Upload
hoangminh
View
220
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Prepared by Wendy Mann for:
Meridian Institute workshop on Climate Change and Agriculture:
Learning from Experience and Early Interventions
Rome, 22-23 October 2012
Climate-Smart Agriculture at country level:
lessons from recent experience
1
Background
Duration: 1 January 2012 - 31 December 2014.
Resources: A total of 5.3 million Euros (3.3 million
Euros from EC, 2 million from FAO)
Partner countries: Malawi, Vietnam and Zambia
Type of project: country readiness to scale-up
through capacity strengthening
2
What does climate-smart agriculture
mean for FAO
Holistic approach to Food Security, Agricultural
development and Climate Change
Sustainable agriculture, expanded to include:
imperative for climate change adaptation
potential for mitigation and related climate
finance
integration/coordination across institutions and policy
instruments
Not just mitigation, single blueprint, markets
3
What does the project aim to
achieve? (Objective)
Strengthened capacity of farmers, their organizations
and policy-makers to make evidence-informed
investment decisions on scaling-up:
(1) context-specific climate-smart agricultural
practices
(2) supportive policy, institutional, strategic and
investment frameworks to promote sustainable
agricultural development and food security under
climate change, including those to overcome
adoption barriers and manage risk.
How will the project do this?
4
•Increased capacity to scale up and finance climate
smart agriculture
OUTPUTS RESEARCH COMPONENT NEEDS
•What are the barriers to adoption of CSA practices
•What are the policy levers to facilitate adoption and what will they cost?
•What are the synergies and tradeoffs between food security, adaptation and
mitigation from ag. practices?
POLICY SUPPORT COMPONENT
• Identifying where policy coordination at the national level is needed and how
to do it
• Facilitating national participation/inputs to climate and ag
international policy process
Project Framework
Evidence Base
Strategic Framework
Investment proposals
Capacity
Building
5
Evidence base
1. Socio-economic, land use, climate data,
institutional, policy, project mapping, costs and
benefits of action.
2. Baseline (current, baseline or business-as-usual
agricultural development pathway, alternative or
CSA development pathway)
3. Costs and benefits of action
6
Some uses of evidence base
Promising practices: agro-forestry with and without CA;
fertilizer use efficiency; legume rotations, replace annuals
with perennials, diversification in crops, rotations,
intercropping
Adoption barriers: limited, late, unreliable input supply,
delayed returns; opportunity cost of residue, labor
constraints, CC driven uncertainty/risk affects
Managing risk: use of existing instruments (Cash Transfers,
Insurance and modeling efficiency/costs of alternative
instruments
Building coherent policies within existing policy instruments;
across key institutions
Guiding investments: assessing additional CC benefits
(adaptation and mitigation); additional investment costs,
potential to link climate finance
7
Country-owned strategic frameworks
for CSA
1. Draws on existing policy and investment instruments
(ASWAp, CAADP, Action Plan, NCP)
2. If ag-cc strategy already exists, use it, strengthen. If
multiple strategies exist, consider roadmap.
3. Should help to identify vision and action required.
8
Investment Proposals for
Implementation
1. Priorities for action
2. Resources needed for action
3. Metrics to show what are additional CC
costs/benefits and results
3. Possible sources of financing, including climate
finance
9
Capacity strengthening
1. Research institutions and universities; support
for MSc and PhD students
2. Local institutions: extension, land tenure, chiefs
3. National institutions:
planning, inter-ministerial
Ag, Env, Fin - dialogues
(participatory scenario
building tool),
4. Ag Ministry staff
attend UNFCCC Talks
5. Stakeholder consultation, interactive web-based
platform
10 10
Zambia: building the evidence base
on barriers to adoption
Econometric analysis of barriers to adoption of CA
indicate that:
• Low adoption (and high “dis-adoption”) of CA between 2004-
2008
• Rainfall variability and extension service most important
determinants of adoption
• Possible trade-offs between keeping oxen and CA adoption.
• Preliminary mapping of the onset of rainy season showing
historical trend of later starts in most parts of the country
• Further work is needed to understand why these
adoption/disadoption patterns occurred.
11
Malawi: Building the evidence base on marginal costs of agricultural-based mitigation
13
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
$/t
CO
2e
t CO2e abated/year
1. agronomy_dry
2. Integrated nutrient
management _dry
3. Tillage/residue
mgmt_dry
4. Integrated nutrient
management_moist
5. Tillage/residue
mgmt_moist
6. agronomy_moist
7. agroforestry_dry
8. agroforestry_moist
9. water mgmt_dry
10. water mgmt_moist
Building linkages
Slow progress in UNFCCC negotiations on agric.
• shifts attention to country level action.
• more time to build confidence, capacity and
experience through learning-by-doing
• more time for national implementation to shape
int’l decision-making, esp. design of enabling
mechanisms and partnership arrangements.
14
THANK YOU!