoted today for a climate-smart world.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Brave Enough To Become a Pioneer? Economic Analysis of Adaptation in Agriculture

On Wednesday, March 16, enthusiastic IFAD staff came together for a "standing-room only" presentation on a World Bank publication, "Economic Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation Projects: Approaches for the Agricultural Sector and Beyond," by co-author Dr. Gretel Gambarelli, followed by a lively discussion. Gretel, our moderator Thomas Elhaut and others share their views below... share yours, too!



Gretel Gambarelli, Senior Climate Adaptation Officer, IUCN
I was invited by IFAD to present in a seminar on economic evaluation of climate change projects, with a focus on agriculture. My talk was based on a World Bank 2010 publication by Mike Toman and myself. My presentation


covered the specific challenges that make economic evaluation of adaptation different from more standard projects that do not incorporate climate change considerations, and introduced some state of the art methodologies - including non-economic approaches - that may help address those challenges. I was very pleased to find an interested and engaged audience, with about 40 IFAD staff from different departments following the presentation and asking lots of good questions. This is a good index that ex-ante project evaluation is regaining attention by development professionals in IFAD as a way to improve overall project design and make sure investments are truly "sustainable", i.e. bringing economic, social and environmental benefits. Since we're just starting to understand how to approach the economic evaluation of adaptation at the project level, I would encourage IFAD staff to become "pioneers" and test some of the possible approaches in real projects, so as to contribute to this important field of knowledge.

Thomas Elhaut, Director, Asia and Pacific Region, IFAD
The seminar on the “economic valuation of adaptation to climate change” was timely. It came at the time IFAD is reviewing the role of economic analysis of investment projects as a decision tool, and more importantly as a tool to support design choices early on in the process. It also underscored the rationale for reengaging in agriculture, as the new food equation makes agriculture more profitable (i.e. economically viable); but also threatened by climate change (i.e. volatility) and resource scarcity (i.e. high opportunity costs). It finally highlighted the issues related to the present value of future and intergenerational benefits versus current costs and consumption preferences (i.e. the discount rate trade-offs). The seminar reconfirmed the value of the “classic” cost-benefit analysis (CBA); and called for further work to: better define the costs of adaptation to climate change; design methods to measure the additionality of benefits and co-benefits, such as the change in behaviour of farmers; deal with uncertainty, given the inadequate probabilistic information; assess the with and without project values of land, water, etc…; elaborate a more hybrid approach to complement the CBA methodology with real option analysis, a landscape approach and ultimately a multi-criteria approach.

Elwyn Grainger-Jones, Director,
Environment and Climate Division, IFAD

Would you expect standing-room only for a seminar on economic appraisal? That's what we had on Wednesday. Looking at adaptation to climate change through the lens of economic appraisal is important for IFAD since adaptation to climate change is an essential element of reducing rural poverty. Most of our projects are in areas that are already ecologically fragile hence particularly vulnerable to climate change. My "take-aways" from the seminar were: 1) climate uncertainty can be reduced as forecasting improves, but will not go away; 2) cost-benefit analysis is not always the best option for assessing adaptation (it does not necessarily tell us when to invest, and the sensitivity analysis struggles to handle adaptation parameters - luckily there are alternative or complementary approaches); 3) the time dimension is critical - what should today's value be of future adaptation to climate change, and who should make that valuation? We could have spent a week just on the final point. As we have seen, different stakeholders attribute very different values to landscapes and hence have different views on the value of preserving different aspects of landscapes in the face of climate change. Further, an important issue on climate change is inter-generational poverty - what value should we attribute to preserving landscapes for future generations? We have learnt that recognizing the interconnections across the landscape is essential to building resilience - that means we have to manage a lot more complexity in how we think about rural development. It is good to see economic analysis trying to address this.


Eloisa de Villalobos Thomann, Financial and Economic Technical Adviser, Policy & Technical Advisory Division, IFAD
As an economist who recently joined IFAD working for the Technical Advisory Division responsible for reviewing the economic and financial feasibility of project proposals, I was curious to see how these new approaches could be integrated in the way we currently analyse economic impacts of IFAD projects. It was particularly interesting to get an overview of multi-criteria methodologies as a complementary option to traditional CBA analyses in cases where environmental assimilation costs or benefits are too complicated to measure. In my view, a crucial point is to develop simple ways of applying these complex methodologies at the producers' level. However, simplification should not come at any cost: the quality of the analysis has to be ensured and the use of these particular tools clearly justified in order to achieve robust results. It was interesting for me to see the diverse reactions from the different participants of the seminar. I particularly agree with the idea expressed that these kinds of analyses should be carried out from the very beginning of the project design stage, integrating environmental impact assessment into economic analysis and the overall logframe of the project design. I thank the organizers and look forward to see and assist whoever will be brave enough to pilot these analyses!


Gretel also introduced the group to Adaptation Guidance Notes available on the World Bank's website and gave an overview presentation on IUCN. Check it out!



Popular Posts