Priorities for Public Sector Research on Food Security and Climate Change, Report presentation by Leslie Lipper, FAO and Philip Thornton, ILRI on April 12, 2013 at the Food Security Futures Conference in Dublin, Ireland.

1. How does climate change alter agricultural
strategies to support food security?
Philip Thornton (CGIAR/CCAFS) and Leslie Lipper (FAO)
With contributions from
Stephen Baas, Andrea Cattaneo, Sabrina Chesterman, Kevern
Cochrane, Cassandra de Young, Polly Ericksen, Jacob van Etten, Fabrice de
Clerck,
Boru Douthwaite, Ashley DuVal, Carlo Fadda, Tara Garnett, Pierre
Gerber, Mark Howden, Wendy Mann, Nancy McCarthy, Reuben Sessa,
Sonja Vermeulen, Joost Vervoort

2. Structure of the presentation
• Threats of CC to agricultural production systems
• Responses to CC
• Making transitions happen
• How to monitor and evaluate?
• Conclusions: priority areas for CGIAR and FAO
 Focus is on how CC changes our approach to
agricultural transitions to support food security

3. 1 Threats of climate change to
agricultural production systems

4. Threats of climate change to production systems:
where are we going?
Possible reasons for apparent
slowdown in warming rate?
• Internal climate variability
• Assumed radiative forcings
may need adjustment
• Climate simulators are too
sensitive to greenhouse
gases
• Observational uncertainty
Global heat balance : land  Trends are clear – much
effects, ocean effects still to learn on the details
Ed Hawkins, www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/updated-comparison-of-simulations-and-observations/

5. Crop suitability is changing …
Average projected % change in suitability for 50 crops to 2055
Lane & Jarvis, SAT eJournal, 2007

6. Climate-induced livelihood transitions may well result
20º
0º
Areas where cropping of an
indicator cereal may become
unviable between now and
the 2050s -- where farmers -20º
may have to rely more on
livestock as a livelihood
strategy?
Jones & Thornton (2009)
0º 20º 40º

7. African agriculture in a +4 °C world
Length of
growing period
(%)
>20% loss
5-20% loss
To 2090, ensemble No change
5-20% gain
mean of 14 climate >20% gain
models
Thornton et al. (2010)

8. Impacts of changes in climate
variability?
Does it depend on scale?
• At household level: may be
catastrophic
• At more aggregated levels: persistence of effects? E.g. land-use
changes, regional livestock herd losses due to drought
• Aggregation hiding substantial spatial heterogeneity
• Equilibrium models versus dynamic approaches
What’s the evidence base?
Very poor – e.g.
• IPCC (2007) – “effects of climate variability may be as great as
changes in climate means”
• SREX (2012) – 1 page (in 600) on impacts of climate extremes on
food systems and food security

9. 2 Responses to climate change

10. Smallholders’ response to climate change
Technologies and practices to increase resilience of agricultural
systems:
• Soil and nutrient management (e.g. composts, crop residues)
• Improving water harvesting and retention (e.g.
dams, pits, retaining ridges)
• Understanding and dealing with changes in distribution /
intensity of weeds, pests, diseases
• Utilising different crops, breeds, wild relatives
• Efficient harvesting to reduce post-harvest losses
• Planting date management
• Use of agroforestry species (soil benefits, dry season
livestock fodder, income generation, carbon sequestering, …)

11. Smallholders’ response to climate change
Diversification
Livestock Livestock + Livestock + Results for a
only irrigated ag irrigated ag + Group Ranch in
OR business business Kajiado, Kenya
Thornton et al. (2012)

12. Smallholders’ response to climate change
“No regrets” technologies
TRANSFORMATION
“Complexity” of responding
• New production
system
ADAPTATION • New livelihoods
• New crops • Move location
• New livestock • Migration
species
• Off-farm
COPING diversification
• Planting dates
• Other varieties
• Water
management
Degree of Climate Change
Limits to “no regrets” at the farm level  Barriers, cost, need for collective action
and/or policy formulation (e.g. infrastructure development)
Adapted from Howden et al. (2010)

13. Enabling farmers to act on seasonal forecast information
Risk management
• Improving forecast products for
farmers
• Kaffrine, Senegal: workshops to
train farmers, identifying
management responses
• Wote, Kenya: testing
combinations of
advisories, training, delivery
medium
• Assessing impact on
decisions, livelihoods

14. 3 Making transitions happen

15. Developing & promoting
agricultural technologies
o Urgency of developing/disseminating technologies
embodying adaptation/mitigation while supporting
ag. transitions for food security
o Greater emphasis on innovation an evolutionary-like
process driven by ‘learning selection’ analogous to
‘natural selection’ (Douthwaite, 2002)
o Changes to how we assess best options

16. Maize in Africa in a +1 °C world
Sites with >23ºC
would suffer even
if optimally
managed
20,000+ maize
trials in 123
research sites More than 20%
loss in sites with
>20ºC, under
drought
Lobell et al. (2011)

17. Building networks of innovation:
Disseminating & selecting seeds of crops & varieties
adapted to climate change
Seed supply for adapted crops is limited;
ICRISAT experimenting with private sector
seed suppliers to increase supply
Farmer testing 3 wheat varieties as part of
Bioversity Seed4Needs crowdsourcing crop
improvement for adaptation

18. Assessing best options for agricultural intensification:
adaptation is an essential element
• Results from Zambia analysis of HH data 2004-2008
• Question- what are the barriers/drivers of adoption of sustainable land
management?
• Two practices focused upon: minimum soil disturbance (planting basins); crop
rotations
Results:
– Adoption remains very low: ~5-6% (sample size 4,187)
– Significant dis-adoption: ~90% of CA adopters in 2004 abandoned it in 2008
– Adoption intensity is significantly higher for smallholders
Strongest determinants of adoption are:
– variable rainfall
– Delayed onset of rainy season
adaptation benefits key to determining “best options”

19. Assessing best options for ag. intensification:
mitigation co-benefits also important
Synthesis of literature comparing yield and soil carbon sequestration effects of
adopting sustainable land management practices in dry and moist areas
Dry Agroforestry Moist
Water management
Tillage/residue management
Nutrient management
Agronomy
300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300
Yield: average marginal increase (%/year)
GHG reduction (tCO2e/ha/year) (graph 1ton=100%)

20. Strengthening local institutions: e.g. how to
improve the enabling environment?
• Local institutions (formal & informal) are “enablers”
• Three main areas where CC affects what we need to see
from local institutions for enabling environments
• Information dissemination (CC destroys info)
• Risk management (CC increases risks)
• Collective action (CC changes scale; intensifies need)

21. Information dissemination: priority actions
– Seasonal forecasts: Extended coverage, better “translation, and
prompt linking of seasonal forecast info to key outlets
(youth, extension, women’s groups, etc.)
– Extension: More attention/financing/innovation in extension role in
information dissemination to support ag. technology and use of ICT
– Crowd sourcing to improve data sources
(e.g. IIASA global cropland map)
– Enhancing farmer to farmer information
flows particularly in context of adaptation (e.g. varietal adaptation;
indigenous practices)

22. Local institutions facilitate risk management in a number of ways:
we need to identify best options under CC & strengthen
Risk transfer category Adaptation strategies Institution-building opportunities Institution-building opportunities
at the local level at higher levels
Mobility Agropastoral, wage labour or Conflict mgmt e.g. croppers Residence & border controls
involuntary migration vs. pastoralists
Safe & fair transfers of
Distribution & trade of ag Functioning of local informal remittances
produce & inputs markets
International trade controls &
Support to local exit strategies tariffs
Storage Water storage Participatory action research Incentives for affordable
private sector innovation
Food storage Local tenure & entitlements
Knowledge systems for pests &
Natural capital including Access to information diseases
livestock & trees
Food safety interventions
Pest control
Diversification Diversification of agricultural Farmer field schools & other Public and private extension
assets, including crop & locally-led innovation systems services
livestock varieties, production
technologies Microfinance Accessible banking & loan
schemes
Occupational diversification & Local business development
skills training Skills retraining linked to job
Household food management creation
Dietary & other consumption
choices Local future climate scenarios Consumer food knowledge &
exercises preferences

23. Collective action
Collective action underpins:
• Information dissemination
• Risk management
• Managing pooled resources (agro-forestry, changes in grazing/irrigation
management, landscape level work)
• Spreading innovations (social capital important determinant of production and
marketing decisions)
• Accessing financing (high transactions costs barrier to entry)
Priority actions:
 Identifying how cc changes type and scale collective actions needed
 Broader understanding of multiple roles (risk mgmt, info sharing, access to
resources) local institutions currently play
 Explicit integration of collective action needs in agricultural transition planning

24. Coordinated and informed policies
• Policies that integrate CC and Ag for FS needed to achieve
coordinated & effective actions
• Contradictions between policy “silos” a problem
• Promoting dialogue, joint positions (e.g. to UNFCCC) and national
integrated strategies between CC, Ag and FS policy-makers needed
• Tools for integrated planning useful to underpin needed dialogues
(e.g. integrated land use planning, landscape)
• Clarity/direction from policy-makers on key directions for change
also needed (e.g. food self-sufficiency vs. trade, future of
smallholders, rate/nature of urbanization/commercialization)

25. Participatory scenario building: a means of facilitating
dialogue between policy and research
Scenarios: what can happen Visioning: what should happen
Create
shared
Uncertain
vision for
future
regional
Future (3)
Different Different
perspectives: Scenarios perspectives: Use
Improve Feasible
different types of capture different scenarios to
scenarios’ vision,
knowledge, alternative needs, explore
usefulness robust
experience Futures (1) aspirations pathways to policies and
through
quantification vision under strategies (4)
and media (2) uncertainty
(4)
Improve scenarios
based on use (5)
Dissemination of
scenarios, visions,
strategies to key users
(6)
Figure 2. CCAFS scenarios strategy.

26. Assessing different options at different levels
Robustness, iteration
Global visioning Global impacts
activities
Global Scenarios modelling
Participatory Regional Scenarios Regional impacts
scenario building modelling
Household &
Action research
Farmer/village community
perspectives impacts modelling

27. Increased access to financing
• Overall investment resources for agriculture insufficient
• Need for not just more, but better targeting and delivery
mechanisms are needed
• CC increases imperative of increased short run financing
to achieve long term savings
• Access to emerging sources of CC finance clearly
important part of the solution
• Need for country-driven responses to how this can best
be linked to agricultural transitions for food security

28. Climate smart agricultural investments often require
higher up-front financing to overcome barriers to
adoption

29. 4 How to monitor and evaluate?

30. Increasing the outcome orientation of research …
FAO Strategic Objectives
CGIAR System-Level
Outcomes
• Contribute to the eradication of
hunger, food insecurity and
• Reduce rural poverty
malnutrition
• Increase food security
• Increase and improve provision of
• Improve nutrition and
goods and services from
health
agriculture, forestry and fisheries in a
• Ensure more sustainable
sustainable manner
management of natural
• Reduce rural poverty
resources
• Enable more inclusive and efficient
agricultural and food systems at
local, national and international levels
• Increase the resilience of livelihoods
to threats and crises

31. Analysing food security in context of drivers and feedbacks
Environmental feedbacks
e.g. water quality, GHGs
GEC DRIVERS Food System ACTIVITIES
‘Natural’ Producing
Changes in:
DRIVERS Processing & Packaging
Land cover & soils, Atmospheric
e.g. Volcanoes Distributing & Retailing
Comp., Climate variability & means,
Solar cycles Consuming
Water availability & quality,
Nutrient availability & cycling,
Biodiversity, Sea currents
& salinity, Sea level Food System OUTCOMES
DRIVERS’ Contributing to: Food Security, Environmental
Security, and other Societal Interests
Interactions
Socioeconomic
Food Food
DRIVERS
Changes in:
Utilisation Availability
Demographics, Economics,
Socio-political context,
Cultural context Social Food Environ
Science & Technology Welfare Access Capital
Socioeconomic feedbacks
e.g. livelihoods, social cohesion
Ericksen (2008)

32. Some food system adaptation metrics
Key food system Strategies to Process Outcome Impact
objective achieve this indicator indicator indicator
Enhance More nutritious Farmers’ crop Foods with Diets contain
nutritional food grown choices change greater more nutritious
value nutritional value foods
harvested
Price of Pricing policies Households Diets contain
nutritious food implemented. purchase more more nutritious
reduced nutritious food foods
More efficient Revise input Pricing policies Fertilizers use Less fertilizer
use of scare prices implemented modified waste
resources
Implement land Tenure policies Land tenure Land used more
tenure designed and more secure efficiently
implemented
Ericksen and Chesterman (2013)

33. Outcome indicators:
how does CC affect
what we’d like to see?
Risk-adjusted returns to
agricultural systems
 Do we have robust estimates
of changes in climate
variability into the future?
 Do we have adequate data
and information on tropical
farming systems (like the
Farm Accounting Data
Network of the EU)?
 Do we have adequate
decision-analytic frameworks
for smallholder farming
households in developing
countries?
IPCC (2012)

34. Outcome indicators: how does CC affect what we’d like to see?
Greenhouse gas emissions per unit of agricultural output
 Do we have standardised methodologies, to help reduce the uncertainties
inherent in such estimates?
 Do we have adequate tools that can assess the trade-offs and synergies
between agricultural activities (e.g. payments for reduced deforestation;
mitigation co-benefits)?
 Do we always understand who is bearing the costs and the benefits of
different alternatives, and are these distributed in accordance with
government policy objectives?

35. Outcome indicators: how does CC affect what we’d like to see?
Identifying potential maladaptation well in advance
 If adaptation is seen as a continuous process, do we have in place adequate
monitoring systems to allow us to spot divergences in good time?
 Do we have adequate adaptation planning frameworks that are relatively
insensitive to uncertainties?
Maladaptation: options that
• disproportionately burden the
most vulnerable
• have high opportunity costs
• reduce people’s incentives to
adapt
• set paths that limit future choices
available to future generation
Barnett & O’Neill (2010)

36. Outcome indicators: how does CC affect what we’d like to see?
Changes in short-term food insecurity in the wake of climate shocks
 Do we have robust and efficient ways of identifying food-insecure people and
their targetable characteristics, particularly in the light of increased
variability?
Food security relative to the poverty threshold
FAO (2012)

37. 5 Conclusions: priority areas for
CGIAR and FAO

38. How can FAO and CGIAR effectively contribute to the agenda?
1 Enhanced understanding of how climate change may affect
agriculture - Key input to global climate/food security models
• Impacts on key staples and other crops and natural resources in
developing countries
• Interactions of changes in temperature, rainfall, atmospheric CO2
• Changes in incidence, intensity, spatial distribution of
weeds, pests, diseases
• Impacts on households of climate variability changes vis-à-vis
changes in long-term means
• Impact on agricultural technology/intensification patterns
 Links to Global Change Community: climate, sustainability sciences

39. How can FAO and CGIAR effectively contribute to the agenda?
2 Evaluating options
• Understanding the role of assets (physical, human, social) and
collective action in managing climate risks, adaptation and mitigation
• Assessing mitigation practices in different situations and impacts on
resource use and commodity supply
• Standardizing/simplifying Measuring/Reporting/Verification (MRV) and
carbon footprinting methodologies for mitigation projects
• Tools/frameworks/data that allow evaluation with respect to multiple
objectives, multiple temporal and spatial scales

40. How can FAO and CGIAR effectively contribute to the agenda?
3 Promoting innovation and linking knowledge with action
• Tools/analysis to identify, foster and effectively scale up successful
innovation: social, institutional, technological
• Extend social learning approaches critically relevant to achieving
development goals: building on existing efforts and assessing results
to build a commonly accessible evidence base
• Develop capacity and use of multi-stakeholder scenario processes
• explore key socio-economic uncertainties
• develop storylines of plausible futures
• quantitatively model these alternative development pathways
 a linked science-policy interface
 inputs to global climate/food security models.

41. leslie.lipper@fao.org
p.thornton@cgiar.org