report! rural!development!and!adaptationto! · pdf...

Report

Rural development and adaptation to climate change: What do we know?

Freiburg, March 2013

Rural development and adaptation to climate change: What do we know?

Study commissioned by the sector programs Sustainable Resource Use in Agriculture (PN 9.2280.7) and Development of Rural Areas (PN 11.2222.6)

On behalf of GIZ

The opinions expressed in this document represent the views of the authors, which are not neces-‐sarily shared by GIZ.

Content Acronyms and abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. 4

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 3

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 6

Part I: Climate change and rural development ....................................................................................................... 9

2 The knowledge base ....................................................................................................................................... 9

3 Institutions for climate-‐resilient rural development .................................................................................... 17

3.1 The importance of institutions in facilitating climate change adaptation ........................................... 17

3.2 Institutional issues in project preparation and implementation ......................................................... 20

3.2.1 Strategy .......................................................................................................................................... 20

3.2.2 Partners and steering structures .................................................................................................... 25

3.2.3 Processes and learning ................................................................................................................... 27

3.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 29

4 Resilient markets .......................................................................................................................................... 30

4.1 Problem diagnosis ............................................................................................................................... 31

4.2 Implementation ................................................................................................................................... 33

4.3 Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 38

4.4 Financing mechanisms ........................................................................................................................ 39

4.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 40

5 Resilient production ..................................................................................................................................... 41

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 41

5.2 Problem diagnosis and planning ......................................................................................................... 42

5.3 Implementation and risk management ............................................................................................... 44


5.4.1 Costs and benefits of adaptation measures ................................................................................... 50

5.4.2 Financing options for climate-‐smart agricultural production ......................................................... 53

5.5 M&E of adaptation benefits in agricultural production ...................................................................... 55

5.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 58

6 Resilient people ............................................................................................................................................ 59

6.1 Problem Diagnosis ............................................................................................................................... 59

6.2 Implementation ................................................................................................................................... 60

6.3 M&E ..................................................................................................................................................... 64


6.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 67

Part III: Summary and discussion .......................................................................................................................... 68

7 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 68

8 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 70

9 References .................................................................................................................................................... 72

Acronyms and abbreviations

ACCI Adaptation to Climate Change and Insurance

AdapCC Adaptation for Smallholders to Climate Change

ADB Asian Development Bank

AFB Adaptation Fund Board

ALP Adaptation Learning Programme

AMIS Agricultural Market Information System

BMZ Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

CAADP Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme

CBA Civil Society Organizations CC Climate Change

CCA-‐RAI Climate Change Adaptation in Rural Areas of India

CCU Climate Change Unit

CFS Climate Field Schools

CSA Climate-‐smart Agriculture

DfID Department for International Development UK

DRM Disaster Risk Management

EC SCAR European Commission – Standing Committee on Agricultural Research

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FAOSTAT FAO statistics

FEWSNET Famine Early Warning System

FFS Farmers Field Schools

GAAP Gender and Assets

GDP Gross Domestic Production

GEF Global Environmental Fund

GIEWS Global Information and Early Warning System

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

GRCs Gestão de Risco de Calamidades

GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit

HCD Human Capacity Development

HQ Headquarters

IAD Institutional Analysis and Development

IEG Independent Evaluation Group

IEG Independent Evaluation Group

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

Report Rural development and adaptation to climate change: What do we know? UNIQUE 2

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change

KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau

LDCs Least Developed Countries

LSMS-‐ISA Living Standards Measurement Study-‐Integrated Surveys on Agriculture

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MEASURE DHS Monitoring and Evaluation to Assess and Use Results Demographic and Health

MoA Ministry of Agriculture

MOAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forests

M-‐PESA Mobile Phone Based Money Transfer Service Kenya

MRV Measuring, Reporting and Verification System

NAMAs Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions

NAPAs National Adaptation Plans of Action

NAPs National Adaptation Plans

NEWS Nature Environment & Wildlife society

NGOs Non-‐environmental Organizations

NPV net present value

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-‐operation and Development

PFA Priority Framework for Action

PPPs Public-‐private Partnerships

PRSPs Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

PSNP Productive Safety Nets Programme

R&D Research and Development

ROA Risk and Opportunity Analysis

SAPCC State Action Plans for Climate Change

SIDPABB Sistema Interdistrial de Aviso Prévio Pela Bacia Do Rio Búsi, Mocambique

SL Sustainable Livelihoods

SRI Stockholm Resilience Institute

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UTs Union Territories

VA Vulnerability assessment

WOCAT World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies

WRI World Resources Institute


Executive Summary

The increasing knowledge base on adaptation to climate change is often published in research papers that are not available to or do not address the needs of rural development practitioners. Resources for adaptation are increasing, and their use should be informed by the best available knowledge. This review highlights key lessons from research and practice regarding development cooperation for adaptation to climate change in the rural development sector. It clarifies the relationship between adaptation and development interventions, and highlights how development interventions can con-‐tribute to resilience to climate change through (i) institutions, (ii) markets, (iii) agricultural production and in (iv) social safety nets.

Adaptation and rural development: Climate change can be integrated in rural development projects, through (i) climate-‐proofing of development projects, (ii) development projects with adaptation components and (iii) development projects with an explicit adaptation objective. Adaptation actions are needed to address the risks posed by climate variability as well as the effects of longer-‐term cli-‐mate change, from community through to national levels. The national level is a key focus for devel-‐opment cooperation because decisions at this level influence the options available at lower levels. Successful adaptation requires actions by national level government agencies, coordination between agencies at different levels, and collaboration with stakeholders outside government. The lessons and tools of development cooperation therefore remain relevant to developing best practices in ad-‐aptation to climate change.

Institutions for resilient rural development: Institutions are a core determinant of the capacity of households, communities and societies to adapt. Most countries are still in the early stages of inte-‐grating climate change into development policies and programs. The national level sets the frame-‐work for adaptation at lower levels, and is where inter-‐agency coordination occurs. To promote mainstreaming of adaptation in rural development, development cooperation should strengthen capacities of existing institutions, and support coordination within government, civil society and pri-‐vate sector stakeholders in the two sector “blocks” adaptation to climate change in rural develop-‐ment is usually set in: the environmental/climate change “block” and the agriculture/rural develop-‐ment “block”.

Given the inherent uncertainties regarding climate change and climate science, institutions that sup-‐port multi-‐stakeholder deliberation are needed at several levels. Successful adaptation over time requires a process of learning between stakeholders and among the staff of development partner agencies. Actively promoting reflection and sharing of lessons among development partners and stakeholders on the effectiveness of adaptation interventions is one of the major contributions that development cooperation can make to supporting adaptation in partner countries.

Resilient markets are important to reduce price and production risks due to climate change. It is known that market infrastructure and market reforms that support domestic trade can promote resilience, and that smallholders require better access to finance and insurance to cope with climate risks. But so far there is no common understanding of how exactly markets can support rural house-‐hold resilience. Methods for value chain analysis in the context of climate change have begun to be developed, but there is little experience on which forms of intervention are most effective in this context. Innovative information technology and public-‐private partnerships have started to address these needs, but most systems are still in the proof of concept stage or require up-‐scaling.


Resilient production: Climate change will have an adverse effect on agricultural productivity if no countermeasures are taken. Given uncertainties in climate change projections, conventional focus on “best” or “optimal” practices should be replaced by “robust”1 approaches that promote practices that will perform well under a range of possible scenarios. Management options that deliver multiple economic and environmental benefits (such as soil and water conservation or biodiversity for exam-‐ple) are increasingly relevant. Development cooperation has a role to play in defining locally specific solutions and minimizing trade-‐offs between adaptation efforts and sustainable economic develop-‐ment. Farmers frequently undertake autonomous adaptations at low cost, but many of the more effective adaptation interventions are costly. Financial instruments to promote adoption of adapta-‐tion measures need to address this challenge.

Resilient people: Key categories of intervention that reduce vulnerability include livelihood diversifi-‐cation, risk pooling, productive investments, increased mobility and institution building. Given barri-‐ers to adoption for many adaptation practices, and also limits to their effectiveness, public sector programs, such as nutrition and health interventions, as well as social safety nets and other security systems – both preventive (e.g. insurance schemes) and protective (e.g. disaster relief) schemes – are important complements to adaptation-‐specific interventions. Social safety net programs can not only help households cope with adverse climate shocks, but also support adaptation through asset accu-‐mulation and development.

Recommendations

Given the state of the art of knowledge and practice, addressing the following knowledge gaps would make particular contributions to promoting adaptation in rural development.

1) Build local capacity on climate science and the full range of local-‐ and government-‐driven adap-‐tation options: Despite the growing, global knowledge base on climate change and its impacts, much remains to be understood about the specific linkages between climate change, other drivers or change and rural development and about locale-‐specific impacts. Of equal importance, much of the existing knowledge needs to be transferred to agricultural and related departments at the national and sub-‐national levels and to local communities. Rural development projects have a specific role in this knowledge transfer, they can identify knowledge gaps and link partners and institutions to re-‐duce these gaps.

2) Improve understanding and practical tools for robust decision-‐making: A consensus is emerg-‐ing that given the uncertainties about future climate change and its impacts, robust (‘no-‐regrets’) decision-‐making should often be the most appropriate way to identify adaptation options that bring net benefits under alternative future scenarios. Various approaches to making ‘robust’ or ‘no-‐regret’ decisions have been suggested, but to date there is little documentation of specific approaches used, and it is not clear under which conditions such approaches are more appropriate. Development of decision-‐making tools suited to different project types (e.g. large-‐ and small-‐scale irrigation, land use planning, agricultural extension) and systematic assessment of the application of these approaches in a range of contexts would inform future guidelines for climate-‐sensitive project preparation.

3) Improve knowledge and guidance on how interventions targeting market actors can support rural household resilience: Markets can play important roles in stabilizing, diversifying and increasing rural incomes. Public support to value chain and market actors has become a central feature of many rural development interventions, and initiatives with specific consideration of climate change have

1 A robust option performs ok under all possible scenarios, whereas an optimal option performs best under just the most probable scenario.


begun more recently. There is, however, little evidence regarding the effect of different forms of intervention on rural households’ resilience. Guidance on the basis of practical experience and evi-‐dence-‐based analysis would support identification of effective interventions to promote resilience through improved markets.

4) Increase the knowledge base on monitoring and evaluation of adaptation interventions: Moni-‐toring and evaluation has a number of functions in rural development projects and pro-‐grammes, including tracking the progress of interventions and the status of vulnerability or other indicators, and ensuring accountability. Monitoring and evaluation can also support learning among stakehold-‐ers by generating and sharing knowledge on effective approaches to adaptation. There is a continued need to share experience and lessons on effective approaches to monitoring and evaluating adapta-‐tion interventions, both in terms of approaches to measurement and assessment, and in terms of how monitoring and evaluation can support stakeholder learning for improved future interventions.

5) Continue to share lessons from organizational strategies to mainstream climate change adap-‐tation: Organizations need to invest in supporting learning about effective adaptation among staff within their own organizations as well as among their partners and stakeholders. Organizational learning processes can be supported by interventions at a number of levels. Learning from experi-‐ences with formal and informal processes of organizational learning and change within organizations can support the capacities of organizations to address climate change.


1 Introduction

Climate change affects rural development both in positive and negative ways. In order to improve the effectiveness of development cooperation in supporting adaptation to climate change for the rural poor, guidance from the growing base of knowledge and practical experience are needed. The GIZ sector programs “Sustainable Resource Use in Agriculture” (PN 09.2280.7) and “Development of Rural Areas” (PN 11.2222.6) have taken several steps in this direction. These include a review of the state of the art of adaptation to climate change in rural development, learning from development practice, and on-‐the-‐ground practical applications. This study assesses the state-‐of-‐the-‐art of knowledge and practical experiences in rural adaptation, with the aim of supporting a strategic de-‐velopment process for decision makers and planners in the agriculture and rural development sector.

Rural people, who make up approximately 40% of the global population, are generally more vulnera-‐ble to the adverse consequences of climate change. In developing countries, most of the rural popu-‐lation directly or indirectly depends on agriculture for their income, food security and livelihoods. At the same time, rapidly expanding urban populations rely on the continuous supply of food from the countryside to meet their needs. Growing and wealthier populations worldwide will require im-‐portant increases in global food production in the foreseeable future. Yet agricultural yields are ex-‐pected to decline in many regions of the world if business-‐as-‐usual practices continue and no coun-‐termeasures are taken. These countermeasures include both mitigation and adaptation. Early and effective mitigation investments are needed to prevent increasingly damaging levels of climate change, which are expected to increase the costs of adaptation (World Bank 2012). Where mitigation measures also reduce costs (e.g. by reducing energy use or switching to cheaper sources) more re-‐sources can be made available for investments in adaptation. This report mainly focuses on adapta-‐tion and less on mitigation. Adapting the agricultural sector to climate change has been recognized as a major challenge in rural development. In international climate change negotiations, developing countries stress the need for agriculture-‐based adaptation and ask for additional financial and tech-‐nical support from donor countries. Future rural development strategies will thus have to increasing-‐ly consider climate change adaptation.

Evidence on adaptation to climate change in published research papers is often not available to and not known by rural development practitioners, and sometimes is not presented in a way that makes it easy for decision makers to consider the findings. At the same time, funds for adaptation to climate change are increasing, and should be put to optimal use, which requires that planning is informed by the best available knowledge.

The present study aims to highlight the key lessons from research and practice regarding develop-‐ment cooperation in the area of adaptation to climate change in the agriculture and rural develop-‐ment sector. To capture the wide range of this sector, the study refers to the holistic view on rural development outlined in the BMZ strategy „Rural development and its contribution to food security“, which targets four core topics:

-‐ Sustainable development of the rural economy: fostering the notion of farming as a business, diversifying the employment base, ensuring market access for marginalized groups;

-‐ Sustainable management of natural resources: cross-‐sectoral planning and management of nat-‐ural resources, integrated coastal zone management, support for soil and water conservation;

-‐ Provision of social services and technical infrastructure: development of transport and ICT infra-‐structure, provision of health and educational services, putting in place social security systems for communities;


-‐ Enhancement of the political and institutional framework: ensuring binding and equal land and water rights to all parts of society, decentralization of political, fiscal and administrative structures, and strengthening civil society institutions.

This report is divided into three main parts. The first part (Chapter 2) provides background perspec-‐tives on adaptation to climate change and rural development. It starts with a short overview of the current scientific knowledge base on agriculture and climate change and a definition of adaptation to climate change in the context of rural development cooperation. The relationship between develop-‐ment and adaptation to climate change is briefly discussed, and guidance given on distinguishing between specific adaptation projects and rural development projects without an adaptation compo-‐nent along the project cycle. Guided by the four strategic objectives of the BMZ strategy for rural development, the second part (Chapters 3-‐6) focuses on four important aspects of climate-‐resilient rural development:

-‐ Institutions for climate resilient rural development -‐ Resilient rural markets -‐ Resilient production -‐ Resilient rural people.

These four core chapters are organized around main phases of the project cycle, i.e. problem diag-‐nosis and planning (what are the challenges and how can we assess them), implementation and risk management (how can we address adaptation), financing and M&E (how can we overcome adoption barriers and measure progress) according to the matrix in Table 1. The matrix is used to summarize the main findings in each chapter with regard to key issues that should be addressed, and examples of good practice.

The third part of the report (chapters 7-‐8) summarizes the main findings and recommendations of the study. The focus throughout is on identifying the implications of the growing knowledge base for practical climate change adaptation in the development cooperation context.


Table 1: Matrix framework for the study Supported through interventions involving:

Adaptation for rural development aims for resilient outcomes across:

Institutions Markets Production People

Problem diagnosis • institutional gap analysis

• Methods for assessing climate change impacts on value chains

• climate-‐proofing of planning and production

• vulnerability assessment in terms of user characteristics, availability of in-‐formation, insti-‐tutional ar-‐rangements

Implementation • supporting coor-‐dination across sectors and lev-‐els

• Human Capacity Development

• multi-‐stakeholder de-‐liberations

• community based disaster risk reduction

• support small-‐holder market access

• market stand-‐ards, certifica-‐tion

• reducing waste • reducing farmer exposure to risks

• “robust” plan-‐ning

• measures that deliver multiple benefits (cli-‐mate-‐smart agri-‐culture)

• capacity build-‐ing, knowledge sharing and networking to overcome adop-‐tion barriers

• livelihood diver-‐sification, risk pooling, produc-‐tive investments

• increased mobil-‐ity

• institution build-‐ing at house-‐hold/community level

• nutri-‐tion/health/education invest-‐ments

Finance • public-‐private partnerships

• weather-‐based index insurance

• microfinance

• rural finance mechanisms to cover upfront costs

• social safety nets and other securi-‐ty systems

M&E • support organi-‐zational learning processes through effec-‐tive M&E

• agricultural mar-‐ket information systems

• results-‐based M&E

• periodical vul-‐nerability as-‐sessments

• periodical vul-‐nerability as-‐sessments


Part I: Climate change and rural development

2 The knowledge base

Over the past three decades, scientists have confirmed that global climate change is a result of hu-‐man activities, and is evidenced by long-‐term observed increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (Parry et al. 2007). Longer-‐term climate change also changes patterns of short-‐term climate variability (IPCC 2012). In the absence of additional strong climate change mitigation policies, emissions of green-‐house gases will continue to rise in the coming decades, and may result in an increase in average global surface temperatures of between 2 and 4 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st Century, or earlier (Parry et al. 2007, World Bank 2012). Scientists also predict that extreme high temperature and heat waves, as well as heavy precipitation events will become more frequent, and that tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense (Parry et al. 2007, IPCC 2012). In gen-‐eral, higher latitudes are likely to experience an increase in precipitation while subtropical areas are likely to experience a decrease (Parry et al. 2007).

The effects of climate change have been observed over recent decades in hydrological, terrestrial, marine and freshwater systems. Hydrological systems are affected by increased runoff, glacier and snow melting, and warming of oceans, lakes and rivers, with effects on water levels, water quality and aquatic life. Terrestrial ecosystems are experiencing shifts in seasonal events, such as earlier greening of vegetation in spring, and geographical shifts in plant and animal species. Observed changes in marine and freshwater ecosystems include rising water temperatures, resulting in chang-‐es in fish abundance, geographic range, and earlier fish migrations in rivers.

Climatic changes have a significant impact on agriculture, with major implications for food security and livelihoods. While some crops benefit from elevated atmospheric concentrations of carbon diox-‐ide (the ‘carbon fertilization effect’), not all crops show this effect (Kimball et al. 2002, Jablonski et al. 2002). In general, higher temperatures will lead to increased crop yields in colder environments and decreased yields in warmer environments, thereby shifting optimal areas for agricultural production and specific crops. In particular, there will be a tendency for the productivity of cereals – the key staple food crops – to decrease at low latitudes and increase at higher latitudes (Parry et al. 2007). Globally, climate change is expected to result in significant yield losses of key staple crops, such as maize, rice and wheat, of between 3 and 30 percent by 2050 unless key investments are made to improve agricultural productivity in the context of climate change (Nelson et al. 2009). Growing areas for some high value crops like Arabica coffee will become smaller.

Sea-‐level rise will increase salinization of fresh water sources, including those used for irrigation (Par-‐ry et al. 2007). Productive agricultural land of millions of people in the large river deltas of the world like the Mekong or Ganges rivers will be flooded.

The expected increase in climate variability and extreme events will contribute to significant crop, livestock and vegetation losses. Increased frequency of heavy rains and storms may increase flood-‐ing, soil erosion and water-‐logging. Higher temperatures will induce pest and disease shifts and out-‐breaks (Parry et al. 2007).

From a regional perspective, the impacts of climate change are expected to be strongest in Africa, due to the severity of climate signals and low adaptive capacity. In Africa, losses of between 8 and 22 percent by 2050 are expected for key crops, such as maize, sorghum, millet, groundnut, and cassava


(Schlenker & Lobell 2010; Knox et al 2012). The impacts of climate change is also expected to be greatest in small islands states, where the population and key infrastructure are highly exposed, and in Asian and African mega-‐deltas, where large populations are vulnerable to sea level rise, storm surges, and river flooding (Parry et al. 2007).

Climate change will have significant livelihood consequences, especially for the rural poor in develop-‐ing countries, who depend to a large extent on natural resources for income and livelihoods and have limited capacity to adapt to climate change (Smit & Pilifosova 2001). In many developing countries, agricultural production constitutes a large share of GDP and a large portion of the population de-‐pends on agricultural production for income and livelihoods. Despite progress in meeting the Millen-‐nium Development Goals in some countries (MDG 2012), progress towards poverty reduction in sub-‐Saharan Africa and South Asia remains slow and the number of undernourished people remains high and may still increase (FAO 2011, MDG 2012; von Grebmer et al. 2012). Climate change, combined with the effects of other trends, will exacerbate the challenges faced by rural populations. For ex-‐ample, growing water, land and energy scarcities will be further sharpened as a result of population and economic growth and unsustainable consumption in affluent countries; the influence of more frequent droughts and floods on food production will strain emergency response and food trade and marketing systems; and increased temperatures and heat waves will increase demand for already under-‐funded rural health and veterinary services.

Despite the growing knowledge base on climate change and its impacts, much remains to be under-‐stood about the linkages between climate change and rural development. Knowledge gaps remain for many physical and biophysical relationships affecting climate outcomes. Disagreement remains regarding long-‐term changes in precipitation levels for many regions; on the relation between cli-‐mate extreme events and long-‐term climate change; on the interactions among glacier melt, sea-‐level rise, erosion, and flooding; and on the inter-‐linkages among climate change and other drivers of change, such as economic growth and population change.

Within agriculture, limited information on climate change impacts and adaptation options is available for all but the staple crops and key livestock types. Consequently, some of the risks associated with climate change remain unquantifiable. A consensus is emerging that given the uncertainties in-‐volved, robust (‘no-‐regrets’) decision-‐making procedures are often the most appropriate way to make decisions in the face of uncertainty (Wilby & Dessai 2010; IEG 2012), identifying adaptation options that bring net benefits under several alternative future scenarios.

Most adaptation interventions use changes in vulnerability or resilience as a scale. Vulnerability and resilience are interlinked terms describing how the environment and social systems react under envi-‐ronmental change (Adger 2006). Vulnerability to climate change is usually defined by three compo-‐nents in climate change literature -‐ in terms of the stress to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (IPCC 2001). The relationship between these terms is illustrated in Figure 1, and can be explained as follows:

• Exposure refers to the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed (Parry et al. 2007). It is directly observed in climate variables, including their spa-‐tial and temporal dimensions, such as droughts and heavy rains, as well as the long-‐term changes described above.

• Sensitivity is “the degree to which a system is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by climate variability or change. The effect may be direct (for example, a change in crop yield in response to a change in the mean, range, or variability of temperature) or indirect (for ex-‐ample, damages caused by an increase in the frequency of coastal flooding due to sea-‐level rise)” (IPCC 2007). Sensitivity can be influenced by biophysical characteristics and external in-‐


fluences. For example, unprotected coastal areas may be more sensitive to rising sea levels and storm surges than those that have sea walls. Similarly, water-‐stressed areas that have no irrigation infrastructure will be more sensitive to drought. Countries with higher population shares employed in agriculture, and those with higher levels of land degradation are consid-‐ered more sensitive to the adverse impacts of climate change (ADB & IFPRI 2009).

• Adaptive capacity is the ability of individuals and institutions to take advantage of opportuni-‐ties and to avoid adverse impacts of climate change. At the farm household level, adaptive capacity is influenced by assets and access to information, for example, through extension services. Adaptive capacity is also influenced by social networks and social capital. The ability of governments to plan and implement effective adaptation actions shapes the enabling en-‐vironment for rural development.

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of adaptation

Source: Adapted from ADB & IFPRI (2009)

For communities and other social systems, resilience refers to their ability to withstand and recover from climate-‐related stresses, while for natural systems it is a measure of how much disturbance (in terms of extreme events, fires, pollutants, etc.) an ecosystem can handle without shifting into a qual-‐itatively different state (ADB & IFPRI 2009; SRI 2012). Table 2 highlights three dimensions of resili-‐ence in the context of rural development. Because social systems can anticipate climate and other changes and thus plan accordingly, the adaptive capacity of institutions and individuals has a direct impact on resilience (ADB and IFPRI 2009). The terms vulnerability and resilience are inversions. Resilience refers to how far a system can be pushed and still bounce back to its old equilibrium. Vul-‐nerability refers to how much impact a given degree of disturbance will have on a system.


Source: FAO (2012)

Adaptation to climate change is a complex, multidimensional, and multi-‐scale process (Smit et al. 1996; Bryant et al. 2000; Agrawal & Perrin 2008; Heltberg et al. 2009). At the farm level, there are many potential strategies for adaptation and many of these practices are already being adopted on farms (Thomas et al. 2007; Kabubo-‐Mariara 2008; Gbetibouo 2009; Bryan et al. 2009; Deressa et al. 2009; Hisali et al. 2011; Tambo & Abdoulaye 2012) (see Box 1 and Chapter 5). Adoption of farm-‐level adaptation strategies not only increases resilience to climate change and variability, but may also increase productivity and income (Kirschke & Noleppa 2008; Halsnaes & Traerup 2009; Seo 2010; Di Falco et al. 2011; Kato et al. 2011; Di Falco et al. 2012; Bryan et al. 2012) thereby offering chances and not only risks.

Box 1: Climate change adaptation strategies adopted by Kenyan farmers Kenyan farmers’ livelihoods are closely linked to climate conditions. Almost three-‐quarters of the labor force is spent on subsistence agriculture depending on timely and adequate rainfall for crop production. Only 2 percent of cultivated area is irrigated and therefore less rainfall dependent. In a household survey conducted in seven districts of Kenya, covering the arid, semi-‐arid, temperate, and humid agroecological zones, more than 80% of households in all districts stated that they had experienced drought within the last five years. An overwhelming majority of farmers (94%) also perceived an increase in average temperatures and a decrease in average precipitation (88%) over the last 20 years. Moreover, 91% of farmers across all districts reported a long-‐term increase in rainfall variability. In response to long-‐term climate change, farmers chose to change crop varieties (33%), planting dates (20%) or crop type (18%). Other strategies reported less frequently include planting trees, reducing livestock, changing livestock feed, changing fertilizer use, and practicing soil and water conservation. Community-‐based adaptation strategies include development of soil and water conservation structures, sinking boreholes, constructing earthen dams, and protecting springs. Farmers living in the arid area were far less likely to adapt to perceived climate change, and those that did reported a very limited range of adaptation strategies – mostly moving animals. House-‐holds in the temperate, coffee-‐producing areas reported a greater range of options. Extension services support the adoption of almost all adaptation measures, although certain types of extension are more effective for particular adaptation strategies. For example, field visits encourage the adoption of soil and water conserva-‐tion measures, while farmer-‐to-‐farmer exchange programs or field schools influence fertilizer decisions. Climate infor-‐mation is an important determinant for changing planting dates in response to changing weather patterns. Households with access to finance such as credit or off-‐farm income were more likely to adapt. Access to credit supports the adoption of new livestock practices (destocking and changing feeds) and off-‐farm income enables farmers to plant trees, change fertilizer application, and construct soil and water conservation structures. Households with access to food or other aid were more likely to change crop variety, change planting dates, and change livestock feeds. This suggests that social safety nets help enable farmers to risk altering their farming practices in response to climate change. However, farmers receiving food aid (usually targeted to the poorest households) were less able to take on larger investments, such as tree planting. Source: Bryan et al. forthcoming.

Climate change affects entire communities and community-‐based strategies are essential to improve adaptive capacity. Examples include collective seed and grain storage, infrastructure development, information-‐sharing and group-‐activities such as savings and credit groups (Bryan & Behrman forth-‐

Table 2: Dimensions of resilience Dimensions of resilience Critical elements of system resilience

Physical resilience Water quantity and quality, soil resource & soil fertility, seed resources, live-‐stock

Economic resilience Income diversification, equity (income distribution), risk management (crop insurances, safety nets), off-‐farm earnings, diversity of employment opportu-‐nities, health and social services, markets

Human and social resilience Extension and research, technical know-‐how, connection to social networks, education and training, information management


coming). Community organization for adaptation increases climate resilience by strengthening and expanding social networks and links with supporting institutions (Adger 2003; Tompkins and Adger 2004). Government plays an important role in the adaptation process, not only through direct provi-‐sion of support such as credit, information, inputs, and extension services (Maddison 2007; Nhema-‐chena & Hassan 2007; Bryan et al. 2009; Deressa et al. 2009; Hisali et al. 2011; Tambo & Abdoulaye 2012), but also through investments in R&D, institutional and land tenure reform, trade policies, crop insurance and subsidies and tax credits.

Many of these measures have been promoted in the past for reasons other than adaptation to cli-‐mate change. Incorporating explicit consideration of climate variability and longer-‐term climate change in rural development policies and programs can further reduce vulnerability to adverse cli-‐mate impacts and protect developmental gains by reducing the sensitivity of rural systems to ex-‐pected climate risks, or by increasing adaptive capacity in the face of expected risks.

Adaptation strategies often align with other development objectives, since both promote measures that reduce the vulnerability of poor communities and build the capacity of individuals and commu-‐nities to prepare for and cope with external shocks. While there may be much in common between adaptation and development strategies, responding to adaptation needs implies targeting invest-‐ments to areas, sectors and social groups that are vulnerable to the effects of climate change (see Box 2).

Box 2: Adaptation or Good Development? Adaptation is needed to specifically address rural development challenges that are magnified by climate change. For exam-‐ple, rural areas that are vulnerable to specific climate risks need enhanced rural infrastructure, e.g. coastal defenses, irriga-‐tion and water storage and grain storage facilities. Rural roads and other infrastructure that connects areas affected by climate extreme events with unaffected areas support affected communities to cope. More generally, open trade has been identified as an important buffer under climate change, not only for food trade, but also for agricultural inputs and other technologies, such as irrigation pumps whose import is still often heavily taxed in Africa. Specific types of farmer, herder or fishermen, and other groups such as women, may need particular support to adapt to climate change. Strengthening women’s rights and control of assets in household and agricultural production, for example, can improve the effectiveness of their risk management strategies (Goh 2012, see also Box 24). Producers of certain crops or in specific areas may require better access to climate information, extension and markets. Consideration of climate change does not simply imply changes in the quantity and targeting of rural investments. The design, quality and cross-‐sectoral allocation of funds should also be considered. For example, the type of road surface, the location of new reservoirs and the size and location of irrigation command areas need to consider the changing climate context. Similarly, crop and livestock breeding and other agricultural research as well as extension orientation need to adapt to the changing climate, for example by breeding for drought and heat tolerance, insect and pest tolerance, and nitrogen use efficiency. Reorientation of agricultural advisory messages may be required to encourage adoption of suitable agricultural practices. Climate change also invites more consideration of measures for risk reduction and risk sharing, for example extending crop insurance from commercial agriculture to staple crops and livestock. In short, targeting for climate change adaptation adds an additional dimension to previous infrastructure, agriculture re-‐search and development and poverty targeting. While previous targeting of these investments often included some climate information, targeting for climate change adaptation requires taking climate trends and variability into account in more detail than has commonly been done in conventional planning processes. Source: authors’ own information

A current GIZ publication on M&E of adaptation projects summarizes the characteristics of explicit adaptation projects as compared to development projects with adaptation objectives (Spearman and McGray 2012). It shows that there is a continuum from ‘conventional’ development projects, through climate-‐proofed projects or projects with adaptation components, to projects with a specific adapta-‐tion objective. Table 3 gives an overview of the differences between projects along the develop-‐ment–adaptation continuum. Further reading on the additional value of adaptation in the context of development cooperation is provided in a number of existing publications (e.g. Spearman and McGray 2012, WRI 2007, OECD 2009, UNDP 2010).


Table 3: The continuum of development and adaptation projects

Development projects Climate proofed development projects Explicit adaptation projects

The aims are most likely to be econom-‐ic or social development of a sector or region

The aims are economic development of a sector or region with consideration of (a) avoiding adverse climate impacts, (b) enhancing resilience to climate impacts

The aims are to reduce the vulnerability of a sector or region to impacts of climate change. This may or may not include explicit measures to enhance economic develop-‐ment

Project objective

Development Climate compatible development Development enabled by adaptation

Information gathering

Type of information gathered

Socio-‐economic and ecological infor-‐mation

Additional climate change information

Analysis of information Assessment of the development deficit and bottlenecks

Assessment of exposure and sensitivity to CC impacts; Define actions to reduce climate change impacts, if needed

Assessment of vulnerability towards climate change

-‐ Exposure and sensitivity to potential impacts

-‐ Adaptive capacity -‐ Define actions to increase resilience /

adaptive capacity

Hypothesis development

Climate variability and climate change may not be considered

Ensures consideration of climate factors Responses to future climate change impacts are central to hypotheses

Planning phase

Definition of target groups

Groups with development deficit Groups with development deficit with special attention to climate change vul-‐nerability

Groups that are vulnerable to climate change

Thematic targeting Sectors with development potential Sectors with development potential with special attention to climate change vul-‐

Vulnerable sectors and subsectors



nerability

Regional targeting Differentiation of interventions by de-‐velopment deficit of areas

Differentiation of interventions by cli-‐mate change enhanced development deficit of areas

Differentiation of interventions by climate change vulnerability of areas

Planning horizon Short, medium or long term Short, medium or long term Longer term

Uncertainty low medium High

Intervention

How climate variability is addressed

Mainly reactively Coping, adjusting, avoiding, spreading risk, …

Reduce CC-‐induced losses Mainly pro-‐actively Enhanced learning and research, long-‐term planning, …

Selecting and prioritizing intervention options according to:

• Strategic rele-‐vance

Interventions take place in severely affected and vulnerable regions or fields of action are concerned. Reliable and long-‐term climate risk reduc-‐tion can be expected from interventions. Irreversible and dramatic damages are pre-‐vented by the intervention.

• Urgency Climatic trends not considered for ur-‐gency decisions

The interventions address climatic trends that are already occurring or will occur in the near future.

• Side effect Adaptation co-‐benefits Adaptation components or adaptation co-‐benefits

Development co-‐benefits

• No regret Climate scenarios not relevant for no-‐regret considerations

Assessment ensures investments are no-‐regret investments

Positive effects will be generated both without changed climatic conditions as well as within different climate scenarios.

• Flexibility Intervention can be modified or further developed.



Intervention can be reversed once conditions change.

• Economics -‐ Benefits outweigh costs -‐ Resources used efficiently

• Policy alignment Interventions are embedded in devel-‐opment policies

Interventions are aligned with develop-‐ment and climate polices

Interventions are embedded in cross-‐sectoral or sectoral climate policies

M&E

Method logframes, process or output based Periodical vulnerability analyses emerging as an option

Indicators Human development indicators At least one (additional) indicator rele-‐vant for adaptation

Set of indicators relevant for adaptation

Objectives Monitoring progress Monitoring progress and additional contri-‐bution of adaptation

Source: Based on Spearman and McGray (2012) Part II: State of the art in development cooperation for climate-‐resilient rural development


3 Institutions for climate-‐resilient rural development

Development projects are cooperation systems aiming to develop capacity at the levels of human resources, organizations and society. In addition to formal organizations, other types of institutions also impact on development cooperation and adaptation outcomes. North (1990) described institu-‐tions as analogous to ‘the rules of the game’, while organizations are like ‘the players’. In develop-‐ment cooperation, for example, partnership agreements and contracts are signed between organiza-‐tions, and laws and policies that give mandates to particular agencies to work in a given area, or that govern the contract itself, are part of the institutional context. Informal rules and norms that impact on how individuals and organizations behave are also institutions – rules that structure social interac-‐tion – and impact on the effectiveness of development cooperation. Within organizations, too, in addition to formal rules and regulations, there are informal rules and norms that influence the way staff conduct their work. The institutional context of development cooperation for adaptation there-‐fore includes:

• Formal organizations (e.g. government agencies, NGOs, private firms); • Informal organizations (e.g. community groups, networks of development practitioners); • Formal rules and regulations (e.g. laws and policies) • Informal rules and norms (e.g. customary behaviour)

Institutions allocate roles, responsibilities and resources, and both formal and informal institutions facilitate the sharing of and deliberation on knowledge related to adaptation decisions. Missing roles and responsibilities, imbalances in influence over resource allocation, and obstacles to information and participation in deliberation weaken adaptive capacity. Institutions and how they function are a key component of adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007; see also Figure 1 above). One of the key functions of development cooperation in this context is to strengthen institutions – whether formal or informal – to address the risks and opportunities posed by climate change.

3.1 The importance of institutions in facilitating climate change adap-‐tation

Institutions are important to successful adaptation in at least three ways: (1) institutions are a core determinant of both the adaptation options available to households, communities and societies, and of their capacity to adapt effectively; (2) institutions are critical to planned adaptation, and the capacities of institutions and their networks are critical to the effectiveness of implementation; (3) institutions are the basic medium of development cooperation to support adaptation to climate change.

Developing and implementing adaptation measures requires economic (finance), natural (land, wa-‐ter, biodiversity) and human (knowledge, skills, labour) resources. While a community or region’s endowment of these resources will influence the adaptation options available, access to these re-‐sources and options for their deployment are strongly determined by institutions (Engle et al. 2011, Lebel et al. 2006). At a national level, vulnerability and adaptive capacity are reflected in generic fac-‐tors like economic development, availability of resources, education levels or indicators of human health (Eriksen & Kelly 2007), but within a country, different regions and social groups have differing adaptive capacities (O’Brien et al. 2004). A better understanding of the factors and processes – espe-‐cially those related to institutions – that shape vulnerability and adaptive capacity can provide more policy relevant guidance on effective ways to enhance adaptive capacity (Brooks & Adger 2005).


Numerous in-‐depth studies have shown that community organizations, like village councils or farm-‐ers associations, as well as social relations between families, friends and neighbours, play key roles in enabling households and communities to cope with natural disasters (e.g. Sutherland et al., 2005; Campbell & Beckford 2009; Allen 2006; Sudmeier-‐Rieux et al. 2012). Equally, community-‐based or-‐ganizations or informal groupings can create systematic disadvantage and vulnerability among some social groups (Cannon 2002; Jones & Boyd 2011; López-‐Marrero 2010; Sudmeier-‐Rieux et al. 2012). Community organizations can have positive roles in enabling households and individuals to access natural resources or better manage their crops (Fisher et al 2007; Kruijssen et al 2007; Pascual et al 2011). Conversely, weak community natural resource management institutions are often the cause for resource degradation, thereby increasing household vulnerability to climate hazards (Adger et al. 2005b). Strengthening community based organizations is therefore a focus of many adaptation initia-‐tives.

Higher level organizations and enabling institutional environments may also support households and communities prepare for and cope with climate risks. Local governments, NGOs and other organiza-‐tions often provide resources, technical advice or support to strengthen community-‐based organiza-‐tions (e.g. Allen 2006; Holt-‐Gimenez 2002; Sudmeier-‐Rieux et al. 2012; Robledo et al. 2004). Higher level organizations have key roles in pro-‐active planning and policies that create an enabling envi-‐ronment to mobilize social actors in addressing climate variability and longer-‐term climate change (Tompkins 2005; Adger et al 2005a and b; Coleman 2010; Chishakwe et al. 2012). Conversely, laws and policies that restrict community access to natural resources e.g. restricting pastoralists in moving their herds in times of drought (Li & Huntsinger 2011; Owuor et al. 2005), or policies that cause deg-‐radation of key resources e.g. clearing mangrove forests to enable shrimp farming (Adger et al 2005b) increase the vulnerability of communities to climate change (Adger et al. 2005a). The lack of coordination across administrative boundaries may constrain adaptation options, such as herder movements to new pastures (Fernandez-‐Gimenez et al 2012). At the same time, communities may face stresses not only from climate risks but also from market or other factors operating at large scales (e.g. Eakin et al 2006, O’Brien et al. 2004).

Some broad principles are beginning to emerge from research on adaptation. One principle suggests that institutional arrangements that promote participation and democratic decision making are likely to strengthen adaptive capacity among those involved (e.g. Robinson & Berkes 2011). Howev-‐er, focusing on participation and democratic decision-‐making may not be effective in all contexts, e.g. if specific technical knowledge is required or if climate change processes have not been fully under-‐stood (Engle et al 2011; Few et al 2007).

Engle & Lemos (2010), for example, examined different institutional arrangements for integrated water management in Brazil and their contribution to adaptive capacity to manage water hazards. Their research identifies more democratic governance processes as positively related to adaptive capacity; however, it also finds that some centralized control may be more flexible and effective in adapting to rapid changes. Eakin et al. (2011) show that public sector reforms involving increased decentralization and participation may decrease the capacity of public institutions to deal with flood risks, e.g. by reducing access to centrally located technical or financial resources by the autonomous local level.

Another principle suggests that expanding or building linkages across administrative levels contrib-‐utes significantly to adaptive capacity (e.g. Adger et al. 2005a, Robinson & Berkes 2011). Improving the utility of climate services may require institutions to link information providers and community-‐based users (Srinivasan et al. 2011). Particularly if ecological systems go across administrative boundaries (e.g. watersheds) or if resources for disaster mitigation are locally unavailable, enhanced cross-‐level collaboration and coordination can promote adaptive capacity. However, trust between


actors at different levels (e.g. farmers and local government agencies, or local and higher level gov-‐ernment agencies) is crucial for fruitful cooperation (Shepherd et al 2006, Meinke et al. 2006). While higher level authorities may be able to provide resources to enhance local adaptive capacity, their external support may undermine existing local governance (Barnett 2008); and national and local institutions may be dominated by elites, excluding the vulnerable and poor.

In the course of integrated rural development support, GIZ systematically fostered collaboration across levels and sectors i.e. so called rural development committees were established at district, province and national level. The committees at the district level, usually under the auspices of the district commissioner, proved to be efficient coordination tools where representatives from relevant subsectors and subject matters reported on their activities in rural development (Waldmüller 2012). Such kind of structures can be used to mainstream climate change adaptation at various levels into rural development.

A third principle stresses the need for institutions to promote learning among stakeholders, which is perceived as particularly important (Berkhout et al. 2006). New regulations requiring responses to climate risks are important to raise awareness and incentivize responses (Gemmer et al. 2011), and innovations such as new forms of cooperation between meteorologists and farmers facilitate the sharing of information (Cash et al 2006). However, where trust is lacking, or where unequal power relations influence the provision or interpretation of information, learning may be impeded (Cash et al. 2006; Meinke et al. 2006).

One of the key functions of development cooperation is to support the strengthening of organiza-‐tions as well as other forms of institution to address the risks and opportunities posed by climate change (see Box 3).

Box 3: Strengthening community-‐based institutions for disaster risk management in GIZ develop-‐ment cooperation In 2001, GIZ began a reconstruction program in Mozambique, which included the pilot project “People-‐oriented inter-‐district early warning system for the catchment area of the Rio Búzi” (SIDPABB). The early warning system was developed through a thorough participatory risk analysis, which identified a third of the district’s population, living in nine communi-‐ties plus the capital Búzi as being especially flood-‐prone. Detailed maps depict high risk areas as well as elevated ground for emergency evacuation. Complemented by simple but effective regulations for cyclone-‐proof building, the maps also indi-‐cate areas for the construction of new settlements for some of the families worst affected by floods. Families may continue to farm the fertile grounds along the riverside, but their family and property are now safe.

A series of field workshops and community meetings were conducted with experts from Costa Rica and Honduras, who had developed disaster risk management programs in their own communities. In the following step, local Disaster Management Committees (Gestão de Risco de Calamidades – GRCs) were established in all nine communities, with specific tasks to fulfill in case of a disaster. These tasks include receiving an early warning, mainly through Radio Communitario do Búzi (in Portu-‐guese), and then informing the neighborhood in the local dialect Ndau, organizing transport and evacuation, and maintain-‐ing the necessary equipment provided, such as radios, flashlights, shovels, megaphones, bicycles, rescue boats and first-‐aid kits.

Training courses were conducted, including a large-‐scale simulation of emergency rescue of non-‐swimmers, who are still the majority in the villages. An instructional film produced during the training courses is now used for training purposes. Local leaders, doctors and teachers, who volunteered to serve on the GRCs, have become highly respected in the communi-‐ties. None of the participants is paid. This is also the case for participation in the early warning system on floods along the entire river catchment area. Involvement of volunteers in key roles in the early warning system has a decisive effect on ownership of the system.

Seven monitoring stations on the upper course of the Búzi and its tributaries have been set up. Rainfall and river levels are measured daily using simple equipment. These data are transmitted via radio to Búzi, where they are analyzed. The District Administrator has the ultimate authority to instruct the GRCs via radio about the necessary steps to be taken. He has since become an expert on the issue, and has taken the lead with regard to the integration of disaster management in the devel-‐opment plan of his district.


This robust system now makes it possible to deliver an early warning on flood events. It has already proven its efficacy during the rainy seasons since then and has been further calibrated and refined. The people of Búzi have shown that climat-‐ic disasters can be effectively met by concerted, decentralized community action.

Source: Haerlin (2006)

3.2 Institutional issues in project preparation and implementation General guidance on institutional aspects of agricultural and rural development project preparation with consideration of climate change is found in a number of manuals by development agencies (e.g. DuBois et al. 2012, UNDP Bureau for Policy Development 2010). In this section, we take Capacity Works (GIZ 2011), the operational guidance for preparing GIZ projects, as the basis for raising a num-‐ber of institutional issues that may take particular forms when climate change is considered in rural development.

Capacity Works defines the project cycle as a systemic process of information collection to inform hypothesis formulation, around which interventions are planned and prepared. Five success factors particularly relevant to the project preparation phase are identified:

• a clear and plausible strategy; • a clear understanding of who the cooperation partners are; • an operational steering structure; • a clear understanding of key strategic processes; • measures to develop and consolidate learning capacities.

Below, we explore the institutional aspects of these success factors in relation to adaptation.

Figure 3: Key success factors in the project cycle

Source: GIZ (2011)

3.2.1 Strategy Intervention planning begins with an agreement on the strategic orientation of the intended action, considering the context and challenges (GIZ 2011). Strategic options depend on existing knowledge and should be aligned to the strategies of key partners. Projects should be aligned to the adaptation policy frameworks in agriculture and rural development and the existing knowledge base regarding the effects of climate change on rural development, which informs planning and decision making.


Policy frameworks for climate-‐resilient rural development

As with development activities, climate adaptation interventions should be a country-‐driven process and formulated and implemented in response to a country’s specific demands and needs. It is neces-‐sary to review the policy framework to understand how climate-‐resilient options relate to it. In many countries, achieving coherence between policies in climate and rural development sectors will be a gradual process.

Some countries have developed National Adaptation Plans of Action (NAPAs), other climate change adaptation or disaster risk reduction plans. These plans provide guidance on the climate change re-‐lated priorities within each sector. Ministries working in rural development also have their own sec-‐tor development strategies. Climate change plans have mostly been developed by environment min-‐istries, and in some cases with broad stakeholder participation. However, coherence between na-‐tional climate change plans and sector policies is often lacking.

Within the UNFCCC context, NAPAs for LDCs were initially developed for highlighting “urgent and immediate” adaptation needs, without attempting to cover long-‐term adaptation needs.2 The result-‐ing climate plans, therefore, may or may not be closely aligned to priorities in other strategies. For example, the consistency between agricultural development plans produced by African countries under the CAADP (Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme) and the priorities in climate change plans was sometimes low (Branca et al. 2012). CAADP policy statements often fo-‐cus on agricultural productivity increases, while LDCs’ NAPAs tend to focus on increasing resilience of the agriculture sector through better management of land and soil resources. On average, only about half of the proposed agricultural investments were consistent with priorities listed in NAPAs, and comparisons strongly suggest that that there has been a limited attempt to link climate and agricul-‐tural planning in these policy documents. Other studies (e.g. Anderson 2010) have noted a wide dis-‐crepancy between African agricultural productivity targets, as set out in national and regional policy documents, and the projections of how climate change will impact upon agriculture and food securi-‐ty.

This suggests the need to mainstream consideration of climate change in existing sector strategy plans. Given the relative novelty of climate change as a general concern and limited capacities to integrate climate change in rural development sectors, inter-‐agency coordination for policy integra-‐tion will be a gradual process, just as in developed countries.

Various tools have been developed for screening policies, programmes and project portfolios to iden-‐tify areas where climate considerations need to be strengthened (e.g. Olhoff & Schaer 2010). They are applied by donor agencies and NGOs to understand the climate sensitivity of their own pro-‐grammes (Klein et al. 2007). But such tools have not been widely applied in screening developing countries’ policies and programmes. FAO has developed a tool to screen CAADP agricultural invest-‐ment plans (Branca et al. 2012).

Integrating climate change concerns in sector plans has institutional implications. Rural development ministries do not necessarily have climate change expertise, and hitherto have not had a mandate for climate change issues. Capacity development may involve creating thematic teams, inter-‐ministerial committees or a unit for strategic analysis and for raising awareness within the ministries (see Box 4).

2 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/tp/eng/02.pdf describes what was expected in the NAPA preparation process. Best practices in the NAPA process are summarized in UNFCCC 2011a. Discussion of how to consider medium and long-‐term needs are presented in UNFCCC 2011b.


Box 4: Institutional interventions to mainstream climate change in agriculture sector agencies Nepal’s Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC) partnered with UN, FAO, UNDP and other development partners to devise a strategy identifying priority actions for MOAC to deliver services to farming communities. The strategy, a Priority Framework for Action (PFA) on Disaster Risk Management (DRM) in the agriculture sector, explicitly supports integration of climate change adaptation and disaster preparedness into Nepal’s agricultural policy, programs and plans. The plan was developed with stakeholder consultation and also informed by field-‐level actions and district-‐level planning. This clarified the mandate of MOAC in disaster risk management and informed the national PFA regarding roles and responsibilities of agriculture support services at district level. The PFA highlights priority actions for the coming decade (2011-‐2020), to man-‐age the impacts of climate change and natural disasters in agriculture. It identifies key areas for technical intervention and MOAC’s contribution to the NAPA and DRM strategy and provides a roadmap for institutional strengthening of MOAC and its coordination with key stakeholders at national, district and local levels. Specifically, the action plan identifies the lack of an agency within MOAC with a mandate for climate change adaptation and DRM. This gap is suggested to be addressed by strengthening staffing in key units as well as establishing a focal unit to oversee and coordinate activities in these two do-‐mains. A committee is planned to integrate climate change and DRM concerns into existing policies, strategies and plans. The PFA also proposes platforms for strengthening interministerial coordination.

Kenya’s Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) has established a Climate Change Unit (CCU) within the Ministry’s Department of Agricultural Engineering Services. The CCU has four officers. Its main task is to mainstream climate change into MoA opera-‐tions and to represent the Ministry in related national and international fora. Core activities include increasing awareness of climate change risks and adaptation options and identifying mitigation investment opportunities in the agricultural sector. Currently, the CCU is partnering with GIZ on field-‐based adaptation practices, with FAO on climate-‐smart tea production, and with the World Bank on a readiness process related to (i) strengthening the institutional and implementation frame-‐work to develop climate-‐smart agriculture; (2) identifying and supporting early action climate-‐smart investments; and (3) developing climate performance and benefit measurement systems that are well integrated into existing agricultural moni-‐toring and evaluation systems.

A Consultative Forum for Climate Change and Agriculture is currently under development to engage with the private sector and civil society. A capacity needs assessment recently conducted for the CCU with the six deputy department heads at the MoA indicates a need for skills in coordination and mainstreaming. It demands for more knowledge on climate-‐smart agro-‐nomic practices as well as other issues such as the legal framework. A similar assessment conducted at field extension level also revealed great interest in better coordination among different institutions and better understanding on the most ap-‐propriate practices in the local context. It highlighted the need for resources to mainstream climate change issues into ongoing operations.

Sources: Government of Nepal (2011); authors’ own information

Capacity in institutions can be built on individuals’ capacities. This is the basic idea behind GIZ’s Hu-‐man Capacity Development (HCD) concept. Capacity development in this context is first and fore-‐most understood as human capacity building, and is directed in particular at key personnel of GIZ partner organizations. Dialogue, advanced training and networking are the central instruments. The underlying assumption is that individuals contribute in their different roles to processes of change in their respective organizations. HCD empowers people to initiate and influence processes for sustain-‐able development and can therefore also be used for mainstreaming adaptation to climate change.

Box 5: Promotion of Capacity Development in Water Training Institutions in the Middle East and North Africa The main challenge in the Middle East and North Africa region is improved management of scarce water resources and provision of safe and reliable water services to a growing number of people. Insecure water availability continues to grow due to climate change and weak governance structures that need to be strengthened for integrated water resources man-‐agement and the development of effective adaptation strategies.

The objective of a GIZ program is to strengthen capacities of regional organizations towards an efficient and sustainable use of water resources in the region. The Human Capacity Development (HCD) approach has been used to train experts and managers of the Arab Countries Water Utilities Association, at the water ministries and affiliated agencies, in academia and research, NGOs, regional organizations, water-‐sector programs and representatives of water users. Learning has taken place at the national and regional levels. The formats of HCD include:


-‐ professional training to strengthen capacity at mid/upper management level on technical and managerial key topics to improve performance of the sector;

-‐ long-‐term International Leadership Training for (junior) experts in utilities/ministries;

-‐ platforms for dialogue: partner forums, conferences, Arab Water Week;

-‐ enhancing capacities of the training sector: support technical working group on training within the association, e-‐learning, website and shared workspaces;

-‐ alumni activities: regional alumni conferences;

-‐ networking at different levels;

-‐ training of trainers;

-‐ study tours.

Source: Petermann (2012)

The knowledge base to inform planning and decision making

Knowledge and perception influence the strategic orientation of development cooperation partners (GIZ 2011). As an illustration of the significance of this issue: out of 217 priority actions in the agricul-‐ture sector in 22 African LDC NAPAs, 20% related to a need for improved knowledge sharing (Ander-‐son et al. 2010). Consideration of climate change in rural development policy and planning is ham-‐pered by limited synthesis of available information, significant remaining knowledge gaps, uncer-‐tainties in existing knowledge and weaknesses in the institutional infrastructure for knowledge management. There are often mismatches between the temporal and spatial scales of available cli-‐mate projections and the needs of users, some of which are not likely to be resolved in the short-‐ or medium-‐term through increased investment in climate science (Dinshaw et al. 2012). Tools and ap-‐proaches for decision-‐making in the face of significant uncertainties should be a core part of the knowledge base (Wilby & Dessai 2010).

The process of preparing NAPAs and national communications to the UNFCCC means that most coun-‐tries have assembled at least some relevant information. Data sharing between government and non-‐government agencies, and difficulties in identifying information on vulnerabilities and adapta-‐tion were identified in many NAPA preparation processes.3 For example, an assessment of strategic knowledge gaps for adaptation in India4 identified several institutional barriers to improving the knowledge base, such as data being held by different individuals and different institutions with lim-‐ited established mechanisms for sharing data, and limited collaborative relationships between those responsible for generating knowledge on climate change and the government agencies who need to use this knowledge in their decision-‐making.

Disconnects between available knowledge and knowledge used in climate policy processes are com-‐mon (Vermeulen et al. 2010), as is lack of uptake of available climate information by potential users (Meinke et al. 2006; Vogel & O’Brien 2006). These limitations of the knowledge base are rooted in institutional shortcomings. Research organizations and the rules and procedures that influence the types of knowledge they produce rarely prioritize the needs of policy makers. It is common for re-‐searchers to be rewarded for scientific publications rather than development impact (Rijsberman et al. 2006). Communication of research is also often underemphasized. While there are analytical tools to help researchers plan how to link knowledge with action (e.g. Earl et al. 2001, Springer-‐Heinze et al. 2003), many development agencies have only recently begun to focus on the impact of the re-‐search they fund.

3 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/sbi/eng/21a01.pdf 4 http://www.dst.gov.in/scientific-‐programme/NMSKCC_July_2010.pdf


These problems are not specific to climate change adaptation, but at least two approaches have be-‐gun to be widely used in the climate change field.

Firstly, access to credible and useful information is needed. Boundary organizations between re-‐search and user communities often serve as ‘knowledge brokers’ to translate climate science into information that is applicable by users. Examples include the many web-‐based climate information portals, some of which provide aid to interpreting information (e.g. the Climate Information Portal5). Many climate change related websites provide information from a range of perspectives (e.g. the Adaptation Learning Mechanism6 or the Community-‐based Adaptation Exchange7). GIZ has been instrumental in bringing together such web-‐based knowledge brokers to enhance collaboration.8 The extent to which web-‐based services meet users’ needs is a topic currently being researched.9

Besides web-‐based knowledge brokers, other organizations have played key roles in assisting stake-‐holders to engage with climate change. Government-‐supported climate change adaptation resource agencies and partnerships are important in some developed countries in knowledge management, interpretation and capacity building.10 Some developing countries create national or regional similar units or programmes within existing organizations, e.g. ClimDev-‐Africa Programme,11 or African Cli-‐mate Policy Centre.12 Since most developing countries are in the process of formulating national cli-‐mate change policy frameworks, or integrating climate change into sector plans, there are as yet few skilled organizations at sub-‐national levels.

Secondly, while much climate information is produced, there are often institutional obstacles to its application. To be used, information should be salient, credible and legitimate. Institutions can con-‐tribute to achieving or eroding these qualities, e.g. if meteorologists lack interest to understand the information needs of their clients or if farmers do not trust the agencies delivering the information (e.g. Cash et al. 2006, Meinke et al. 2006, Roncoli et al. 2002). Stakeholder and network analysis are methods to analyze how institutions affect the use of climate information (e.g. Ziervogel et al. 2005). There is also increasing acknowledgement that the development of credible and useful knowledge requires that information users and providers respond to each other’s needs in the process of pro-‐ducing relevant knowledge. For example, enabling farmers to make use of weather or climate infor-‐mation is not simply a question of information dissemination (Vogel & O’Brien 2006, Lemos & Dilling 2007, Roncoli et al. 2002, Feldman & Ingram 2009). Participatory workshops, stakeholder platforms and knowledge networks are used to bring knowledge producers and users together (see Box 6).

Box 6: Multi-‐stakeholder platform for planning on the basis of seasonal forecasts As part of the Adaptation Learning Programme, implemented by CARE International, participatory scenario planning through multi-‐stakeholder platforms has been introduced as a mechanism for collective sharing and interpretation of sea-‐sonal climate forecasts. As soon as meteorological services issue a forecast for the coming season, one or two day work-‐shops are organized bringing together meteorologists, community members, local government departments and local NGOs. The workshop creates space for sharing climate information from both local and scientific knowledge, so as to find ways to interpret the information into a form that is locally relevant and useful.

5 http://cip.csag.uct.ac.za 6 http://www.adaptationlearning.net/ 7 http://community.eldis.org/cbax/ 8 http://en.openei.org/wiki/Climate_Knowledge_Brokers_Group 9http://cdkn.org/project/knowledge-‐brokers-‐collaboration-‐addressing-‐the-‐climate-‐change-‐knowledge-‐gap-‐through-‐user-‐group-‐analysis/ 10 E.g. http://www.climateuk.net/ 11 http://www.afdb.org/en/topics-‐and-‐sectors/initiatives-‐partnerships/climate-‐for-‐development-‐in-‐africa-‐climdev-‐africa-‐initiative/ 12 http://new.uneca.org/acpc/home_acpc.aspx


Participants consider climatic probabilities (i.e. an expression of the uncertainty in the climate forecast), assessing their likely hazards, risks, opportunities and impacts, and develop scenarios based on the assessment. Discussion leads to agree-‐ment on plans and contingencies that respond to the levels of risk and uncertainty. Participatory Scenario Planning forms part of the adaptation planning process, making the link between community plans and local government response, sup-‐port and higher level plans.

Such dialogue is necessary for meteorologists to get feedback on the information they provide, allowing them to improve and respond to changing local user needs. As communities also make adjustments to their livelihood activities in response to the changes in risk and capacity, their information needs also change. The multi-‐stakeholder workshops enable meteor-‐ologists and the participating local governments to understand communities’ changing needs and respond by reviewing and adjusting the information and services they provide.

Institutionalization of the multi-‐stakeholder platforms therefore enables continuous sharing, communication and delibera-‐tion on the basis of climate information to assess local risks and plan for livelihoods and risk management at the local level. Local governments take joint responsibility of organizing the multi-‐stakeholder workshops and disseminating the bulletins that result from the discussions. The information can then be integrated into community plans, other committees and NGO forums, as well as local government planning.

Source: CARE International 2011

3.2.2 Partners and steering structures Identifying appropriate partners and developing effective steering structures for projects has been identified as a critical success factor in development cooperation (GIZ 2011). Faced with a need to promote both inter-‐sector policy coherence, and to integrate climate change considerations in sector plans, developing countries have adopted a range of institutional coordination and steering ar-‐rangements, sometimes including arrangements for involving a wider range of non-‐governmental and private sector stakeholders.

Steering structures

Weak coordination mechanisms at national and sub-‐national government levels undermine adap-‐tive capacity. Because of the thematic linkages with the UNFCCC, coordination of climate change policy and planning is typically the responsibility of ministries of environment. According to OECD (2009: 74) “experience suggests that this arrangement leads to weak inter-‐sectoral coordination.” In order to promote policy coherence and policy integration, some countries have instituted climate change coordination bodies under the president or prime minister’s office, or within the national planning agency. Such arrangements have the advantage of showing high-‐level support for climate policies and seek to enable coordinated implementation across sector ministries. The limited availa-‐ble insight into how these arrangements function in practice indicates that while task forces and committees may be established, they are sometimes not linked to existing planning processes (Ah-‐mad & Dovers 2010).

There are also examples where donor agencies and consortia of donors play a significant role in sup-‐porting ministries in coordinating the development of national climate policy. This is not only through donor-‐funded climate action planning projects, but also through donor-‐supported climate coordina-‐tion units situated within key government departments, and also through multi-‐stakeholder plat-‐forms that serve to ensure coordination among government and donor climate-‐related activities. An example is the national programme for managing climate change in Malawi, where the government of Malawi is supported by three UN agencies (UNDP, FAO and UNEP) and other development part-‐ners to build a National Climate Change Response Framework and Strategy which will support na-‐tional and local government institutions in delivering long term climate-‐resilient and sustainable de-‐velopment. Institutional developments include the establishment of a National Steering Committee on Climate Change within the highest levels of government, and a Government-‐donor Technical


Working Group on Climate Change.13 Similar arrangements on climate change and specific topics (e.g. agriculture, rangelands) are common in many countries with the purpose of coordinating actions and learning between government, donors and technical agencies, and among donors themselves. The effectiveness of such arrangements has not been assessed.

Identifying cooperation partners

The national government level is important for several reasons (OECD 2009: 70):

• Legislation and regulations set at national level directly or indirectly affect incentives for undertaking adaptation measures;

• National level policy sets the framework within which lower levels of government oper-‐ate;

• Coordination of sectoral policies and agencies takes place at national level; • International aspects of climate change response are managed at national level; • Policy dialogues with donors and donor budgetary support take place at this level.

Development cooperation can support the performance of these functions at national level. But clearly, adaptation will not be achieved solely by actions at the national level. In many contexts, inte-‐grating change agents (i.e. local governments, civil society) at local and sub-‐national level into na-‐tional processes contributes to adaptive capacity.

In many countries, civil society groups and national and local NGOs have been playing a key role in adaptation, both in terms of raising awareness about climate change, and in helping governments and donors to develop adaptation responses. Reid et al. (2012) provides over 60 case studies of Southern civil society activities in relation to climate change. In many countries, civil society networks have been active in raising awareness, conducting research, disseminating knowledge, building ca-‐pacity and influencing government policy. The media is also playing a key role in both reaching out to the public and in providing information to policy makers, and is often an important link to both gov-‐ernment and citizens for civil society networks. Many civil society networks have identified the lack of coherence in government responses as a key barrier to adaptation at national level, and are active in advocating for and supporting integration between ministries and policies, as well as promoting the interests of the poor and other vulnerable groups in adaptation policy and planning. They are also often involved in both supporting pilot actions at local level and in linking these pilot actions to national level advocacy. Given the broad range of activities ongoing in many countries from local to international level, some have suggested that development cooperation can best focus on support-‐ing organizations and networks that bridge across levels (e.g. linking local to national and interna-‐tional processes) and on organizations that play many roles (e.g. implementation, knowledge genera-‐tion, advocacy etc.) (Downing et al. 2011).

Private enterprises potentially have a key role to play in adaptation, such as applying technological innovation to adaptation issues, designing climate resilient infrastructure, and improving information and marketing systems (Reid et al. 2012), and in some sectors may provide the key driver for adop-‐tion of adaptation measures that benefit rural people (see Box 4). While roles for the private sector in adaptation are often espoused in policy documents, and it is clear that many adaptation actions are supported by the private sector, such as agricultural input and machinery supply, irrigation sys-‐tem development, or developing climate-‐resilient seed varieties (Spielman et al. 2010), very little research has been done about their actual involvement in developing countries. Research on the role

13 http://www.undp-‐aap.org/countries/malawi


of private insurance companies in providing agricultural insurance in India finds, for example, that firms’ involvement in adaptation is driven by profitability of adaptation measures, and tempered by government regulatory policies (Fisher & Surminski 2012). Berkhout et al. (2006) reports that the clearest incentives for companies in the housing and water sectors to consider climate change adap-‐tation came not from market signals but from regulations and best practice guidance provided by government or industry bodies. Adaptation to climate change is a recently emerging issue in business circles.14 On the one hand, in some sectors firms are increasingly aware of the risks that climate change poses, and leading firms in some value chains are acting to address climate risks. On the oth-‐er hand, many firms are either unaware of the relevance of climate change to their businesses or remain to be convinced that action on climate change can support profitability.

Box 7: Partnerships with the private sector: experiences of the AdapCC project Adaptation for Smallholders to Climate Change (AdapCC) was a Private Public Partnership between Cafédirect and GIZ. AdapCC supported coffee and tea farmers in developing strategies to cope with the risks and impacts of climate change. The pilot initiative was implemented between April 2007 and February 2010, with a focus on six countries: Mexico, Nicara-‐gua, Peru, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Working with a coalition of local producers and international experts in each re-‐gion, AdapCC has worked directly with the grower communities to collaboratively develop a range of technical and financial strategies to cope with deteriorating farming conditions.

In formal terms, the main private sector partner was Cafédirect Plc, the UK’s largest Fairtrade hot drinks company. Through their trading and business model Cafédirect have built long-‐term direct relationships with their growers. The growers hold shares in the company and sit on the Board. Cafédirect also invest a percentage of their profits in growers’ organizations through their Producer Partnership Programme, which works among other things on long-‐term issues facing the growers, such as climate change. Within the context of the Public-‐Private Partnership project, Cafédirect and GTZ shared the respon-‐sibility for the project coordination and management.

Other partners, such as private companies in the targeted coffee producing regions, trading partners of Cafédirect, and other stakeholders were also involved via the Public-‐Private-‐Partnership instrument.

Source: GIZ (2010)

3.2.3 Processes and learning Supporting learning among stakeholders is a key component of GIZ’s capacity building approach (GIZ 2011). In the climate change context, generating and sharing of knowledge, building networks of collaboration and supporting practical learning are key strategies to enhancing adaptive capacity. Adaptation is sometimes presented as a question of making the right decision with a view to reduc-‐ing future vulnerability. However, adaptation should rather be seen as a series of decisions over time, in which risks and options are evaluated, chosen and then outcomes monitored and re-‐viewed again. This is both because climate risks change over time as climate and socio-‐economic activities exposed to risk change, and also because the effectiveness of adaptation actions needs to be reviewed and assessed, and the results of assessment acted upon. This process is a process of learning through action. Organizations – and development cooperation partnerships – need to invest in supporting learning about effective adaptation among staff within their own organizations or part-‐nerships, and among the networks of their stakeholders.

Within organizations, a number of factors and processes have been found to be important in promot-‐ing learning (Tanner et al. 2012). These include:

• Champions of climate change among leadership within the organization; • Changing structures, processes and reward systems to incentivize staff to engage with cli-‐

mate change, (e.g. requiring climate impact assessments as part of working procedures); and 14 http://www.bonn-‐perspectives.de/en/dialogue-‐events/climate_change_adaptation/results.html


• Supporting staff through collective learning activities. Training is only one form of activity to support learning. Involving staff in strategic assessments provides opportunities for staff to analyze and learn together. Formal events should also be supplemented by encouraging in-‐formal spaces for sharing and learning because people make particular use of informal insti-‐tutional settings outside their formal organizational settings for innovation and creative thinking that they can later apply to their organizational setting (Pelling et al. 2008).

With regard to formal processes for social learning about climate change, two general approaches have been identified: social learning programs, and monitoring and evaluation of change processes and outcomes.

Social learning refers to learning by stakeholders through inquiries and actions undertaken together with other stakeholders about climate change and about the effectiveness of response measures (Cohen et al. 2006; Falaleeva & Albert 2009). Learning refers to three types of learning:

• Cognitive learning about factual knowledge related to climate change, e.g. what climate change is taking place? What risks does climate change pose for the local area? What adap-‐tation options have been tried elsewhere?

• Normative knowledge related to values, norms and belief systems, e.g. learning to value and respect the perspectives of other stakeholders and their interests;

• Relational learning about the positions and nature of other stakeholders, e.g. engaging in learning activities together may build trust between stakeholders.

By addressing more than one type of learning, learning in and with social groups leads to new knowledge, shared understanding, trust and, ultimately, collective action (Lebel et al. 2010). Social learning in a specific context may take the form of multi-‐stakeholder participatory inquiry. Learning networks are common mechanism for promoting learning across locations (Chishakwe et al. 2012) and across levels (e.g. linking local and national or international partners in social learning), as de-‐scribed in Box 8. Many such networks are relatively new, but initial lessons from facilitating multi-‐site social learning networks for climate change adaptation are beginning to be shared (e.g. Fisher & Har-‐vey 2012). Such reflections aid other adaptation programs in supporting more effective learning among stakeholders.

Box 8: CARE adaptation learning initiative CARE launched the Adaptation Learning Programme (ALP) for Africa in 2010, with support of DfID, the Ministries of For-‐eign Affairs of Denmark and Finland, and Austrian Development Cooperation. The ALP’s overarching goal is to increase the capacity of vulnerable households in Sub-‐Saharan Africa to adapt to climate variability and change. Working in partnership with local civil society and government institutions, the ALP is implemented in 40 communities across Ghana, Niger, Mozambique and Kenya. Learning from the programme is shared with policymakers and adaptation practitioners across Africa and globally. The initiative’s activities include:

Supporting innovative approaches to community-‐based adaptation: ALP applies CARE’s people-‐centered approach to adaptation, refines the approach and generates best practice models for planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluat-‐ing CBA initiatives, sharing best practices among the network members and with CARE’s other partners.

Empowering communities and civil society organizations: ALP supports communities to participate in local governance by facilitating participatory and inclusive approach to local planning, for example by convening multi-‐stakeholder planning workshops.

Promoting CBA best practices The aim of the ALP is to demonstrate models of best practice for CBA that can be scaled up and replicated across a range of climate and socio-‐economic contexts. The programme uses learning networks and other innovative approaches to disseminate these models in support of adoption by civil society and government in the regions and countries where it works.

Influencing national, regional and international policies and programmes: The programme and its partners will use the practical experiences to inform policy recommendations on adaptation funding mechanisms at national and international and levels, e.g. through participating in side events at UNFCCC COPs.

Source: http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/adaptation/ALP.pdf


3.3 Summary New aspects of institutional support in the face of climate change

• Institutions that support collective action, effective planning and cooperation, and collaborative learning from adaptation initiatives can enhance adaptive capacity.

Key messages Good practice examples

Problem diagnosis

• Strengthening climate change capacities of existing institu-‐tions, and supporting coordina-‐tion among institutions are key challenges.

• Aligning agriculture sector institutions with national dis-‐aster risk reduction plans in Nepal.

• Identifying capacity needs for mainstreaming climate change in Kenya’s Ministry of Agricul-‐ture.

Implementation • Supporting institutions that increase linkages across levels enhance adaptive capacity

• Multi-‐stakeholder delibera-‐tions can be important in the face of scientific uncertainties

• Strengthening community-‐based disaster risk reduction institutions in the GIZ SIDPABB project (Mozambique).

• Multi-‐stakeholder platforms for planning on the basis of seasonal forecasts (Ghana, Kenya).

Finance • Public-‐Private Partnership in the GIZ-‐supported AdapCC project (Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda)

M & E • Successful adaptation over time requires a process of learning. Organizations need to support learning among their staff, and also create opportu-‐nities for learning between stakeholders.

• CARE’s Adaptation Learning Programme in Africa.


4 Resilient markets

A number of global studies on adaptation options show that enhanced agricultural productivity and a related value chain that supports participation of producers of all sizes in the market can increase the resilience of rural people (Nelson et al. 2009). Interventions in markets can enhance economic household resilience by stabilizing, diversifying or increasing income (see Table 2 above). The physical resilience of the production system might be positively impacted by introducing environmental standards, safeguards and certificates, while farmers have the potential to profit socially from fair trade and other social standards. By resilient markets, we therefore mean markets that contribute to increasing the resilience of rural people

Price and production risks in agriculture are strongly related to climate change (Iturrioz 2009). Both risks are particularly severe for smallholder producers in developing countries, because they do not have buffers to cope with climate change and lack access to finance and insurance mechanisms that could help to mitigate these risks. Repeated crop failure may trigger price increases and reduce farm returns, which in turn limits smallholders’ ability to invest in production inputs that could assist in adaptation (e.g. irrigation, fertilizers, and access to information). Building markets that support farm-‐ers’ resilience aims to break this vicious circle. Supporting resilient markets can buffer climate change related supply shortages and price volatility. A range of market-‐based instruments exist to manage climate and other production risks, such as contract marketing and futures contracts15, in-‐surance and credit mechanisms (World Bank 2005). Many of these interventions do not target adap-‐tation to climate change per se, but increase household economic resilience by addressing other existing economic stressors and leaving actors better prepared to deal with the additional challenge of climate change.

Markets are important for the exchange of products, to enable specialized production and for coor-‐dinating supply and demand through price signals. Information on the share of agricultural products traded in local, regional and global markets is difficult to obtain, but in general most agricultural pro-‐duce is traded within countries. FAO (2009) estimates that 16% of world production enters interna-‐tional trade at present, up from about 10% a few decades ago, and the share of internationally trad-‐ed agricultural commodities continues to increase (Hajkowicz et al. 2012). Asia and Africa increasing-‐ly rely on agricultural imports (Figure 5). This increase in developing country net imports has mainly been due to large cereal and dairy product imports to China. However, Africa is also a growing net importer of cereals and dairy products. Production variability, expensive inputs, high transport costs and high losses from farms to markets lower the competitiveness of the agricultural sectors in many developing countries, resulting in trade deficits. In least developed countries and Sub-‐Saharan Africa, food import bills as a share of GDP are highest (FAO 2012). At the same time, large global suppliers have benefited from subsidies in export markets and the transformation of the retail sector in importing countries, resulting in a growing prevalence of higher food standards.

15 A futures contract is a standardized contractual agreement between two parties to buy or sell a particular commodity for a pre-‐determined price in the future. The quality and quantity are pre-‐defined and the contract is traded at the futures exchange. The contract provides the ability for those with price risk (farmers or processors) to shift that risk to a market participant willing to accept it.


Figure 5: Food surpluses and deficits

Source: The Economist (2012)

By improving agricultural productivity and domestic competitiveness, imports are likely to be re-‐duced, and consequently, higher levels of self-‐sufficiency will be compatible with food security and poverty reduction (FAO 2012). This may lead to a shift in the distribution of production towards more favorable areas within countries (Streck et al. 2011). The logical consequence is an increase in (do-‐mestic) trade.

This does not necessarily increase the resilience of people in marginal areas however and the socio-‐economic consequences are not yet fully understood. Land-‐use policies can only concentrate spatial distribution of production if economic development supports urban migration and reduces land use pressure in the more marginal agricultural production places, as has been observed in some coun-‐tries like China. Impacts of climate change on global agricultural trade are discussed in detail by Nel-‐son et al. (2009) and Meridian Institute (2011). In this chapter we focus on domestic markets only. In essence, by participating in functioning markets smallholders can enhance and stabilize their household income. By specializing in certain value adding activities they can benefit from markets that provide a demand for a wider variety of products including a premium for higher quality.

4.1 Problem diagnosis Narrowing the focus to a domestic perspective in developing countries, one main reason for poorly functioning local, regional and national smallholder relevant commodity markets are underdevel-‐oped value chains. Market failures, i.e. when the allocation of goods and services by free markets are not efficient, can be regarded best along value chains from the producer to the consumer end.

While value chain development poses a good opportunity to support resilient markets, particular caution has to be taken to address the needs of the poor, since value chains typically favor better-‐off farmers, processors, and traders (Hartmann 2012). These biases are sometimes supported by government initiatives such as regulatory requirements, price regulations, and subsidies targeted at certain market actors, and monopolistic systems for storage and trade. Poor access to financing and


knowledge gaps hinder small and marginalized producers from participating in value chain develop-‐ment.

Value chain analysis is a widely used tool to pinpoint these constraints and identify priority areas of support. In the process, weaknesses of the chain are identified and interventions to increase the product flow from the field through various processes to the consumer (and including post-‐consumption waste management) and the realization of value at different stages in the chain identi-‐fied. The GIZ Value Link Manual (GIZ 2012) distinguishes four phases of value chain analysis, including the boundary setting, the chain analysis and strategy, the implementation and the monitoring phas-‐es. In a pilot project, this tool is currently being tested together with the GIZ (2011) Climate Proofing tool in Bolivia, to identify and support the implementation of climate-‐smart peach value chain devel-‐opment together with the Agricultural Ministry and the private sector. Methods for climate impact assessment and adaptation planning in multiple regions within the same value chain are relatively new (e.g. Winkler et al. 2010) and under constant development, but tools for such analysis are likely to become increasingly sought after. Some examples of providing value chain actors with decision-‐support tools in developed countries exist,16 but applications in developing countries are relatively rare. However, the GIZ-‐CaféDirect partnership project, AdapCC, developed a 7-‐step procedure for adaptation planning together with coffee and tea value chain stakeholders. The approach, Risk and Opportunity Analysis, was applied in several countries and used to develop local adaptation plans (see Box 9).

Box 9: Risk and Opportunity Analysis in the coffee and tea sectors Between 2007 and 2010, GIZ partnered with private sector and non-‐government stakeholders to support climate change adaptation activities in the coffee and tea sectors in 6 countries. In each country, a participatory process of risk and oppor-‐tunity analysis (ROA) was conducted to identify options for responding to climate change. The ROA procedure involves 7 steps:

By following these steps, site-‐specific adaptation strategies were developed in each locality. Although the project focused on the coffee and tea sectors, it is notable that the adaptation plans developed addressed more than the technical and managerial aspects of the tea and coffee businesses. Many farmers in these value chains, were farming on degraded and degrading lands, and faced a number of constraints that were not specific to the targeted value chains. By working with local and international partners, specific climate change adaptation needs were addressed within the wider context of land use, development and value chain issues.

Source: GIZ (2010)

16 E.g. http://www.pileus.msu.edu/ for tart cherry farmers in the USA


Value chain development should always increase profitability and efficiency, and support poverty reduction and economic development strategies. To assess potential tradeoffs, negative impacts of market-‐oriented development should also be considered. For example, the development of modern procurement systems linked to supermarkets can exclude smallholder farmers from market access, because buying agents prefer to purchase from large farms. However, considering that most farmers in rural areas of developing countries are smallholder producers and that due to climate change a number of large buyers are concerned about supply risks, there is increased recognition of the po-‐tential of smallholders, if linked to other value chain actors through marketing associations, for ex-‐ample. Access to finance and market information are also key areas to explore within a value chain analysis. Participatory assessments with women, men and mixed groups are usually the best way to understand the complex lending and borrowing arrangements at village level and to identify the most appropriate solution to improve economic resilience.

4.2 Implementation Table 4 outlines some of the main options for building climate resilient markets. As indicated in the previous chapters many of the proposed investment options are expected to support economic de-‐velopment and should be considered with or without climate change. However, climate change will require an additional filter to assess the costs and benefits related to the different investment op-‐tions.

Table 4: Options to enhance farmer household resilience by market inter-‐ventions Category Examples Intent/

timing (ex-‐post vs. ex-‐ante)

Duration (short, medium, long term)

Risk implica-‐tions (miti-‐gating, or coping)

Type of resilience

Insurance • Weather based insurance • buyer insurance against

climate related production failure (meso-‐level crop in-‐surance)

ex-‐post short term coping resilience against CC induced harvest losses

Government inter-‐ventions

• Subsidies under certain pre-‐conditions

• strategic food reserves

ex-‐ante short to medium term

coping economic resilience

Rural finance • loans and saving schemes • microfinance • credits

ex-‐ante medium to long term

mitigation economic resilience

Market access • support to cooperatives to enable smallholder farmers to access input and commod-‐ity markets at more favorable terms

• access to finance • transparency • infrastructure to reduce

transport costs and related price volatility


mitigation economic resilience, social resili-‐ence through participation and learning


Market standards, certification

• Fair trade and organic stand-‐ards to enhance climate resil-‐ient production and value addition

• Sanitary and phytosanitary production and handling standards


mitigation economic, social and environmen-‐tal resilience

Outgrower schemes, future contracts

• Contract marketing and future contracts

• Standard contract terms to reduce transaction costs for producers


mitigation resilience against price volatility

Value chain devel-‐opment

• storage and cooling facilities • capacity building for im-‐

proved storage • reducing post-‐harvest losses • marketing • locally added value, pro-‐

cessing

ex-‐ante long term mitigation economic resilience, social resili-‐ence through participation and learning

Institution building • Commodity exchanges to improve market information and reduce transaction costs

• Warehouse receipt systems to provide collateral for farmers

• Research on the role of mar-‐kets for adaptation

ex-‐ante long term mitigation economic resilience

Government interventions are required for many of the above outlined options to increase farmer’s economic resilience. Beyond providing infrastructure and the necessary institutional setup, govern-‐ment interference with markets often fails or may result in extending personal, party and state pow-‐er and patronage. There is a risk that interventions related to the development of climate resilient markets may fall victim to the same traps. Therefore, governments should transparently inform about the public goods and wider social objectives that market interventions should achieve in the face of climate change, and assess the impact, cost and benefits of interventions against the objec-‐tive of supporting farmers’ resilience. The re-‐assessment of European biofuel mandate in the light of indirect land use change and food price effects, among others, is one example, where a policy is be-‐ing re-‐assessed as unintended outcomes of a climate change-‐related market intervention were iden-‐tified.

One classic area of public investment is road and market infrastructure as a precondition for market access and to strengthen the economic resilience of rural areas. It is a pre-‐condition to reduce trans-‐action costs and physical losses related to market transactions, as presented in a case study from Bangladesh in Box 10.

Box 10: Reducing flood induced rice price hikes in Bangladesh through international trade Heavy floods in Bangladesh in 1998 destroyed part of the rice crop and the government was confronted with a number of different options: importing rice at a cost of US$50-‐100 million, subsidizing rice with total fiscal costs of US$160-‐210 million, or liberalizing trade and permitting the private sector to import rice from India. The government decided on the latter which increased imports six times compared to previous government programs. In addition, the government provided grants to expand rice production and built road infrastructure and bridges to ensure distribution. A number of countries are currently increasing crop reserves to improve market resilience. However, the example above shows that international trade may provide a more cost effective option. The recent food crises also show the impacts of trade policies. In summer


2010 Russia decided to suspend wheat export due to droughts, after which Ukraine, Belarus, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan also restricted or banned wheat exports later in the year. This behavior reduced the market resilience to extreme climate events and caused a cascade of activities contributing to the global food price spike.

Sources: del Ninno et al. (2001), Anderson & Nelgen (2010)

The prevalence of immature trader systems with rapidly changing participants involved in purchas-‐ing, collecting, grading and bulking products from small-‐scale producers is characteristic of highly localized informal markets and may also indicate poor access to formal markets. Such systems may often not be capable of responding to climate related shocks within the market chain, e.g. when drought related crop failures affect a certain region. At the same time, informal local markets can provide specialized products adapted to climate change that are not available in formalized markets (Box 11). Formalizing local systems by establishing producer cooperatives for example, can increase farmers’ economic resilience by providing access to targeted extension, inputs and credits and dis-‐seminating the products to other affected regions.

Box 11: Resilient seed markets The majority of farmers in developing countries access their seed from informal seed markets. This seed is often saved from the previous harvest and there is widespread exchange within social networks. The seed is generally not certified and the exchange is often informal. Food and seed markets are often indistinguishable and farmers may rely on grain sold in food markets for their seed supply, even though it may be inferior as seed. However, these local crop varieties are often very well adapted to prevailing climate conditions and pests, and farmers that have the knowledge to identify the seed’s geo-‐graphic origin and are able to pick the most suitable varieties can generate reasonable risk adjusted yields at decent costs.

Resilient seed markets would benefit from policies that encourage the conservation of land races and minor crops, while also reducing the regulations that slow the development and release of improved cultivars that utilize germplasm from these races and crops. Accredited seed inspectors could license local seed producers and local seed and genetic diversity fairs could be organized to maintain local knowledge.

In the Douentza Circle of Northern Mali, specialized production villages in Haire commune are an important source for the regional seed market. Due to extreme weather conditions only early maturing pearl millet and sorghum varieties are suited for these arid areas. The quality of the seed and availability after extreme droughts convinced farmers in the area to ex-‐change land races and to buy seed from these specialized villages.

Sources: Lipper et al (2010), CRS and Partners (2006)

Small-‐scale farmers can form groups or associate with producer organizations to aggregate their pro-‐duce or to participate in out-‐grower systems to access related markets. But producing more is not necessarily a sufficient solution without accompanying measures. Cooperatives have to be aware that the scale is driven by the profit maximization objective of different actors along the whole value chain. Many smallholder relevant value chains operate in restricted local markets, where an in-‐creased supply due to better production or marketing techniques for example can lead to price de-‐cline (Hartmann 2012).

Success factors for the support of cooperatives in the land use sector include (FAO 2012):

• Building on existing cooperatives and producer organizations (rather than creating new ones) and enhancing their cohesion and local credibility; encourage them to provide services that enhance the economic resilience of their members (e.g. business plan development, training on entrepreneurial activities), since that is the main reason for smallholders to join.

• Capacity building support in-‐ and outside of the groups to ensure the principles of account-‐ability, inclusivity and cooperation towards members and external partners of the coopera-‐tives. Helping to bring farmer groups into markets for environmental services and interna-‐


tional climate change mitigation might be of an added value to cooperatives (Woelcke, 2012).

• Combining direct support of cooperatives with advocating an enabling environment for their successful functioning at the policy level is crucial; awareness raising among decision makers about the importance of secure land tenure, resource rights, enabling economic con-‐ditions and a long term government support puts producer groups in a better position.

A further area of market support can increase economic resilience by addressing post-‐harvest losses. Preliminary estimates indicate that about one-‐third of all food produced globally gets lost at some stage of the production chain from farm to fork. In developing countries, these losses occur mostly in the post-‐harvest and processing stages (Gustavsson et al 2011) adding further pressure on food inse-‐cure households. Taking into account the expected increase in pest and disease related food losses due to climate change, reducing waste is another important area for climate resilient market devel-‐opment. Interventions to reduce post-‐harvest losses (PHL) are not new and a wealth of technical material exists to assist farmers in introducing low cost techniques (e.g. GTZ 1996). However, a re-‐newed and integrated focus on PHL along the whole value chain might be needed in the face of cli-‐mate change and a growing world population, especially for staple crops in smallholders systems (World Bank 2011). Failed attempts to push for postharvest improvements by only focusing on tech-‐nical aspects, mostly applied in the 1970s to 1990s, have highlighted the limitations of an isolated approach. The relevance of the promoted technology to the local situation, its acceptability and costs are critical factors in creating impact and can be determined by factors and constraints along the value chain —not necessarily only at the farm level. More holistic interventions like coupling the promotion of technologies and practices at various stages of the supply chain with market infor-‐mation systems; commodity exchanges; warehouse receipts; linking farmers to markets; promoting agricultural commercialization and export orientation among others have proven to be more success-‐ful (ibid.). A recent study (World Bank, 2011) provides an overview of costs and benefits of different PHL technologies from crop improvement to pest management in storage, adoption barriers and future prospects; but the detailed economics and institutional issues of loss reduction remains a ma-‐jor research topic (Box 12).

Box 12: Learning alliances for reducing post-‐harvest losses A learning alliance is a process undertaken jointly by research organizations, development agencies, policy makers, and private businesses. It involves identifying, sharing, and adapting good practices in research and development in specific contexts and on specific topics. The approach has been applied to a postharvest research project looking into the use of diatomaceous earths (naturally occurring sedimentary rocks) as grain protectants in Tanzania and Zimbabwe. It was recog-‐nized that if the work was to have widespread impact, the institutional context needed to be examined and addressed.

The postharvest Innovation Learning Alliance was created to establish better ways for organizations and individuals to work together to promote the uptake of postharvest technologies, including siliceous sands that act as a mechanic pest control for stored grain protection. Case studies and field trials were conducted, and information and reports were shared widely among team members including farmers, researchers, extension staff and government officers. The biggest institutional challenge regarding the spread of this technology is that it not legally allowed for agricultural use in Tanzania and Zimba-‐bwe, although communities in both countries have long been using this type of soft rock from local deposits. The project activities have led to the inclusion of the technology in research activities in Zambia and Uganda however. Additionally, based on the findings, local mining entrepreneurs in areas with such deposits have shown interest to widen their product base to include grain protectants, a development that might reduce the cost of this (so far imported) technology in the long run.

Source: World Bank (2011)


There are a number of market-‐related intervention options to reduce farmers’ exposure to climate risks. Better land use planning and timely access to weather information can reduce these risks. On-‐farm participatory research on best adaptation practices and a sustainable supply of climate adapted inputs is important to enable farmers to build social and economic resilience through switching planting dates, crop varieties or crops, expanding irrigation, crop insurance and to diversify income (Lobell & Burke 2010). Broader economic adjustments to climate change such as entire regions shift-‐ing into and out of production of different crops are already occurring, such as the northwards shift in the climatically suitable area for grape production in China (Li et al. 2009), and may increase in high-‐exposure areas in the future.

Agricultural input subsidies, especially for fertilizer, are increasingly discussed as an option to en-‐hance agricultural productivity and food security in developing countries, notably in Africa. Case studies suggest that subsidies have achieved positive short to medium term results such as promot-‐ing input use, raising output and therefore reducing poverty (Wiggins & Brooks 2010). The argument for subsidies often seems politically attractive, because they provide a ready to use solution to de-‐veloping input markets and associated financial services to small farmers. The high implementation costs and possible longer term negative effects on vulnerability (ineffectiveness of resource alloca-‐tion, distortion of cost factors, leakage to higher income groups, diversion to non-‐food crops) might counterbalance the short term effects however.

Furthermore, if paid upon unspecified parameters such as production area, output quantity or num-‐ber of animals, agricultural subsidies often prevent climate resilient land, water and energy use. In OECD countries for example, such subsidies support inefficient and non-‐competitive sugar produc-‐tion, which could otherwise be phased out. However, there is a general trend of decoupling subsidies from production towards a broader set of rural and environmental services (Bashkar & Beghin 2009). Such kind of subsidies, although not widely adopted in developing countries so far, could also sup-‐port adaptation objectives in rural areas by encouraging resource efficient production. Direct support to infrastructure, research and extension and financial services for smallholders might be better suit-‐ed yet more complex measures to address rural development (Wiggins & Brooks 2010), even more so in the face of climate change.

Strategic food reserves – government owned stocks either to ensure availability of food on domestic markets or to ensure access to food by vulnerable groups in times of food crises – face similar chal-‐lenges as agricultural subsidies. National stock policies have been costly – they tie up scarce re-‐sources, the grain is vulnerable to deterioration, corruption and theft and, like internationally held stocks, they discourage private stockholding (Gilbert 2011).

In a number of close-‐to-‐food-‐sufficient Asian countries national rice stockpiles have managed to insu-‐late domestic consumers from volatility in world prices by using a combination of export taxes and a small buffer stock however (Timmer 2010). This experience may not translate well to countries which are major importers or which experience severe weather shocks now and more frequently in a future with climate change. National food security stocks might also be necessary in landlocked countries if no other “stabilizing” options are available to prevent the explosion of already high transport costs in case of emergency (Gilbert 2011). It has to be kept in mind however that national level stocks cannot guarantee household level food security of the most vulnerable groups per se.

In summary, resilient markets are crucial to cope with climate change and to ensure food security with a limited environmental footprint related to water and biodiversity use and greenhouse gas emissions. Market price volatility and the impact of government interventions during the food price hikes in 2008 and 2011 indicate that resilient markets with strong private sector engagement can only evolve if government interventions are better coordinated to prevent market disruption, and to ensure fair and equitable conditions for small-‐scale producers.


4.3 Monitoring and Evaluation In most countries, data collected through the existing agricultural monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is used for planning and forecasting purposes. Ministry of Agriculture reports, for example, on the food security status of a given country, are usually based on data or information submitted by lower agricultural administrative units. Agricultural M&E systems have a range of objectives, including:

• Monitoring and forecasting food security situation

• justifying public investments in agriculture

• Benchmarking/rewarding performance

The need for an M&E system in an organization cannot be underestimated. Every M&E system has a series of data requirements that stipulate the reporting format and the type of data collected for specified indicators. It also standardizes the monitoring and reporting frequency and the kind of qual-‐ity checks built into the system. To adequately inform national food security or environmental status, an agricultural sector wide monitoring system is expected to be robust and entail clear descriptions of all agricultural (crop and/or livestock) activities starting from farm/household level through inter-‐mediary administration levels to the marketing or national level.

Monitoring agricultural markets at regional, national and international level is the pre-‐condition for designing informed market interventions. The recently developed Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) will help to aggregate information at the global level (see Box 9). However, the quality of AMIS depends on the willingness to share data in a transparent manner and on the quality of na-‐tional monitoring systems, which are often weak and not statistically robust.

Monitoring and evaluation of agricultural policy interventions on market resilience should include a qualitative and quantitative analysis of:

• Social, environmental and economic resilience impacts from policies in place;

• Public expenditures, including national budget and aid flows related to the interventions to understand the effectiveness; and

• Market performance and development indicators.

Box 13: Agricultural market information system (AMIS) Monitoring and evaluation is key to improving information and decision making related to resilient markets. The recently established global Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) aims to integrate existing market intelligence and to provide governments with better information when designing interventions. The participants of AMIS are the G20 coun-‐tries, Spain, and seven developing countries that together account for more than 90 percent of world food production and consumption. Initial commodities to be tracked are wheat, rice, maize, and soybeans. Food reserve management is a par-‐ticularly strong instrument available to governments. Timely purchases and releases can reduce, rather than amplify, local and world food price volatility.

Source: World Bank (2012)

The general challenges of national monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems, usually coordinated by agricultural sector ministries, are outlined in the following chapter on resilient production and apply to market performance M&E as well. So far there is little understanding beyond the case study level (see example in Box 13) of the role local, subnational and national markets can play for strengthening farmers’ resilience. This makes M&E challenging if not impossible.


4.4 Financing mechanisms Farming is an inherently risky activity and with climate change risks are expected to increase. How-‐ever, what is often ignored is that the majority of farmers, in particular women, have plenty of expe-‐rience with complex financial transaction structures. A smallholder farmer is often engaged simulta-‐neously in forward contracts, loans at various risk adjusted interest rates, and is dealing with differ-‐ent counter parties including family members, neighbors, farmer organizations, money lenders, mi-‐cro-‐finance institutions, commercial and public banks.

Considering this situation, group loans and saving schemes are often the most appropriate and flexi-‐ble mechanism to provide financial services. However, this base of the financing pyramid is often limited because members insist that savings are disbursed annually or because the transaction costs to open an account for savings are too high. Public banks with a mandate to serve the rural popula-‐tion are often not well servicing their customer base. In Africa a number of rural banking innovations are currently tested in the framework of public private partnerships. In Kenya M-‐PESA is a mobile phone based money transfer service used by 15 million users or 70% of the adult population and has become central to the millions of farmers to send and receive money and to settle bills. Biometric cards have been tested by DfID in Malawi and Kenya to channel money for safety net payments, but the technology is also promising for other financial transactions (RHVP 2010).

Agricultural insurance in general and climate insurance mechanisms in particular have been around in North America and Europe for decades, covering the whole spectrum of weather shocks. However, since the early 2000s they received more attention by governments in developing countries, in par-‐ticular in India (Mahul & Stutley, 2010). Climate insurance is available at smallholder level (micro), rural financial institution level (meso) and government level as a contingent credit line that provides food safety nets for the poor (Stutley 2012). In 2011 the global agricultural insurance premium cov-‐ered US$19bn, of which 75% was paid in North America and Europe. The share of weather-‐based index insurance (WII), excluding North America and Europe, was US$150m. WII is mainly used in In-‐dia and Mexico. However commercial schemes are also operating in Thailand, Malawi, Kenya, Ethio-‐pia, Mali, Ghana and Peru. The index-‐based Livestock Insurance in Mongolia (see Box 14) is among the most advanced climate insurance systems outside the developed insurance markets.

Experts participating in the KFW Financial Sector Development Symposium 2012 agreed that there is potential for agricultural insurance, in particular in Africa, assuming an efficient business model can be developed. Due to the lack of market and regulatory framework conditions, insurance illiteracy, low agricultural productivity and low involvement of local governments, it is difficult to increase the general market condition for insurance products beyond the current level of 1%. Combining crop insurance with life and health insurance, or with agricultural inputs supply as is done in the Kilimo Salama insurance program in Kenya, and exploring mobile phone technology distribution channels have been identified as promising approaches to increase market penetration. However, as present-‐ed above, market based climate insurance mechanisms can only complement household, community and government mechanisms. The recent review of World Bank experience with Climate Change Adaptation practices highlighted that household-‐level agricultural index-‐insurance has had limited uptake except where heavily subsidized (IEG 2012).

Box 14: Index-‐based Livestock Insurance in Mongolia In Mongolia semi-‐nomadic herders make up approximately 30% of the population. Herders mainly raise sheep, goats and cattle and are exposed to extreme climatic conditions. With increasing frequency their livelihoods are severely affected by extreme dzud events characterized by sudden onset of winter storms, very low temperature and high snow fall. In case of prior droughts in the summer, herds are weak and the two harsh winters 2000-‐2002 and the also extreme winter 2009-‐2010 killed 11 million and 9.7 heads of livestock respectively. In the latter event herders lost on average 22% of their herd.


In response, Index-‐based Livestock Insurance was introduced in 2005 offering herder’s private insurance policies that pay out when local livestock mortality rates exceed the 6% trigger in their region. The government acts as a reinsurer and co-‐vers extreme events when the loss is beyond 30% and has a contingent credit line from the World Bank when their related disaster relief funds are exhausted. In the winter 2009-‐2010, the 7000 herders that had purchased the insurance received in excess of USD 1.3m which exhausted the government disaster relief funds and approximately 84% of the losses were paid by the contingent credit line from the World Bank. The handful of private insurance companies did not cover the losses in the extreme winter, but covered smaller losses. The number of herder’s purchasing insurance is slowly increasing, but the insurance still only covers a relatively small percentage of the overall herding population. Lessons learned are that signifi-‐cant public investment is required to install the weather-‐based index insurance scheme and that it is a continuous challenge to cover the technical support from the commercial premium based on a fair risk sharing arrangement with the insurance industry. The World Bank has invested US$18million in this project to date. Multiple financial and insurance products should be offered to reduce the transaction costs that are relatively high compared to the assets covered.

Source: Goodland & Mahul (2011), IEG (2012)

4.5 Summary New aspects of market support in the face of climate change

• Resilient markets are important to cope with existing price and production risks that are enhanced by climate change. They enhance the economic resilience of rural populations by sup-‐porting their access to and participation in the market on im-‐proved terms.


Problem diagnosis

• Methods for assessing climate change impacts on multi-‐site / multi-‐national value chains have begun to be devel-‐oped

Implementation and risk management

• Options for supporting climate-‐resilient markets include those that ad-‐dress market access, market standards, reduc-‐ing waste, and reducing farmer exposure to risks.

• Price stabilization through international trade in Bangladesh

• Resilient seed markets

Finance • Weather-‐based index insurance

• Microfinance

• Index-‐based livestock insurance in Mongo-‐lia

M & E • National and interna-‐tional crop monitoring for coordinated response mechanisms to prevent food price hikes

• Global Agricultural Market Information System


5 Resilient production

5.1 Introduction Climate change will have an adverse effect on agricultural productivity in many developing regions if no countermeasures are taken (see Chapter 1). A recent systematic review of crop yield estimates under climate change (Knox et al. 2012) shows that for major staple crops, which account for 80% of total crop production in Africa and South Asia, yields are predicted to decrease on average by 8% to 2050s. Estimated yield changes are as high as -‐17% for wheat and -‐15% for sorghum in Africa and -‐16% for maize in South Asia, while no mean change for rice was evident from the data.

Even if projected changes are relatively small, the impacts on smallholder livelihoods can be im-‐mense. The case of maize in Kenya shows that a combination of macro-‐economic developments, state intervention, management choices by farmers and the added effect of climate change can drive maize dependent households into a poverty trap. Currently average Kenyan maize yields are far be-‐low the average for other developing countries and output variability is great between years (FAO-‐STAT 2012, Figure 6). The low productivity is mainly due to inefficient small-‐scale production, with a characteristically low level of fertilizer use and limited land under irrigation as elsewhere in Sub-‐Saharan Africa (FAO 2012). In times of drought when maize yields plummet, government interven-‐tions in the national maize market have additionally caused prices to rise and have had little impact on price stability (World Bank 2011). Adding to this challenging business as usual situation is climate change, expected to cause an average decrease of maize yields by 5% across Africa (Knox et al. 2012).

Figure 6: Average maize yields in selected countries

Source: FAOSTAT (2013)

Climate change is also affecting the fisheries sector, including freshwater capture, aquaculture and marine fisheries. These are major sources of animal protein that rural people in developing countries rely on for their diets. Fish accounts for over 40% of animal protein intake in 28 developing countries. Inland fishery is often a complementary livelihood option besides farming, especially for rural women (FAO 2012b).


5.2 Problem diagnosis and planning Many adaptation measures are undertaken already by vulnerable farmers. A survey among East Afri-‐can households coping with climate change and other influences has shown that farmers have made a number of farming system changes during the past 10 years, depending on their location, diversity of cash income sources, number of agricultural products produced and other factors (Kristjanson et al. 2012). The changes included crop-‐related changes like planting changes, improved soil-‐ and water management, etc. and livestock related changes such as changes to herd size and composition or feed management. The results clearly showed that households who made more changes tended to be more food secure, i.e. a strong negative correlation between food deficit months and innovative-‐ness, with the direction of this relationship likely to be both ways.

Autonomous changes made by households tend to be low-‐cost options, mostly limited to manage-‐ment choices that do not impose too much risk in the form of major additional land, water or labor allocation (Knox et al. 2012). The greatest benefits for food security however will most likely come from more expensive adaptation measures like developing new crop varieties and uptake of new technologies such as irrigation (Lobell et al. 2008). Farmers will not be able to carry the required in-‐vestments alone and will rely on strengthened institutions and focused market interventions (see Chapters 3 and 4).

The planning of interventions to promote the widespread uptake of adaptation technologies can be aided by some methodological approaches like strategic climate proofing of existing policies and programs (Box 15) or designing regional or sector action plans for addressing the impacts of climate change (Box 16).

Box 15: Climate Change Adaptation in Rural Areas of India (CCA-‐RAI)

This Indo-‐German development cooperation flagship project aims to contribute to improved livelihoods and adaptive ca-‐pacities of vulnerable rural communities in India and is aligned to the Government of India’s National Action Plan on Cli-‐mate Change.

One of the components is the design of State Action Plans for Climate Change (SAPCC), explicitly asked for by the govern-‐ment as an add-‐on to original project design. 16 states plus 2 Union Territories (UTs) have been supported to develop their SAPCCs by the project and are now in different stages of review and endorsement. Project implementers feel there is a high probability of implementation of the SAPCCs by the state departments. The formulation of the SAPCCs has enhanced coop-‐eration with other stakeholders and within MoEF (central-‐state). The whole development process has clearly enhanced learning among all stakeholders, giving the opportunity to reflect about climate change impacts and consequences.

Climate proofing is another instrument to check whether existing schemes or policies adequately take into account possible climate changes and their impacts. CCA RAI is the first project in India to introduce this tool. To date, two climate proofing processes are ongoing. Some adjustments in the guidelines and implementation of a watershed program have been incor-‐porated in the scheme after climate proofing. Whether these adjustments actually have the desired impact on the target group still needs to be verified, but the implementing agency already applies the adjustments in its day to day work. There is a good chance that the agency will bear the additional costs and will further develop and implement it.

Source: Unpublished project evaluation CCA-‐RAI

The biggest challenge of climate change in the planning process is that it introduces an additional layer of uncertainty to an already wide range of deeply uncertain projections like demographic and economic development (IEG 2012). Decision makers have long been used to managing such uncer-‐tainty using simple heuristics or more sophisticated methods like cost-‐benefit analyses. But with cli-‐mate change, radical environmental changes under which agricultural operations have to perform are now possible and cannot be ruled out in the design of investments. Climate change will be nei-‐ther reliable nor verifiable for many years in many areas. Additionally, the resolution of projections is mostly far too low and comes with very high uncertainties. Rather than planning for one extreme


scenario (e.g. 20% increase in precipitation), decision makers are more and more forced to plan for a wide variety of possible scenarios (e.g. precipitation change between -‐30 to +20% compared to his-‐torical rainfall). Water infrastructure and land use planning, with planning horizons longer than 100 years, are the sectors most exposed to the uncertainties of climate change.

Box 16: Cross-‐sectoral land use planning in the Philippines In the Philippines, climate change amplifies existing challenges like population growth and extreme weather events and outs additional pressure on the’ forests, prime agricultural lands, coastal resources and settlements. A GIZ project for cli-‐mate change adaptation in coastal areas of the country has developed an integrated ecosystem planning and management approach called SIMPLE to systematically promote specific adaptation measures (e.g. reef and mangrove management; early warning system for floods and tsunamis; and disaster preparedness measures).

SIMPLE is designed to help local governments to plan and manage their entire land territory, be it public, private or ances-‐tral lands from the forested uplands and agricultural lowlands to the coastal and marine areas (”ridge-‐to-‐reef”). It is a tool to mainstream climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction or other important topics such as improved budgeting and expenditure management at the local level. So far municipalities have no or very fragmented plans that are trans-‐formed into a comprehensive land use plan in a participatory process. SIMPLE contains process descriptions, training tools and management instruments for different administrative levels. Local planners and facilitators can apply all tools provided, such as software solutions, guidebooks or ready-‐to-‐use facilitation techniques. Localized trainings will lead to long-‐term capacity building at the local government level, which will lower the costs for planning.

Source: GIZ (2012b)

Hallegate et al. (2012) therefore make a range of recommendations on how to deal with climate change related uncertainties in decision making:

• Do not rely on downscaled climate data alone: Climate data from different models that predict widely different scenarios will not be more “certain” once downscaled to the local level, or downscaling might not be possible due to lack of local data; it will be just more precise. Therefore model results should be complemented with the sound judgments of experts who also look outside the expected range to estimate project robustness.

• Accept that uncertainty also depends on the context: Error bars on climate projections can help visualize the associated uncertainties, but they do not help so much in the actual deci-‐sion, since that will always be context specific. For some adaptation measures like water protection dams for large cities one might decide to be more pessimistic than for smaller scale structures for example.

• Change from an “optimal” to a robust approach: Traditional decision making is based on the “optimal” choice – predict the future state, define its probability and design plans and projects for the conditions of that state. This is tricky because we tend to be over-‐confident in our ability to predict the future. Robust approaches on the other hand first assess the vulnerability of project options in different scenarios, since each option will be vulnerable to climate change and other factors. So called no-‐regret or reversible strategies are robust approaches.


Hallegate et al (2012) provide the following example. The government aims at regulating down-‐stream floods and providing irrigation for local farmers by managing a heavily forested catchment area. Land management investment options include building one or more dams, setting up canals and pricing schemes for irrigation, and a forest management plan to control erosion and runoff from timber harvesting. A group of experts comes up with three plans and scientists provide four possible scenarios for climate change and future economic demand for timber. Analyzing the vulnerability of each of the three plans to the different plausible futures gives the following matrix:

Scenario A

Climate and land management along predictable lines from the past

Scenario B

Heavier rainfall and increased demand for tim-‐ber

Scenario C

Lower rainfall and no change in timber de-‐mand

Scenario D

Lower rainfall and increased demand for afforestation due to REDD effects

Plan 1

Medium size dam, canals, no forest management

++++ -‐-‐-‐ ++ +

Plan 2

2 small dams, canals, some forest management

+++ ++ +++ ++

Plan 3

Small dam, com-‐munity earthworks, irrigation ponds, intense forest management

++ + ++ +++

Supposing that research shows that scenario A is the most likely, with traditional “optimal” planning, one would opt for plan 1, since it provides the highest benefits for the most probable scenario. When uncertainty is larger, this approach does not work, because it is impossible to determine which sce-‐nario is the most likely, or because several scenarios are equally plausible. In such a situation, one option is to attribute probabilities to the different scenarios, and to use a cost-‐benefit analysis under uncertainty to determine the “best” strategy. A “robust” approach however will look at vulnerabili-‐ties under all scenarios and select the plan that is likely to perform well under all possibilities, in this case Plan 2.

5.3 Implementation and risk management Specific approaches to addressing climate change adaptation needs in the context of pressures on food security have recently begun to coalesce into a general perspective known as ‘climate-‐smart agriculture’. Increasingly, however, the question is asked what really is different about ‘climate-‐smart’ smallholder agriculture that goes beyond regular best practice in development (IFAD 2011).


Resilience-‐enhancing interventions have to be differentiated between subsistence and commercial farmers and at the household, community, regional and national levels. For example, while diversifi-‐cation of the product base might be a good idea for a small subsistence farmer in order to increase his or her food availability, specializing into niche markets might be a better option for a commercial farmer who has the resources and know-‐how to invest. The same goes for regions and even coun-‐tries.

On the production level, many experts argue that a major scaling up of successful ‘multiple-‐benefit’ approaches to sustainable agricultural intensification by smallholder farmers should be the answer. These measures can build climate resilience through managing competing land-‐use systems at the landscape level, while at the same time reducing poverty, increasing yields and lowering greenhouse gas emissions (IFAD 2011, FAO 2010).

Climate change is adding pressure to the already risk prone systems in which smallholder farming takes place. Agricultural practices that reduce production risks, e.g. through increased productivity or a direct benefit for household income, are more likely to be adopted by farmers (Bryan et al. 2011). From an adaptation point of view such measures are beneficial because they contribute to household economic resilience and ideally also to the physical resilience of the production system. In agricul-‐ture, many interventions aimed at climate change adaptation do also have co-‐benefits for mitiga-‐tion. For example improved soil and water management, agronomic practices and nutrient manage-‐ment have a large potential for accumulating organic material in the soil and improving the water carrying capacity and overall fertility of soils, resulting in better growing plants and sequestered car-‐bon. Interventions that add organic biomass to the farming system (e.g. cover crops, agroforestry) contribute to a more diverse income and sequester carbon as well.

For rural communities in coastal areas, traditional defense systems such as mangrove forests can reduce adverse climate change impacts on human lives and agricultural production. Mangrove re-‐planting has been a key strategy in Viet Nam’s Mekong Delta since the late 1990s. Kathiresan (2008) reports that a 100-‐meter wide band of mangrove forest in coastal Viet Nam was sufficient to reduce the amplitude of tidal waves by 20 percent and the associated energy by up to 90 percent. Moreover, typhoon impacts lessened following reintroduction of mangrove forests (see Box 17).

Adaptation options in the aquaculture sector include inland movement of aquaculture operations, shift from crop production to aquaculture or joint aquaculture-‐livestock production systems as has been observed in the coastal region of Bangladesh, for example. Other adaptations include use of species that are more salt-‐tolerant and those species that can withstand water turbulences/storm surges better. Finally, breeding of new species and species that depend less on food sources that are themselves threatened by climate change area important adaptation options (De Silva & Soto 2009).

Box 17: Mangrove restoration in the Sundarbans India – well aligned incentives Mangrove restoration provides crucial fishery habitats and coastal protection. In Asia a number of megacities such as Cal-‐cutta rely on mangrove bioshields to reduce the impact of floods and hurricanes. In addition, Mangroves prevent saliniza-‐tion of rice fields in many locations and therefore are very important for food security. However, the World Bank Independ-‐ent Evaluation Group recent review of 16 projects to support mangrove conservation (IEG 2012) stated that performance of these projects is variable and could be improved. Depending on the degree of planting and tree survival, method of plant-‐ing, the institutional setup and incentives and the incidence of storms in the period when mangroves were immature. Often the precise planting location was not recorded and therefore it was not possible to track the survival and growth rates.

The Nature Environment & Wildlife society (NEWS) is a well-‐established local NGO working in the Sundarbans, the largest mangrove habitat in the World straddling India and Bangladesh. The Indian part is home to more than 4 million poor and climate-‐vulnerable people. Initially the NGO was focusing on conservation and research work to protect the Bengal Tiger,


which is endemic to the region and highly threatened. However, the NGO realized that unless mangroves and the related fishing habitats are restored and rice fields are protected the communities are forced to enter the National Park to make a living. Therefore, they have partnered with the Livelihoods Fund, using carbon finance to advance the costs for restoring 6,000 ha of mangroves in return for carbon credits from these mangroves in the future. The beauty of this project is the well aligned incentive system. Fishing communities have an interest to grow mangroves in order to restore the fishing habi-‐tat in their community and to protect the rice fields. The carbon is only sequestered when trees are planted and grow; hence there will be a robust monitoring systems and long term community engagement activities. Finally, the rehabilitation of the ecosystem and the engagement and sensitization of the communities will support the mission of NEWS to protect the Bengal Tiger. The project started in 2010 and already over 2,000 ha of mangroves have been planted and the ecosystem is starting to fulfill its functions, which makes this project already one of the biggest mangrove restoration efforts in the world.

Source: NEWS (2012)

The various practices that benefit farm income and productivity of crops, livestock and fish, increase resilience and contribute to mitigation at the same time are summarized under the term climate-‐smart agriculture (CSA). Table 5 gives an overview of some selected climate-‐smart technologies. Fur-‐ther publications that give useful overviews of production technologies with adaptation benefits include Smith et al. (2007), FAO (2009), Daw et al. (2009), Bryan et al. (2011) and Below et al. (2010).


Table 5: Examples of techniques and technologies in climate smart agriculture Measure Examples Productivity/Food

Security impact Adaptation impact Potential mitigation co-‐

benefit Investment de-‐mand

Conditions for success

Cropland management Agronomy (high yield-‐ing, drought-‐, heat-‐, pest-‐ resistant crop varieties; extending crop rotation; rotation with legumes).

Crop rotation with leg-‐umes to produce bio-‐mass, fix nitrogen, reduce soil erosion and weeds, and minimize pests and diseases and to increase carbon stock. Combinations are availa-‐ble worldwide according to agro-‐ecological zones and prevailing farming systems and farm size.

High productivity, input cost reduction. Herbicide inputs may increase if combined with reduced/zero till-‐age. High potential to in-‐crease productivity of small-‐holder farms.

Strong adaptation benefits due to re-‐duced erosion, in-‐creased water infil-‐tration and holding capacity and less soil water evaporation losses.

Enhanced biomass and residue production, de-‐pending on food, feed, fiber and fuel utilization biomass will be compost-‐ed or used as manure which will decompose and increase soil organic car-‐bon stocks.

Most of the prac-‐tices are labour demanding.

Access to knowhow and improved crop varieties, some basic equipment. Most beneficial if combined with reduced/zero tillage which will also reduce addi-‐tional labor de-‐mand.

Water management (irrigation, drainage)

Drip and other low energy irrigation systems, drain-‐age and water catch-‐ments such as check dams are appropriate technologies to improve crop production in rain-‐fed agricultural systems that lack sufficient water. Drainage of peat-‐lands increases emissions how-‐ever.

High potential to in-‐crease productivity and secure subsistence food supply for rural farmers.

Water management is an excellent tool to adopt to extreme weather conditions like drought. Makes farmers more inde-‐pendent from cli-‐mate change and changing rainfall patterns.

Depending on land use situation water manage-‐ment practices can even have negative effects on carbon stock balance, since extensive areas can be converted into agricul-‐ture land and loose car-‐bon stock. On existing farmland, mitigation ef-‐fect is positive. N2O emis-‐sions from higher mois-‐ture and fertilizer inputs.

High investments Careful land and water use plan-‐ning to minimize potential water overcharge or conflicts and sali-‐nization.

Agroforestry Intercropping or rotation-‐al cropping of crops and trees, introduction of perennial fodder or ferti-‐lizer shrubs/trees such as Sesbania, Gliricidia sepi-‐

Maximum yield of the agricultural crop does not necessarily increase and might decrease, depending on competi-‐tion with trees. Yields

Canopy cover is re-‐ducing sun stress and water evaporation losses, fruit tree planting can increase child nutrition

High in particular if tree biomass is increased

Can be quite la-‐bour demanding

Requires access to advisory services, seeds/ seedlings


um, Faidherbia albida, Tephrosia

can increase due to more drought and pest resilience. Systems can diversity income.

Grazing land management Grazing intensity Participatory land-‐use

planning to define access rights and reducing over-‐stocking.

Controlled grazing con-‐sidering livestock carry-‐ing capacity generally improves herder resili-‐ence.

Strong adaptation benefits due to re-‐duced erosion, in-‐creased water infil-‐tration and holding capacity and less soil water evaporation losses

Depending on baseline carbon stocks and carbon equilibrium substantial additional soil carbon sequestration potential

Fencing and com-‐pensation for destocking might be required

Good governance required to sup-‐port herder rights in particular in communal pas-‐ture systems

Increased productivity Fodder planting, efficient fertilizer application, building water points, winter sheds and im-‐proved animal health to reduce body weight loss-‐es and reduce production cycle

Healthy pasture and animals will increase

food security

Healthy pasture and animals will increase climate resilience

Reducing emissions per product unit

High initial in-‐vestments

Capacity building required Potential addi-‐tional N2O emis-‐sions have to be considered

Nutrient management Nutrient management can be improved by syn-‐thetic or organic fertilizer, animal manure or a com-‐bination; precise fertilizer application and use of N inhibitors

Healthy pasture and animals will increase

food security

Healthy pasture and animals will increase climate resilience

Positive if grazing intensi-‐ty is sustainable

High initial in-‐vestments

Capacity building required Potential addi-‐tional N2O emis-‐sions have to be considered

Source: Based on Smith et al. (2007), FAO (2009)


As discussed in Chapter 3, beyond the identification of particular technical options, development cooperation in support of climate change adaptation can contribute to building capacity, knowledge sharing and networks among a range of stakeholders in order to promote robust adaptation options (Box 18). Agricultural extension plays a key role in disseminating technical knowledge among farmers and raise awareness for topics like climate change, which they may have been aware of from practi-‐cal observation but do not know about the full range of implications it might have for their house-‐holds. Experience from development cooperation projects shows that the resilience of farming sys-‐tems to climate change increases if information is effectively delivered to communities, thereby increasing their perception of ownership of the processes (FAO 2011). Climate Field Schools, based on the concept of Farmers Field Schools (FFS), are good examples of methodologies that target these mechanisms. Davis et al. (2010) found that the members of farmer field schools in Eastern Africa were mostly younger farmers who belong to other groups already, such as savings and credit groups, and that half of the members were women. FFSs were shown to be especially beneficial to women, people with low literacy levels, and farmers with medium-‐size land holdings. Participation in field schools increased their income by 61 percent on average, with differences across countries and pro-‐duction systems. The most significant change was seen in Kenya for crops (80 percent increase) and in Tanzania for agricultural income (more than 100 percent increase).

Box 18: Management models to upscale climate resilient production in smallholder systems of Bolivia The GIZ project PROAGRO started in 2006 as an initiative oriented at enhancing smallholder production through equitable access to water resources and technical assistance for local value addition and marketing. In its second phase, the explicit project aim is to find convergence areas between poverty reduction and the need to adapt to climate change. The strategy is to develop management models at the local level that explicitly address expected negative climate change effects in the project regions, such as increasingly unreliable precipitation, higher frequency and intensity of (hail) storms, less rainy days, longer dry spells during the cultivating season, and reduced water flow in the rivers.

So far two management models have been consolidated with participating communities – self-‐organized irrigation systems and water harvesting structures – and six more are being developed in the areas of integrated watershed management and sustainable livestock management and fruit production.

The replication and dissemination strategy for these best practices is done in the following steps:

1. The practical experiences at local level and identified best practices are formalized and documented as management models, including a brief description of the technology, expected beneficiaries, site-‐specific preconditions for successful application, costs and benefits, key success factors, strategic steps for implementation, key actors and cooperation struc-‐tures, strategic allies for capacity building and resources, and M&E integrated into the public evaluation system of local administrations.

2. In parallel, the project carries out institutional capacity building and awareness raising at the relevant line ministries (Ministry of Water resources, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) to integrate adaptation to climate change into national level programs and policies.

3. The knowledge management component of PROAGRO aims at facilitating the spread of generated information on climate change adaptation among key actors in the agrarian sector. Activities include the integration of the topic in post graduate curricula in the form of analytical tools to assess vulnerability to climate change and cost-‐benefit calculation methodologies for adaptation measures.

Sources: GIZ (2012c, 2012d)

In general, climate change once more emphasizes the need for certain transitions in agricultural research and development and extension systems that have been identified long ago for many de-‐veloping countries. Making R&D more responsive to farmers and markets is such a needed transition. By formally including farmers organizations in the governing councils of research institutions or even engaging farmers and their organizations in financing R&D through levies on their products (as in the


case of commercial crops based producer groups funding tea research in Tanzania and coffee re-‐search in Colombia), farmers gain more influence on the direction of research. Successful partner-‐ships often combine farmer organizations with value chains and PPPs like in Ghana, where small scale cassava producers were linked to commercial value chains through the development and marketing of new products such as flour and plywood adhesives (World Bank 2007). Better dissemination ap-‐proaches are another issue, coming up amplified with the need to bring locally specific climate data and adaptation solutions to farmers (Box 19).

Box 19: Combining meteorological data with agricultural advisories for climate change adaptation in India WOTR, an Indian NGO specialized in applying innovative IT and GIS based approaches to participatory natural resource management, combines locale-‐specific met-‐advisories and agro-‐advisories for timely weather information to help farmers plan their agricultural activities A web based initiative, it is marked by its unique automated platform and software to pro-‐vide village wise weather trends that can be widely up scaled.

Local meteorological data is directly collected on site via automated weather stations, transferred via free software, and sent to India’s Meteorological Department for analysis and user-‐friendly presentation of data. The data is then returned to the villages by phone or sms and are also available on a free-‐access web platform. Village youth have been trained to read the data and disseminate them among farmers. Trainings on disaster risk reduction, weather advisory, and water manage-‐ment, among others, are conducted in parallel to train farmers on how to deal with the climate data and adjust their pro-‐duction systems accordingly. The web platform in addition can be used to generate crop calendars for different varieties based on the weather forecasts. Since the entire system is web based, other agencies operating local weather stations can tap into the system.

Source: WOTR (2012)

5.4 Financing mechanisms 5.4.1 Costs and benefits of adaptation measures Adoption of many sustainable land management practices has been very slow, particularly in food insecure and vulnerable regions of Sub-‐Saharan Africa and South Asia. Adoption barriers include institutional challenges such as the lack of tenure security and limited property rights (limits on trans-‐fer) that may hinder adoption of climate-‐smart technologies. Limited access to information via agri-‐cultural extension services is another challenge, often caused by very low levels of investment in agricultural research and extension, especially in smaller, poorer and technologically more challenges developing countries that are at the same time more vulnerable (Beintema et al. 2012).

High up-‐front financing costs combined with limited access to local credits and insurance options are another major barrier: As outlined above, adaptation interventions with direct livelihood benefits or immediate productivity increases have no problem of adoption by farmers since they present an economically viable case for the households. Many adaptation options do not generate immediate economic return however or require a longer development phase with high upfront investment costs. On-‐farm benefits in these cases are not realized until the medium-‐long term, as illustrated in Figure 8.


Figure 8: Up-‐front costs as investment barrier

Source: FAO 2009

Table 6 gives an indicative overview of the establishment and maintenance costs of different adapta-‐tion measures in agroforestry, crop production and grassland management.


Table 6: Example of establishment and maintenance costs of adaptation measures

Technology options Practices Case study

Establishment costs

Average maintenance costs

USD/ha USD/ha/year

Agroforestry various agroforestry practices

Grevillea agroforestry system, Kenya 160 90

Shelterbelts, Togo 376 162

Different agroforestry systems in Sumatra, Indonesia

1,159 80

Intensive agroforestry system (high input, grass barriers, contour ridging), Colombia 1,285 145

Soil and water conservation

Conservation agriculture

Small-‐scale conservation tillage, Kenya 0 93

Minimum tillage and direct planting, Ghana 220 212

Medium-‐scale no-‐till technology for wheat and barley farming, Morocco 600 400

Improved agronomic practices

Natural vegetative strips, The Philippines 84 36

Grassed Fanya juu terraces, kenya 380 30

Konso bench terrace, Ethiopia 2,060 540

Integrated nutrient management

Compost production and application, Burkina Faso 12 30

Tassa planting pits, Niger 160 33

Runoff and floodwater farming, Ethiopia 383 184

Improved pasture and grazing management

Improved pasture management

Grassland restoration and conservation, Qinghai province, China 65 12

Improved grazing management

Rotational grazing, South Africa 105 27

Grazing land improvement, Ethiopia 1,052 126

Sources: WOCAT 2007, Lininger et al 2011, FAO 2009, Cacho et al. 2003

An example of opportunity costs of implementing improved grazing management practices in Qing-‐hai province, China, is presented in Lipper et al (2011). The project aimed at increasing livestock productivity by introducing grassland restoration, zoning of grazing areas, improved winter feeding and stocking rate management. Since these interventions were estimated to have mitigation co-‐benefits, carbon credits from the voluntary market should help compensate foregone income during the transition period of this pilot project. Although implementing the practices was found to be prof-‐itable for all households (Table 7), households with small herds were found to bear higher opportuni-‐ty costs than households with medium and large herds. In fact, the number of years needed to obtain positive incremental net income compared to baseline net income varied between 1 for large herd size and 10 for small herd size.


Table 7: Opportunity costs of improved grazing management

NPV/HA= net present value per hectare, ha/yr= hectare per year; Source: Lipper et al 2011a

5.4.2 Financing options for climate-‐smart agricultural production Adaptation finance for household level production should address these barriers. Climate-‐related financing sources can be used to leverage agriculture investments and provide farmers with incen-‐tives in reducing barriers to climate-‐smart agriculture adoption.

Innovations in rural and agricultural finance and risk management are rapidly evolving with positive effects in terms of better risk management and lower transaction costs (IFPRI 2010). Microfinance institutions as well as commercial banks are starting to serve farmers in rural areas and crop insur-‐ance products are evolving and structured finance is increasingly providing options for use of alterna-‐tive collateral to finance investments (FAO 2009b). However, the pre-‐condition for smallholder farm-‐ers to access finance is that they organize themselves in groups. Otherwise finance providers can offer cost effective aggregation mechanisms or technologies that lower transaction costs, such as mobile phone based payment, loan and saving systems. Another frequent barrier to the use of finan-‐cial mechanisms by smallholders is their lack of knowledge about the range of products available, as well as the functioning principles of relatively complicated mechanisms such as insurance. Box 20 presents a good example of how financial literacy can be included into adaptation projects.

Box 20: Adaptation to Climate Change and Insurance (ACCI) in Kenya One component of the GIZ adaptation project is to promote index-‐based weather insurance among smallholder farmers with mixed systems in Western Kenya. A review of international and Kenyan experience on index-‐based weather insurance was followed by a market survey of national insurance providers and products and their relevance for the project region. Further, linkages with potential stakeholders and partners in the insurance sector (Kenyan insurance companies, develop-‐ment partners (e.g. Syngenta Foundation, FSD, Planet Guarantee) are being built in order to promote the building of an insurance market for smallholders.

Further activities to increase the financial literacy of stakeholders include:

-‐ Develop financial/ insurance literacy material for potential customers, preferably with the insurance companies

-‐ Improve farmers’ ability to make informed choices on insurance matters (consumer protection)

-‐ Develop and test data collection risk assessment tools to help identify insurance market potentials

-‐ Support the agricultural sectors coordination unit to develop agricultural insurance policy at the national level

Source: GIZ 2012e

Table 8 presents some financing instruments and their operational modalities at farm level, including requirements for access. Most smallholder farmers can only reinvest profits and their family labor and this of course limits their investment capability and capacity to cope with climate related threats.


Debt finance based on loans from microfinance institutions, commercial banks or saving groups are increasingly available for post-‐harvest investments (e.g. through the USAID Development Credit Au-‐thority where immediate value adding benefits can be generated and the future revenues are pre-‐dictable). Equity finance requires transparent business cases and a strong legal framework. There-‐fore, this financing instrument is mainly applied in large-‐scale agribusiness. However, farmer cooper-‐atives could potentially benefit from equity investments as well. Last, grants and subsidies are im-‐portant instruments to provide incentives and leverage private sector finance flows in sustainable intensification, forest conservation and adaptation and mitigation investments, and productive safety nets (e.g. food/cash for work programs) can support farmers making long-‐term investments.

Table 8: Financing instruments at farm level

Source: FAO 2012c

The following examples show how a locally adapted mix of the above financing mechanisms can ena-‐ble sustainable intensification in rural areas.

Box 21: Micro-‐irrigation financing in Burkina Faso and Bolivia KfW is supporting a number of mostly small scale irrigation projects all over the world. Some were designed with an explicit adaptation focus, some are development and poverty reduction projects with adaptation co-‐benefits. They all have financ-‐ing mechanisms designed with the specific aim to ensure local buy-‐in and high adoption rates through ownership.

A micro-‐irrigation project in South-‐West Burkina Faso is using a locally adopted financing mechanism. Stone walls in valley bottoms allow the regulation of strong rainfalls and enable steady irrigation. Communities in floodplains apply at the minis-‐try for the program and after a feasibility check renounce part of their traditional land rights, commit to community work for constructing the dams and guarantee to give at least 25% of user rights for irrigated parcels to women. The overall investment cost is 2000-‐4000 Euros, with about 30% of contribution by the community in the form of physical work; the rest is a grant to pay for construction materials. The structure requires minimum maintenance.

On the one hand the work commitment by communities ensures buy-‐in to the project and on the other hand does not require a sophisticated level of self-‐organization apart from constructing the dams. This has proven to be a good solution adapted to local culture, where the individualization rate is high and farmers tend to be reluctant to cooperate in compli-‐cated irrigation schemes. Additionally, the program is in line with the government priority to extend irrigated farmland and the model is being replicated by NGOs and regional development banks, since it has created so much demand that so far only about 20% of applications can be met.


The construction grant is coupled with investments in vegetable gardens, improved post-‐harvesting techniques and agricul-‐tural extension regarding improved varieties, technologies and infrastructure maintenance. On irrigated parcels rice yields have increased from 0.6-‐0.9 tons to about 3.5-‐4.5 tons and incomes have quadrupled. While participating farmers are not able to rise above subsistence level due to their very small land sizes, increased productivity and higher incomes shield them against poverty.

The newly starting irrigation program in Bolivia was designed as an adaptation project from the beginning, uses climate data for program design and targets regions with expected increase in water stress. One of the impact indicators used for example will be whether water stress induced yield losses are lower than in comparable areas. Due to the highly uncertain data base on expected precipitation change, a “robust” approach was chosen: promoting an efficient technology that is highly profitable even without climate change (sprinkling); ensuring good local ownership through collaboration with local research institutions, organization of irrigation by communities and a specialized government agency responsible for deliv-‐ery.

Source: Neu 2012, Horn-‐Haacke 2011

5.5 M&E of adaptation benefits in agricultural production On top of the functions of agricultural M&E (see chapter 4.3), a system for sector wide climate bene-‐fit monitoring (adaptation and mitigation MRV) at the national level would fulfill some additional objectives:

• Assessing adaptation and mitigation progress • Fulfilling international reporting requirements • Accessing climate finance

There are a number of challenges with many of the national agricultural M&E systems that might have to be overcome before adding a “climate layer”. An analysis of the existing agricultural M&E system in Kenya (Unique 2012) shed light on a number of these issues that might be of interest in other developing countries as well. In many cases, there is no standardized sampling approach re-‐garding sample size, timing and specified area coverage therefore the data quality and uncertainty of information it not known. The collected data tends to vary with events (e.g. disease outbreaks), sea-‐sons and subject matters; programs and projects have yet other systems of M&E, resulting in a very heterogeneous database. Also a frequent phenomenon is the reporting of subject matters in parallel through all the administrative levels to different departments or line ministries at headquarters level. In this scenario there is no integrated analysis of the data, which would be crucial for identifying ad-‐aptation benefits that usually cut across subject matters and sectors. Finally, there are typically not enough feedback loops on plausibility and data quality and verification by independent agencies is lacking. Quality control might be based solely on previous reports. On the other hand, a wealth of data is collected with a lot of input from government and other actors who carry out M&E of their programs and projects. This provides great potential for climate benefit monitoring.

Box 22: Agricultural climate benefit monitoring at the district level – experiences from Kenya In Kenya, collaboration is evolving between GIZ and the World Bank to support the design and testing of a sector climate benefit monitoring system at the district level. The GIZ project “Adaptation to Climate Change and Insurance (ACCI)” has been working with the Ministry of Agriculture at the county and district level in the western part of the country to upscale adapted agricultural advisory services, the use climate data for planning purposes and the promotion of risk-‐mitigating insurance products. In order to measure and evaluate the impacts of the adaptation measures, a methodology for monitor-‐ing smallholders’ adaptive capacity is being developed and the first vulnerability assessment tested on farmer groups.

In order to integrate vulnerability assessment into an overarching system of climate benefit monitoring, the project will work together with a World Bank team to identify relevant adaptation indicators at the district level and feed them into a statistically robust measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) system. In an attempt to develop the existing agricultural M&E system into national level MRV, the project “Readiness Support for Climate-‐Smart Agriculture in Kenya” has screened the M&E system of the Ministry of Agriculture at all administrative levels and has identified the district level as the ideal


entry point. Data is currently collected by an officer at the locality level, disintegrated at the division level and reported in parallel from there upwards to the different departments of the ministry without sound quality control. Integrated analysis of the collected data, a focus on indicators relevant for household resilience and standardized data collection formats could improve the current system enough in order to measure adaptation and mitigation benefits as well.

The output of this joint exercise will be a robust agriculture sector-‐wide M&E framework at the district level that can be replicated nationwide for climate performance and benefit monitoring.

Source: Unique forestry and land use 2012

For adaptation to climate change, there is so far no internationally agreed framework for monitor-‐ing and evaluation. This is due to the fact that adaptation is context specific and no universal unit to measure success exists so far. The uncertainty of future climate projections, the long time horizon; the complexity of influencing factors that determine vulnerability or adaptive capacity and the diffi-‐culty to define a business as usual scenario add to the challenge (GIZ 2012). Most M&E systems cur-‐rently in place for agricultural adaptation projects follow the common results-‐based monitoring framework, focusing most strongly on monitoring of inputs and outputs. This mainly serves a donor accountability function, but does not necessarily promote learning among stakeholders about what does and what does not work (Meridian Institute 2011).

Two approaches to adaptation M&E are emerging – periodically measuring vulnerability (see Box 23); or measuring adaptive capacity using resilience as a proxy indicator. Following the logic of Figure 1 (page 10) outlining the determinants of vulnerability, vulnerability can be reduced by altering expo-‐sure, reducing sensitivity, or improving the adaptive capacity of the system. Although there is no general consensus on indicators for adaptation activities, the contribution of such strategies to in-‐creasing systems’ adaptive capacity could be estimated by means of increased physical, economic, and social resilience which summarize the determinants of adaptive capacity (FAO 2012b). For the purpose of a national adaptation M&E system for the agricultural sector, these could be used as proxy indicators for adaptation.

Box 23: Testing periodical vulnerability assessments for M&E of adaptation in India Vulnerability assessment (VA) is a relevant instrument when it comes to decisions on priority regions or sectors for imple-‐mentation, to the allocation of financial resources and also to the design of adaptation measures which address climate vulnerability. VA have been carried out at state level, at local level at the demonstration project sites, and one ecosystem based VA is ongoing in Darjeeling.

Currently, the project “Climate Change Adaptation in Rural Areas of India (CCA-‐RAI)” is testing the use of vulnerability as-‐sessments for monitoring and evaluation of adaptation progress and is developing a guidebook on VA approaches which help decision-‐makers to decide whether a VA is useful and which is the adequate methodology. However the method is still facing some challenges, e.g. data quality (grid resolution at 50 km quite limited) and the limits of indicator-‐based vulnerabil-‐ity assessments: They are quite costly and the choice and weight attributed to indicators heavily influence the results, so expert interviews might give results of a similar quality at much lower cost.

Source: Unpublished project evaluation, CCA-‐RAI

The prospect of international climate finance to support adaptation is increasing interest in measur-‐ing and monitoring adaptation outcomes. Some countries are beginning to design national monitor-‐ing systems for measuring, reporting and verifying adaptation benefits. In a national system, no additional data might be needed to judge the physical, economic and social resilience of farming households, but a focus on relevant indicators that are already monitored would be needed. This new focus on adaptation relevant indicators that are yet to be determined for national contexts would have to go hand in hand with some changes in the overall M&E system to fulfill the require-‐ments of measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) standards for climate benefits. The following


figure (Figure 9) summarizes some of the key issues with existing agricultural M&E systems and what needs to be done to improve them in order to integrate adaptation benefit monitoring.

Figure 9: Improving agricultural M&E systems

M&E Transformation needed

Existing data uncertainty not known due to irregular reporting and varying sam-‐pling sizes for each subject matter

Statistical approach to data collection: standardized reporting formats specifying time, location, frequency and other relevant parameters of data collection

Disintegrated monitoring (M) of data by subject matter

Integrated analysis at district level: An intermediate adminis-‐trative level might be the best entry point for integrated analy-‐sis of data from all subject matters (agriculture, water, infra-‐structure, etc.), since verification is easier at this level than at central level Analysis done by subject matter

No verification mechanism in place, qual-‐ity control tends to be on the basis of previous reporting

Feedback loops for quality control and verification: Quality management and quality control mechanisms need to be in place to check the plausibility of collected data and verify them on the ground

Evaluation (E) done at HQ level to limited extent

If the evaluation is done “closer to the ground”, feedback loops are shorter and closer to the place where corrective action needs to take place

M&E has multiple objectives, so far often not including M&E of climate benefits

Specific adaptation indicators need to be identified and tracked

Local officers have no incentives to im-‐prove data quality

Incentive system for adaptation progress: Once an adaptation M&E is in place and climate finance available, payments of resources can be done on the condition of good reporting practice


5.6 Summary New aspects of production support in the face of climate change

• Climate change will have an adverse effect on agricultural productivity if no countermeasures are taken.

• The strongest negative impact will be on farmers who are al-‐ready situated in areas of marginal production and have the most limited access to knowledge and technologies -‐ regional-‐ly clustered in South Asia and Sub-‐Saharan Africa.


Problem diagnosis

• Planning in the face of uncer-‐tain climate change requires new type of “robust” planning.

• Climate proofing of existing policies and plans

• Climate-‐smart regional land use plans

• Climate Change Adap-‐tation in Rural Areas of India

• Cross-‐sectoral land use planning in the Philip-‐pines

Implementation and risk management

• Enhanced focus on measures that deliver multiple benefits, summarized as “climate-‐smart agriculture”

• A wide range of climate-‐smart interventions are available. Ca-‐pacity building, knowledge sharing and networking is re-‐quired to overcome barriers to adoption

• Management models to upscale climate resilient production in small-‐holder systems of Boliv-‐ia

• Mangrove restoration with triple benefits

Finance • The biggest adoption barrier of adaptation measures is often the high upfront cost.

• A number of financing mecha-‐nisms to overcome adoption barriers are available

• Adaptation to Climate Change and Insurance (ACCI) in Kenya,

• Micro-‐irrigation financ-‐ing in Burkina Faso and Bolivia

M & E • Results-‐based M&E is emerging as common practice.

• Periodical vulnerability assess-‐ments are evolving as one method to measure adaptive capacity at larger scales

• Agricultural climate benefit monitoring at the district level

• Testing periodical vul-‐nerability assessments for M&E of adaptation in India


6 Resilient people

6.1 Problem Diagnosis Most adaptation initiatives are grounded in an understanding of the vulnerability of target groups to climate change. Vulnerability can be understood using a variety of frameworks that are common in rural development practice, such as the Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) Framework (DfID 2001), the In-‐stitutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework (Ostrom 2005), and the IFPRI Gender and Assets (GAAP) framework (Meinzen-‐Dick et al. 2010). All these frameworks integrate consideration of the characteristics of the physical and ecological systems on which humans depend; user characteris-‐tics such as livelihood activities, asset holdings, socio-‐economic characteristics, and cognitive ability; and institutional contexts such as access to information and technology, markets, laws, policies, or-‐ganizations, and social and cultural norms. These elements of vulnerability and resilience are all in-‐terlinked and change over time as climate change occurs, adaptation decisions are made, and well-‐being is affected.

User characteristics Some actors or groups can be considered more vulnerable to climate change impacts given their livelihood activities, assets, social characteristics, and cognitive abilities. For example, people who rely on natural resources for their livelihoods may be more sensitive to climate change impacts than those that are employed outside agriculture. Financial constraints are also a significant impediment to adaptation (Brouwer et al. 2007; Gbetibouo 2010; Deressa et al. 2009; Bryan et al. 2013). For in-‐stance, in Kenya, several communities expressed a desire to develop irrigation infrastructure in re-‐sponse to changing climate conditions, but lacked the financial resources to invest in such measures (Bryan et al. 2013). Others may be constrained in pursuing particular adaptation options by lack of access to or control over tangible and intangible assets, including natural resource capital, physical capital, human capital, financial capital, social capital, and political capital (DfID 2001; Meinzen-‐Dick et al. 2010), or by their social status, which further constrains their control over assets. Box 24 de-‐scribes how one particular social characteristic – gender – contributes to vulnerability to climate change.

Box 24: Gender and vulnerability Gender is a social characteristic that may have profound impacts on an individual’s vulnerability to climate change. Several studies indicate that women are affected by climate shocks in different ways than men, and that women are often more sensitive to these events (Cohen and Young 2007; Patt et al. 2009; Sabarwal et al. 2010; Goh 2012). Income and asset losses from agricultural production are greater for women than men following changes in climate and climate shocks (Biskup & Boellstorff 1995, Buechler 2009). Gender-‐differentiated impact of shocks is context specific and depends on men’s and women’s involvement in agricultural production and exposure to weather risk (Quisumbing & Kumar 2011).

Men and women have disparities in access to and control over key assets, such as capital, information, and resources for agricultural production, and women are more vulnerable to loss of these assets and rights due to separation, divorce, or widowhood (Antonopoulos & Floro 2005; Deere & Doss 2006; Deere & Leon 2003; Peterman et al. 2010; Quisumbing 2003; Quisumbing 2009). This influences men and women’s ability to adapt to climate change. For example, several studies have shown that women and men have different access to the information and agricultural inputs that are increasingly necessary to cope with climate variability and adapt to climate change (Archer 2003; Roncoli et al. 2002; Vassell 2009; Malhotra et al. 2012). Moreover, within households, power dynamics between men and women also influence their individual responses to climate shocks (Carr 2008). Adaptation responses also have different implications for the well-‐being of men and women in terms of labor inputs to and income from agricultural production


Source:Roncoli et al. (2002); Bynoe (2009); Nelson & Stathers( 2009)

Vulnerability also depends on normative barriers and the cognitive schemata of the user (Grothmann & Patt 2005; Ostrom 2005; Frank et al. 2011; Reser & Swim 2011; Jones & Boyd 2011). Normative barriers refer to social or cultural norms of behavior that may limit adaptation, despite adequate awareness and knowledge (Ostrom 1990). Cognitive barriers include failure to perceive the risks posed by climate change or unwillingness to accept the need to act in response to climate risks due to personal values or beliefs (Grothmann & Patt 2005; Maddison 2006; Hamilton & Kasser 2009).

Biophysical characteristics Biophysical characteristics refer to the sensitivity of physical and ecological systems which define the natural limits to adaptation. In the climate change literature, these natural limitations are often viewed as thresholds beyond which change becomes irreversible and adaptation by society is limited (Fischlin & Midgeley 2007; Parry et al., 2007; Stern 2007). In order to understand how biophysical characteristics influence human vulnerability to climate change, it is important to consider the sensi-‐tivity of biophysical systems in a given location in relation to the individuals, households or communi-‐ties that access and depend on those resources (e.g. the extent of soil degradation on a given plot of land used for farming). In some areas, climate change may alter ecosystems beyond the point at which human activities can be supported. For example, water availability may decline to the extent that certain types of agricultural production may not be viable. Climate change may also exacerbate tensions between environmental conservation or ecosystem services on the one hand, and agricul-‐tural production and food security concerns on the other (Robertson & Swinton 2005; Scherr & McNeely 2008; Power 2010).

Information and institutions Vulnerability to climate change also depends on an individual, household, or community’s access to information about climate risks and the appropriate responses, including information on new tech-‐nologies. While many communities have developed their own systems for monitoring climate condi-‐tions, this information may not be adequate to inform adaptation if the climate changes in unprece-‐dented ways. For example, farmers in Burkina Faso traditionally rely on observation of environmental indicators to predict climate patterns, but have lost confidence in their ability to predict rainfall given increased climate variability and increasingly seek to incorporate scientific information (Roncoli et al. 2002). In the absence of credit and insurance markets, climate uncertainty often results in reluctance by farmers to take on risky investments in production technologies, such as fertilizer, which would enable them to improve their well-‐being over the long run (Dercon & Christiaensen 2011). The roles of institutions in addressing these adaptation needs were discussed in detail in chapter 3.

6.2 Implementation Several strategies are available to increase the resilience of individuals, households, and communities facing climate variability and climate change. These strategies or interventions may be explicitly la-‐beled as climate change adaptation initiatives, or may be part of disaster risk reduction, rural devel-‐opment, or social protection initiatives. There are several ways to characterize adaptation responses based on the intent of the actor (either reactive or proactive); timing with respect to the climate stress (ex-‐ante or ex-‐post); duration (short-‐ or long-‐term); form or type (e.g. technological develop-‐ments, government programs, behavior change, and insurance); or risk implications and effects (en-‐


hanced stability or resilience) (Smithers & Smit 1997; Bryant et al. 2000; Smit & Skinner 2002; Agrawal & Perrin 2008; Heltberg et al. 2009). Table 9 describes five categories of adaptation strate-‐gies, their timing, duration, risk management and intended effects. In addition to productive invest-‐ments, that are described in-‐depth in Chapter 5, they include livelihood diversification, risk pooling, mobility and institution building.

Table 9: People-‐ and community-‐driven adaptation options Category Examples Intent/timing

(ex-‐post vs. ex-‐ante)

Duration (short, medi-‐um, long term)

Risk implica-‐tions (risk mitigating, or risk coping)

Effect

Productive investments

• Investments in new climate-‐smart tech-‐nologies or practices (soil fertility man-‐agement, agrofor-‐estry, improved live-‐stock feeding, SWC)

• Changing planting decisions (e.g. plant-‐ing dates, crop and variety choices)

• Investments in community infra-‐structure (e.g. food and water storage facilities)

Ex-‐ante Short to medi-‐um term

Risk mitigat-‐ing or risk coping

Enhances resilience

Livelihood diversifica-‐tion

• Income diversifica-‐tion (e.g. new busi-‐nesses or income-‐generating schemes)

• Asset diversification • Education and train-‐ing

Ex-‐ante Medium term Risk mitigat-‐ing or risk coping

Enhances resilience

Risk pooling • Group-‐based insur-‐ance schemes

• Group credit or saving mechanisms

• Storage facilities • Building social net-‐works

Ex-‐ante Medium term Risk mitigat-‐ing

Enhances resilience

Institution building

• Strengthening or-‐ganizational capacity

• Changing local institutions to sup-‐port adaptation (e.g. local land tenure arrangement, social norms)

Ex-‐ante or ex-‐post

Long term Risk mitigat-‐ing

Enhances resilience

Mobility • Permanent or sea-‐sonal migration

• Movement of ani-‐mals

• Cultivation of new lands


Medium term Risk mitigat-‐ing or risk coping

May en-‐hance resilience


Information Manage-‐ment

• Messages through SMS

• group extension • Web messages


Short to medi-‐um term

Risk mitigat-‐ing or risk coping

Enhances resilience

The agriculture-‐focused adaptation strategies described in Chapter 5 may assist in adapting to cli-‐mate change; but the potential to adopt these strategies or their benefits are insufficient to address farmers’ adaptation needs (Howden et al. 2007). Therefore, diversification within and outside agri-‐culture is also essential to achieve livelihood security and increase the income-‐generating capacity of households (Ellis 1998). Within agriculture, diversification includes mixing crop and livestock produc-‐tion, diversifying the portfolio of animals owned, diversifying the types of crops planted, and engag-‐ing in more processing, packaging and marketing. Outside agriculture, diversification activities in-‐clude investing in new enterprises or income-‐generating schemes, seeking off-‐farm employment, and receiving education and training to move into new economic activities. Such diversification provides households with sources of livelihood that may be less sensitive to climate change than agricultural production. Having access to off-‐farm sources of income has also been shown to help many house-‐holds make productive investments in their farm enterprises (Deressa et al. 2009; Bryan et al. 2012). Diversifying assets is also an important strategy to protect against the negative impacts of climate change. Households whose assets are more directly exposed and sensitive to climate change and extreme events (e.g. large livestock) are likely to be more vulnerable to and less able to cope with shocks (Heltberg et al. 2009). Intangible assets such as human and social capital also increase resili-‐ence to climate shocks and climate change.

Group-‐based insurance schemes, group-‐credit schemes or collective saving mechanisms also support adaptation because they enable people to pool risk and provide social protection following shocks. Where formal insurance schemes do not exist, informal social networks also increase resilience as family and friends provide a form of informal insurance (zero interest loans and transfers) following shocks (e.g. Fafschamps & Lund 2003). Storage of crops, seed, forest products, and water also ena-‐bles households to pool risk over time.

Similarly, strengthening local institutions can also positively influence individual adaptation decisions and build resilience to climate change by facilitating information diffusion and risk sharing (Boahene et al. 1999; Isham 2002; Fafschamps & Lund 2003; Bandiera & Rasul 2005). Several studies have found that social networks help individuals adopt new crop varieties or types (Boahene et al. 1999; Bandiera & Rasul 2005) and fertilizer (Isham 2002) by facilitating information diffusion and labor sharing. Institution building also involves strengthening local land tenure arrangements and challeng-‐ing social norms in order to reduce the vulnerability of certain social groups, such as women.

Mobility of people, animals and farms is a way of minimizing risk across space. Examples of mobility within agriculture include migrating herds in search of water, moving some animals in a herd to a new location, changing farm location, or cultivating new land. Mobility also involves migration of people in search of employment either on a permanent or seasonal basis or migration. Gray & Mueller (2012), investigating the consequences of climate-‐related natural disasters for long-‐term population mobility in rural Bangladesh, find that crop failures unrelated to flooding have strong effects on mobility, with households who are not directly affected but who live in severely affected areas being the most likely to move. Their research suggests that disaster-‐induced population dis-‐placements are often temporary, of short-‐distance, and of smaller magnitude than expected, and that the poor are not necessarily disproportionately affected. Targeting of disaster-‐affected areas thus appears to be a more promising strategy.


In addition to people-‐ or community-‐driven interventions, many adaptations of key importance to rural people are driven by local and national governments or supported by foreign assistance. These include nutrition specific interventions, health interventions, as well as many education, information, finance and social security interventions.


Droughts and water scarcity diminish dietary diversity and reduce overall food consumption and may lead to undernutrition. The risk of flooding may increase, from both sea-‐level rise and from increased heavy precipitation in coastal or other areas. This is likely to result in an increase in the number of people exposed to diarrheal and other infectious diseases, thus lowering their capacity to utilize food effectively.

Nutrition interventions can help maintain or expand dietary diversity, which will be affected both positively and negatively as a result of climate change, depending on the climate change signal and adaptation options chosen. Extreme events and droughts in particular can wipe out entire seasonal productions, reducing dietary diversity. Similarly flooding and sea-‐level rise can result in increased numbers of diarrheal and infectious disease, reducing people’s ability to utilize food efficiently (Co-‐hen et al. 2008). Nutrition programs will need to particularly address the increased incidence of un-‐dernutrition as a result of direct and indirect climate change impacts. An example of a successful nutrition program is Brazil’s Zero Hunger program (Box 25, Cohen et al. 2008; Nelson et al. 2010). Other health impacts, such as increased number of deaths, disease and injury from heat-‐waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts; increased frequency of cardio-‐respiratory diseases; and altered spatial distribution of some infectious-‐disease vectors will require specific health interventions (Co-‐hen et al. 2008).

Box 25: Brazil’s Zero Hunger Program Brazil’s strategy for fighting poverty and hunger is known as the Zero Hunger program. It promotes food and nutrition secu-‐rity, while also fostering a sense of citizenship among the population most vulnerable to hunger. Integrating social protec-‐tion measures with wider measures aimed at securing broader social rights links the social protection interventions to development efforts.

The main measure in the program is a conditional cash transfer that promotes improved health care and education for participating families. The transfer program benefits around 45 million poor people, providing income transfers to poor families based on the number of children in each family. For their part, families must keep their children in school and follow basic health care procedures (e.g. prenatal and child development monitoring, vaccination). These conditions are seen as expanding participants’ opportunities for social inclusion and helping to break the poverty cycle across generations. Participating families are also entitled to other support, such as subsidized electricity and priority participation in education programs.

Evaluations show that most households use the cash transfers to buy food, enabling a more diverse diet and more regular meals for children. Research also finds that the program has benefits for employment and regional economies.

Source: de Souza (2009)

Finally, information on and awareness of climate change is a key determinant for climate change adaptation. This information should be provided as part of the school curriculum not only so that young people can help mitigate climate change and adapt to both positive and negative consequenc-‐es but also so that they can ‘educate’ their parents and grandparents who might otherwise be more difficult to reach.

6.3 M&E M&E for enhanced resilience of rural people is needed at all levels of intervention: local, district, national, regional and international. Some of the better known monitoring and evaluation systems at the national and sub-‐national level for short-‐term response include the Global Information and Early Warning System (GIEWS) (http://www.fao.org/giews/english/index.htm), the global Food Inse-‐curity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems (FIVIMS), the Famine Early Warning Sys-‐


tem (FEWSNET) (http://www.fews.net/Pages/default.aspx), which focuses on Sub-‐Saharan Africa, Central America, Haiti, and Afghanistan. For medium-‐term response, Monitoring and Evaluation to Assess and Use Results Demographic and Health Surveys (MEASURE DHS) and Living Standards Measurement Study-‐Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-‐ISA) surveys are important, but are only available for some developing countries. For an even longer-‐term response, tracking systems such as World Development Indicators, the Human Development Index, or the Global Hunger Index can be used, but the links to climate change are tenuous.

Tools that specifically focus on climate change adaptation include the GEF’s Adaptation Monitoring and Assessment Tool, the World Bank Pilot Project in Climate Resilience results framework, and the Adaptation Fund Board (AFB) results framework (Spearman & McGray 2012). Given the importance of targeting of adaptation interventions, periodical vulnerability assessments, possibly linked with existing monitoring systems, might be most appropriate to trace adaptation outcomes over time.

6.4 Financing mechanisms Some of the main factors determining vulnerability to climate change include financial constraints, such as lack of access to credit, lack of income to support investments in climate change adaptation measures, and lack of assets buffer the impact of climate extreme events. Therefore, financial sup-‐port is needed to encourage adoption of key adaptation strategies at the household and community level.

Social protection programs – both preventive (e.g. insurance schemes) and protective (e.g. disaster relief) schemes – not only help individuals, households, and communities cope with the negative impacts of climate shocks and disasters but also have the potential to support adaptation to climate change through asset accumulation and development (Tschakert 2007; Davies et al. 2008; Ellis et al. 2008; Heltberg et al. 2009). Social policy can support both poverty alleviation and adaptation by in-‐corporating an understanding of the risks associated with climate change and variability and target-‐ing resources to the poor and vulnerable to increase their resilience (Eriksen et al. 2005; Heltberg et al. 2009). Social funds, development projects that support adaptation, disaster risk reduction pro-‐grams, livelihood programs, microfinance, and index insurance add a climate risk dimension to tradi-‐tional social protection programs targeted towards the poor (Heltberg et al. 2009).

Social funds and development projects can channel external sources of financing to communities to support infrastructure investments (such as irrigation infrastructure), rural services (such as exten-‐sion and credit), microenterprise development, investments in climate-‐smart agriculture, and natural resource management. Other social protection programs such as cash transfers programs, workfare programs, and in-‐kind transfers have traditionally provided a safety net to the chronic poor or follow-‐ing climate or other shocks. These programs also may protect households against future risks by promoting asset accumulation and investments in human capital (e.g. education and health) (Skoufi-‐as & Parker 2001; Rawlings & Rubio 2005; Veras-‐Soares 2010) and by providing immediate relief to families following disasters (Grosh et al. 2008). The key is to establish such programs before the on-‐set of natural disasters to enable them to respond quickly to a variety of shocks when they occur (Alderman & Haque 2007; De Janvry et al. 2006; Heltberg et al. 2009).

Other social protection programs that deserve more attention for their potential to increase resili-‐ence to climate change are weather risk management programs that combine insurance and safety nets (Heltberg et al. 2009). One example of this is Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Nets Program, which provides cash transfers and public workfare to food insecure people and uses rainfall indices to iden-‐tify areas threatened with food shortages (see Box 26).


Finally while social protection can be used to support adaptation and resilience to climate shocks, social protection programs are also threatened by climate change (Bene 2011). That is, climate change threatens to cancel out many positive effects of existing social programs, unless further ef-‐forts are made to climate proof these programs. Other financing mechanisms, such as rural credit and insurance schemes are also essential to for rural people’s resilience.

Box 26: Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Nets Program Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Nets Programme (PSNP), the largest social protection program in Sub-‐Saharan Africa outside of South Africa was developed in 2005 to find a longer-‐term solution to the lean-‐season period, when food shortages and starvation risk hits, providing farmers with public works jobs, social transfers, and assets. Median payments were about $10 for year 1, and $200 over the five years assessed, through public works projects.

While early assessment of the program found limited program benefits, in part because actual support was far below tar-‐gets. Later assessments found much stronger benefits. The third round survey implemented in 2010 found that PSNP recip-‐ients experienced a month-‐long or 29-‐percent reduction in the time they did not have enough food. Recipients in drought-‐prone areas still saw a 25-‐percent decrease. Food security for the most vulnerable, children, was better assured and asset accumulation (livestock and tools, for example), improved. Moreover, the program improved rural infrastructure as work programs targeted rural roads, small-‐scale irrigation and terracing. The program targeted 7.8 million people, and is sched-‐uled to expand to a further 0.6 million.

Source: Gilligan et al. (2008); Berhane et al. (2011)


6.5 Summary New aspects of support to peo-‐ple in the face of climate change

• Vulnerability of people to climate change can be defined in terms of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity within dy-‐namic systems.

Key messages Best practice examples

Problem diagnosis

• Vulnerability can be analyzed in terms of user characteristics, availability of and access to in-‐formation and technology; and institutional arrangements.

Implementation • Key categories of intervention that reduce vulnerability include livelihood diversification, risk pooling, productive investments, increased mobility and institu-‐tion building at the house-‐hold/community level

• Nutrition/health/education in-‐vestments through national sys-‐tems or public-‐private partner-‐ships

Finance • Social safety nets and other se-‐curity systems are important complements to improved ac-‐cess to credit and insurance

• Brazil’s Zero Hunger program

• Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Nets Program

M & E • Periodical vulnerability assess-‐ments emerge as a method to measure adaptive capacity of farming households

GIZ adaptation M&E tool


Part III: Summary and discussion

7 Conclusions

Rural development is supported through development cooperation in a context of climate variability and longer-‐term climate change. Climate change alters the pattern of climate variability, causes more frequent extreme events and brings about effects such as sea level rise. Despite the growing knowledge base on climate change and its impacts, much remains to be understood about the link-‐ages between climate change and rural development. On the climate science side, deep knowledge gaps remain for many physical and biophysical relationships affecting climate outcomes. Disagree-‐ment remains regarding long-‐term changes in precipitation levels for many regions for example or on the relation between climate extreme events and long-‐term climate change. The linkages among climate change and other drivers of change, such as economic growth and population change also remain to be explored. A consensus is emerging that given the uncertainties involved, robust (‘no-‐regrets’) decision-‐making is often the most appropriate way to identify adaptation options that bring net benefits under several alternative future scenarios.

Rural development must consider the various aspects of climate change in order to reduce poor peo-‐ple’s losses due to climate variability and to protect development gains from the effects of climate change. There are several ways in which climate change can be integrated into rural development projects. These range from climate-‐proofing of existing projects to specific support for adaptation actions. Adaptation actions may focus either on addressing current climate variability or on preparing for the effects of longer-‐term climate change. Adaptation actions are needed at all levels, from indi-‐viduals and households, through communities to the national level. For development cooperation, decisions at the national level are of main importance because they influence the options available at lower levels. The national level is also most often the level at which development cooperation in rural development is discussed and agreed.

Successful adaptation requires coordination and collaboration between public and private agencies of a specific level and between different levels. The lessons and tools of development cooperation therefore remain relevant to developing best practices in the context of climate change.

Institutions are a core determinant of both the options available to households, communities and societies, and of their capacity to adapt effectively. Institutions are also critical to planned adapta-‐tion, and of development cooperation to support adaptation to climate change. Most countries are still in the early stages of integrating climate change into their policies and programs. Development interventions may need to review the institutional and policy framework to understand how climate-‐resilient options relate to framework development policies and policy processes. Mainstreaming climate change in sector policies and programs, and inter-‐agency coordination to achieve coherent policy integration will be a gradual process. Strengthening climate change capacities of existing insti-‐tutions and supporting coordination among institutions will both be important. National level policy needs to be informed by the experiences from research, civil society and the private sector.

The quality knowledge base underpinning decision-‐making is influenced by institutions linking scien-‐tists with each other, and also research with policy and practice. Given the inherent uncertainties regarding climate change and climate science, institutions that support multi-‐stakeholder delibera-‐tion are needed at several levels. Successful adaptation over time requires a process of learning. Or-‐ganizations need to support learning among their staff, and also create opportunities for learning


between stakeholders. Actively promoting reflection among development partners and stakeholders on the effectiveness of adaptation interventions and sharing experiences and knowledge gained is one of the major contributions that development cooperation can make to support other adaptation initiatives.

Resilient markets are important to reduce price and production risks due to climate change. Value chain analysis including sub-‐sector analysis and household analysis is useful to identify market weak-‐nesses and interventions to strengthen market resilience, and methods for assessing climate change impacts on multi-‐site (e.g. multi-‐national) value chains have begun to be developed. Agricultural markets are very sensitive to government interventions. There is the need to build awareness among policy makers to be cautious about market interventions and to engage partners and anticipate po-‐tential negative impacts of such decisions.

Market infrastructure development, including road infrastructure and the development of small-‐holder aggregation structures such as farmer or producer associations are critical to cope with cli-‐mate related production risks and to reduce market volatility in particular in drought and flood af-‐fected regions. Market reforms for example related to seed markets are important to maintain local adaptive capacity. In particular smallholders require better access to finance and insurance products as well as a supportive enabling framework, such as secure land and water rights. Innovative infor-‐mation technology and public-‐private partnerships have started to improve the situation but most systems are still in the proof of concept stage and require up-‐scaling. Monitoring and evaluation re-‐quires agricultural market information systems and monitoring and evaluation of adaptation impacts related to agricultural market interventions in the context of climate change. Current market infor-‐mation is often not statistically robust at regional and national level. This also limits the ability of existing monitoring systems to reflect the performance of adaptation efforts.

Knowledge gaps regarding resilient markets are many and so far there is no common understanding of how exactly markets can support rural household resilience. While there are many forms of public sector and donor support to value chain and market actors, there is, as yet, no firm lessons about which forms of intervention perform best (Hartmann 2012).

Climate change will have an adverse effect on agricultural productivity if no countermeasures are taken. The strongest negative impact will be on farmers who are already situated in areas of marginal production and have the most limited access to knowledge and technologies -‐ regionally clustered in South Asia and Sub-‐Saharan Africa. The greatest challenge introduced by climate change to the plan-‐ning process is an increased level of uncertainty in an already variable farming environment. There-‐fore it is necessary to overcome traditional planning processes that often focus on the “best” or “op-‐timal” plan for a future scenario and rather use “robust” approaches. A robust approach looks at vulnerabilities of all options and selects the one that will perform well under all scenarios or even future developments that are not considered in any scenario. These options are called no-‐regret and are usually flexible.

At the production level, the focus will have to shift increasingly to management options that deliver multiple benefits such as increased or more stable incomes, higher productivity, soil and water con-‐servation and mitigation co-‐benefits. It has to be understood however that such ‘triple wins’ will not be available everywhere. Development cooperation has an important role to play in defining locally specific solutions and minimizing trade-‐offs between adaptation efforts and sustainable economic development of rural areas. Adaptation measures should be accompanied by capacity building and knowledge management efforts at all levels. The biggest adoption barrier of adaptation measures is often the high upfront cost. While farmers frequently undertake autonomous adaptations at low cost, many of the more effective and pro-‐active adaptation interventions are quite costly and require


a long phase of planning. Financial instruments aimed at enhancing the uptake of adaptation measures need to address this challenge.

Experience with measuring progress in adaptation is in its early stages. Work supported by GIZ has proposed a pragmatic approach to designing adaptation monitoring and evaluation systems based on developing explicit theories of action (Spearman & McGray 2012). Future lessons from practice will inform further guidance on best practice. Other initiatives are promoting periodical vulnerability assessments as a method to measure adaptive capacity of farming households at the project or pro-‐gram level. In order to capture the whole range of climate performance and benefits of activities in the agricultural sector however, existing agricultural M&E systems have to be transformed in a way that they can better serve the needs of stakeholders for measuring and supporting learning about the effectiveness of adaptation interventions.

Vulnerability of people to climate change relates to their exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity within dynamic systems. It can be analyzed in terms of user characteristics, availability of and access to information and technology; and institutional arrangements. Key categories of intervention that reduce vulnerability include livelihood diversification, risk pooling, productive investments, increased mobility and institution building. In addition to these people-‐and community-‐centered activities there are important adaptation strategies that demand public sector intervention and public-‐private partnerships. These include nutrition specific interventions, health interventions, as well as many education, information and finance interventions. Social safety nets and other security systems are important complements to improved access to credit and insurance, and social protection programs – both preventive (e.g. insurance schemes) and protective (e.g. disaster relief) schemes – can not only help individuals, households, and communities cope with the negative impacts of climate shocks and disasters but also have the potential to support adaptation to climate change through asset ac-‐cumulation and development.

8 Recommendations

This report has reviewed the state of the art of knowledge and practice in adaptation to climate change in the context of rural development. Knowledge and best practices in relation to institutions, agricultural production, markets, and direct, people-‐centered interventions have been reviewed. Specific interventions to increase rural people’s resilience and reduce their vulnerability to climate variability and climate change must be tailored to specific contexts. The review has also identified a number of knowledge gaps in relation to the effectiveness of planned adaptation interventions. Clos-‐ing these knowledge gaps should enhance the capacities of rural development agencies and devel-‐opment partners to devise effective interventions to support adaptation. Given the state of the art of knowledge and practice, addressing the following knowledge gaps would make particular contribu-‐tions to promoting effective support to adaptation in rural development.

1) Build local capacity on climate science and the full range of local-‐ and government-‐driven adap-‐tation options: Despite the growing, global knowledge base on climate change and its impacts, much remains to be understood about the specific linkages between climate change, other drivers or change and rural development and about locale-‐specific impacts. Of equal importance, much of the existing knowledge needs to be transferred to agricultural and related departments at the national and sub-‐national levels and to local communities. Rural development projects have a specific role in this knowledge transfer, they can identify knowledge gaps and link partners and institutions to re-‐duce these gaps.


2) Improve understanding and practical tools for robust decision-‐making: A consensus is emerg-‐ing that given the uncertainties about future climate change and its impacts, robust (‘no-‐regrets’) decision-‐making should often be the most appropriate way to identify adaptation options that bring net benefits under alternative future scenarios. Various approaches to making ‘robust’ or ‘no-‐regret’ decisions have been suggested, but to date there is little documentation of specific approaches used, and it is not clear under which conditions such approaches are more appropriate. Development of decision-‐making tools suited to different project types (e.g. large-‐ and small-‐scale irrigation, land use planning, agricultural extension) and systematic assessment of the application of these approaches in a range of contexts would inform future guidelines for climate-‐sensitive project preparation.

3) Improve knowledge and guidance on how interventions targeting market actors can support rural household resilience: Markets can play important roles in stabilizing, diversifying and increasing rural incomes. Public support to value chain and market actors has become a central feature of many rural development interventions, and initiatives with specific consideration of climate change have begun more recently. There is, however, little evidence regarding the effect of different forms of intervention on rural households’ resilience. Guidance on the basis of practical experience and evi-‐dence-‐based analysis would support identification of effective interventions to promote resilience through improved markets.

4) Increase the knowledge base on monitoring and evaluation of adaptation interventions: Moni-‐toring and evaluation has a number of functions in rural development projects and programmes, including tracking the progress of interventions and the status of vulnerability or other indicators, and ensuring accountability. Monitoring and evaluation can also support learning among stakehold-‐ers by generating and sharing knowledge on effective approaches to adaptation. There is a continued need to share experience and lessons on effective approaches to monitoring and evaluating adapta-‐tion interventions, both in terms of approaches to measurement and assessment, and in terms of how monitoring and evaluation can support stakeholder learning for improved future interventions.

5) Continue to share lessons from organizational strategies to mainstream climate change adap-‐tation: Organizations need to invest in supporting learning about effective adaptation among staff within their own organizations as well as among their partners and stakeholders. Organizational learning processes can be supported by interventions at a number of levels. Learning from experi-‐ences with formal and informal processes of organizational learning and change within organizations can support the capacities of organizations to address climate change.


9 References

Scientific knowledge base

Adger,W. 2003. Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change. Economic Geog-‐raphy, 79: 387–404.

Adger W. 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3): 268-‐281.

Agrawal, A., N. Perrin. 2008. Climate Adaptation, Local Institutions, and Rural Livelihoods. IFRI Work-‐ing Paper, W081-‐6. International Forestry Resources and Institutions Program, University of Michigan.

Asian Development Bank and International Food Policy Research Institute. 2009. Building Climate Resilience in the Agriculture Sector. ADB, Manila, Philippines. 322 pp. http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Building-‐Climate-‐Resilience-‐Agriculture-‐Sector/default.asp

Brklacich, M., D. McNabb, C. Bryant, I. Dumanski. 1997. Adaptability of Agriculture Systems to Global Climatic Change: a Renfrew County, Ontario, Canada Pilot Study. In: Libery, B., Q. Chiotti, T. Richard (Eds.). Agricultural Restructuring and Sustainability: A Geographical Perspective. CAB International, Wallingford, CT.

Bryan, E. and J. Behrman. 2012. Community-‐based adaptation to climate change: a theoretical framework, overview of key issues and discussion of gender differentiated priorities and participation. CAPRi discussion paper. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.

Bryan, E., T. Deressa, G. Gbetibouo, and C. Ringler. 2009. Adaptation to Climate Change in Ethiopia and South Africa: Options and Constraints. Environmental Science and Policy, 12 (4).

Bryant, R.C., Smit, B., Brklacich, M., Johnston, R.T., Smithers, J., Chiotti, Q., Singh, B., 2000. Adapta-‐tion in Canadian agriculture to climatic variability and change. Climatic Change 45, 181–201.

Deressa, T.T., R.M. Hassan, C. Ringler, T. Alemu, M. Yesuf. 2009. Determinants of Farmers’ Choice of Adaptation Methods to Climate Change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change, 19: 248-‐255.

Di Falco, S., M. Veronesi, M. Yesuf. 2011. Does Adaptation to Climate Change Provide Food Security? A Micro-‐Perspective from Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(3): 825-‐842.

Di Falco, S., M. Yesuf, G. Kohlin, and C. Ringler. 2012. Estimating the Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture in Low-‐Income Countries: Household Level Evidence from the Nile Basin, Ethio-‐pia. Environmental Resource Economics, 52: 457–478.

FAO. 2012. Identifying Opportunities for Climate-‐smart Agriculture Investments in Africa. Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/an112e/an112e00.pdf

Gbetibouo G., R. Hassan, C. Ringler. 2010. Modeling Farmers Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change and Variability: The Case of the Limpopo Basin, South Africa. Agricultural Economics Research, Policy and Practice in South Africa, 49(2): 217-‐234.

GIZ. 2011. Capacity WORKS: the Management Model for Sustainable Development. GIZ, Eschborn.

Goh, A.H.X. 2012. A Literature Review of the Gender-‐differentiated Impacts of Climate Change on Women’s and Men’s Assets and Well-‐being in Developing Countries. CAPRi Working Paper No. 106. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/CAPRiWP106.


Halsnaes, K., S. Traerup. 2009. Development and Climate Change: a Mainstreaming Approach for Assessing Economic, Social, and Environmental Impacts of Adaptation Measures. Environ-‐mental Management, 43(5): 465-‐778.

Heltberg, R., P. Siegel, S.L. Jorgensen. 2009. Addressing Human Vulnerability to Climate Change: To-‐wards a “No-‐regrets” Approach’, Global Environmental Change, 19: 89–99.

Hisali, E., P. Birungi, F. Buyinza. 2011. Adaptation to Climate Change in Uganda: Evidence from Micro Level Data. Global Environmental Change, 21: 1245–1261.

IEG (Independent Evaluation Group). 2012. Adapting to Climate Change: Assessing the World Bank Group Experience, Phase III. IEG, Washington D.C.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change). 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. J. J. McCarthy, et al., eds. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. CUP, Cambridge

IPCC. 2012. Summary for Policymakers. In: Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-‐K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Ad-‐aptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-‐19.

Jablonski L., X. Wang, P. Curtis. 2002. Plant Reproduction under Elevated CO2 Conditions: a Meta-‐Analysis of Reports on 79 Crops and Wild Relatives. New Phytologist, 156(1): 9-‐26.

Kabubo-‐Mariara, J. 2008. Climate Change Adaptation and Livestock Activity Choices in Kenya: An Economic Analysis. Natural Resources Forum, 32: 131–141.

Kato, E., C. Ringler, M. Yesuf, E. Bryan. 2011. Soil and Water Conservation Technologies: A Buffer against Production Risk under Climate Change? Agricultural Economics 42(5): 593–604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-‐0862.2011.00539.x

Kimball B., K. Kobayashi, M. Bindi. 2002. Responses of Agricultural Crops to Free-‐Air CO2 Enrichment. Advances in Agronomy, 77: 293-‐368.

Kirschke, D., S. Noleppa. 2008. Economic Assessment and Prioritization of climate Change Adaptation Options: Methodological Approach and Case Study for Indramayu (Indonesia). Berlin: Hum-‐boldt University.

Knox J., T. Hess, A. Daccache, T. Wheeler. 2012. Climate Change Impacts on Crop Productivity in Afri-‐ca and South Asia. Environmental Research Letters, 7 034032.

Maddison, D. 2007. The Perception of and Adaptation to Climate Change in Africa. CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 10. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa, University of Preto-‐ria, South Africa.

MDG (Millenium Development Goals) 2012. Millenium Goals Report 2012. United Nations, New York

Nelson, G.C. 2009. Climate change: Impact on agriculture and costs of adaptation. IFPRI, Washington D.C.

Nhemachena, C., R. Hassan. 2007. Micro-‐level Analysis of Farmers’ Adaptation to Climate Change in Southern Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 714, IFPRI, Washington D.C.

OECD 2009. Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Co-‐operation. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/45/44887764.pdf


Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. PaluItikof, P.J. van der Linden, C.E. Hanson (eds.). 2007. Impacts, Adap-‐tation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Schlenker W., D. Lobell. 2010. Robust Negative Impacts of Climate Change on African Agriculture. Environmental Research Letters, 5 014010.

Seo, S.N. 2010. Is an integrated farm more resilient against climate change? A micro-‐econometric analysis of portfolio diversification in African agriculture. Food Policy, 35 (2010) 32–40.

Seo, S.N., R. Mendelsohn. 2008. Measuring Impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change: a Structural Ricardian Model of African Livestock Management. Agricultural Economics, 38: 151–165.

Smit, B., D. McNabb, J. Smithers, 1996. Agricultural Adaptation to Climatic Variation. Climatic Change, 33: 7–29.

Smit, B., M.W. Skinner. 2002. Adaptations Options in Agriculture to Climate Change: a Typology. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 7: 85–114.

Smit, B., O. Pilifosova. 2001. Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable Develop-‐ment and Equity. Chapter 18 in Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerabil-‐ity—Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovern-‐mental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge. University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Spearman M., H. McGray. 2012. Making Adaptation Count: Concepts and Options for Monitoring and Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation. GIZ and WRI, Eschborn and Washington D.C.

SRI (Stockholm Resilience Institute). 2012. Resilience Dictionary. http://www.stockholmresilience.org/search/search.4.53ee94ff132ea9955288000634.html?q=resilience%20dictionary. Accessed October 24, 2012.

Tambo, J.A., T. Abdoulaye. 2012. Climate Change and Agricultural Technology Adoption: the Case of Drought Tolerant Maize in Rural Nigeria. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 17: 277–292.

Thomas, D. S. G., C. Twyman, H. Osbahr, B. Hewitson. 2007. Adaptation to Climate Change and Varia-‐bility: Farmer Responses to Intra-‐Seasonal Precipitation Trends in South Africa, Climatic Change 83(3): 301-‐322.

Tompkins, E. L., W. N. Adger. 2004. Does Adaptive Management of Natural Resources Enhance Resili-‐ence to Climate Change? Ecology and Society 9(2): 10.

UNDP. 2010. A Toolkit for Designing Climate Change Adaptation Initiatives. http:// www.undp-‐adapta-‐tion.org/projects/websites/docs/KM/PublicationsResMaterials/UNDP_Adaptation_Toolkit_FINAL_5-‐28-‐2010.pdf

von Grebmer, K., C. Ringler, M.W. Rosegrant, T. Olofinbiyi, D. Wiesmann, H. Fritschel, O. Badiane, M. Torero, Y. Yohannes, J. Thompson, C. von Oppeln and J. Rahall. 2012. 2012 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger: Ensuring Sustainable Food Security under Land, Water and Energy Stresses. Bonn, Washington, DC and Dublin: Welthungerhilfe, IFPRI, and Concern Worldwide. www.ifpri.org/publications/2012-‐global-‐hunger-‐index.

Wilby R., S. Dessai. 2010. Robust Adaptation to Climate Change. Weather, 65(7): 180-‐185.

World Bank. 2012. Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4º C Warmer World Must be Avoided. World Bank, Washington D.C.

WRI. 2007. Weathering the Storm. Options for Framing Adaptation and Development. http://pdf.wri.org/weathering_the_storm.pdf


Institutions for climate resilient rural development

Adger W., Arnell W, Tompkins E. 2005a. Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change 15: 77-‐86

Adger W., Hughes T, Folke C, Carpenter S, Rockström J. 2005b. Social-‐Ecological Resilience to Coastal Disasters. Science 309: 1036

Ahmad I., Dovers S. 2010. Embedding climate change in national institutions: insights from Pakistan and Malaysia. Paper presented at the 2nd UNITAR-‐Yale Conference on Environmental Gov-‐ernance and Democracy, 17-‐19 September, New Haven, USA.

Allen, K. 2006 Community-‐based disaster preparedness and climate adaptation: local capacity-‐building in the Philippines. Disasters 30(1): 81-‐101

Anderson, S., Gaundel S, Vanni M. 2010. The impacts of climate change on food security in Africa: a synthesis of policy issues for Europe. IIED, London

Barnett, J. 2008. The effect of aid on capacity to adapt to climate change: Insights from Niue. Political Science 60, pp. 31-‐45.

Berkhout F, Hertin J, Gann D. 2006. Learning to adapt: organizational adaptation to climate change impacts. Climatic Change. 78: 135–156

Branca G., Tennigkeit, T., Mann, W., Lipper, L. 2012. Identifying opportunities for climate-‐smart agri-‐culture investments in Africa. FAO: Rome

Brooks N., Adger N. 2005. Assessing and enhancing adaptive capacity. In B. Lim, E. Spanger-‐Siegfried, I. Burton, Malone E, Huq S (eds.) Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change. CUP

Campbell, D., Beckford, C. 2009. Negotiating Uncertainty: Jamaican Small Farmers’ Adaptation and Coping Strategies, Before and After Hurricanes—A Case Study of Hurricane Dean. Sustaina-‐bility 1: 1366-‐1387;

Cannon, T. 2002. Gender and climate hazards in Bangladesh, in Gender and Development 10(2)45-‐50

CARE International. 2011. Decision-‐making for climate resilient livelihoods and risk reduction: a par-‐ticipatory scenario planning approach. Available at http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/adaptation/ALP_PSP_Brief.pdf

CARE n.d. Making national adaptation plans work for the poor. Policy brief accessible at http://www.careclimatechange.org/images/stories/Adaptation/C4D_Case_Study-‐NAPAs.pdf

Cash D, Borck J, Patt A. 2006. Countering the loading-‐dock approach to linking science and decision-‐making. Science, Technology and Human Values 31(4): 465-‐494

Chishakwe N, Murray L and Chambwera M. 2012. Building climate change adaptation on community experiences: Lessons from community-‐based natural resource management in southern Af-‐rica, International Institute for Environment and Development. London

Cohen S, Neilsen D, Smith S, Neale T, Taylor B, Barton M et al. 2006. Learning with Local Help: Ex-‐panding the dialogue on climate change and water management in the Okanagan Region, British Colombia, Canada. Climatic Change 75: 331-‐358

Coleman E. 2010. Common Property Rights, Adaptive Capacity, and Response to Forest Disturbance. Global Environmental Change 21: 855–865.

Dinshaw A., Dixit A., McGray H. 2012. Information for Climate Change Adaptation: Lessons and Needs in South Asia. Working Paper. World Resources Institute, Washington DC. Available online at http://www.wri.org/publication/climate-‐change-‐adaptationlessons-‐south-‐asia.


Downing T., Chambwera M, Venton C, Dyszynski J, Crawford V. 2011. Planning and costing agricul-‐ture’s adaptation to climate change. IIED, London

DuBois K, Chen Z, Kanamaru H, Seeberg_Elverfeldt C, 2012, Incorporating climate change considera-‐tions in agricultural investment programmes: a guidance document. FAO Rome

Eakin H., Eriksen S., Eikeland P., Øyen C. 2011. Public Sector Reform and Governance for Adaptation: Implications of New Public Management for Adaptive Capacity in Mexico and Norway. Envi-‐ron Manage. 2011 March; 47(3): 338–351.

Eakin H., Tucker C., Castellanos E. 2006. Responding to the coffee crisis: a pilot study of farmers’ ad-‐aptations in Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras. The Geographical Journal 172(2): 156–171

Earl S, Carden F, Smutylo T. 2001. Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection into Develop-‐ment Programs. IDRC, Ottawa, Canada.

Engle N, Lemos M. 2010. Unpacking governance: Building adaptive capacity to climate change for river basins in Brazil. Global Environmental Change 20(1): 4–13

Engle N., Johns O., Lemos M., Nelson D. 2011. Integrated and Adaptive Management of Water Re-‐sources: Tensions, Legacies, and the Next Best Thing. Ecology and Society 16(1): 19. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art19/

Eriksen S., Kelly P. 2007. Developing credible vulnerability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessment. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12: 495-‐524

Falaleeva M., Albert C. 2009. Social learning for climate change adaptation: knowledge and action across scales and levels. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 6 (2009) 292030.

Feldman D, Ingram H. 2009. Making science useful to decision makers: climate forecasts, water man-‐agement and knowledge networks. Weather, Climate and Society 1: 9–21

Fernandez-‐Gimenez, M., B. Batkhishig, B. Batbuyan. 2012. Cross-‐boundary and cross-‐level dynamics increase vulnerability to severe winter disasters (dzud) in Mongolia. Global Environmental Change 22 (2012) 836–851

Few R, Brown K, Tompkins E. 2007. Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate Policy 7(1): 46-‐59

Fisher C, Harvey B. 2012. Behind the scenes at a climate change knowledge sharing network: ISD insights from Phase One of AfricaAdapt. IDS Working Paper 402. IDS, Brighton.

Fisher R, Prabhu R, McDougall C. 2007. Adaptive Collaborative Management of Community Forests in Asia: Experiences from Nepal, Indonesia and the Philippines. CIFOR, Bogor.

Fisher S and Surminski S. 2012. The roles of public and private actors in the governance of adapta-‐tion: the case of agricultural insurance in India. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper 89, London School of Economics, London

Gemmer M, Wilkes A, Vaucel L. 2011. Governing climate change adaptation in the EU and China: an analysis of formal institutions. Advances in Climate Change Research 2(1): 1-‐11

GIZ. 2010. How can small-‐scale coffee and tea producers adapt to climate change? AdapCC Final Re-‐port -‐ Results & Lessons Learnt. GIZ, Eschborn

GIZ. 2011. Capacity Works: the management model for sustainable development. GIZ, Eschborn

Government of Nepal Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. 2011. Climate change adaptation and disaster risk management in agriculture: Priority Framework for Action. MOAC, Kathmandu.

Haerlin, B. 2006. Adaptation to Climate Change in Mozambique. Division Environment and Infrastruc-‐ture, GIZ Eschborn and http://www.sidpabb.org/

Holt-‐Gimenez E. 2002. Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicara-‐gua: a case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring. Agricul-‐


ture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 (2002) 87–105

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. CUP, Cambridge

Jones L, Boyd E. 2011. Exploring social barriers to adaptation: Insights from Western Nepal. Global Environmental Change. 21 (2011) 1262–1274

Klein R, Eriksen S, Naess L, Hammill A, Tanner T, Robledo C, O’Brien K. 2007. Portfolio screening to support mainstreaming of adaptation to climate change into development assistance. Cli-‐matic Change 84(1): 23-‐44

Kruijssen F, Keizer M, Giuliani A. 2007. Collective Action for Small-‐Scale Producers of Agricultural Biodiversity Products. CAPRI Working Paper No. 71. IFPRI, Washington D.C.

Lebel L, Anderies J, Campbell B, Folke C, Hatfield-‐Dodds S, Hughes T, Wilson J. 2006. Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-‐ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1): 19. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/.

Lebel L, Grothmann T, Siebenhüner B. 2010. The role of social learning in adaptiveness: insights from water management. International Environmental Agreements, 10(4): 333-‐353

Lemos M, Dilling L. 2007. Equity in forecasting climate: can science save the world’s poor? Science and Public Policy 34: 109–116

Li W, Huntsinger L. 2011. China’s Grassland Contract Policy and its Impacts on Herder Ability to Bene-‐fit in Inner Mongolia: Tragic Feedbacks. Ecology and Society 16(2): 1. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art1/

López-‐Marrero T. 2010. An integrative approach to study and promote natural hazards adaptive ca-‐pacity: a case study of two flood-‐prone communities in Puerto Rico. Geographical Journal 176(2): 150-‐163

Meinke H, Nelson R, Kokic P, Stone R, Selvaraju R, Baethgen W. 2006. Actionable climate knowledge: from analysis to synthesis. Climate Research 33: 101-‐110.

North D. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

O’Brien K, Leichenko R, Kelkar U, Venema H, Aandahl G, Tompkins H, Javed A, Bhadwal S, Barg S, Nygaard L, West J. 2004. Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Global Environmental Change 14: 303-‐313

OECD 2009. Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Co-‐operation. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/45/44887764.pdf

Olhoff A, Schaer C. 2010. Screening Tools and Guidelines to Support the Mainstreaming of Climate Change Adaptation into Development Assistance: AStocktaking Report. UNDP: New York

Owuor, B., Siri Eriksen, Mauta, W. 2005. Adapting to Climate Change in a Dryland Mountain Environ-‐ment in Kenya. Mountain Research and Development, 25(4):310-‐315. 2005.

Pascual U, Narloch U, Hordhagen S, Drucker A, 2011. The economics of agrobiodiveristy conservation for food security under cliamte change. Economía Agraria y Recursos Naturales 11(1): 191-‐220

Pelling M, High C, Dearing J, Smith D. 2008. Shadow spaces for social learning: a relational under-‐standing of adaptive capacity to climate change within organisations. Environment and Planning A, 40(4): 867–884

Petermann, T. 2012. Human Capacity Development Formats. Definition and examples. GIZ, https://gc21.giz.de/ibt/GC21/area=module/main/en/usr/modules/gc21/ol-‐FLEXmenawaterportal/info/ibt/download/Presentation-‐HCD-‐Formats.pdf

Reid H, Ampomah G, Prera M, Rabbani G, Zvigadsa S. 2012. Southern voices on climate policy choic-‐


es: analysis of and lessons from civil society advocacy on climate change. IIED, London

Robinson, L., Berkes, F. 2011. Multi-‐level participation for building adaptive capacity: formal agency -‐ community interactions in northern Kenya. Global Environmental Change 21: 1185-‐1194.

Robledo C, Fischler M, Patiño A. 2004. Increasing the resilience of hillside communities in Bolivia. Mountain Research and Development 24(1): 14-‐18

Roncoli, C., Ingram, K., Kirshen, P., 2002. Reading the rains: local knowledge and rainfall fore-‐casting among farmers of Burkina Faso. Society and Natural Resources 15, 411–430.

Shepherd P., Tansey J., Dowlatabadi H. 2006. Context Matters: What shapes adaptation to water stress in the Okaganan? Climatic Change 78, pp. 31–62.

Spielman D, hartwich F, Greebmer K. 2010. public-‐private partnerships and developing country agri-‐culture: evidence from the international agricultural research system. Public Administration and Development 30(4): 261-‐276

Springer-‐Heinze A, Hartwich F, Henderson S, Horton D, Minde I. 2003. Impact pathway analysis: an approach to strengthening the impact orientation of agricultural research. Agricultural Sys-‐tems 78(2): 267–285

Srinivasan G, Rafisura K, Subbiah A. 2011. Climate information requirements for community-‐level risk management and adaptation. Climate Research. 47: 5-‐12

Sudmeier-‐Rieux K, Jaquet S, Derron M, Jaboyedoff M, Devkota S. 2012. A case study of coping strate-‐gies and landslides in two villages of Central-‐Eastern Nepal. Applied Geography 32(2): 680–690

Sutherland, K., B. Smit, V. Wulf and T. Nakalevu, 2005: Vulnerability to climate change and adaptive capacity in Samoa: the case of Saoluafata village. Tiempo, 54, 11-‐15

Tanner, T.; Lockwood, M. and Seballos F. 2012. Learning to Tackle Climate Change. The Learning Hub, Brighton: IDS

Tompkins, E., 2005: Planning for climate change in small islands: insights from national hurricane preparedness in the Cayman Islands. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 139-‐149.

UNDP Bureau for Policy Development. 2010. Designing Climate Change Adaptation Initiatives: a UNDP toolkit for practitioners. UNDP, New York.

Vermeulen S, Aggarwal P, Ainslie A, Angelone C, Campbell B, Challinor A, Hansen J, Ingram J, Jarvis A, Kristjanson P, Lau C, Thornton P, Wollenberg E. 2010. Agriculture, food security and climate change: Outlook for knowledge, tools and action. CCAFS Report 3. CGIAR-‐ESSP Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, Copenhagen

Vogel C, O’Brien K. 2006. Who can eat information? Examining the effectiveness of seasonal climate forecasts and regional climate-‐risk management strategies. Climate Research 33: 111-‐122

Wilby R, Dessai S. 2010. Robust adaptation to climate change. Weather 65(7): 180-‐185

Waldmüller, L. 2012. Personal communication.

Ziervogel, G., M. Bithell, R. Washington, T. Downing. 2005. Agent-‐based Social Simulation: a Method for Assessing the Impact of Seasonal Climate Forecasts among Smallholder Farmers. Agricul-‐tural Systems, 83(1): 1–26.

Resilient markets

Anderson, K., S. Nelgen. 2010. Trade Barrier Volatility and Domestic Price Stabilization. Evidence from Agriculture.


http://elibrary.worldbank.org/docserver/download/5511.pdf?expires=1351785291&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=92856196C2E648B0A4258CDCD85AB555

Bashkar A, Beghin J. 2009. How coupled are decoupled farm payments? A review of the evidence. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 34(1): 130-‐153

CRS and Partners. 2006. Seed system security assessment (SSSA) Douentza, northern Mali. Bamako: CRS/Mali. Final Report.

del Ninno, C., P.A. Dorosh, L.C. Smith, K. R. Dilip. 2001. The 1998 Floods in Bangladesh Disaster Im-‐pacts, Household Coping Strategies, and Response. IFPRI Report 122. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/rr122.pdf

FAO. 2009. Food Security and Agriculture Mitigation in Developing Countries: Options for Capturing Synergies. Rome: FAO. FAO 2012 Global Food Losses and Food Waste. Extent, Causes and Prevention. http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf

FAO. 2012. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2012. World Food and Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2490e/i2490e00.htm

FAO. 2012b. Time to connect forest and agricultural producer organizations. International Year of Cooperatives Issue Brief Series. http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap633e/ap633e.pdf

Gilbert, L. 2011. Food Reserves in Developing Countries: Trade Policy Options for Improved Food Security. ICTSD Issue Paper No. 37. http://ictsd.org/downloads/2011/12/food-‐reserves-‐in-‐developing-‐countries.pdf

GIZ. 2010. How can small-‐scale coffee and tea producers adapt to climate change? AdapCC Final Re-‐port -‐ Results & Lessons Learnt. GIZ, Eschborn

GIZ. 2011. Climate Proofing for Development. Adapting to Climate Change, Reducing Risk. www.giz.de/fetch/9X00irq7g001jQs809/giz2011-‐0223en-‐climate-‐proofing.pdf

GIZ. 2012. Value Links Manual. The Methodology of Value Chain Promotion. First Edition. http://star-‐www.giz.de/dokumente/bib/07-‐0674.pdf

Goodland, A., O. Mahul, 2011. Index-‐based Livestock Insurance in Mongolia. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/focus17_09.pdf

GTZ 1996. Manual on the Prevention of Post-‐harvest Grain Losses. Post-‐Harvest Project, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH. http://www.cd3wd.com/cd3wd_40/INPHO/VLIBRARY/GTZHTML/X0065E/EN/X0065E00.HTM

Gustavsson, J., C. Cederberg, G. Sonesson, R. Otterdijk, A. Meybeck. 2011. Global Food Losses and Food Waste. Extent, causes and prevention. FAO Rome, Italy.

Hajkowicz, S., C. Negra, P. Barnett, M. Clark, B. Harch, B. Keating. 2012. Food Price Volatility and Hunger Alleviation – can Cannes Work? Agriculture & Food Security, 1:8. http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/1/1/8IEG, 2012.

Hartmann, A. 2012. Scaling Up Agricultural Value Chains for Pro-‐Poor Development. IFPRI policy brief 7, Focus 19. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/focus19_07.pdf

IEG 2012. Adaptation to Climate Change. Assessing the World Bank Group experiences, Phase III. Independent Evaluation Group. http://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/content/dam/ieg/climate_change3/cc3_full_eval.pdf

Iturrioz, R. 2009. Agricultural Insurance. World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/FINANCIALSECTOR/Resources/Primer12_Agricultural_Insurance.pdf

Li H, Wang Y, Meng J, Wang H, You J, Huo X, Wang Y. 2009. The effect of climate change on the cli-‐


matic zoning for wine grapes in China. Acta Horticulturae Sinica 36(3): 313-‐320

Lipper L., L. Anderson, T. Dalton. 2010. Seed Trade in Rural Markets. Implications for Crop Diversity and Agricultural Development. Earthscan.

Lobell, D.B., M.B. Burke (eds.). 2010. Climate Change and Food Security. Springer.

Mahul, O., C. J. Stutley. 2010. Government Support to Agricultural Insurance Challenges and Options for Developing Countries. World Bank. Washington D.C.

Meridian Institute. 2011. Agriculture and Climate Change A Scoping Report. http://www.climate-‐agricultu-‐tu-‐re.org/~/media/Files/Projects/CCAg%20microsite/Agriculture%20and%20Climate%20Change%20Scoping%20Report.ashx

Nelson, G.C., M.W. Rosegrant, J. Koo, R. Robertson, T. Sulser, T. Zhu, C. Ringler, S. Msangi, A. Palazzo, M. Batka, M. Magalhaes, R. Valmonte-‐Santos, M. Ewing, D. Lee. 2009. Climate Change: Im-‐pact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation. Food Policy Report #19. Washington, D.C.: In-‐ternational Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/pr21.pdf

RHVP (Regional Hunger and Vulnerability Programme). 2010. Electronic Delivery of Social Cash Trans-‐fers. Lessons learned and Opportunities for Africa. http://www.wahenga.net/sites/default/fi les/briefs/REBA_Thematic_Brief_3.pdf

Streck, C., Obersteiner, M., Tennigkeit, T., Choren, M. 2011. Carbon Market and Climate Finance for Agriculture in Developing Countries. Report for DFID.

Stutley, C. 2012 Promoting Food Security in a Volatile Climate: The Role of Agricultural Insurance. Paper prepared for the KfW financial sector symposium. http://www.kfw-‐entwicklungs-‐bank.de/ebank/EN_Home/Sectors/Financial_system_development/Events/Symposium_2012/Session_1/2012_Session_Summary_3.pdf

The Economist 2012. Daily chart -‐ How to feed a planet. Issue May 2012. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/05/daily-‐chart-‐17

Timmer, C. 2010. Management of rice reserve stocks in Asia: Analytical issues and country experi-‐ence. Commodity Market Review FAO, 87-‐120.

Wiggins, S., Brooks, J. 2010. The use of input subsidies in developing countries. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/tad/agriculturalpoliciesandsupport/46340359.pdf

Winkler J., S. Thornsbury, M. Artavia, F. Chmielewski, D. Kirschke, S. Lee et al. 2010. A Conceptual Framework for Multi-‐regional Climate Change Assessments for International Market Sys-‐tems with Long-‐term Investments. Climatic Change, 103: 445-‐470.

Woelcke, J. 2012. More Than Just Hot Air: Carbon Market Access and Climate-‐Smart Agriculture for Smallholder Farmers. IFC Smart Lessons. http://wbcarbonfinance.org/docs/Mor_ThanHotAir.pdf

World Bank. 2005. Managing Agricultural Production Risk. Innovations in Developing Countries. Washington.

World Bank. 2011. Missing food: The Case of Postharvest Grain Losses in Sub-‐Saharan Africa. The World Bank, Natural resources Institute, FAO. Report No. 60371-‐AFR. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/MissingFoods10_web.pdf

World Bank. 2012. Investment Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty. Application to Climate Change. The World Bank Sustainable development Network, Office of the Chief Economist.


http://www-‐wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2012/09/06/000158349_20120906142854/Rendered/PDF/wps6193.pdf

Resilient production

Beintema, N., Stads, G.-‐J., Fuglie, K., Heisey, P. 2012. ASTI Global Assessment of Agricultural R&D Spending. Developing Countries Accelerate Investment. IFPRI, ASTI, GFAR. http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/ASTI_global_assessment.pdf

Below, T., A. Artner, R. Siebert, S. Sieber. 2010. Micro-‐level Practices to Adapt to Climate Change for African Small-‐scale Farm-‐ers.http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00953.pdf

Brander, K. 2012. Climate and Current Anthropogenic Impacts on Fisheries. Climatic Change, 113(2): DOI 10.1007/s10584-‐012-‐0541-‐2.

Bryan et al. 2011. Agricultural Management for Climate Change Adaptation, Greenhouse Gas Mitiga-‐tion, and Agricultural Productivity http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp01098.pdf

Cacho, O., R. Graham, M. Milne. 2003. Smallholder Agroforestry Projects: Potential for Carbon Se-‐questration and Poverty Alleviation. ESA working paper 03-‐06. FAO, Rome.

Davis, K., E. Nkonya, E. Kato, D. Mekonnen, M. Odendo, R. Miiro, J. Nkuba. 2010. Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Agricultural Productivity and Poverty in East Africa. IFPRI discussion paper 00992. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00992.pdf

Daw, T., W.N. Adger, K. Brown, M.-‐C. Badjeck. 2009. Climate Change and Capture Fisheries: Potential Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation. In: Cochrane, K., C. De Young, D. Soto, T. Bahri (eds). Climate Change Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture: Overview of Current Scientific Knowledge. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, 530: 212.

De Silva, S.S., D. Soto. 2009. Climate Change and Aquaculture: Potential Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation. In: Cochrane, K., C. De Young, D. Soto, T. Bahri (eds). Climate Change Implica-‐tions for Fisheries and Aquaculture: Overview of Current Scientific Knowledge. FAO Fisher-‐ies and Aquaculture Technical Paper, 530: 151-‐212.

FAO 2012b. Fisheries and aquaculture fact sheet. http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/am859e/am859e07.pdf

FAO. 2009. Food Security and Agricultural Mitigation in Developing Countries: Options for Capturing Synergies http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1318e/i1318e00.pdf

FAO. 2009b. The use of structured finance instruments in agriculture in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. FAO, Rome.

FAO. 2010. Climate-‐Smart Agriculture. Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1881e/i1881e00.pdf

FAO. 2011. Lessons from the field. Experiences from FAO Climate Change Projects. Publication Pro-‐duced as an Outcome of the FAO Climate Change Days Workshop held at the FAO head-‐quarters in Rome, Italy, June 2010. http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2207e/i2207e.pdf

FAO. 2012. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2012. World Food and Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2490e/i2490e00.htm

FAO. 2012c. Identifying Opportunities for Climate-‐smart Agriculture Investments in Africa. Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/an112e/an112e00.pdf

FAOSTAT. 2013. Rome, Italy. http://faostat.fao.org/.


GIZ. 2012. Anpassung nach Maß. Ein Leitfaden für die Konzeption und das wirkungsorientierte Moni-‐toring von Projekten zur Anpassung an den Klimawandel. http://www2.gtz.de/wbf/4tDx9kw63gma/Handreichung_ME%20Anpassung.pdf

GIZ. 2012b. SIMPLE. Draft Project Document. Manila, Philippines.

GIZ. 2012c. PROAGRO: Modelos de Gestión Programa de Desarrollo Agropecuario Sustentable FASE II. GIZ La Paz, Bolivia.

GIZ. 2012d. Perfil de PROAGRO en la Adaptación al Cambio Climático. Programa de Desarrollo Agro-‐pecuario Sustentable (PROAGRO), GIZ La Paz, Bolivia.

GIZ. 2012e. Adaptation to Climate Change and Insurance (ACCI). Various unpublished project docu-‐mentation. GIZ Nairobi, Kenya.

Hallegate S., A. Shah, R. Lempert, C. Brown, S. Gill. 2012. Investment Decision Making under Uncer-‐tainty: Application to Climate Change. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6193, World Bank, Washington D.C.

Horn-‐Haacke, L. 2011. Anpassungsvorhaben für die Landwirtschaft – Beispiel Bolivien. Unpublished presentation. KfW Eschborn.

IEG. 2012. Adaptation to Climate Change. Assessing the World Bank Group Experiences, Phase III. Independent Evaluation Group. http://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/content/dam/ieg/climate_change3/cc3_full_eval.pdf

IFAD. 2011. Climate-‐smart Smallholder Agriculture: What’s different? IFAD Occasional Paper 3. http://www.ifad.org/pub/op/3.pdf

IFPRI. 2010. Innovations in Rural and Agricultural Finance.

Kathiresan, K. 2008. Course Manual. UNU-‐INWEHUNESCO International Training Course on Coastal Biodiversity in Mangrove Ecosystems, 3–17 Nov. 2008, 195–228 pp.

Knox, J., T. Hess, A. Daccache, T. Wheeler. 2012. Climate Change Impacts on Crop Productivity in Afri-‐ca and South Asia. Environmental Research letters, 7(2012): 034032.

Kristjanson, P., H. Neufeldt, A. Gassner, J. Mango, F. Kyazze, S. Desta, G. Sayula, B. Thiede, W. Förch, P. Thornton, R. Coe. 2012. Are Food Insecure Households Making Changes in Their Farming Practices? Evidence from East Africa. Food Security, 4: 381-‐397.

Liniger, H., S. Mekdaschi, C. Hauert, M. Gurtner. 2011. Sustainable Land Management in Practice – Guidelines and Best Practices from Sub-‐Sharan Africa. TerrAfrica, WOCAT and FAO.

Lipper L, Wilkes A, McCarthy N. 2011. Crediting soil carbon sequestration in smallholder agricultural systems: what fits and what flies? In de Brogniez D, Mayaux P and Montanarella L (eds) Monitoring, Reporting and Verification Systems for Carbon in Soils and Vegetation in Afri-‐can, Caribbean and Pacific Countries. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, Joint Research Center of the European Commission, Luxembourg.

Lobell, D., M. Burke, C. Tebaldi, M. Mastrandrea, W. Falcon, R. Naylor. 2008. Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptation Needs for Food Security in 2030. Science, 319: 607-‐610.

Meridian Institute. 2011. Agriculture and Climate Change. A Scoping Report. http://climate-‐agricultu-‐tu-‐re.org/~/media/Files/Projects/CCAg%20microsite/Agriculture%20and%20Climate%20Change%20Scoping%20Report.ashx

Neu, S. 2012. Personal communication.

NEWS. 2012. India Sundarbans Mangrove Restoration. Project Design Document (unpublished re-‐


port).

Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F., O’Mara, C. Rice, B. Scholes, O. Sirotenko. 2007. Agriculture. In: Metz, B., O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds.). Climate Change (2007): Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cam-‐bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-‐report/ar4/wg3/ar4-‐wg3-‐chapter8.pdf.

UNIQUE forestry and land use. 2012. Concept for a Measurement, Reporting & Verification (MRV) system for Climate-‐Smart Agriculture in Kenya. Unpublished working document.

WOCAT. 2007. Where the Land is Greener – Case Studies and Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation Initiatives Worldwide. Lininger, H., W. Critchley. World overview of conservation approach-‐es and technologies.

World Bank. 2007. Agriculture for Development. World Development Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 2011. The Drought and Food Crisis in the Horn of Africa: Impacts and proposed policy responses for Kenya. World Bank Economic Premise,71.

WOTR 2012. Website. http://www.wotr.org/

Resilient people

Agrawal, A. and N. Perrin. 2008. Climate adaptation, local institutions, and rural livelihoods. IFRI Working Paper, W081-‐6. International Forestry Resources and Institutions Program, Univer-‐sity of Michigan.

Alderman, H., and T. Haque. 2007. Insurance against Covariate Shocks: The Role of Index-‐Based In-‐surance in Social Protection in Low-‐Income Countries of Africa. Africa Human Development Series Working Paper No. 95. Washington, DC: The World Bank

Antonopoulos, R. and M.S. Floro. 2005. Asset ownership along gender lines: Evidence from Thailand. Gender, Equality, and the Economy Working Paper No. 418. Annandale-‐on-‐Hudson, NY: Levy Economics Institute. Available at: http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp418.pdf.

Archer, E.R.M. 2003. Identifying underserved end-‐user groups in the provision of climate infor-‐mation. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 84 (11): 1525–1532.

Bandiera, O., Rasul, I. 2005. Social Networks, and Technology Adoption in Northern Mozambique,” Economic Journal, Vol. 116, 862-‐902.

Bene, C. 2011. Social Protection and Climate Change. IDS Bulletin, 42(6): 67-‐70.

Berhane, G., J. Hoddinott, N. Kumar, A.S. Taffesse. 2011. The Impact of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Nets and Household Asset Building Programme: 2006-‐2010. UK: IDS.

Biskup, J.L., and D.L. Boellstorff. 1995. The effects of a long-‐term drought on the eco-‐nomic roles of Hacendado and Ejidatario women in a Mexican Ejido. Nebraska Anthropologist. Paper 80. Available at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro/80

Boahene, K., T. Snijders and H. Folmer (1999). An Integrated Socioeconomic Analysis of Innovation Adoption: The Case of Hybrid Cocoa in Ghana. Journal of Policy Modeling 21: 167-‐184.

Brouwer, R., S. Akter, L. Brander, and E. Haque. 2007. Socioeconomic Vulnerability and Adaptation to Environmental Risk: A Case Study of Climate Change and Flooding in Bangladesh. Risk Anal-‐ysis, 27(2): 313-‐326.

Bryan, E., C. Ringler, B. Okoba, J. Koo, M. Herrero. 2012. Can agriculture support climate change ad-‐


aptation, greenhouse gas mitigation and rural livelihoods? Insights from Kenya. Climatic Change. DOI 10.1007/s10584-‐012-‐0640-‐0.

Bryan, E., Ringler, C., Okoba, B., Roncoli, C., Silvestri, S., Hererro, M. 2013. Adapting agriculture to climate change in Kenya: Household strategies and determinants, Journal of Environmental Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.036

Bryant, R.C., Smit, B., Brklacich, M., Johnston, R.T., Smithers, J., Chiotti, Q., Singh, B., 2000. Adapta-‐tion in Canadian agriculture to climatic variability and change. Climatic Change 45, 181–201.

Buechler, S. 2009. Gender, water, and climate change in Sonora, Mexico: Implications for policies and programmes on agricultural income-‐generation. Gender and Development 17 (1): 51–66.

Bynoe, P. 2009. Case study on the impact of climate change on agriculture on an indigenous commu-‐nity in Guyana. UNDP Caribbean Risk Management Initiative. Barbados. Available at: http://www.undp.org.cu/crmi/docs/crmi-‐gttfcstguyana-‐bp-‐2009-‐en.pdf.

Carr, E.R. 2008. Between structure and agency: Livelihoods and adaptation in Ghana's central region. Global Environmental Change 18 (4): 689–699.

Cohen, M., and P. Young. 2007. Using microinsurance and financial education to protect and accumu-‐late assets. In: Moser, C. (Ed.) Reducing global poverty: The case for asset accumulation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Cohen, M.J., C. Tirado, N-‐L. Aberman and B. Thompson. 2008. Impact of climate change and bioener-‐gy on nutrition. FAO and IFPRI: Washington D.C. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/cohenetal2008climate.pdf.

Davies, M., Guenther, B., Leavy, J., Mitchell, T., Tanner, T., 2008. Adaptive social protection: synergies for poverty reduction. IDS Bulletin 39 (4): 105–112.

De Janvry, A., Sadoulet, E., Solomon, P., Vakis, R., 2006. Uninsured risk and asset protection: can conditional cash transfer programs serve as safety nets. Social Protection Discussion Paper 604. Washington, DC: The World Bank

de Souza P. 2009. The fight against poverty and hunger in Brasil. In J von Braun et al (eds) The Poor-‐est and Hungry: Assessments, analyses and actions. IFPRI, Washington D.C.

Deere, C.D., and C.R. Doss. 2006. Gender and the distribution of wealth in developing countries. Re-‐search Paper No. 2006/115. UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-‐WIDER). Available at: http://www.wider.unu.edu/stc/repec/pdfs/rp2006/rp2006-‐115.pdf. (Accessed 17 Aug 2011)

Deere, C.D., and M. León. 2003. The gender asset gap: Land in Latin America. World Development 31 (6): 925–947.

Dercon, S., Christiansen, L. 2011. Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps: Evidence from Ethiopia. Journal of development economics 96: 159-‐173.

Deressa, T.D., R.M. Hassan, C. Ringler, T. Alemu, and M. Yesuf. 2009. Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Global Environmen-‐tal Change. 19 (2009) 248–255. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.002.

DfID (Department for International Development). 2001. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. http://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidancesheets.html.

Ellis F. 1998. Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. Journal of Development Stud-‐ies 35(1): 1-‐38

Ellis, F.; White, P.; Lloyd-‐Sherlock, P.; Chhotray, V. and Seeley, J. 2008. Social Protection Research Scoping Study, Norwich: Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia.


Eriksen, S., J. Lind. 2009. Adaptation as a Political Process: Adjusting to Drought and Conflict in Ken-‐ya’s Drylands. Environmental Management, 43: 817-‐835.

Eriksen, S.H., Brown, K., Kelly, P.M., 2005. The dynamics of vulnerability: locating coping strategies in Kenya and Tanzania. The Geographical Journal, 171 (4): 287–305.

Fafchamps, M. and Lund, S. 2003. Risk-‐Sharing Networks in Rural Philippines. Journal of Development Economics, 71(2): 261-‐87

Fischlin A., and Midgeley G. 2007. Ecosystems, their properties, goods and services. In: Parry M.L., Canziani O.F., Palutikof J.P., Hanson C.E., van der Linden P.J. (eds) Climate change 2007: im-‐pacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assess-‐ment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Frank E, Eakin H, and Lopez-‐Carr D. 2011. Social identity, perception and motivation in adaptation to climate risk in the coffee sector of Chiapas, Mexico. Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 66–76

Gbetibouo G., R. Hassan, C. Ringler. 2010. Modeling Farmers Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change and Variability: The Case of the Limpopo Basin, South Africa. Agricultural Economics Research, Policy and Practice in South Africa, 49(2): 217-‐234.

Gilligan, D., J.Hoddinott, and A.S. Taffesse. 2008. The Impact of Ethiopian Productive Safety Net Pro-‐gramme and its Linkages. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI Discussion Paper 839.

Goh, A. 2012. A Literature Review of the Gender-‐Differentiated Impacts of Climate Change on Wom-‐en’s and Men’s Assets and Well-‐Being in Developing Countries. CAPRi Working Paper No. 106.

Gray C and Mueller V. 2012. Natural disasters and population mobility in Bangladesh. PNAS 109(16): 6000-‐6005

Grosh, M., Del Ninno, C., Tesliuc, E., Ouerghi, A., 2008. For Protection and Promotion: The Design and Implementation of Effective Safety Nets. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Grothmann, T. and A. Patt. 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change 15(3): 199-‐213.

Hamilton, C., and T. Kasser. 2009. Psychological Adaptation to the Threats and Stresses of a Four Degree World. In Four Degrees and Beyond. Oxford

Hansen, J., Baethgen, W.,Osgood, D., Ceccato, P., Ngugi, R.K., 2007. Innovations in climate risk man-‐agement: Protecting and building rural livelihoods in a variable and changing climate. Jour-‐nal of Semi-‐Arid Tropical Agricultural Research 4 (1).

Heltberg, R.; Siegel, P. and Jorgensen, S.L. 2009. Addressing Human Vulnerability to Climate Change: Towards a “No-‐regrets” Approach’, Global Environmental Change 19: 89–99.

Howden S.M., J.F. Soussana, F.N. Tubiello, N. Chhetri, M. Dunlop, and H. Meinke. 2007. Adapting agriculture to climate change. PNAS, 104(50): 19691–19696.

IPCC. 2001. Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, J. J. McCarthy, et al., eds. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Isham, J. 2002. The Effect of Social Capital on Fertilizer Adoption: Evidence from Rural Tanzania. Journal of African Economies, 11(1): 39-‐60.

Jones, L. and E. Boyd. 2011. Exploring Social Barriers to Adaptation to Climate Change: Insights from the Mid and Far-‐Western Regions of Nepal. Global Environmental Change, forthcoming.


Jones, L. E. Ludi, and S. Levine. 2010. Towards a characterization of adaptive capacity: a framework for analyzing adaptive capacity at the local level. Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Background Note.

Maddison, D. 2006. The perception of and adaptation to climate change in Africa. CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 10. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa, University of Preto-‐ria, South Africa.

Malhotra, A., A. Kanesathasan, and P. Patel. 2012. Connectivity: How mobile phones, computers and the internet can catalyze women's entrepreneurship. India: A case study. Washington, D.C.: International Center for Research on Women (ICRW). Available at: http://www.icrw.org/files/publications/Connectivity-‐how-‐mobile-‐phones-‐computers-‐and-‐the-‐internet-‐can-‐catalyze-‐womens-‐entrepreneurship.pdf.

Meinzen-‐Dick, R., A. Quisumbing, J. Behrman, P. Biermayr-‐Jenzano, V. Wilde, M. Noordeloos, C. Ra-‐gasa, and N. Beintema. 2010. Engendering agricultural research. IFPRI Discussion Paper 973. <http://www.ifpri.org/publication/engendering-‐agricultural-‐research>.

Nelson, G.C., et al. 2010. Food security, farming, and climate change to 2050: Scenarios, results, poli-‐cy options. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Available at http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ib66.pdf.

Nelson, V. and T. Stathers. 2009. Resilience, power, culture, and climate: A case study from semi-‐arid Tanzania, and new research directions. Gender and Development, 17 (1): 81-‐94.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cam-‐bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. PaluItikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds.). 2007. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Patt, A., A. Daze, P. Suarez. 2009 Gender and climate change vulnerability: what’s the problem, what’s the solution? In Distributional Impacts of Climate Change and Disasters: Concepts and Cases, Ruth M. and M. Ibarraran (eds). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham: 82-‐102.

Peterman, A., J. Behrman, and A.R. Quisumbing. 2010. A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in non-‐land agricultural inputs, technology, and services in developing countries. IFPRI DP 00975. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Available at: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00975.pdf

Power, A.G. 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical transac-‐tions of the Royal Society B, 365: 2959-‐2971.

Quisumbing, A.R. (Ed). 2003. Household decisions, gender, and development: A synthesis of recent research. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Available at: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/genderbook.pdf. (Accessed 17 Aug 2011)

Quisumbing, A.R. 2009. Do men and women accumulate assets in different ways? Evidence from rural Bangladesh. IFPRI DP 01096. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research In-‐stitute. Available at: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp01096.pdf. (Accessed 17 Aug 2011)

Quisumbing, A.R. and Kumar, N. 2011. Does social capital build women's assets? The long-‐term im-‐pacts of group-‐based and individual dissemination of agricultural technology in Bangladesh. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 3(2): 220-‐242.


Rawlings, L.B., and G.M. Rubio. 2005. Evaluating the Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs World Bank Res Obs 20 (1): 29-‐55

Reser, J.P. and J.K. Swim. 2011. Adapting to and coping with the threat and impacts of climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4): 277-‐289.

Robertson, G.P. and S.M. Swinton. 2005. Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: a grand challenge for agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3: 38–46.

Roncoli, C., Ingram, K., Kirshen, P., 2002. Reading the rains: local knowledge and rainfall forecasting among farmers of Burkina Faso. Society and Natural Resources 15, 411–430.

Sabarwal, S., N. Sinha, and M. Buvinic. 2010. How do women weather economic shocks? A review of the evidence. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5496, Washington, D.C.. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPREMNET/Resources/EP46.pdf.

Scherr, S.J. and J.A. McNeely. 2008. Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Soci-‐ety B, 363:477-‐494.

Skoufias, E. and S.W. Parker. 2001. Conditional Cash Transfers and Their Impact on Child Work and Schooling: Evidence from the PROGRESA Program in Mexico. Economía 2(1): 45-‐86.

Smit, B. and J. Wandel 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 16: 282-‐292.

Smit, B., Skinner, M.W., 2002. Adaptations options in Agriculture to climate change: a typology. Mit-‐igation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 7, 85–114.

Smithers, J., Smit, B., 1997. Human adaptation to climatic variability and change. Global Environmen-‐tal Change, 7 (3), 129–146.

Spearman M., H. McGray. 2012. Making Adaptation Count: Concepts and Options for Monitoring and Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation. GIZ and WRI, Eschborn and Washington D.C.

Stern, N. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Thomas, D. S. G., C. Twyman, H. Osbahr and B. Hewitson. 2007. Adaptation to climate change and variability: farmer responses to intra-‐seasonal precipitation trends in South Africa, Climatic Change 83(3): 301-‐322.

Tschakert, P., 2007. Views from the vulnerable: understanding climatic and other stressors in the Sahel. Global Environmental Change 17 (3–4), 381–396.

Valdivia, C., A. Seth, J. L. Gilles, M. García, E. Jiménez, J. Cusicanqui, F. Navia, and E. Yucra. 2010. Adapting to Climate Change in Andean Ecosystems: Landscapes, Capitals, and Perceptions Shaping Rural Livelihood Strategies and Linking Knowledge Systems. Annals of the Associa-‐tion of American Geographers. 100 (4): 818-‐834.

Vassell, L. 2009. Gender climate change and disaster risk management: Case study of Jamaica. Bar-‐bados: UNDP Caribbean Risk Management Initiative. Available at: http://www.undp.org.cu/crmi/docs/crmi-‐gttfcstjamaica-‐bp-‐2009-‐en.pdf.

Veras Soares, F., R. Perez Ribas, and R. Guerreiro Osório. 2010. Evaluating the Impact of Brazil's Bolsa Família: Cash Transfer Programs in Comparative Perspective. Latin American Research Re-‐view 45(2): 173-‐190.

Vogel, C., O’Brien, K., 2006. Who can eat information? Examining the effectiveness of seasonal cli-‐mate forecasts and regional climate-‐risk management strategies. Climate Research 33, 111–122.


Wilbanks, T.J. and R.W. Kates 1999. Global Change in Local Places: How Scale Matters. Climatic Change, 43: 601-‐628.

Ziervogel, G., Bithell, M., Washington, R., Downing, T., 2005. Agent-‐based social simulation: a method for assessing the impact of seasonal climate forecasts among smallholder farmers. Agricul-‐tural Systems 83 (1): 1-‐26.