Leslie Lipper, Aslihan Arslan, Misael Kokwe, Andrea Cattaneo, Romina Cavatassi, Wendy Mann, Alessandro Spairani, Giacomo Branca, Solomon Asfaw, Nancy McCarthy

Scenario Building Workshop

Protea Safari Lodge Lusaka, Zambia

October 14-16, 2013

Climate-Smart Agriculture Project:

Overview and updates

Why Do We Need a CSA project?

• Improving agriculture: key solution to food insecurity and climate change problems

• Ag growth is most effective means of poverty reduction

• Projected CC impacts require adaptation measures in agriculture

• Often mitigation co-benefits are generated through measures to increase food security and adaptation and these can bring an additional source of finance

• CSA is building agricultural development policies, strategies and investments to increase food security with needed adaptation, capturing financial benefits from potential mitigation co-benefits

3

FAO-ESA, Keynote Address, 117th EAAE Seminar, Universität Hohenheim, Germany, 25 - 27 November 2010

Food Security Situation in 2010: 925 million hungry

Developed 19m

LAC 53m

SSA 239m

Asia & Pac 578m

NENA 37m

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

• 2010 FAO Development of CSA background paper for Hague

• Highlighting importance of resilience and institutional framework

• 2010 Initiation of discussion between EC, FAO & potential natl. partners on CSA project

• Driven by need for action at country level

• 2011 Project development; background technical studies

• Total budget: 5.3 mil. EUR (3 years; 3 countries) EC funding: 3.3 mil. EUR

• 2012 Project initiated with 3 partner countries: Zambia, Malawi and Vietnam

Background on the project

Develop a policy environment & and agricultural investments to improve food security and provide resilience under climate uncertainty

OUTPUTS RESEARCH COMPONENT NEEDS

What are the barriers to adoption of CSA practices?

Legal & Institutional Appraisal: mapping institutional relationships and identifying constraints

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 & Policy Advice

Investment proposals

Capacity Building

6

What are the policy levers to facilitate adoption and what will they cost?

• Consultation with partners to identify priority areas

• Building datasets to support analysis of CSA options

• Analysis of impact of CC variables on agricultural technology adoption & yields

• Analysis of mitigation values from agriculture technology adoption

• Risk modeling and cost benefit analysis

• Policy harmonization workshop

• Support to MAL participants for UNFCCC participation

• Consultation on CSA investment potential

• Institutional mapping and analysis

Activities in Zambia

1. Sustainable land management (SLM)

2. Diversification of production (dairy, legumes)

3. Agriculture as a driver of deforestation

CSA Priority Areas for Zambia based on initial stakeholder conversations

Building the evidence base: RILS Communities & AEZs

Evidence base using (RILS 2004&08): SLM

11

• Planting basins/zero tillage: 5% of farmers on average

(around 90% disadoption rate)

• Crop rotation: 60% of farmers (more stable)

Differences by Land Size

• Basins & zero tillage: more or less equally adopted

by large & smallholders

•Inorganic fert: 67% (large) vs. 23% (small)

• Timely fertilizer: 51% (large) vs. 20% (small)

Productivity Impacts of SLM

12

• MSD and CR – productivity impacts only in areas

with high rainfall variability

• MSD decreases disastrously low yield probability in

high rainfall variability areas

• Timely access to fertilizer:

• Strongest determinant of yield

• Decreases low yield probability significantly

Mitigation analysis

13

Zambia

Description from FAO shortlist

Control (existing practice)

[change from]

assumptions for modelling

[change to]

emission in kg

CO2eq/ha

Emissions per unit

production

Emission change per

ha (-ve values means

improvement under

improved practice)

Emissions reduction

per tonne

0 Control 407.35 157.46

1 No tillage full till no-till (IPCC) -193.70 -74.88 -601.05 -232.33

2 Planting basins/Magoye ripper full till Reduced till (IPCC) 89.14 34.46 -318.20 -123.00

3 Intercropping OR residue incorporation burning for land clearing Medium soil inputs (IPCC) 230.57 89.13 -176.78 -68.33

4 Intercropping AND residue incorporation burning for land clearing High soil inputs (IPCC) 89.14 34.46 -318.20 -123.00

5 use of legumes in rotation (more N) no legumes increased production 924.15 257.64 516.80 100.18

6

use of legumes in rotation (reduce

synthetic N) no legumes reduced fertiliser use 587.34 202.93 179.99 45.47

Risk modeling & CBA

14

RM: Construction of policy simulation model to

analyze impacts of different options on farmers’

willingness to adopt new technologies • Crop subsidies

• Input subsidies

• Subsidized credit

• Extension service

CBA: Surveys to develop detailed cost estimates

at farm & institutional level to adopt CSA practices

Policy harmonization: Draft NAP & NCP

15

The dialogue:

1. compared and discussed the two draft policies, specifically their (i) framing elements

(structure,, vision, and objectives); (ii) sectoral measures advocated in both policies relating

to agriculture and (iii) measures enabling implementation of the two policies;

2. identified and analysed synergies and trade-offs, consistencies and inconsistencies, overlaps

and gaps, as well as the division of measures across the two draft policies; and

3. recommended, based on discussions and analysis of the above, options for refinement of

measures in the NAP and NPCC.

Consultation on CSA finance

16

• Meeting with GCF, GEF re prospective CSA

financing access/modalities

• Consultation with Zambia stakeholders

• Consultation with donors

Draft outline of investment proposal format

(October 2013)

Where is it all going?

17

Developing shared understanding and capacity to improve

Zambian agriculture for food security under CC

• Convergence– identifying key CSA investments for Zambia

• Understanding of barriers to adoption and possible institutional

solutions

• Building necessary policy and financing capacity to implement

• Better linking of research/models to questions important to

policy makers

And the participatory scenarios help us on all these

Thank you!