Institutional Change, Stakeholders and Adaptation

How to account for socioeconomic change?

• Scenarios: socioeconomic change represented by GDP, Population, assumptions of technological efficiency

• Problems?– Decisions made in relation to shorter-term variability and

“events”

– Experience of socioeconomic variability not easily modeled

– Intersector linkages not easily expressed or understood

Why Worry about Institutional Change?

• Decisions are rarely made in relation to climate risk alone

• Institutional change matters– Can overwhelm signal of climatic variability and

change– Can be highly variable and unpredictable– Can represent “shocks” to system, similar to

climate– Limits and/or facilitates adaptation today and in the

future

Assumptions about Agricultural Assumptions about Agricultural AdaptationAdaptation

• Farmers will perceive and respond efficiently to climate signal

• Decisions on crop choice, management, inputs and labor are flexible, responsive to market prices

• Households will act to optimize profits and/or yields

• Adaptation options are within agricultural sector

(Hanemann, 2000, (Hanemann, 2000, Climatic ChangeClimatic Change))

Plan de AyalaLos Torres

Nazareno

Puebla

Tlaxcala

Case study inCase study in MexicoMexico

Farm HouseholdFarm HouseholdAgricultureAgriculture

Rural industryRural industry

Urban labor marketsUrban labor markets

Institutional Change

Climatic Hazards

?

?

??

?

ENSO

Neoliberalism, Privatization

Stakeholders

• Small-scale rainfed maize farmers

• Small-scale commercial vegetable farmers

• Agricultural extension and research

• National University of Mexico (forecasts)

• National Water Commission

• Agricultural ministry (SAGARPA)

NeoliberalismNeoliberalismin Mexican Agriculturein Mexican Agriculture

• “Commercially viable” farmers new beneficiaries of credit, insurance, extension, technology transfer

• Stagnant or declining producer prices

• Increased competition and obstacles to commercialization

• New opportunities in rural industries and maquilas

Consultations with Farmers

• Community timelines: Important events, key changes in livelihoods

• Key decisions re: sensitive activity(ies)• Surveys

– Perceptions of tendencies of socio economic change (points of vulnerability/opportunity)

– Non-climatic vs. climatic factors influencing decisions

• Content, trends and implications of structuring factors

Perceptions of Institutional ChangePerceptions of Institutional Change

• Subsistence community:Change has been positive: New availability of welfare

support

• Semi-commercial:Change has been mixed: New programs, but we are

excluded. Input costs have risen, producer prices stagnated.

• Small-scale commercial:Change has been mixed. Prices more variable, no

insurance. New crops available, new market opportunities.

Crop DiversificationCrop Diversification

• Shorter-cycle crops are better adapted

• Constraints:

– No subsistence incentive

– No economic incentive

– Lack of insurance & credit

Producer Prices, Tlaxcala

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Maize Barley Oats Wheat

pes

os/

kg

1995 1996 1997 1998

Obstacles to crop choice

• Land availability and tenure

• Food insecurity and cultural preference

• Market prices for “alternative” crops

• Market access: lack of insurance, cost of production

• Profitability and opportunity in livestock market