Large-scale investment is needed to create climate-smart agriculture (CSA) systems. While many government and development agencies are integrating CSA into their policies, programmes, plans and projects, there is little guidance for operational planning and implementation on ways to be climate-smart. Here we present 'CSA-Plan'. CSA-Plan frames actions needed to design and execute CSA programmes into four components – (i) situation analysis, (ii) targeting and prioritising, (iii) programme design, and (iv) monitoring and evaluation. Each component yields concrete information to operationalise CSA development, separating it from traditional agriculture development. Already, CSA-Plan has shown the capacity to change the discussion around CSA implementation. With iterative co-development, the approaches will become ever more useful, relevant and legitimate to governments, civil society and the private sector alike.
Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) makes financial sense for businesses. Governments are increasingly holding the private sector responsible for their role in climate change impacts. Extreme weather events are incredibly costly for businesses. This is particularly true in agriculture, which relies heavily on favorable weather conditions. CSA practices and technologies are central to the transformative changes necessary to maintain the stability—and profitability—of the food system in the face of climate change. Where robust information on the benefits, costs, and risks of interventions is missing or incomplete, would-be investors, including donors, governments, businesses, and farmers, remain uninformed of the potentially massive dividends climate-smart investments could offer. This dearth of viable business models ultimately hinders the mainstreaming of productive, climate-resilient, low-emissions agriculture. Robust business-case analyses of CSA could accelerate the scaling of promising, profitable technologies by transparently and rigorously laying out the monetary and nonmonetary values of performance. We use existing data from Evidence for Resilient Agriculture (ERA, previously known as The Compendium) to develop a general framework for establishing the business case for specific farm-level agricultural technologies. The framework focuses on the costs, benefits, and risks of adoption of CSA by smallholder farmers. We illustrate the application of the framework with two case studies in Kenya and Malawi to highlight opportunities, challenges, and lessons learned from building business cases for CSA. These give potential investors the tools to screen and select appropriate technologies and help de-risk investments where data are few and far between.
Climate variability is a major source of risk to smallholder farmers and pastoralists, particularly in dryland regions. A growing body of evidence links climate-related risk to the extent and the persistence of rural poverty in these environments. Stochastic shocks erode smallholder farmers' long-term livelihood potential through loss of productive assets. The resulting uncertainty impedes progress out of poverty by acting as a disincentive to investment in agriculture – by farmers, rural financial services, value chain institutions and governments. We assess evidence published in the last ten years that a set of production technologies and institutional options for managing risk can stabilize production and incomes, protect assets in the face of shocks, enhance uptake of improved technologies and practices, improve farmer welfare, and contribute to poverty reduction in risk-prone smallholder agricultural systems. Production technologies and practices such as stress-adapted crop germplasm, conservation agriculture, and diversified production systems stabilize agricultural production and incomes and, hence, reduce the adverse impacts of climate-related risk under some circumstances. Institutional interventions such as index-based insurance, adaptive safety nets and climate services play a complementary role in enabling farmers to manage risk, overcome risk-related barriers to adoption of improved technologies and practices, and protect their assets against the impacts of extreme climatic events. While some research documents improvements in household welfare indicators, there is limited evidence that the risk-reduction benefits of the interventions reviewed have benefited significant numbers of chronically poor farmers. We discuss the roles that climate-risk management interventions can play in efforts to reduce rural poverty, and the need for further research on identifying and targeting environments and farming populations where improved climate risk management could accelerate efforts to reduce rural poverty.
This paper offers an overview of how climate change is already affecting farmers across eastern and southern Africa, and how it will continue to affect them in the future. The rising temperatures and increased rainfall variability associated with climate change are undermining the livelihoods and food security of Africa's farmers, most of whom work at a subsistence level and also face problems of poverty, inadequate infrastructure and poor governance. To address these problems, governments and development organizations have promoted climate-smart agriculture (CSA). These projects, however, have been constrained by inadequate data and predictions regarding future climate change. In particular, farmers in Africa need better projections of the climate hazards for specific regions. Historical weather data at the local level contains many gaps, and the continuing collection of such data could be much improved. Strengthening the database of observed weather is critical to understanding the changes that have occurred already, to project future changes, and to plan appropriately to address them. Once collected and analyzed, climate data must be communicated in ways that help decision-makers understand climate impacts. Good tools are available—such as ClimateWizard.org and Servir ClimateServ—but practitioners at the local level must have the access and training to use them. Even in places where projections are uncertain, steps can be taken now to implement CSA practices and make farmers more resilient in the face of climate change.
Climate variability is a major source of risk to smallholder farmers and pastoralists, particularly in dryland regions. A growing body of evidence links climate-related risk to the extent and the persistence of rural poverty in these environments. Stochastic shocks erode smallholder farmers' long-term livelihood potential through loss of productive assets. The resulting uncertainty impedes progress out of poverty by acting as a disincentive to investment in agriculture – by farmers, rural financial services, value chain institutions and governments. We assess evidence published in the last ten years that a set of production technologies and institutional options for managing risk can stabilize production and incomes, protect assets in the face of shocks, enhance uptake of improved technologies and practices, improve farmer welfare, and contribute to poverty reduction in risk-prone smallholder agricultural systems. Production technologies and practices such as stress-adapted crop germplasm, conservation agriculture, and diversified production systems stabilize agricultural production and incomes and, hence, reduce the adverse impacts of climate-related risk under some circumstances. Institutional interventions such as index-based insurance and social protection through adaptive safety nets play a complementary role in enabling farmers to manage risk, overcome risk-related barriers to adoption of improved technologies and practices, and protect their assets against the impacts of extreme climatic events. While some research documents improvements in household welfare indicators, there is limited evidence that the risk-reduction benefits of the interventions reviewed have enabled significant numbers of very poor farmers to escape poverty. We discuss the roles that climate-risk management interventions can play in efforts to reduce rural poverty, and the need for further research on identifying and targeting environments and farming populations where improved climate risk management could accelerate efforts to reduce rural poverty.
Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is being widely promoted as a solution for food insecurity and climate change adaptation in food systems of sub-Saharan Africa, while simultaneously reducing the rate of greenhouse gas emissions. Governments throughout Africa are writing policies and programs to promote CSA practices despite uncertainty about the ability for practices to meet the triple CSA objectives of CSA. We conducted a systematic review of 175 peer-reviewed and grey literature studies, to gauge the impact of over seventy potential CSA practices on CSA outcomes in Tanzania and Uganda. Using a total of 6,342 observations, we found that practice impacts were highly context (i.e. farming system and location) specific. Nevertheless, practice effect across CSA outcomes generally agreed in direction. While our results suggest that CSA is indeed possible, lack of mitigation data precludes a more conclusive statement. Furthermore, the inclusion of potential adoption rates changes the potential of CSA practices to achieve benefits at scale. Given the uncertainty and variable impacts of practices across regions and outcomes, it is critical for decision makers to prioritize practices based on their desired outcomes and local context.
Open Access Journal; Published online: 19 Nov 2019 ; Our understanding of food security in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has been hampered by limitations in the temporal and spatial representativeness of data. Food balance sheets provide scalable estimates of per capita food availability, but fail to represent food access, stability and their causal linkages. In contrast, rural household surveys represent detailed conditions for one or multiple points in time, but are influenced by survey timing and are often limited in geographical coverage. This study draws on a large sample of rural land-holding households in SSA (n = 6,353) to identify household level food access deficiencies and to understand the associations with rural livelihoods and food sourcing behavior throughout the year. Food access deficiencies were identified using food security of access and diet diversity indicators. Dietary diversity and channel of access (farm or purchased) were enumerated for the "flush" and "lean" periods and food security of access was enumerated for the lean period only - making the results of this study independent of survey timing. As many as 39% of households were classified as severely food insecure (in terms of food access) and as many as 49% of households were likely to be deficient in micronutrients in the lean period. Vulnerability to food insecurity and micronutrient deficiencies differed by household composition, agricultural livelihood characteristics and agro-ecological zone. Dairy, fruit and vitamin A-rich produce were predominantly accessed through the farm channel. Households with a livestock component to their farm had a lower prevalence of severe food insecurity and higher diet diversity scores. These findings have implications for the development of nutrition-sensitive and nutrition-specific interventions. Interventions need to be tailored to agro-ecological zone, household composition, scale of operation and production mix. Increasing income will not necessarily result in improved diet diversity or healthy dietary choices. Interventions focused on income generation should monitor and promote crop and livestock production diversity and provide nutrition education. ; United States Agency for International Development ; Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency ; European Union ; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ; International Fund for Agricultural Development ; Department for International Development, United Kingdom ; Peer Review
