Upload
ccafs-cgiar-program-climate-change-agriculture-and-food-security
View
382
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation held by Sonja Vermeulen, CCAFS Head of Research, at the Governance & Institutions Across Scales in Climate Resilient Food Systems Brussels Workshop 9-11 Sept 2014.
Citation preview
What’s CCAFS?And why governance?
Global R4D partnership with focus in 5 regions
But 20 % work elsewhere or global to
deliver outcomes
Four “flagships” (themes) each with governance content
Flagship 4: Policies and institutions for climate-resilient food systems 1. Data, models and scenarios to understand impacts
of climate change2. Decision support tools for targeting policy
development and making investment choices 3. Analysis of strengths and weaknesses of current
and emerging policy4. Analysis and experimentation concerning novel
decision-making processes
Example 1. Nicaragua National Adaptation
StrategySTEP 1: CIAT: Impacts of climate change on coffee
STEP 2: Policy engagement processes
STEP 3: Nicaragua develops a national strategy using CIAT science
STEP 4: Nicaragua-IFAD develop $24 million investment plan in coffee and cocoa using CIAT science
Example 2. Seasonal weather forecasts in
Senegal
2 million farmers get forecasts15 community radio stations better food security outcomes
ICRAF & ILRI:• Improved feed• Science showing feed and
GHG connectionsHeifer International179,000 families$131 million in collective income
Example 3. East Africa Dairy Development Program
Heifer International adopts Climate Smart Ag as program objective
Why research on governance in a climate change, agriculture and food security
programme? Four reasons:The big picture Issues for CCAFSBeing “climate smart” is about behavioural change
CCAFS targets require behavioural change at scale
Technologies & policy formulation are not enough
CCAFS needs to question assumptions in our ToC
Power differences determine outcomes
Power dynamics in research on gender & social inequality, global & national policy
Challenges are multi-scale and multi-stakeholder
Strategic boundaries for CCAFS in research and partnerships
Vermeulen 2014 summary of IPCC 2014 (Porter et al)
Who should be most responsible for tackling climate change?33.5
31.8
28.8
4.11.8
Individuals Government Industry andcompanies
All of these Someone Else
Source: Stop Climate Chaos/nVisionBase: 4,800 Adults, UK, 2006 (excludes don’t knows)
1. Being “climate smart” is about behavioural change
Science on CSA informs 25 major development initiatives
& 15 incentive systems / business models
Equitable climate-smart food system policies by 15 subnational/national governments and 10
international bodies, informed by CCAFS science
30 million additional farmers, at least 12
million women, have climate-smart practices
2019 intermediate targets
Equitable institutional investments in climate
smart food systems increased by 50% in 20 national/ subnational
jurisdictions
Flagship 1: Climate-smart
agricultural practices
Flagship 3: Low-emissions
agricultural development
2025 targets
30 million farmers, at least 12 million women,
have higher adaptive capacity via advisories
and safety nets
15% reduction of GHG emission intensities
while enhancing food security in at least 8
countries
8 low emission development policies and 4 million hectares for low emissions agriculture,
informed by CCAFS science
15 major new climate-informed services + 15 million
dollars of new investment, with inputs from CCAFS
science
Flagship 2: Climate information services and climate-informed safety nets
Flagship 4: Policies and
institutions for climate-resilient food
systems
Regional impact pathways
CGIARoutcomes
1. CCAFS targets involve behavioural change at scale
Robins et al 2013
2. Technologies and policy formulation are not enough: big picture
Capacity Enhancement
Gender
Open Data
Early warning and response
integrated in national agencies
Mechanisms and incentives
established for low emissions
development
Improved policy framework for
managing food security;
prioritisation tools used
Enhanced local adaptation
planning processes
Policy & Institutional
Change
& Action
Learning
Research
Engagement/
Inve
stm
ent
How to target climate services,
insurance, safety nets
Feasibility of re
ducing emissions
Policy analysis; prioritisation
tools
Evidence of what works in CSA
Research Evidence
Climate services and insurance enable
and protect CSA uptake
National mitigation plans rolled out
Climate smart villages & broadscale
adoption
CSA Roll Out
IDO1: Enhanced food security
IDO2: Benefits to women and marginalised groups
IDO3: Enhanced adaptive capacity to climate risks
IDO5: Reduced GHGs and forest conversion
1. CSA Alliance, World Bank, IFAD, Climate Finance Orgs, Ministries, CORAF, ASARECA…….
2. World Vision, National Meteorological Agencies, Disaster Risk Agencies, Insurance Agencies…….
3. IIASA, FAO, Global Research Alliance for Agricultural GHGs……..
4. Food security and climate adaptation agencies, GFAR, CFS……..
Multiple local partners (e.g. CARE, Vi Mediae, PROLINNOVA, National Insurance Company of India, NARES……)
Flagship 2: Climate –information services and
climate-informed safety nets
Flagship 3: Low emissions development
Flagship 4: Policies and institutions for climate resilient food systems
Flagship 1: Climate –smart agricultural practices
Key
IDO4: Policies supporting climate-resilient agriculture
Regional Strategies
Working with partners to collect the evidence and to change opinions and worldviews
Working with partners to
understand what works 1&3: CSA Alliance, World Bank, IFAD, Green Climate
Fund, PROLINNOVA, climate finance orgs, ministries2: World Vision, National Meteorological Agencies, Disaster Risk Agencies, Insurance Agencies, ………
Working with partners to make it happen
Regional Strategies
M&E
communication
2. CCAFS needs to question assumptions in our ToC
“Flagship 4 – focus of which appears to have shifted substantially since the inception proposal – could better explain its research hypotheses on policy and institutional change, particularly mechanisms in varying contexts”
Comments on CCAFS Phase 2 Proposal
“The theories of change fail to document evidence in support of the change mechanisms and crucially, ignore the formulation of testable hypotheses regarding those mechanisms”
2. CCAFS needs to question assumptions in our ToC
Competition
Authority
Cooperation
3. Power differences determine outcomes: the big picture
Roberts 2000. Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution
3. Power dynamics in gender & social inequality, global & national policy
Hertel et al 2010
Climate change leads to adjustments in relative trade advantages among countries and among social groups within countries
4. Challenges are multi-scale and multi-sector: big picture
4. Drawing the most strategic boundaries for research and partnerships
West et al 2014
In conclusion, we need:hypothesis-based research on governance in CCAFS
The big picture Issues for CCAFSBeing “climate smart” is about behavioral change
CCAFS targets require behavioral change at scale
Technologies & policy formulation are not enough
CCAFS needs to question assumptions in our ToC
Power differences determine outcomes
Power dynamics in research on gender & social inequality, global & national policy
Challenges are multi-scale and multi-stakeholder
Strategic boundaries for CCAFS in research and partnerships
which is strategic and of high quality