What’s CCAFS? And why governance?
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•949 views
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.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie What’s CCAFS? And why governance?
Ähnlich wie What’s CCAFS? And why governance? (20)
Mehr von CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
Mehr von CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
What’s CCAFS? And why governance?
- 1. What’s CCAFS? And why governance?
- 2. Global R4D partnership with focus in 5 regions But 20 % work elsewhere or global to deliver outcomes
- 3. Four “flagships” (themes) each with governance content
- 4. Flagship 4: Policies and institutions for climate-resilient food systems 1. Data, models and scenarios to understand impacts of climate change 2. Decision support tools for targeting policy development and making investment choices 3. Analysis of strengths and weaknesses of current and emerging policy 4. Analysis and experimentation concerning novel decision-making processes
- 5. Example 1. Nicaragua National Adaptation Strategy STEP 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
- 6. Example 2. Seasonal weather forecasts in Senegal 2 million farmers get forecasts 15 community radio stations better food security outcomes
- 7. Example 3. East Africa Dairy Development Program ICRAF & ILRI: • Improved feed • Science showing feed and Heifer International 179,000 families $131 million in collective income GHG connections Heifer International adopts Climate Smart Ag as program objective
- 8. Why research on governance in a climate change, agriculture and food security programme? Four reasons: The big picture Issues for CCAFS Being “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
- 9. 1. Being “climate smart” is about behavioural change Vermeulen 2014 summary of IPCC 2014 (Porter et al) Who should be most responsible for tackling climate change? 33.5 31.8 28.8 4.1 Source: Stop Climate Chaos/nVision Base: 4,800 Adults, UK, 2006 (excludes don’t knows) 1.8 Individuals Government Industry and companies All of these Someone Else
- 10. 1. CCAFS targets involve behavioural change at scale Science on CSA informs 25 major development initiatives & 15 incentive systems / business models 15 major new climate-informed services + 15 million dollars of new investment, with inputs from CCAFS science 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 Flagship 2: Climate information services and climate-informed safety nets Flagship 4: Policies and institutions for climate-resilient food systems Regional impact pathways CGIAR outcomes
- 11. 2. Technologies and policy formulation Robins et al 2013 are not enough: big picture
- 12. Working with partners to collect the evidence and to change opinions and worldviews Capacity Enhancement Gender 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……) IDO4: Policies supporting climate-resilient agriculture Working with partners to make it happen Flagship 1: Climate –smart agricultural practices 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 Key Regional Strategies Working with partners to understand what works 1&3: CSA Alliance, World Bank, IFAD, Green Climate Fund, PROLINNOVA, climate finance orgs, ministries 2: World Vision, National Meteorological Agencies, Disaster Risk Agencies, Insurance Agencies, ……… 2. CCAFS needs to question assumptions in our ToC
- 13. Comments on CCAFS Phase 2 Proposal “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” “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
- 14. Competition Authority Cooperation 3. Power differences determine outcomes: the big picture Roberts 2000. Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution
- 15. 3. Power dynamics in gender & social inequality, global & national policy
- 16. 4. Challenges are multi-scale and multi-sector: big picture Climate change leads to adjustments in relative trade advantages among countries and Hertel et al 2010 among social groups within countries
- 17. 4. Drawing the most strategic boundaries for research and partnerships West et al 2014
- 18. In conclusion, we need: hypothesis-based research on governance in CCAFS The big picture Issues for CCAFS Being “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
Hinweis der Redaktion
- These are all the regions of the world where we work. And in each region we have sites where we do the detailed work – shown by the green dots (we still have to select sites in LAM and SEA) Although all the regional program leaders work for different centres, we do not have to follow the mandate of our centres – we must support work for crops, livestock, fish, policies, water, forests – whichever makes sense for climate change adaptation and mitigation. This shows the new way of working in the CGIAR – as you probably know the CGIAR has undergone a radical reform in the past few years. (At least for some elements of the CGIAR the reform is radical)
- 1. Delivering climate forecasts to smallholder farmers in 7 African countries. When CCAFS was initiated, research on climate information services became a new area of research for the CGIAR. As a result of research and capacity investments by CCAFS and partners, especially the International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI), University of Reading, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), USAID, national meteorological services (NMS) and the regional service AGRHYMET, significant progress has been made. (a) The NMS in three countries and AGRHYMET now produce and disseminate historic and monitored climate information at a scale that is relevant to rural communities, with complete spatial coverage, by blending satellite and station data, using methods, tools and results from CCAFS. (b) There have been changes in the policies and activities of at least four NMS, as a result of improved understanding of farmers’ perceptions and information needs together with the design and implementation of methods for providing climate information services that better reflect smallholders’ requirements. WMO has endorsed the approach and is involved in further scaling up initiatives, while the major NGOs Oxfam, Farm Africa, Practical Action and World Vision have incorporated the approach into training materials and activities. (c) In Senegal, as an example, CCAFS has been working with the Senegal Meteorological Agency (ANACIM), Senegal NARES (ISRA), Department of Agriculture, local farmer associations and NGOs (World Vision, Red Cross), and rural radio networks. The detailed work, with attention to gender inequities, has been conducted in Kaffrine District where climate-informed advisories now reach 2000 farmers. CCAFS has stimulated the agricultural agencies and NMS to integrate activities for the benefit of farmers. Fifteen community-based radio stations in 4 administrative regions of Senegal now deliver seasonal forecasts to an estimated 3 million farmers, using CCAFS and ANACIM forecast and communication approaches
- Increasing incomes and reducing GHG emissions in the dairy sector. CCAFS has played a role in putting CSA on the global agenda, together with key partners, e.g. World Bank, FAO. This work is complemented by national policy engagement and action research on CSA technologies in about 20 countries. One example of action research is the contribution by CCAFS to the East African Dairy Development (EADD) program of Heifer International. ICRAF and ILRI are partners in this program, supporting EADD in the animal fodder, husbandry and extension components, and thus helping Heifer reach 179,000 families and increasing their earnings by a collective $131 million. Heifer focused on improving milk production and quality, and access to markets through the formation of Dairy Farmer Business Associations. The science underpinning the use of improved feed to reduce GHG emissions has been documented by ILRI, while ICRAF have worked at one of the EADD sites in Kenya, together with FAO, estimating GHG emissions and productivity. For CGIAR, this is part of a cross-Center effort – “Standard Assessment of Mitigation Potential and Livelihoods in Smallholder Systems (SAMPLES)” – to develop methods for GHG accounting in smallholder systems. EADD has now adopted CSA as a program objective, partly based on engagement with CCAFS, and the mounting evidence that better feeding/manure management can contribute to GHG reduction and improved income for farmers. http://www.heifer.org/join-the-conversation/blog/2014/January/heifer-launches-eadd-ii.html Thornton PK, Herrero M. 2010. Potential for reduced methane and carbon dioxide emissions from livestock and pasture management in the tropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(46):19667-19672. See Theme 3 2013 Technical Report: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/item/36322/T3_2013_technical_report.pdf?sequence=19
- Proliferation of policy but little impact on emissions
- Work of Prof Nancy Roberts – works in conflict countries, leading academic Key consideration is how power is dispersed among the stakeholders. Three possible strategies – all have pros and cons and all are used in the climate change arena. Authoritative strategies. These give the problem to some group (or an individual), who take on the problem-solving process while others agree to abide by its decisions. E.g. Here is President Arroyo signing the Philippines Climate Change Act in 2009. – Key advantages include efficiency and timeliness. – Key disadvantages are one-dimensional, inflexible response; lack of buy-in and broad behaviour change 2. Competitive strategies. Central to the pursuit of such strategies is the search for power, influence and market share—stakeholders following this strategy generally assume a win-lose outcome. E.g. Carbon market – Key advantages include the creation of new ideas and innovation and the provision of choice Key disadvantages are that participants use more resources on competing than on problem-solving 3. Collaborative strategies. These are supported by the bulk of the literature (including by Professor Roberts) as being the most effective in dealing with wicked problems that have many stakeholders amongst whom power is dispersed. It is particularly relevant where part of the solution to the problem involves sustained behavioural change by many stakeholders and/or citizens. At the core of collaboration is enough commonality to agree to act – not necessarily complete eye-to-eye view. E.g. Grassroots organisations such as 350.org – Key advantages include higher stakeholder commitment, more comprehensive and effective solutions, and fewer resources having to be used by any one stakeholder. – Key disadvantages include increased transaction costs (these costs can be significant – have you seen the UNFCCC recently!) and unequal outcomes for those around the table, depending on their bargaining power. In worst cases collaboration can end poorly—dialogue can turn into conflict, hardened positions and stalemate.
- CCAFS committed to spending 15% of budget addressing social inequalities particularly around gender Some work that considers power at international level e.g. forthcoming white paper on agriculture in the negotiations Pre-existing relationships with national government can limit scope of work on governance at national level; regarded as threatening
- For example, where to focus work on low emissions development
- (1) climate-based methods and tools for seasonal agricultural prediction and early warning; (2) knowledge and methods for designing and implementing equitable climate information and advisory services for smallholder communities; (3) food security safety nets and policy interventions for dealing with impacts of climate-related shocks; (4) knowledge and methods to design and target equitable weather-related insurance programs that benefit smallholder communities (in collaboration with PIM).