3. Climate-Smart Agriculture
“The overall aim …. is to support efforts
from the local to global levels
for sustainably using agricultural systems to achieve
food and nutrition security for all people at all times,
integrating necessary adaptation, and
capturing potential mitigation”
(where possible and appropriate)
Lipper et al. (2014) Nature: Climate Change
• 24 authors from 15 institutions
4. Compendium of CSA practices
65 practices/35 indicators
Key word search
Abstract/title review
Full text review
Data extraction
144,567
papers
16,254
papers
6,100
papers
~120,000 data points
Photo:
K. Tully
7. Importance of food security, adaption and mitigation
depends on location
Map: Wheeler & von Braun 2013
Garrity et al. unpublished
8. Alliance for CSA in Africa
Vision
25 x 25
West Africa CSA
Alliance (WACSAA)
Global momentum building for CSA
Map of a selection of CIAT-ICRAF CSA initiatives with CCAFS, WB, USAID from 2014-2105
6 million farmers by 2021
Linking 19 countries
500 million farmers globally
CSA one of
5 priority
investment
areas
9. Partnerships for Scaling
Climate-Smart Agriculture
• P4S is a CCAFS Flagship 1 Project
• Developing globally applicable frameworks for CSA
planning and implementation
• CSA-Plan methodology
• Focus is on leveraging partnerships in Africa
• Applying methods also in LAM and Asia
11. Engagement
Capacitydevelopment
CSA
Investment
Portfolios
Targeting & Prioritizing
Practices, Programs and Policies
Trade-offs & Value for Money
Vulnerability & Impacts + Readiness
Stocktaking
for CSA
Action
Situation Analysis
Risks and Enabling Conditions
Programing Design
Guidelines & Implementation
Taking CSA
to Scale
Knowledge into Action
Evidence Based Results Framework
Learning
from
Experience
Monitoring and Evaluation
Across Scales and Systems
CSA-Plan
12. Provide baselines of
existing actions and
opportunities for
scaling CSA
Highlight entry points
for CSA programs and
investment
CSA-Plan
Vulnerability & Impacts + Readiness
Stocktaking
for CSA
Action
Situation Analysis
Risks and Enabling Conditions
Corner-Dolloff, et. al., 2015
13.
14. (a) Banana (B) Common bean (C) Cassava
(D) Finger millet (E) Groundnut (F) Maize
(G) Pearl millet (H) Sorghum (I) Yam
Climate Change
Impacts to Key
Crops
---
2050
RCP 8.5
Emissions
Scenario
Percent Area Suitable for
2050 Relative to Historical
Period
Climate (situation) analysis
Ramirez et al. unpublished
15. Link with other methods
e.g. CSA RAPID
The CSA Rural
Assessment (CSA-
RAPID) was
developed as part
of an IFAD-funded
projected
Inform sub-national
investments of the
ASAP program
Winowiecki, et al.; Download the CS-RA Manual here: http://dx.doi.org/DVN/28703
16. CSA
Investment
Portfolios
Targeting & Prioritizing
Practices, Programs and Policies
Trade-offs & Value for Money
Vulnerability & Impacts + Readiness
Stocktaking
for CSA
Action
Situation Analysis
Risks and Enabling Conditions
Tool Example:
CSA Prioritization
Framework
CSA-Plan
CIAT/CCAFS team: Caitlin Corner-Dolloff,
Ana Maria Loboguerrero, Andy Jarvis,
Miguel Lizarazo, Andreea Nowak, Nadine
Andrieu, Fanny Howland, Osana Bonilla,
Deissy Martinez
Community
organizations
Governmental decision-makers
(national, local)
NGOs
Research
Development
partners
17. CSA Prioritization Framework
Filters for selecting CSA investment portfolios
*Analysis of
context variables
Long list of
CSA practices
*Ex-ante assessment
based on CSA
indicators
*Stakeholder
workshop
Ranked short
list of priorities
*Economic analysis
– assess costs and
benefits
Ranked short
list based on
CBA
*Integrated analysis
of opportunities &
constraints
* Stakeholder
workshop
CSA investment
portfolios
Pilots underway
19. -5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
P
AM
Practice name (Geographic zone prioritized)
Nivel de impacto: 10= Muy alto, 0=No efecto, -10 Muy bajo
P: Productividad A: Adaptación M: Mitigación
Beneficio A
Beneficio BP
Beneficio A
Beneficio BA
¿What is the impact on CSA pillars?
Beneficio A
Beneficio BM
Description of the main features of the practice, purpose,
particularities to consider for practice implementation in the
selected geographical area.
1 What it is?
2 Where can be applied?
Description of where are the suitable places to implement the
practice, for example, where is presented problems of eroded or
infertile soils, steep, rainfall excess or shortage, vegetation loss,
low biodiversity, shortages of some basic resource like water,
food, energy.
3 When can be applied?
Here can be mentioned what time of the year is better for
practice implementation (months, season), also can be
considered any particular phase of the crop cycle.
4 What practices can be complemtary?
Here are mentioned other practices that can be
related o can be applied together to generate
synergies and/or optimize the use of resources.
What barriers hinder its adoption?
7 Institutional, technical, environmental, other?
Insert
image/photo of
the practice
5 Crops of interest:
Here are mentioned the main agricultural
production systems (PS) prioritized in the
above region, if it applies for other PS is
possible to mention as multi-crops
6 Threats faced
List the environmental and non-
environmental threats or impacts to which
the practice seeks deal
What opportunities facilitate its adoption?
8
Institutional, technical, environmental, other?
20. Decision Guides: Evaluating CSA practices
Econ analysis is most highly demanded by decision-makers and donors
– data and tools needed to better assess and easily visualize options
21. What is CSA “Success”?
Productivity
Adaptive Capacity
Mitigation
Return on Investment
Water Use Efficiency
Food Security
What affects CSA
“Success”?
Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs)
CSA
Success
Water
Availability
Financial
Resources
Rainfall
Proximity
to River
Access to
Credit
Wealth
1. A Network
Lamanna, upublished
22. CSA
Success
Water
Availability
Financial
Resources
Rainfall
Proximity
to River
Access to
Credit
Wealth
1. A Network 2. Relative Importance
(Conditional Probabilities)
Precipitation is twice as important to
Water Availability as Proximity to Rivers
For irrigation, you must have Access to
Credit.
Success of a water harvest project
depends more on Financial Resources
than it does on Water Availability
3. Data
Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs)
Lamanna, upublished
23. CSA
Investment
Portfolios
Targeting & Prioritizing
Practices, Programs and Policies
Trade-offs & Value for Money
Vulnerability & Impacts + Readiness
Stocktaking
for CSA
Action
Situation Analysis
Risks and Enabling Conditions
Programming Design
Guidelines & Implementation
Taking CSA
to Scale
Knowledge into Action
• Implementation Guides
• Business Models
CSA-Plan
24. COMESA led, CCAFS supported
Stage 1: Visioning
Stage 2:
Plan Development
Stage 3: National
Validation
January
2015
June
2015
Development of CSA
Country Programs
25. Country CSA
Programme
I. Preface by MoA &
MoE
II. Executive Summary
III. Situation Analysis
IV. Vision & Objectives
V. Results Area 1:
Productivity
VI. Results Area 2:
Resilience
VII.Results Area 3:
Mitigation co-benefits
VIII.Coordination
IX. Financing
X. Monitoring, reporting
& verification
27. CSA
Investment
Portfolios
Targeting & Prioritizing
Practices, Programs and Policies
Trade-offs & Value for Money
Vulnerability & Impacts + Readiness
Stocktaking
for CSA
Action
Situation Analysis
Risks and Enabling Conditions
Programming Design
Guidelines & Implementation
Taking CSA
to Scale
Knowledge into Action
Evidence Based Results Framework
Learning
from
Experience
Monitoring and Evaluation
Across Scales and Systems
CSA-Plan
28. • Challenges for monitoring CSA
• Multi-objective complexity
• Scale of impact
• Multi-institutional coordination
• The design of CSA M&E systems
• M&E of what?
• What to monitor to determine impact?
• What indicators of outcomes to include?
• What tools for monitoring?
• How to implement M&E system?
Two-Page
Discussion Brief
“Monitoring Impact:
Challenges to
Consider”
Rosenstock, et al.
Monitoring Impact
29. Metrics and Monitoring CSA
Three primary
components:
• Metrics
• Sampling designs
• Data collection and
reporting
Results based
payments
30. Δ Yield *
Δ Variability *
Δ Labor *
Δ Income *
Production
Δ (kg/ha/yr)
ΔSD(kg/ha/yr)
Δ (hr/ha/yr)
Δ(net $/ha/yr)
Pillar Sub IndicatorIndicator Measure
* Indicator also currently being included in CSA Compendium;
** Indicators currently being included in CSA compendium, but
different calculation being used
Δ Off farm CO2-eq emissions
Mitigation
Δ (aggregated
sub-indicators)
Δ carbon dioxide equivalent emissions*
Δ nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions *
Δ methane (CH4) emissions*
Δ (kg/ha/yr, kg/ha, kg/yr)
Δ Black carbon (BC) emissions
Δ Albedo Δ (0-1 reflectivity coefficient and W/m2)
Δ (kg/ha/yr, kg/ha, kg/yr)
Δ (kg/ha/yr, kg/ha, kg/yr)
Δ (BC m2/yr)
Δ Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions* Δ (kg/ha/yr, kg/ha, kg/yr)
CSA indicators for evaluating practices
Corner-Dolloff, et al.
31. Δ Emissions intensity *
Mitigation
Δ On farm CO2-eq emissions
Δ (aggregated
sub-indicators)
Δ carbon dioxide equivalent emissions*
Δ nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions *
Δ methane (CH4) emissions*
Δ (kg/ha/yr, kg/ha, kg/yr)
Δ (kg/ha/yr, kg/ha, kg/yr)
Δ (kg/ha/yr, kg/ha, kg/yr)
Δ Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions* Δ (kg/ha/yr, kg/ha, kg/yr)
Δ gross avoided emissions
Δ (aggregated
sub-indicators)
Δ avoided CO2 equivalent emissions*
Δ avoided nitrous oxide emissions *
Δ avoided methane emissions*
Δ (kg/ha/yr, kg/ha, kg/yr)
Δ (kg/ha/yr, kg/ha, kg/yr)
Δ (kg/ha/yr, kg/ha, kg/yr)
Δ Avoided Carbon dioxide emissions* Δ (kg/ha/yr, kg/ha, kg/yr)
Δ net avoided emissions
Δ On farm stock CO2-eq
Δ (aggregated
sub-indicators)
Δ Soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks*
Δ Plant biomass (aboveground)*
Δ Plant biomass (belowground)*
Δ (g/kg, %, kg/ha)
Δ (kg/ha/yr, kg/ha)
Δ (kg/ha/yr, kg/ha)
Δ On farm sequestration CO2 Eq Δ On-farm CH4 uptake Δ (t/ha year)
Δ On farm stock CO2 Eq Δ total soil carbon (organic + inorganic) stocks Δ (t/ha year)
Δ Emissions (CO2 eq) per unit of output Δ (g CO2-eq /kg, g CO2eq/$)
Δ reduced fuel wood consumption* Δ avoided woody biomass consumption Δ (t/year; kg/ha/year)
* Indicator also currently being included in CSA Compendium;
** Indicators currently being included in CSA compendium, but different calculation being used
Corner-Dolloff, et al.
CSA indicators for evaluating practices
32. Δ Food access **
Δ Eco-efficiency *
Δ Gendered impacts *
Δ Resilience
Adaptation
Δ Ecosystem services *
Δ (kcal/person/yr)
Δ (aggregated sub-indicators)
Δ (aggregated sub-indicators)
Set of questions
Δ (aggregated sub-indicators)
Δ Labor by women **
Δ Adaptive capacity of women
Δ Income of women **
Δ (hr/ha/yr)
Qualitative (i.e. -10 to10)
Δ(net $/ha/yr)
Δ use of irrigation water *
Δ use of fertilizer**
Δ use of agrochemicals
Δ litre/kg product/year
Δ kg/kg product/year
Δ kg/kg of product/year
Δ use of non-renewable
energy **
%Δ output/input ratio
per kg product/year
Δ Biodiversity**
Δ Pest-pathogen **
Δ Groundwater availability
Δ Erosion *
Set of questions
%yiled lost -Control
Qualitative (i.e. -10 to 10)
Δ Soil quality **
Kg/ha/yr
* Indicator also currently being included in CSA Compendium;
** Indicators currently being included in CSA compendium, but different calculation being used
Δ % Soil Organic Carbon/year or Δ
% Soil Organic matter /year)
Corner-Dolloff, et al.
CSA indicators for evaluating practices
33. Tool Example:
5Q Approach
• Asking simple questions to get feedback often
• Linking feedback on project across users
• Utilize ICT to decrease costs and increase connections
CIAT developed
Bill and Melinda Gates funded
34. Engagement
Capacitydevelopment
CSA
Investment
Portfolios
Targeting & Prioritizing
Practices, Programs and Policies
Trade-offs & Value for Money
Vulnerability & Impacts + Readiness
Stocktaking
for CSA
Action
Situation Analysis
Risks and Enabling Conditions
Programing Design
Guidelines & Implementation
Taking CSA
to Scale
Knowledge into Action
Evidence Based Results Framework
Learning
from
Experience
Monitoring and Evaluation
Across Scales and Systems
CSA-Plan
36. Multiple Alliances working
from Global to Local
Global Alliance for CSA (GACSA)
Africa CSA Alliance (ACSAA)
• Knowledge
• Finance
• Enabling Conditions
West Africa CSA Alliance (WACSAA)
• Policy
• Investment Plans
NEPAD-iNGO Alliance for CSA in Africa • Implementation
37. Alliance for CSA in Africa
Empowering 6 million
smallholder farmers in
Sub-Saharan African by 2021
38. CSA-Plan Integration Across Scales in Africa
African Union – New Partnership for African Development
Regional Economic
Communities (RECs)
National Agricultural Investment Plans (NAIPs)
Other National Level Policies (NAPAs/NAPs/NAMAs, etc.)
AU-NEPAD
RECs
Countries
Farming Systems/
Value Chains
Program
Implementation
Programmatic Investments and Policies
Staple Crops, Cash Crops, Livestock/Dairy, etc.
CSA Adoption by farmers
Through development partner implementation
41. Next Steps
Strengthen CSA-Plan
• New models for evidence-based decision making
• Clear menu of options for users
• Including fast and cheaper analysis options
• Templates and tools for all steps
Build on partnerships
• Sub-national CSA Profiles to direct local funding
streams (Kenya – 15 County Profiles)
• COMESA – action across all countries on CSA
• NEPAD – provide technical support to actualize 25x25
Vision
Todd
Over the past year, ICRAF and CCAFS have tried to organize the available information on CSA by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.
They looked at approximately 65 field level practices and 35 indicators of performance.
A practice here is from the farmers perspective (something he or she would implement on their farm).
What that means is we are looking at 65 practices at the level of ‘leguminous intercropped agroforestry’ not aggregate practices like agroforestry itself. as leguminous intercropped will have a much different impact than border planting with timber species.
1. We searched Web of Science with general and discpline oriented keywords and returned 144,000 possible papers.
2. Abstracts and titles were then reviewed against inclusion criteria that included things such as taking place in a developing country, a baseline/control and improved practice and then we had 16,254 candidate papers. Papers were screened by person with at least an MS in a relevant field and some were in the middle of PHD
3. We then reviewed the full text of these papers to be sure they met the criteria and we believe there will be about 6100 papers (there are about 3000 papers left to screen that we are having trouble getting access to). We have extracted data from 1,200 of these papers so far and QA/QC only 150 of those. Extrapolations based on our current rate of data inclusion, we expect the final database to be approximately 120,000 disappoints.
There has been a clear increased in global momentum around CSA
I have highlighted a few initiatives on this slide, such as the
Global Alliance for CSA
The NEPAD CSA Vision aiming to have 25 million farming households achieving CSA by 2025
And there are a number of different alliance developing in Africa
GCF has also highlighted CSA as one of 5 priority investment areas.
This map shows where our team alone has worked on CSA initiatives the past 2 years
GACSA – 500 million farmers globally
NEPAD 25 x 25
W Africa – 19 countries
ACSAA – 6 million
GCF – CSA is one of the 5 priority investment areas – up to this point only about 5% of climate funding has gone towards agriculture
Cut logos
Could link the name of the alliance with regions they are working in
- Can highlight the reason we have separate branding is to get away from institutions and work to bring people together under a united framework
BRUCE
Key principle of the process is to make it stakeholder driven, and participatory
Equally, link to economic tools as the quantitative basis for prioritization (cost/benefit ratios)
-----
This tool also can
Use indicators to evaluate CSA practices
assess costs and benefits (beyond financial)
link with existing planning mechanisms
The tool will also take into account what is appropriate in different contexts1. The weighting of the pillars matches national priorities – for example, practices that are higher in adaptation than mitigation can be given more weight.
2. The indicators match changes that are desired – ensure with stakeholders that the indicators are appropriate, they can also be weighted based on stakeholder preference, and additional indicators can be included if of high priority to stakeholders.
BRUCE
Programming
Programing
CAITLIN
- Targets = number of farmers, impact aiming to achieve
CAITLIN
Targeting a practice to a specific place, what to do where
Our team applied a set of filters on CSA practices linearly to go from a long list of CSA practices to investment portfolios.
You can also do these steps by themselves or in other orders
We first assess the list of CSA practices that match with a given biophysical and socio-economic context
This leaves you with a long list of CSA practices that apply in an area or production system
We then used CSA indicators to evaluate the practices and through a stakeholder workshop identifies best-bet options
This short list of options was then evaluated using economic analyses to see costs and benefits
In the final stage phase we conducted an integrated analysis looking at the indicators assessments, economic analysis, and barriers and opportunities to establish CSA investment portfolios with user groups.
This is very much an action research methodology, intended to link with existing planning processes
And have been piloted in Colombia, Guatemala, Mali, and now in Vietnam
CAITLIN
May want to cut
Impossible to read the numbers – we need to identify what we want to highlight and probably circle that in read, or have the information appear one after another
Short list of practices for CBA
1. Agroforestry systems: Live barriers, 2. Water reservoirs complemented with irrigation (drip) 3.Integrated pests & diseases management: Tolerant variety of bean to Golden Mosaic Virus (ICTA Ligero) 4.Tolerant varieties to heat and water stress (ICTA B7) 5. Conservation agriculture: no-tillage. 6. Contour trenches 7. Crop rotation Maize-Beans 8. Stone bounds (contour curves)
BRUCE
BRUCE
BRUCE
BRUCE
Programming
Programing
EVAN
And approach not only to help Africa, but also the global alliance to achieve their goals to scaling out CSA
Alliance for CSA in Africa: Cross-sector partnerships for scaling CSA
EVAN
EVAN
TODD
But we can also look at trade-offs and synergies.
What we see when we look at adaptation and food security indicators (again effect sizes are agreggegated across indicators) is that
>60% show tradeoffs (blue boxes)
~30% show synergies
6% show negative effects