How does climate change alter agricultural strategies to support food security?
Philip Thornton (CGIAR/CCAFS) and Leslie Lipper (FAO)
With contributions from
Stephen Baas, Andrea Cattaneo, Sabrina Chesterman, Kevern Cochrane, Cassandra de Young, Polly Ericksen, Jacob van Etten, Fabrice de Clerck,
Boru Douthwaite, Ashley DuVal, Carlo Fadda, Tara Garnett, Pierre Gerber, Mark Howden, Wendy Mann, Nancy McCarthy, Reuben Sessa,
Sonja Vermeulen, Joost Vervoort
Structure of the presentation
• Threats of CC to agricultural production systems
• Responses to CC
• Making transitions happen
• How to monitor and evaluate?
• Conclusions: priority areas for CGIAR and FAO
Focus is on how CC changes our approach to agricultural transitions to support food security
1 Threats of climate change to
agricultural production systems
Threats of climate change to production systems: where are we going?
Ed Hawkins, www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/updated-comparison-of-simulations-and-observations/
Possible reasons for apparent slowdown in warming rate? • Internal climate variability • Assumed radiative forcings
may need adjustment • Climate simulators are too
sensitive to greenhouse gases
• Observational uncertainty
Trends are clear – much still to learn on the details
Global heat balance : land effects, ocean effects
Average projected % change in suitability for 50 crops to 2055
Crop suitability is changing …
Lane & Jarvis, SAT eJournal, 2007
0º
20º
-20º
0º 20º 40º
Climate-induced livelihood transitions may well result
Areas where cropping of an indicator cereal may become unviable between now and the 2050s -- where farmers may have to rely more on livestock as a livelihood strategy?
Jones & Thornton (2009)
To 2090, ensemble
mean of 14 climate
models
Thornton et al. (2010)
>20% loss 5-20% loss No change 5-20% gain >20% gain
Length of growing period (%)
African agriculture in a +4 °C world
Impacts of changes in climate variability?
Does it depend on scale? • At household level: may be
catastrophic • At more aggregated levels: persistence of effects? E.g. land-use
changes, regional livestock herd losses due to drought • Aggregation hiding substantial spatial heterogeneity • Equilibrium models versus dynamic approaches
What’s the evidence base? Very poor – e.g. • IPCC (2007) – “effects of climate variability may be as great as
changes in climate means” • SREX (2012) – 1 page (in 600) on impacts of climate extremes on
food systems and food security
2 Responses to climate change
Smallholders’ response to climate change
Technologies and practices to increase resilience of agricultural systems: • Soil and nutrient management (e.g. composts, crop residues) • Improving water harvesting and retention (e.g. dams, pits,
retaining ridges) • Understanding and dealing with changes in distribution /
intensity of weeds, pests, diseases • Utilising different crops, breeds, wild relatives • Efficient harvesting to reduce post-harvest losses • Planting date management • Use of agroforestry species (soil benefits, dry season
livestock fodder, income generation, carbon sequestering, …)
Smallholders’ response to climate change
Diversification
Livestock only
Livestock + irrigated ag +
business
Livestock + irrigated ag OR business
Thornton et al. (2012)
Results for a Group Ranch in Kajiado, Kenya
Smallholders’ response to climate change
“No regrets” technologies
Adapted from Howden et al. (2010)
Degree of Climate Change
“Co
mp
lexi
ty”
of
resp
on
din
g
COPING • Planting dates • Other varieties • Water
management
ADAPTATION • New crops • New livestock
species • Off-farm
diversification
TRANSFORMATION • New production
system • New livelihoods • Move location • Migration
Limits to “no regrets” at the farm level Barriers, cost, need for collective action and/or policy formulation (e.g. infrastructure development)
Enabling farmers to act on seasonal forecast information
• Improving forecast products for farmers
• Kaffrine, Senegal: workshops to train farmers, identifying management responses
• Wote, Kenya: testing combinations of advisories, training, delivery medium
• Assessing impact on decisions, livelihoods
Risk management
3 Making transitions happen
Developing & promoting agricultural technologies
o Urgency of developing/disseminating technologies embodying adaptation/mitigation while supporting ag. transitions for food security
o Greater emphasis on innovation an evolutionary-like process driven by ‘learning selection’ analogous to ‘natural selection’ (Douthwaite, 2002)
o Changes to how we assess best options
20,000+ maize trials in 123 research sites
Sites with >23ºC would suffer even if optimally managed
More than 20% loss in sites with >20ºC, under drought
Lobell et al. (2011)
Maize in Africa …
Building networks of innovation: Disseminating & selecting seeds of crops & varieties
adapted to climate change
Seed supply for adapted crops is limited; ICRISAT experimenting with private sector seed suppliers to increase supply
Farmer testing 3 wheat varieties as part of Bioversity Seed4Needs crowdsourcing crop improvement for adaptation
Assessing best options for agricultural intensification: adaptation is an essential element
• Results from Zambia analysis of HH data 2004-2008
• Question- what are the barriers/drivers of adoption of sustainable land management?
• Two practices focused upon: minimum soil disturbance (planting basins); crop rotations
Results:
– Adoption remains very low: ~5-6% (sample size 4,187)
– Significant dis-adoption: ~90% of CA adopters in 2004 abandoned it in 2008
– Adoption intensity is significantly higher for smallholders
Strongest determinants of adoption are:
– variable rainfall
– Delayed onset of rainy season
adaptation benefits key to determining “best options”
Assessing best options for ag. intensification: mitigation co-benefits also important
Synthesis of literature comparing yield and soil carbon sequestration effects of adopting sustainable land management practices in dry and moist areas
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%)
Strengthening local institutions: e.g. how to improve the enabling environment?
• Local institutions (formal & informal) are “enablers”
• Three main areas where CC affects what we need to see from local institutions for enabling environments
• Information dissemination (CC destroys info)
• Risk management (CC increases risks)
• Collective action (CC changes scale; intensifies need)
Information dissemination: priority actions
– Seasonal forecasts: Extended coverage, better “translation, and prompt linking of seasonal forecast info to key outlets (youth, extension, women’s groups, etc.)
– Extension: More attention/financing/innovation in extension role in information dissemination to support ag. technology and use of ICT
– Crowd sourcing to improve data sources
(e.g. IIASA global cropland map)
– Enhancing farmer to farmer information
flows particularly in context of adaptation (e.g. varietal adaptation; indigenous practices)
Local institutions facilitate risk management in a number of ways:
we need to identify best options under CC & strengthen
Risk transfer category Adaptation strategies Institution-building opportunities at the local level
Institution-building opportunities at higher levels
Mobility Agropastoral, wage labour or involuntary migration
Distribution & trade of ag produce & inputs
Conflict mgmt e.g. croppers vs. pastoralists
Functioning of local informal markets
Support to local exit strategies
Residence & border controls
Safe & fair transfers of remittances
International trade controls & tariffs
Storage Water storage
Food storage
Natural capital including livestock & trees
Pest control
Participatory action research
Local tenure & entitlements
Access to information
Incentives for affordable private sector innovation
Knowledge systems for pests & diseases
Food safety interventions
Diversification Diversification of agricultural assets, including crop & livestock varieties, production technologies
Occupational diversification & skills training
Dietary & other consumption choices
Farmer field schools & other locally-led innovation systems
Microfinance
Local business development
Household food management
Local future climate scenarios exercises
Public and private extension services
Accessible banking & loan schemes
Skills retraining linked to job creation
Consumer food knowledge & preferences
Collective action
Collective action underpins:
• Information dissemination
• Risk management
• Managing pooled resources (agro-forestry, changes in grazing/irrigation management, landscape level work)
• Spreading innovations (social capital important determinant of production and marketing decisions)
• Accessing financing (high transactions costs barrier to entry)
Priority actions:
Identifying how cc changes type and scale collective actions needed
Broader understanding of multiple roles (risk mgmt, info sharing, access to resources) local institutions currently play
Explicit integration of collective action needs in agricultural transition planning
Coordinated and informed policies • Policies that integrate CC and Ag for FS needed to achieve
coordinated & effective actions
• Contradictions between policy “silos” a problem
• Promoting dialogue, joint positions (e.g. to UNFCCC) and national integrated strategies between CC, Ag and FS policy-makers needed
• Tools for integrated planning useful to underpin needed dialogues (e.g. integrated land use planning, landscape)
• Clarity/direction from policy-makers on key directions for change also needed (e.g. food self-sufficiency vs. trade, future of smallholders, rate/nature of urbanization/commercialization)
Participatory scenario building: a means of facilitating dialogue between policy and research
Scenarios: what can happen Visioning: what should happen
Uncertain future
Create shared
vision for regional
Future (3)
Different perspectives:
different types of knowledge, experience
Scenarios capture
alternative Futures (1)
Improve
scenarios’ usefulness
through
Different perspectives:
different needs,
aspirations
Use
scenarios to explore
pathways to
Feasible vision, robust
policies and quantification and media (2)
Improve scenarios based on use (5)
vision under strategies (4) uncertainty
(4)
Dissemination of scenarios, visions,
strategies to key users (6)
Figure 2. CCAFS scenarios strategy.
Global Scenarios
Regional Scenarios
Farmer/village
perspectives Action research
Participatory
scenario building
Global visioning
activities
Global impacts
modelling
Regional impacts
modelling
Household &
community
impacts modelling
Assessing different options at different levels Robustness, iteration
Increased access to financing
• Overall investment resources for agriculture insufficient
• Need for not just more, but better targeting and delivery mechanisms are needed
• CC increases imperative of increased short run financing
to achieve long term savings • Access to emerging sources of CC finance clearly
important part of the solution
• Need for country-driven responses to how this can best be linked to agricultural transitions for food security
Climate smart agricultural investments often require higher up-front financing to overcome barriers to
adoption
4 How to monitor and evaluate?
Increasing the outcome orientation of research …
FAO Strategic Objectives • Contribute to the eradication of
hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition
• Increase and improve provision of goods and services from agriculture, forestry and fisheries in a sustainable manner
• Reduce rural poverty • Enable more inclusive and efficient
agricultural and food systems at local, national and international levels
• Increase the resilience of livelihoods to threats and crises
CGIAR System-Level Outcomes
• Reduce rural poverty • Increase food security • Improve nutrition and
health • Ensure more sustainable
management of natural resources
Analysing food security in context of drivers and feedbacks
Ericksen (2008)
Food System ACTIVITIES Producing
Processing & Packaging
Distributing & Retailing
Consuming
Food System OUTCOMES Contributing to: Food Security, Environmental
Security, and other Societal Interests
Food Availability
Food Utilisation
Food Access
Environ Capital
Social Welfare
Socioeconomic DRIVERS Changes in:
Demographics, Economics, Socio-political context,
Cultural context Science & Technology
DRIVERS’ Interactions
GEC DRIVERS Changes in:
Land cover & soils, Atmospheric Comp., Climate variability & means,
Water availability & quality, Nutrient availability & cycling,
Biodiversity, Sea currents & salinity, Sea level
‘Natural’ DRIVERS
e.g. Volcanoes Solar cycles
Environmental feedbacks
e.g. water quality, GHGs
Socioeconomic feedbacks
e.g. livelihoods, social cohesion
Key food system objective
Strategies to achieve this
Process indicator
Outcome indicator
Impact indicator
Enhance nutritional value
More nutritious food grown
Farmers’ crop choices change
Foods with greater nutritional value harvested
Diets contain more nutritious foods
Price of nutritious food reduced
Pricing policies implemented.
Households purchase more nutritious food
Diets contain more nutritious foods
More efficient use of scare resources
Revise input prices
Pricing policies implemented
Fertilizers use modified
Less fertilizer waste
Implement land tenure
Tenure policies designed and implemented
Land tenure more secure
Land used more efficiently
Some food system adaptation metrics
Ericksen and Chesterman (2013)
Outcome indicators: how does CC affect what we’d like to see?
Risk-adjusted returns to agricultural systems Do we have robust estimates
of changes in climate variability into the future?
Do we have adequate data and information on tropical farming systems (like the Farm Accounting Data Network of the EU)?
Do we have adequate decision-analytic frameworks for smallholder farming households in developing countries?
IPCC (2012)
Outcome indicators: how does CC affect what we’d like to see?
Greenhouse gas emissions per unit of agricultural output Do we have standardised methodologies, to help reduce the uncertainties
inherent in such estimates?
Do we have adequate tools that can assess the trade-offs and synergies between agricultural activities (e.g. payments for reduced deforestation; mitigation co-benefits)?
Do we always understand who is bearing the costs and the benefits of different alternatives, and are these distributed in accordance with government policy objectives?
Outcome indicators: how does CC affect what we’d like to see?
Identifying potential maladaptation well in advance If adaptation is seen as a continuous process, do we have in place adequate
monitoring systems to allow us to spot divergences in good time?
Do we have adequate adaptation planning frameworks that are relatively insensitive to uncertainties?
Maladaptation: options that • disproportionately burden the
most vulnerable • have high opportunity costs • reduce people’s incentives to
adapt • set paths that limit future choices
available to future generation Barnett & O’Neill (2010)
Outcome indicators: how does CC affect what we’d like to see?
Changes in short-term food insecurity in the wake of climate shocks Do we have robust and efficient ways of identifying food-insecure people and
their targetable characteristics, particularly in the light of increased variability?
FAO (2012)
Food security relative to the poverty threshold
5 Conclusions: priority areas for CGIAR and FAO
How can FAO and CGIAR effectively contribute to the agenda?
1 Enhanced understanding of how climate change may affect agriculture - Key input to global climate/food security models • Impacts on key staples and other crops and natural resources in
developing countries
• Interactions of changes in temperature, rainfall, atmospheric CO2
• Changes in incidence, intensity, spatial distribution of weeds, pests, diseases
• Impacts on households of climate variability changes vis-à-vis changes in long-term means
• Impact on agricultural technology/intensification patterns Links to Global Change Community: climate, sustainability sciences
2 Evaluating options • Understanding the role of assets (physical, human, social) and
collective action in managing climate risks, adaptation and mitigation
• Assessing mitigation practices in different situations and impacts on resource use and commodity supply
• Standardizing/simplifying Measuring/Reporting/Verification (MRV) and carbon footprinting methodologies for mitigation projects
• Tools/frameworks/data that allow evaluation with respect to multiple objectives, multiple temporal and spatial scales
How can FAO and CGIAR effectively contribute to the agenda?
3 Promoting innovation and linking knowledge with action • Tools/analysis to identify, foster and effectively scale up successful
innovation: social, institutional, technological • Extend social learning approaches critically relevant to achieving
development goals: building on existing efforts and assessing results to build a commonly accessible evidence base
• Develop capacity and use of multi-stakeholder scenario processes • explore key socio-economic uncertainties • develop storylines of plausible futures • quantitatively model these alternative development pathways
a linked science-policy interface inputs to global climate/food security models.
How can FAO and CGIAR effectively contribute to the agenda?