Download 3. project framework - REDD

Ministry of Agriculture
and Rural Development
Food and Agriculture Organisation
of the United Nations
PROJECT PROPOSAL
CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE:
CAPTURING THE SYNERGIES BETWEEN MITIGATION,
ADAPTATION AND FOOD SECURITY
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACP
AGAL
ASWAp
AU
AUC
AWG-LCA
BH
CAADP
CCAFS
CFS
CGIAR
ClimDev
COMESA
COP16
CSA
DEVCO
DFID
DG
EC
EFD
ESA
ESAS
ENRTP
EU
FAFA
FAO
FAO/RAF
FAO/RAP
FNDP
FPMIS
FSTP
GCCA
GCDT
GCM
GDPRD
GHG
GIS
GDP
ITF
IFAD
IFPRI
IPCC
LDCs
LOA
LSMS
Africa, Caribbean and Pacific
Livestock Information, Sector Analysis and Policy Branch (FAO)
Agriculture Sector Wide Approach (Malawi)
African Union
African Union Commission
Ad-hoc Working group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the
Convention
Budget Holder
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CGIAR)
Committee on World Food Security
Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research
Climate for Development in Africa
Common Market for Eastern and South Asia
16th Session of the Conference of the Parties (UNFCCC)
Climate Smart Agriculture
Development and Cooperation Directorate-General (EC)
Department of International Development (United Kingdom)
Directorate-General
European Commission
European Development Fund
Agricultural Development Economics Division (FAO)
Economics of Sustainable Agricultural Systems team of ESA (FAO)
Thematic Programme for Environment and Sustainable Management of
Natural Resources (EC)
European Union
Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement (EC)
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
FAO Regional Office for Africa (Accra)
FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (Bangkok)
Fifth National Development Plan (Zambia)
Field Programme Management Information System (FAO)
Food Security Thematic Programme (EC)
Global Climate Change Alliance
Global Crop Diversity Trust
General Circulation Model
Global Donor Platform for Rural Development
Greenhouse Gas
Geographic Information System
Gross Domestic Product
Interdepartmental Task Force
International Fund for Agricultural Development
International Food Policy Research Institute
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Least-Developed Countries
Letter of Agreement
Living Standards Measurement Study
LTU
M&E
MACO
MAFS
MARD
MDG
MEGS
MGDS
MICCA
MLF
MoA
MoDPC
MoU
MPRS
MRV
NAFSIPs
NAMA
NAP
NAPA
NEPAD
NGO
NLTV
NMTPF
NRD
NPC
NSC
OCE
OED
PES
PRSPs
REDD+
SIDA
SBSTA
UNDAF
UNESCO
UNFCCC
WFP
WOCAT
Lead technical Unit
Monitoring and Evaluation
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (Zambia)
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (Malawi)
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Vietnam)
Millennium Development Goal
Malawi Economic Growth Strategy
Malawi Growth and Development Strategy
Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture (FAO Programme)
Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries (Zambia)
Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Development Planning and Cooperation (Malawi)
Memorandum of Understanding
Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy
Measurement, Reporting and Verification
National Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plans
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (UNFCCC)
National Adaptation Plan (UNFCCC)
National Adaptation Programme of Action (UNFCCC)
New Partnership for Africa’s Development
Non-governmental Organisation
National Long-term Vision 2030 (Zambia)
National Medium-Term Priority Framework
Natural Resource Management and Environment Department (FAO)
National Project Coordinator
National Steering Committee (in each partner country of the project)
Office of Corporate Communications and External Relations (FAO)
Office of Evaluation (FAO)
Payments for Environmental Services
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
Reduction Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation,
including conservation, sustainable of forests and enhancement of forest
carbon stocks (UN)
Swedish International Development Agency
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (UNFCCC)
United Nations Development Assistance Framework
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
World Food Programme
World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies
TABLE OF CONTENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 5
1.
BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 9
1.1
General Context ............................................................................................................. 9
1.2
Sectoral Context ........................................................................................................... 11
1.2.1
Development Objectives ...................................................................................... 13
1.2.2
MDGs................................................................................................................... 13
1.2.3
UNDAF and NMTPF........................................................................................... 14
1.3
Relevant policies and legislation ................................................................................. 15
2.
RATIONALE ..................................................................................................................... 15
2.1
Problems/Issues to be addressed .................................................................................. 15
2.2
Stakeholders and Target Beneficiaries ........................................................................ 17
2.2.1
Direct Beneficiaries ............................................................................................. 17
2.2.2
Final Beneficiaries ............................................................................................... 17
2.3
Project Justification...................................................................................................... 17
3.
PROJECT FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 20
3.1
3.2
3.4
3.5
4.
Impact .......................................................................................................................... 20
Outcome and Outputs .................................................................................................. 20
Sustainability ............................................................................................................... 25
Risks and Assumptions ................................................................................................ 27
IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ........................... 30
4.1
Institutional Framework and Coordination .................................................................. 30
4.2
Strategy/Methodology ................................................................................................. 31
4.3
Inputs ........................................................................................................................... 32
4.3.1
FAO Inputs .......................................................................................................... 32
4.3.2
Government Inputs .............................................................................................. 32
4.3.3
Donor Inputs ........................................................................................................ 33
4.4
Technical Support/Linkages ........................................................................................ 33
4.5
Management and Operational Support Arrangements................................................. 33
5.
BUDGET OF EACH PARTNER COUNTRY ................................................................ 34
6.
MOTIVATION, PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND BUDGET FOR VIETNAM............35
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
While climate change has become one of the defining contemporary international
development issues, far less attention has been given to food security and climate change at
the international level. Yet, these challenges are increasingly seen as being interdependent,
shaped by a confluence of different pressures that converge within the agriculture sector:

population size and commensurate food demand are increasing;

competition for food, land, water, energy, as well as carbon storage, is intensifying;

degradation of natural resources is expanding; and

solutions for climate change are becoming more urgent.
This has led to the recognition that these challenges must be addressed together, rather than in
isolation from each other. Yet, policies have often remained unaligned and
institutional/financing arrangements fragmented.
Agriculture has so far not figured prominently in the ongoing climate change negotiations and
to date climate change has also received scant attention within the Committee on World Food
Security (CFS). This dichotomy between food security and climate change at the international
level tends to be mirrored at national level. In December 2010, at the 16th Session of the
Conference of the Parties (COP16) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), the draft text on agriculture was not incorporated into the Cancun
Agreements. The Cancun Agreements outlined in a very general way a number of steps that
are to enhance adaptation and mitigation. How countries might move from an international
agreement to national implementation with regard to agriculture is still not clear in the
absence of clear guidelines, policies and frameworks for early action. At the same time, the
design of international enabling mechanisms needs to be informed by realities on the ground
and the specificities of agriculture in the context of climate change.
Meeting food security and climate change challenges from agriculture, as populations, climate
change impacts and emissions from agriculture increase, will ultimately require
transformation of agricultural production systems. However there are knowledge gaps which
limit transition. Enabling farmers to make more climate-smart choices requires a better
understanding of which agricultural practices would be most promising in this regard, within
specific agro-ecological regions. It would also require a better understanding of the
constraints to farmer adoption of such practices. A holistic approach to the multiple objectives
involved requires better alignment of policies, as well as greater cooperation and coordination
across national enabling means and action. It also requires that national level experiences are
fed into the design of enabling mechanisms at the international level to ensure the necessary
flexibility for different country circumstances and sectors. National climate-smart agricultural
strategies or roadmaps could be beneficial in guiding nationally-led action and providing a
basis for mobilizing international support.
Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) addresses the challenges of building synergies among
climate change mitigation, adaptation and food security that are closely related within
agriculture and minimizing their potential negative trade-offs. It seeks to enhance the capacity
of the agricultural sector to sustainably support food security, incorporating the need for
adaptation and the potential for mitigation into development strategies. There is no blueprint
5
for climate smart agriculture and the specific contexts of countries and communities would
need to shape how it is ultimately implemented.
Some types of agricultural practices generate synergies between mitigation, adaptation and
food security – such as conservation agriculture, which increases soil carbon sequestration as
well as water holding capacity, thereby contributing to drought resilience and minimizing
damage from flooding. In other cases there are tradeoffs: e.g. conversion of forested lands to
agricultural use. Countries with a large share of their population engaged in agricultural
production and high rates of food insecurity are often obliged to make urgent and difficult
policy choices on their agricultural growth strategies based on insufficient evidence.
The proposed Project is clearly extremely timely and could be supportive of: (i) national
efforts on CSA in developing countries, in the context of the Comprehensive Africa
Agriculture Development Programme of The New Partnership for Africa’s Development
(CAADP/NEPAD) or other national sectoral plans, National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) or
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs); and (ii) the generation of knowledge
and experience that could be fed back into the UNFCCC process, especially for the design of
enabling mechanisms that are currently under development.
Impact, Outcome and outputs
The proposed Project is fully in line with national development objectives, agriculture sector
policy, relevant regional programmes i.e. CAADP/NEPAD and emerging climate policy and
directives. It promotes achievement of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 1 and 7, the
ultimate aim of the UNFCCC, the target of the World Food Summit, priorities of One-UN,
embodied in country-level United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks (UNDAFs),
and FAO National Medium-Term Priority Frameworks (NMTPFs). The project is also fully in
line with the EU food security policy.
The expected long-term impact of the Project is to contribute to the achievement of MDG1:
Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger; and MDG7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability.
The expected outcome of the Project is that capacities of the three partner countries to
undertake, and access financing for, CSA is increased.
The following outputs are expected to be delivered through the Project:
1.
An evidence base for identifying, developing and implementing practices, policies and
investments for climate smart agriculture is built in the three partner countries.
2.
Country-owned strategic frameworks for climate smart agricultural activities are
formulated.
3.
Climate smart agriculture investment proposals are formulated and possible financing,
including from climate finance, is identified.
4.
Capacity for evidence-based planning, implementing and financing climate smart
agriculture is built in the three partner countries.
6
Implementation arrangements
The Project institutional structure will consist of: a Project Team within the Lead Technical
Unit/Agricultural Development Economics Division (LTU/ESA) at FAO headquarters;
Country Project Coordinators in each partner country; and research and policy institutions in
each partner country. The Project Team will be under the overall supervision of the ESA
Economics and Policy Support for CSA Team Leader.
The organizational structure and proposed Project Team reflect the three major components
of the action: research, policy and institutional strengthening. Aside from the core Project
Management/Technical Team described above, additional Project Team consultants for
Coordination, Geographic Information System (GIS) and Investment/Financing are also
foreseen. The policy component would use external consultants for the review of policy
instruments and facilitated dialogue across ministries. Preparation of strategic frameworks for
action and investment proposals would be nationally led and internationally supported. Close
working arrangements with national staff and institutions would be the rule of thumb, because
of its very nature of policy development and capacity building, in order to strengthen
capacities for continuity and sustainability of action beyond the lifetime of the proposed
Project.
The Project Team will establish an Interdepartmental Task Force (ITF) at FAO
headquarters involving relevant FAO Units and have regular meetings to review work plans
and thematic reports and documents as required, monitor and provide guidance to the Project.
The Project Team will recruit an experienced Senior Economist, Food Security and Climate
Change, to lead the Project research work and a Senior Expert on Climate Change and
Agricultural Policy Development. These two senior staff members will work with partner
country institutions and Country Project Coordinators to develop the research and policy
components of the Project and oversee their implementation. The Project will recruit a Project
Technical Coordinator (P-4) as well as an Operational and Administrative Coordinator (P1) to
support the Project Team. The LTU will assign a junior staff Economist (P3) to support the
research component of the Project. The Project Team will be responsible for the overall
coordination of the Project with FAO regional, subregional and national offices, as well as
across relevant units within FAO headquarters and external partners.
In each of the partner countries, the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) is the main policy
partner for the Project, with close linkages to other relevant ministries (i.e. of Environment,
Development Planning and Finance). In Malawi this is the Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Security (MAFS), in Zambia the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MACO) as well
as the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries (MLF), and in Vietnam the Ministry of Agriculture
and Rural Development (MARD). In each case, the partner country will designate a
department and staff person to be the focal point for the Project. In addition, each country will
have a research partner institution. These may include, for example, Bunda or Chancellor
College in Malawi, University of Zambia or Copperbelt University in Zambia, and an
agriculture research institute in Vietnam. Selection of the research partner institution will be
done in consultation with the country policy partners. The Project will recruit a Country
Project Coordinator for each partner country. This staff person may be placed in the incountry FAO representation or in one of the country partner institutions. Final placement will
be decided upon in consultation with country policy partners and FAO country
representations.
7
The methodology for implementation is based on the notion of first establishing an evidence
base for climate smart practices and adoption constraints, which would involve assembling
both existing data and, where necessary, collecting targeted new data. This data would inform
the: (i) identification of promising practices and adoption constraints, as well as policy
formulation to overcome these constraints; (ii) preparation of a strategic framework or
roadmap of prioritized and costed actions; and (iii) development of investment proposals and
the identification of their financing, in the context of the strategic framework. The reason for
using such a methodology is to enable policy and strategy formulation to be based on
country/agro-ecological, regional-specific data. The methodology fully recognizes that
national action is not starting from zero and can build upon ongoing activities at country level.
It also fully recognizes the importance of and benefits that accrue from nationally led and
owned efforts in the context of the proposed action.
For the implementation of this three-year Project, the European Commission has granted
EUR 3 300 000. FAO will make a co-funding contribution of approximately EUR 2 million
over the life of the Project, through the provision of staff time, offices, equipment and the use
of FAO representations in-country. Partner countries have committed their support through
the provision of political support and commitment to the Project objectives, participation of
national policy and research staff in Project activities and the provision of office space for the
Project in country. Local contribution will be around 10% of the project’s budget.
8
1.
1.1
BACKGROUND
General Context
In recent decades support for agriculture declined despite its key role in food security,
development and management of natural resources in a large number of developing countries
with agriculture-based economies. The share of agriculture in Official Development
Assistance (ODA) declined from 19 percent in 1980 to 3 percent in 2006. It was about
6 percent in 2009 and is now gradually increasing. Developing country budget allocations to
agriculture have been well-below the sector’s share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in
many agriculture-based economies. Public financing for agriculture has tended to reflect the
sector’s position within the international agenda.
Food price volatility, famine in the Horn of Africa, more frequent and intense extreme climate
events and increasingly worrisome predictions for slow onset climatic changes have now
pushed food security and climate change to the top of the international agenda.
While climate change has become one of the defining contemporary international
development issues, far less attention has been given to food security and climate change at
the international level. Yet, these challenges are increasingly seen as being interdependent,
shaped by a confluence of different pressures that converge within the agriculture sector:

population size and commensurate food demand are increasing;

competition for food, land, water, energy, as well as carbon storage, is intensifying;

degradation of natural resources is expanding; and

solutions for climate change are becoming more urgent.
This has led to the recognition that these challenges must be addressed together, rather than in
isolation from each other. Yet, policies have often remained unaligned and
institutional/financing arrangements fragmented.
Agriculture has so far not figured prominently in the ongoing climate change negotiations and
to date, climate change has also received scant attention within the CFS. This dichotomy
between food security and climate change at the international level tends to be mirrored at
national level.
At the UNFCCC COP16 in December 2010, the draft text on agriculture was not incorporated
into the Cancun Agreements. Agriculture, however, already figured prominently in National
Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) formulated by Least-Developed Countries
(LDCs). NAPAs are now to inform new NAPs which, in accordance with the Cancun
Agreements, are to be prepared by developing countries.1 Also, following COP15, a number
of developing countries indicated their intention to undertake NAMAs related to agriculture.
At the most recent session of the UNFCCC Climate Talks, a proposal by New Zealand and
Canada to include agriculture on the agenda of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and
Technological Advice (SBSTA) was not approved. Agriculture, however, has now returned to
1
FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.11/CP.16 , para. 16.
9
the agenda of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the
Convention (AWG-LCA) in the Cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions
agenda item, to enhance the implementation of Article 4, Paragraph 1(c), of the Convention.
Article 2 of the UNFCCC2 would seem to acknowledge that in establishing a time frame for
addressing climate change economic development, ecosystem resilience and food production
(all of which relate to agriculture in a large number of developing countries) would need to be
taken into account.
The Cancun Agreements outlined in a very general way a number of steps that are to enhance
adaptation and mitigation. How countries might move from an international agreement to
national implementation with regard to climate smart agriculture is still not clear in the
absence of clear guidelines, policies and frameworks for early action. At the same time, the
design of international enabling mechanisms needs to be informed by realities on the ground
and the specificities of agriculture in the context of climate change.
Only very recently have there been some steps to address food security and climate change
challenges together at the global level and FAO has figured prominently in these. FAO held a
high level Conference in 2008 on food security, climate change and bioenegy. It prepared a
publication on Climate Smart Agriculture for The Hague Conference on Agriculture, Food
Security and Climate Change in 2010, following from its publication Food Security and
Agricultural Mitigation in Developing Countries: Options for Capturing Synergies, prepared
for COP15 in 2009 in Copenhagen. In 2012, the CFS will consider a report on the interface
between food security and climate change. The Consultative Group for International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has created a new research programme on Climate Change,
Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), which is cooperating closely with FAO, including
through its programmes on agricultural mitigation and adaptation. The present Project
proposal has been shared with CCAFS and it has been agreed that data and lessons learned on
methodologies will be exchanged.
At regional level, Africa has been particularly active given its dependence on agriculture in
meeting its development and food security goals and in view of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) prediction that Africa will be the region most affected by climate
change. At the request of African leaders, meeting at the thirteenth Summit of the African
Union (AU), held in Sirte, Libya in 2009, an African Union Commission (AUC)-NEPAD
Agriculture-Climate Change Framework3 was been prepared. Consideration is now being
given to the creation, at continental level, of an Investment Platform for African Climate
Smart Agriculture, which would help to make the Framework operational through
mainstreaming CSA into CAADP National Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plans
(NA&FSIPs). FAO staff involved in the preparation of this Project proposal is also
collaborating with the World Bank in supporting NEPAD with this initiative. The use of the
CAADP framework means that the main vehicle for action is both continentally and
nationally owned and that parallel processes or additional financing mechanisms are not
created (in line with African Union partnership and aid effectiveness principles). The Project
proposal will explore with partner countries how to situate the proposed Project within the
CAADP/NEPAD process.
“...stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the climate system… should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to
ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”
3
AUC-NEPAD Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation-Mitigation Framework.
2
10
The submission by Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) Heads of
State, which was endorsed at the AU Summit in 2009, called for a joint African position on
climate change that considers agriculture, forestry and land-use change as part of the solution
to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) mitigation as well as food security, for which adaptation will be
crucial. The African Communiqué from the Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and
Climate Change in Ethiopia in September 2010 called for developed countries to support
piloting and scaling up of programmes to support CSA and food security.4
European Union (EU) policy recognizes the links between climate change and food security.
The ‘EU Policy Framework to support Developing Countries addressing Food Security
Challenges’5, highlights the importance of strengthening the adaptation of farming systems to
climate change and of building on the synergies between adaptation, mitigation and
sustainable development.
The European Commission (EC) recognizes the leading role of the Rome-based agencies –
FAO, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and World Food Programme
(WFP). A Statement of Intent of programmatic cooperation on food security and nutrition was
signed with them on 27/06/2011. ‘Climate Smart Agriculture’ is entirely consistent with the
programmatic area ‘adaptation to and mitigation of climate change for food security’
described in this document. Close cooperation with IFAD and WFP is contemplated in the
context of the Project. There is a shared commitment by Europe and developing countries to
address the global challenges of climate change and food security and recognition of the
crucial role of agriculture in addressing them both.
In view of the general context outlined above, the proposed Project is clearly extremely timely
and could be supportive of: (i) national efforts to initiate early action on climate smart
agriculture in developing countries, in the context of CAADP or other sectoral plans, NAPs or
NAMAs; and (ii) the generation of knowledge and experience that could be fed back into the
UNFCCC process, especially for the design of enabling mechanisms that are currently under
development.
The Project will work closely with ongoing FAO, international, regional and national
initiatives to assist the three partner countries to address constraints and promote “Climate
Smart Agriculture” that will deliver both food security and improved livelihoods (both
dependent on adaptation), as well as a global public good in the form of avoided GHG
emissions.
1.2
Sectoral Context
In developing countries, agricultural growth is urgently required to support the food security
of growing populations. FAO has estimated that agriculture production needs to increase
globally 70 percent to meet a Projected population of more than 9 billion by 2050 and that the
largest increase in demand will be in developing countries. However, the adverse impacts of
climate change will increase the difficulty of obtaining needed agricultural growth.
Agriculture is perhaps the most climate sensitive sector, with output directly affected by even
slight climatic variability, not to mention the more frequent and intense extreme climate
events already being experienced. Slow onset changes in temperatures and precipitation are
4
5
FAO-COORD 2010-108. Communication to EU Council, 1st October 2010.
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament COM(2010)127final of
31.13.2010 endorsed by the European Council in its Conclusions of 10.05.2010
11
expected to affect seriously food security, in the absence of adequate adaptation and
mitigation efforts. It is usually the rural poor, who depend directly on agriculture for their
livelihoods and food, who suffer disproportionately from climate change impacts. Increasing
the resilience of agricultural systems to climate change is thus imperative for their adaptation
to climate change.
At the same time, agriculture accounts for around 12-14 percent of global greenhouse gas
emissions. If land-use changes, including deforestation, are considered (agriculture is a main
driver of deforestation and draining of wetlands), its share becomes around 30 percent.
70 percent of the technical mitigation potential of agriculture is in developing countries and
more than 75 percent of this potential could come from sequestering carbon in agricultural
soils. Although low in absolute terms, rates of GHG emissions from agriculture in developing
countries are growing due to increases in demand for agricultural produce, as well as the need
of developing countries to meet their own food security and development goals.
Meeting increasing demand for food, fuel, fiber and carbon storage from agriculture, as
populations, climate change impacts and emissions from agriculture increase, will ultimately
require transformation of agricultural production systems. However there are knowledge gaps
which limit transition. Enabling farmers to make more climate-smart choices requires a better
understanding of which agricultural practices would be most promising in this regard, within
specific agro-ecological regions. It would also require a better understanding of the
constraints to farmer adoption of such practices.
“Climate Smart Agriculture” addresses the challenges of building synergies among climate
change mitigation, adaptation and food security that are closely related within agriculture and
minimizing their potential negative trade-offs. It seeks to enhance the capacity of the
agricultural sector to sustainably support food security, incorporating the need for adaptation
and the potential for mitigation into development strategies. There is no blueprint for climate
smart agriculture and the specific contexts of countries and communities would need to shape
how it is ultimately implemented. The specific conditions, circumstances, and capacities
within countries will define opportunities and barriers to implementation, and hence policy
choices. Countries are also not starting from zero and ongoing initiatives and activities can be
used (e.g. conservation agriculture, sustainable land management).
Some types of agricultural practices generate synergies between mitigation, adaptation and
food security – such as conservation agriculture that increases soil carbon sequestration as
well as water holding capacity that contributes to drought and flood resilience. In other cases
there are tradeoffs: e.g. conversion of forested lands to agriculture use. Countries with a large
share of their population engaged in agricultural production and high rates of food insecurity
are often obliged to make urgent and difficult policy choices on their agricultural growth
strategies based on insufficient evidence.
Transformation of agricultural production and food systems to meet increasing demand from
an additional 3 million people in 2050, changing dietary habits and the continuing need for
more sustainable use of natural resources provides an opportunity to also consider how
climate change adaptation and mitigation might also be addressed through some of the same
practices.
12
1.2.1 Development Objectives
To ensure consistency with nationally-owned development, climate and sectoral plans,
planning documents of the three partner countries have been reviewed. The two African
partner countries have important agriculture sectors (sizeable portion of GDP, exports,
livelihoods) and food security continues to be an important priority for them. Vietnam has
gone from being a rice importing country to a rice exporting country but pockets of poverty
and undernourishment remain. The impacts of climate variability and change on the
agriculture sector of all three countries are expected to affect negatively food security and
development over the medium and long-term. While current Government development
planning documents reflect the importance of agriculture and food security, less attention has
been given to the close linkages between climate change and food security in the agriculture
sector. Similarly, climate change policy often does not consider agriculture in the context of
both mitigation and adaptation. The Project will support partner countries in bridging this
disconnect, including through facilitation of greater cooperation and coordination across
ministries of agriculture, environment and finance and better aligned policies.
The Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS) 2006-2011 builds on the Malawi
Economic Growth Strategy (MEGS) and incorporates lessons from the implementation of the
Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy (MPRS). Food Security and Agriculture, Irrigation and
Water Management and Rural Development are among the priorities.
The Vietnam Five-Year Socio-Economic Development Plan (2011-2015) was formulated in
the context of its longer-term Strategy for Socio-Economic Development (2011-2020). While
industrialization, entry into the international economy and becoming a middle income country
are the main priorities, ending hunger and agricultural production (16-18 percent of GDP)
remain important components.
The Zambian Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP) is linked with the National LongTerm Vision 2030 (NLTV) and sectoral plans. The Development Plan focuses on agricultural
development as the engine of income expansion in the economy and it is recognized that
agriculture offers the best opportunities for improving livelihoods. To this end, the sector has
received a marginally higher allocation of the resources.
The overall objective for the agricultural sector, as set out in the National Agricultural Policy
(NAP) of Zambia, is “to ensure food security and income generation at household and
national levels and maximize the sector’s contribution to gross domestic product (GDP).” The
NAP recognizes that that successful planning and implementation of many of the programmes
require well-functioning linkages with and close coordination among various ministries and
sector specific institutions and that many multisectoral programmes cannot be implemented
by MACO alone. The Project directly responds to the priorities of the FNDP and the NAP,
including through supporting the Government to formulate better aligned policies and
coordinate action across institutions that can address the threat of climate change to
agriculture and consequently food security and poverty reduction goals.
1.2.2 MDGs
The long-term impact of the proposed Project is envisaged as contributing to the achievement
of Millennium Development Goals 1 Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger and 7 Ensure
Environmental Sustainability, as well as to the ultimate aim of the United Nations Framework
13
Convention on Climate Change, contained in its Article 2: “... stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system… should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to
allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not
threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”
MDG 1 was based on the FAO/World Food Summit goal of halving the number of food
insecure by 2015. FAO also has a long-standing relationship with the UNFCCC, due to
agriculture’s dependence on climate and the Organization’s expertise and experience on
climate-agriculture interfaces, including agrometeorology. FAO staff has previously been, and
currently are, lead authors for the IPCC assessment reports.
The Project is well-situated to contribute to these international goals, which have been
tailored by a number of countries to national contexts.
1.2.3 UNDAF and NMTPF
The focus of the proposed Project is in line with the priorities of the UNDAFs/One UN and
NMTPFs in partner countries. The UNDAF 2008-2011 of Malawi has as its first cluster
theme “Sustainable economic development and food security.” FAO is taking the lead for this
theme at national level. The UNDAF Outcome for this theme is “By 2011 Government
policies and local and national institutions effectively support equitable economic growth and
the achievement of food and nutrition security while minimizing or reversing environmental
degradation.” It is also noteworthy that MDG 1 and 7 are cited in connection with this
outcome. The Project proposal will contribute to this theme and its outcome, through better
evidence-based policy formulation and through facilitating better policy alignment and
institutional coordination across relevant ministries. FAO and the Ministry of Agriculture and
Food Security have initiated dialogue on the National Medium-Term Priority Framework
(NMTPF) for Malawi.
Goals and objectives of the last UNDAF for Vietnam (2001-2005) included eliminating food
insecurity and reducing malnutrition under goals “Basic Needs” and “Rural Development”.
The One Plan (2006-2010) has replaced the UNDAF, and FAO is co-chairing the Programme
Coordination Group on Sustainable Development (PCG-8) with the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The One Plan for 2012-2016
(OP3) was signed by the Government of Vietnam and the United Nations in March 2012. It is
the common programmatic framework for UN agencies in Vietnam. The One Plan sets out a
strategic and focussed joint programme of work wich will support Vietnam in addressing its
development priorities over the next five years. This includes supporting the Government to
achieve inclusive, equitable and sustainable growth. FAO and the Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development have formulated the Country Programming Framework in Vietnam for
the period 2012-2016 on the basis of OP3. The Project is relevant through its examination of
how to manage synergies and trade-offs that cut across agriculture, food security and climate
change.
The UNDAF for Zambia (2011-2015) includes in its Outcome 2 “to contribute effectively to
increased access to sustainable livelihoods and food security in both rural and urban areas.
Outcome 4 aims to achieve the development of institutional capacities to effectively sustain,
manage and protect livelihoods from the risks of climate change, disasters and environmental
degradation. Both Outcomes relate directly to the Project proposal.The NMTPF for Zambia
covers the period from 2009 to 2013. The FAO country programme has four major priorities:
14
policy reform for agricultural transformation; sustainable natural resource and environmental
management; support to highly vulnerable households, agricultural information and
knowledge management systems. The Project is relevant for all four priorities.
1.3
Relevant policies and legislation
All three countries are taking steps towards climate smart agriculture, which brings
agriculture and climate change agenda together. Agriculture already figures prominently in
the National Adaptation Programmes for Action prepared by Malawi and Zambia.
As climate change could potentially reverse the substantial economic progress made by
agriculture in Vietnam, the Government has created a National Target Program to Respond to
Climate Change, and MARD recently issued a decision to promulgate an action plan for the
climate change response of the agriculture and rural development sector for 2011-2015 and
programme of green house gas emissions reduction in the agriculture and rural development
sector up to 2020. The Government has also issued a directive on Mainstreaming of Climate
Change into Development, Implementation of Strategies, Long and Short-term Plans, Projects
on Agriculture and Rural Development in the Period 2011-2015. The FAO-EC climate smart
Project will support the MARD in these national policy efforts. Vietnam will also organize a
2nd global conference on implementation of action road map on “agriculture, food security
and climate change” in Vietnam in the year 2012. This conference follows the Hague
Conference on the same issues held in 2010.
In Malawi, the Ministry of Development Planning and Cooperation (MoDPC) has been tasked
with coordinating all climate change related activities, Projects and investments, through the
national Climate Change Initiative. The same Ministry also houses a Climate Change Steering
Committee and a Working Group composed of ministry staff and development partners.
However, a number of donors are working separately with line ministries. Malawi has
recently signed a CAADP Compact and completed its related National Agriculture and Food
Security Investment Plan. It also formulated an Agriculture Sector Wide Approach (ASWAp)
in September 2010. The ASWAp is consistent with the MGDS and with the four pillars of the
CAADP. The proposed Project will contribute to focus areas and pillars of these nationallyowned instruments, namely food security and risk management, as well as sustainable land
and water management, and institutional strengthening and capacity building.
Zambia is currently finalizing a new agricultural policy document and its CAADP/NA&FSIP.
Climate change will be incorporated into the Investment Plan. A National Climate Change
Resilience Strategy has recently been formulated, as well as the National Joint Programme
document for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+)
which includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement
of forest carbon stocks.
2.
2.1
RATIONALE
Problems/Issues to be addressed
Agricultural systems in developing countries will need to adapt to climate change to ensure
food security and development for growing populations. These systems could also contribute
to reducing and sequestering GHG emissions, where this does not interfere with adaptation
and continuing enhancement of agricultural productivity. A business-as-usual approach will
15
not suffice and a climate-smart approach may enable countries to maximize benefits and
minimize trade-offs across these various objectives.
The proposed Project will address these broader challenges in the three partner countries by
focusing on capacity building to address the following specific problems/issues:
(i)
Knowledge/data gaps: The knowledge base for making strategic choices about climate
smart agriculture is often nonexistent or weak, particularly given that these choices vary by
specific agro-ecological and farming systems. Climate change, by increasing uncertainty and
the need for rapid and accurate response, augments the necessity for timely and accurate
spatial and scale-relevant information.6 Countries with a large share of their population
engaged in agricultural production, high rates of food insecurity and poverty, and adverse
impacts from extreme climate events are often obliged to take urgent and difficult policy
decisions based on insufficient evidence. Narrowing knowledge and data gaps through use of
existing data and the targeted collection, analysis, and modelling of new information and data
can be an important step in allowing practices, policies, and strategies to be informed by the
best possible evidence that is relevant to specific country contexts. The access to data can
increase the capacity of farmers and agricultural planners to take decisions and allocate
resources effectively to reduce risks. A better understanding of farmer decision-making in
adoption of practices and technologies (possibly based on risk aversion, low investment
capacity, tenure security, or social customs) and the introduction of new information
dissemination technologies could also be useful in the design of policies to facilitate adoption.
(ii)
Fragmentation of policy, institutions and financing: Despite recognition that the
challenges of food security and climate change are closely linked within the agriculture
sector,7 policy, institutional arrangements, and funding channels for climate change, food
security, and rural development are poorly coordinated at international, and, in many cases,
national levels. It is noteworthy that while adaptation and mitigation mechanisms are separate
under the UNFCCC, there are agricultural practices which can contribute to both. This may
inhibit rewarding measures which may have double or triple wins. The holistic approach of
climate smart agriculture to multiple objectives requires better alignment of policies, as well
as greater cooperation and coordination across national enabling means and action. It also
requires that national level experiences be fed into the design of enabling mechanisms at the
international level to ensure the necessary flexibility for different circumstances and sectors.
(iii) The absence of national climate-smart strategies that can guide nationally-led action
and provide a basis for mobilizing international support: Negotiating text on agriculture was
not retained in the Cancun Agreements. This has not encouraged formulation of new, or
identification of existing, strategies that could guide nationally-led action and related
investment proposals linked to international support, including climate financing, for climate
smart agriculture. Unlike its fellow land-based activity REDD+, CSA has not enjoyed widespread attention and support, despite the importance of agricultural adaptation to food security
(at a time of high food price volatility and growing awareness of the linkages between food
insecurity and conflict), as well as the high potential for carbon sequestration in agricultural
soils and through avoided conversion of forests and wetlands to agriculture.
6
FAO. 2010. “Climate-Smart” Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation.
7
FAO. 2009. Food Security and Agricultural Mitigation in Developing Countries: Options for Capturing Synergies.
16
2.2
Stakeholders and Target Beneficiaries
Participation of stakeholders is viewed as crucial to the success of the action in terms of
building confidence, capacity and leadership to implement, on a sustainable basis, climatesmart agricultural practices and policies at country level. Capacity building is viewed as a
cross-cutting objective relating to all components of the proposed Project.
2.2.1
Direct Beneficiaries
The direct beneficiaries will be stakeholders involved in the research and policy components
of the proposed Project, including: (1) policymakers, e.g. staff in ministries of agriculture,
environment and finance, as well as UNFCCC focal points; (2) climate change negotiators;
(3) universities, agricultural research; (4) extension workers; and (5) Farmers’ Unions.
Staff of relevant ministries are identified as a target group for activities relating to policy
alignment (review of existing policy instruments, interministerial dialogue on building greater
policy integration), formulation of policies overcoming constraints on adoption of climate
smart agricultural practices and formulation of a roadmap or a similar strategic document and
eventually costed investment proposals, based on roadmaps/strategies). The capacity of
extension workers and Farmers’ Unions would be built for the dissemination and facilitation
of uptake of climate smart agricultural practices, relevant for country-specific agroecological
regions, identified in the research component. For the research component, national
institutions, both universities and agricultural research institutes, are envisaged as key actors
for this component.
Institutional beneficiaries would include: ministries of agriculture, environment, development
planning and finance; extension arrangements, both formal and informal; Farmers’ Unions,
universities and agricultural research institutes.
2.2.2
Final Beneficiaries
There are two sets of ultimate beneficiaries. Firstly the citizens of these countries, particularly
the rural poor at household and community levels, who may benefit from potential up-scaling,
as compared with a business as usual scenario, as well as from eventual incentive systems and
potential direct investment in sustainable agricultural intensification. Secondly the global
community will benefit from a net reduction in GHG emissions resulting from investments
promoted by the Project.
2.3
Project Justification
All countries, including the three target countries in this proposal, are now confronted with
uncertain changes in climate, meaning that adaptation to changes that cannot be avoided are
imperative to realize the Millennium Development Goals 1 and 7.
In the case of Zambia, under-nutrition was estimated to be 43 percent in 2005/2007.8 Yields
for maize and cassava – the two most important staple crops in Zambia – remained stagnant
through the 1990’s and into the 2000’s. Recent increases in fertilizer and seed subsidy
packages have led to increases, e.g. increases in maize yields from about 1.2 tonnes per
8
FAO. 2010. State of Food Insecurity in the World 2010. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. NB: This source was also used for
under-nutrition estimates of Malawi and Viet Nam.
17
hectare for smallholders to over 2 tonnes per hectare.9 But, these welcomed yield increases
still leave smallholder yield production lower than similar smallholders in Latin America and
Asia. And though higher quality seeds and access to fertilizer leads to yield increases,
improved land management not only leads to greater yields, but to less variability in the face
of climate events. Nutrient mining, soil erosion and poor water management have been
identified as limiting factors in Zambia (see Footnote 5); though FAO measures of land
degradation show that only 10 percent of land is either severely or very severely degraded.10
Zambia, however, also has one of the world’s highest deforestation rates, at nearly 16 percent
over the period 1990-2005.11
The combination of high food insecurity, relatively low yields, high deforestation and
localized land degradation leave Zambia vulnerable to climate change. According to recent
estimates, it is expected that Zambia will face higher temperatures, shortened growing
seasons, and increased frequency of severe climate events; Thurlow et al model these
potential changes and predict substantial increases in food insecurity, particularly in the
southern and central regions.12 Additionally, Jones and Thornton (2003) estimate that by
2055, maize yields will decline in Zambia and that variability of yields will increase perhaps
dramatically. Tadross et al (2009) provide evidence that the growing season is starting later
and getting shorter in many regions, particularly the southern region which is already often
close to the critical threshold of planting days required for maize; the authors also note that
these observations are consistent with a downscaled General Circulation Model (GCM)
predictions, though there is still a great deal of uncertainty surrounding those predictions. 13
Malawi presents a similar story. Under-nutrition rates are lower but still high at 28 percent,
and deforestation rates are very high at 14.5 percent over the period 1990-2005, though only
6 percent of land is currently categorized as being either severely or very severely degraded.
Compared with Zambia, natural resources per capita (arable land, forests, etc.) in Malawi are
far lower, and resource scarcity is particularly severe in the southern region where rural
population densities are already quite high. Overall, rural population densities per square
kilometer are 465 versus just 135 in Zambia. Like Zambia, Malawi already faces an
“adaptation deficit”, and is vulnerable to any future climate changes. Jones and Thornton
(2003) estimate that Malawi will face lower maize yields due to higher temperatures in the
long run, though they do not predict the same increase in variability as in Zambia. 14 Tadross
et al (2009) show that duration of dry spells and, concurrently, reduction in rain days has also
occurred over much of Malawi already.
Even more so than Zambia, Malawi has dramatically increased fertilizer and maize seed
subsidies, which has led to higher maize yields; but, maize is more vulnerable to climate
fluctuations than other crops, such as cassava, so that these gains may also be reversed if not
accompanied by sustainable land use practices and investments to increase system resilience.
More efficient use of fertilizers could also contribute to a reduction of nitrous oxide
9
Weber, M.T. 2008. Empirical Information on Smallholder Maize Production in Zambia. The paper can be accessed at:
http://www.aec.msu.edu/fs2/zambia/FSRP_WB_Fert_KickOff.pdf.
10
FAOSTAT. Production: Crops. 2009 data, which can be accessed at: http://faostat.fao.org. NB: this source was also used for figures
provided for Malawi and Viet Nam.
11
FAO. 2006. Forest Resource Assessment 2005.
12
Thurlow, J., T. Zhu, and X. Diao. 2009. The impact of climate variability and change on economic growth and poverty in Zambia. IFPRI
Discussion Paper 00890. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
13
Tadross M., Suarez P., Lotsch A., Hachigonta S., Mdoka M., Unganai L., Lucio F., Kamdonyo D., Muchinda M. (2009) Growing-season
rainfall and scenarios of future change in southeast Africa: implications for cultivating maize. Climate Research. Vol. 40. 147-161. DOI:
10.3354/cr00821.
14
Jones, P.G. and P.K. Thornton. 2003. The potential impacts of climate change in tropical agriculture: the case of maize in Africa and Latin
America in 2055. Global Environmental Change 13: 51-59.
18
emissions, while keeping in mind that fertilizer use in Africa is much lower than other
regions.
Vietnam has a lower proportion of under-nourished, estimated to be 11 percent in 2005/2007,
but gains in reducing under-nutrition could well be lost, particularly if the country’s water
resources are negatively affected by climate change. Vietnam faces pressures on its arable
land; rural population densities are much higher than in the Africa countries at 900 per sq. km.
And, more than 30 percent of its arable land is categorized as being severely or very severely
degraded. Increases in forested area over the period 1990-2005 are a positive sign. In terms of
climate change, an IFPRI study evaluated a number of potential scenarios over the periods to
2030 and 2050, and found that large potential rice yield losses in the poorer central highlands
and northern regions, between 4 and 12.5 percent; and, while potential yield losses in the
Mekong delta region were more muted, at between 2 and 8 percent, because the Mekong is
the major rice producing region, even relatively small yield losses can mean large declines in
aggregate rice availability. 15 Sea level rise could also negatively affect rice production in the
Mekong Delta region, according to Vietnamese officials.16
Increasing and maintaining food security and agricultural growth are key priorities for all
three countries. At the same time, there is a clear link between deforestation and land
degradation on the one hand and lower crop yields and lower resilience of the agricultural
systems on the other. Climate smart agricultural practices – which include agroforestry,
improved fallows, conservation agriculture, improved seed varieties that increase biomass,
soil and water conservation structures and improved grazing land management – often
generate both adaptation and mitigation benefits.
The capacity to leverage additional financial resources from climate change adaptation and
mitigation funds, as well as carbon markets over the longer term, will increase the capacity of
these countries to move towards low carbon-emissions agricultural growth pathways that
meet food security and adaptation objectives, whilst generating significant mitigation benefits
at the same time. However, though there is a broad understanding of the types of agricultural
practices that can meet these three objectives, there is limited evidence of the actual costs and
barriers to adoption at the household level or of the enabling institutional and policy
environment at the national level necessary to lower transactions costs and reduce barriers to
adoption and to secure additional mitigation financing at the national level. The Project
focuses on addressing these knowledge gaps at both levels.
The Project aims to break new ground in developing synergies between climate change and
food security policy in selected developing countries. It includes information gathering and
analysis so that pilot country policies and strategies are informed by the best possible
evidence that is relevant to particular country circumstances. It is also expected to lead to pilot
projects with tangible impacts, both on the livelihoods of farmers and on their ability to adopt
low-emission agricultural growth paths adapted to climate change. It will draw on experience
from both climate change (i.e. NAMAs, NAPAs, REDD+, and Climate for Development in
Africa (ClimDev-Africa)) and food security (i.e. CAADP) initiatives. Both ClimDev and
CAADP are supported by the EC.
15
Yu, B., T. Zhu, C. Breisinger, N.M. Hai. 2010. Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture and Policy Options for Adaptation: The Case of
Vietnam. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01015. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
16
Dr. Nguyen Van Thang, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Vietnam Institutte of Meteorology,
Hydrology and Environment.
19
An important lesson is that there is a significant lag time between political and financial
commitments and concrete plans and actions at country level. This has been the experience of,
for example, CAADP, which accelerated in 2010 after several years of limited progress. In the
current intervention FAO will act as a catalyst to accelerate the process in developing
country-owned roadmaps that will leverage L'Aquila and Copenhagen/Cancun commitments.
FAO is also involved in the development of agricultural development investment plans for
CAADP and a climate smart agriculture investment platform to mainstream climate smart
agriculture into these CAADP investment plans and programmes. This is one potential way of
making country level climate smart investments operational in a timely manner.
Lessons from Payment for Environmental Services (PESs) schemes as well as conditional
cash transfers (safety nets) are relevant for the mitigation financing component of the Project.
Here two important lessons emerge: (1) Building on local institutions involved in natural
resources management is an important way of reducing transaction costs and achieving
collective action required for environmental service programmes; and (2) Experience with
conditional cash transfer programmes indicate the importance of such programmes for rural
households to absorb climate shocks, and also that targeting payments to women can result in
more effective programme outcomes. These lessons will be used in designing incentive
schemes.
3.
3.1
PROJECT FRAMEWORK
Impact
The expected long-term impact of the Project is to contribute to the achievement of
Millennium Development Goals 1 Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger and 7 Ensure
Environmental Sustainability, as well as Article 2 of the UNFCCC.
3.2
Outcome and Outputs
The expected outcome of the Project is that the capacity of the three partner countries to
undertake and finance climate smart agriculture is strengthened.
The Project is expected to achieve four main outputs:
(i)
an evidence base for developing and implementing policies and investments for climate
smart agriculture is built in the three (3) partner countries;
(ii)
country-owned strategic frameworks for climate-smart agricultural activities are
formulated;
(iii) climate smart agriculture investment proposals are formulated and possible financing,
including from climate finance is identified; and
(iv) capacity for evidence-based planning, implementing and financing climate smart
agriculture is built in the three (3) partner countries.
The Project log-frame and the tentative work plan are given in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2,
respectively. The activities under each result are described within the section below.
20
It is expected that the project log-frame and work plan will be revised after the initial 6 month
project period, during which detailed consultation with stakeholders will take place that will
be used to generate revised and finalized plans.
3.3
Activities
Activities will be carried out through an implementation phase, preceded by an inception
phase of approximately six months, during which time country-level consultations on various
aspects of project design and management will be held. The operational duration, including
inception phase, is 36 months.
3.3.1 Indicative Activities of the Implementation Phase
Based on the four expected outputs outlined above, the indicative list of activities is presented
below.
Indicative activities under Output 1: An evidence base for developing and implementing
policies and investments for CSA is built.
Activity 1.1: Meta-database of existing household level datasets with information
relevant for adaptation and mitigation documented and available for analysis
Compilation of household datasets that include information on food security and current
adaptation-relevant, climate smart agriculture practices (e.g. agroforestry, use of cover crops,
conservation agriculture), and collection of complementary institutional datasets with
information on supra-household factors that affect incentives for households to adopt climate
smart agriculture practices (e.g. information on CSA practices, community rules/norms on
land use, credit sources). This activity will begin with a scoping of currently available datasets
and information in the selected case study countries for possible use in integrating climate
change adaptation and mitigation for food security e.g. FAO, the World Bank Living
Standards Measurement Study (LSMS), and International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI), and project-based data and impact evaluations such as those found in the World
Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) database. Additionally,
the project will develop and implement targeted household-level questionnaires in case study
countries to collect more in-depth information on climate smart agriculture where such
information is limited or missing from existing surveys.
Activity 1.2: New household and institutional datasets needed for CSA evidence base
A survey of local institutions relevant for adoption of CSA systems will be developed and
implemented to complement the household data; these surveys will target the relevant
community and supra-community institutions that affect household incentives to adopt CSA.
Activity 1.3: Meta-database of soil sequestration potential by farming practices linked to
household datasets
Information on emissions and sequestration potential will be linked to farm-level datasets.
Technical data on soil sequestration potential by agro-ecological region and by agricultural
practices will be compiled and formatted so that it can be matched with the household-level
data. Data and methodological approaches being developed by the FAO MICCA programme
as well as University of Aberdeen will be used.
21
Activity 1.4: Conceptual framework for identifying CSA strategies developed
Development of a conceptual framework to analyze factors affecting smallholder decisions to
adopt practices and make investments that improve food security, adaptive capacity and
mitigate carbon emissions. The framework will capture both the short- and the long-term
costs and benefits associated with adoption of different CSA activities, with the specific aim
of highlighting how payments (or other institutional and/or policy mechanisms) could induce
“additional” CSA. The framework will then be used to guide empirical analysis of economic
and environmental impacts of changes in farming systems, and to aid in the development of a
policy.
Activity 1.5: Statistical analyses of policy factors that increase agricultural production
and adaptive capacity, and capture synergies with mitigation objectives
Empirical analysis of barriers to adoption of CSA activities. This activity will use datasets
generated under Activities 1.1 and 1.2, and the conceptual framework to generate a set of
statistical analyses of costs and barriers to the adoption of CSA.
Activity 1.6: Development of a policy simulation model (in tandem with development of
country-owned strategic frameworks
This activity will lead to the development of a simulation model to assess which policies
and/or institutional mechanisms can be used to reduce costs and overcome barriers to CSA
adoption. Model parameters will be based on results from the household level analyses on
constraints to household adoption of CSA (Activity 1.5), data on mitigation potential of
different CSA activities collected under Activity 1.3, and the detailed review of the current
institutional context and policy regime affecting these constraints (Activities 1.3 and 1.4).
Simulations will then be conducted to evaluate impacts on incentives to adopt practices and
identify the most promising policy options and institutional innovations. Additional
simulation scenarios will be used in connection with the country-level policy dialogue process
(Activity 2.1).
Indicative activities under Output 2: Country-owned strategic frameworks for climatesmart agricultural activities are formulated.
Activity 2.1: Evaluation of existing programmes, policies and institutional frameworks
affecting the development, financing and implementation of CSA conducted in the three
partner countries
Mapping and analysis of key existing institutional arrangements related to agricultural sector
development, food security and climate change, including but not limited to, network maps
of: interministerial coordination on climate change, agricultural research and extension and
the seed sector. Evaluating institutional capacity to facilitate more integrated planning and
collective action across institutions, the review will be accompanied by discussions and key
informant interviews with relevant country institutions.
Activity 2.2: Review of consistencies and contradictions between major agricultural and
climate change policy documents including Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs),
CAADP plans, NAPAs and NAMAs
Review of existing national policies, including key policy instruments such as PRSPs,
NAPAs, NAMAs, national climate change and food security strategies, where available,
22
assessing potential synergies or contradictions across these documents. The review will be
accompanied by discussions and key informant interviews with relevant country institutions.
Activity 2.3: Identification and costing of priority CSA options, based on outputs from
Result 1.1 and input from in-country stakeholders
This activity will first identify priority options, based on Result 1.1 and in consultation with
stakeholders, and provide a rough estimation of the costs associated with priority action
options. The costs estimates will be derived through information collected under Activity 1.2
at the household level, augmented by key informant interviews, and data from the investment
cost database being prepared for the FAO “Agriculture towards 2050” analysis. Building on
Results 1.2 and 1.3, priority and costed options for climate smart agricultural activities will be
identified for inclusion in either a stand-alone strategic framework or roadmap, or as a
component of a planned or existing document (National Adaptation Plan, a national Climate
Change Strategy or an Agriculture Sector Strategy).
Activity 2.4: Facilitated policy dialogue to prepare CSA strategic framework document
Using the results of policy simulations, institutional mapping, policy analysis and analysis of
climate financing mechanisms (see below) as a basis for discussion, the activity would
facilitate policy dialogue between food security, agricultural and climate change policymakers and consultation with key stakeholders to develop consensus on priority activities to
be included in country-owned strategic document on climate smart agriculture, which would
also outline the technical, financial and policy challenges involved.
Activity 2.5: CSA strategic framework document finalized, building on Result 1.2, 1.3
and Outputs 2.1-2.3, and input from in-country stakeholders.
The Project will hold workshops and policy dialogue sessions to enable the completion of the
framework documents.
Indicative activities under Output 3: CSA investment proposals are formulated and
possible financing, including from climate finance, is identified.
Activity 3.1: Country-specific business model for linking climate finance to smallholder
agriculture developed
Development of a business model for linking climate mitigation and adaptation finance to the
adoption of climate smart agriculture. The activity will undertake strategic analysis of the
potential for linking climate finance to activities that support the smallholder sector, an
assessment of the measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) costs associated with
possible mitigation and adaptation financing options, and identification of potential
institutional mechanisms to integrate adaptation, mitigation and food security financing
channels. The potential for developing an agricultural NAMA or an agricultural component of
a National Adaptation Plan (NAP) with mitigation co-benefits would be assessed.
Activity 3.2: Development of investment project proposals
Building on the work under 2.1, one investment proposal document for each country will be
developed. Examples might include linking mitigation finance to insurance and safety net
programmes or adaptation financing to support adoption of more resilient production systems.
23
Activity 3.3: Development of project Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) and impactassessment mechanisms
The investment proposals will include an impact assessment protocol and feedback
mechanism to ensure that lessons learned from the Project are identified and disseminated to
Project managers as well as other stakeholders. This activity will help ensure that lessons
learned from early-action Project activities can be built on in developing a strong portfolio of
projects in the future.
Indicative activities under Output 4: Capacity for evidence-based planning,
implementing and financing CSA is built.
Activity 4.1: Construction of web-based knowledge-sharing platform to facilitate
iterative learning across stakeholders
Knowledge-sharing platform developed. One of the key goals of the initiation workshop will
be to devise an iterative research and learning platform to facilitate communication between
all Project stakeholders. In part this will be an interactive web-based site for information
sharing.
Activity 4.2: Support to national PhD and Master’s students on Project-related work
In each country, the Project will establish strong collaborative links with leading research
institutions and universities and will support one PhD and two Master’s students, who will
contribute to Activities 1.2.1 or 1.2.3, as relevant.
Activity 4.3: Training of agricultural and climate change policy-makers on issues of
climate smart agriculture
Short training courses and workshops, as well as visits amongst Project partner countries, will
be implemented by the Project to build the capacities of key stakeholders in government and
civil society.
Activity 4.4: Support for agricultural policy-makers in attending national and
international climate change policy processes
The Project will support the participation costs of agricultural policy-makers to international
and national climate change policy fora such as the UNFCCC COP.
Activity 4.5: Preparation and dissemination of policy briefs on climate smart agriculture
The FAO headquarters Project Team will develop briefing notes on current developments in
international and national climate change policy making of relevance to agricultural policy
makers in collaboration with national policy partners, and these will be disseminated through
meetings, workshops, websites and other means.
3.3.2
Inception Phase
The Project will begin with a six-month inception phase that will run concurrently with initial
activities under Output 1: building an evidence base for developing and implementing CSA.
During the inception phase, there will be extensive consultations with partner country policy
24
and research organizations to finalize and streamline the Project design and implementation
plan. Below are detail activities under both the inception and implementation phases.
Activities to be implemented during the inception phase
The following activities are expected to be implemented during the Inception phase:
a) Discussion with Government on possible Project coordination arrangements that
will include:
 a National Project Coordinator (NPC) experienced in policy and technical issues
related to climate change and agricultural development for 30 months, responsible
for the overall coordination of country Project activities;
 precise identification of partner country counterparts (in addition to the NPC) who
will be responsible for the Project; and
 assignment of office space by partner country Ministries of Agriculture to a
Coordination Unit or the use of the FAO Office in-country, including in
coordinating and facilitating Project activities;
b) recruitment of staff for a FAO headquarters technical backstopping unit (Project
Team)
 recruitment of a P5 Senior Economist, Food Security and Climate Change;
 recruitment of a P4 Project Technical Coordinator/M&E Expert; and
 recruitment of a P1 Project Operational and Administrative Coordinator.
c) establishment of a FAO Interdepartmental Task Force (ITF) for the Project
(including the Agricultural Development Economics Division, Agriculture, Natural
Resources and Environment Division, Technical Cooperation, E&S, Legal Office and
other relevant units);
d) purchase of equipment by FAO (Computers, printers, internet connection) for Partner
country Project Coordination Teams (Coordinators);
e) preparation of the draft version of terms of reference and membership for the Project
steering committees, by the FAO Lead Technical Unit in close collaboration with the
national Project coordinator;
f)
establishment of a Project Steering Committee (one in each country); and
g) Project launching workshops to bring together key stakeholders and finalize detailed
planning of Project activities. Based on outcomes, Memorandums of Understanding
(MoUs) or Letters of Agreement (LoAs) will be prepared and signed with relevant
institutions. The MoUs or LoAs with organizations and partner entities will state the
roles and commitments of each entity in the implementation of Project activities.
3.4
Sustainability
A major focus of this Project is to build the knowledge, capacity and institutional structures
that partner countries will need to implement climate smart agriculture over the long term.
One of the main objectives of the Project is to establish better communication channels and
capacity for planning across agriculture and environmental (climate change) ministries
through the joint development of a strategic “roadmap” defining future collaborative actions
required to achieve climate smart agriculture in partner countries. This strategy will then be
implemented via the development of a set of investment proposals for climate smart
25
agriculture completed by the end of Project. Thus, the roadmap and operational investment
proposals for climate smart agricultural activities will be identified and planned by people in
national partner country government and civil society institutions, who will also be involved
in their enabling and implementation. This should help to ensure the sustainability of the
Project impacts.
The Project will be initiated through stakeholder consultations in each of the partner countries
to identify all relevant organizations, Projects and people working in areas relevant to climate
smart agriculture. The Project will then work within these existing structures to enhance and
extend capacities for creating linkages across institutions and policies. One of the selection
criteria for partner countries was the interest and potential coordination capacity of the
countries in implementing climate smart agriculture, and thus there are already several key
policies and Projects in the selected countries that this Project will build upon. For example, a
National Programme for Managing Climate Change in Malawi has already been initiated
under the MoDPC and Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Environment. Making full
use of existing and nationally-owned institutions, mechanisms and policy frameworks will
also help to limit proliferation and parallel processes, thereby contributing to financial
sustainability.
One important role of the EC-FAO CSA Project will be to support the participation of the
Ministry of Agriculture in national efforts to coordinate multisectoral climate change
activities. In Malawi and Zambia, the Project will work closely with the ongoing development
of climate smart investment plans under the CAADP for which a climate smart agricultural
investment platform is under development. The Project includes mechanisms for the
collection and sharing of information within and amongst the partner countries, as well as
between the countries and international climate change and agricultural policy processes. One
major vehicle for this is project M&E systems and the interactive Project web site. Another is
the implementation of “dialogue” workshops involving local, national and international
stakeholders across a range of disciplines and organizations.
In order to enable proper monitoring and evaluation, it is important to explain for each
Output: (i) what follow-up action is envisaged to ensure its sustainability; (ii) what resources,
infrastructure, capacity, processes, etc. are in place to ensure continuity and by which
institution; (iii) the contribution of its follow-up action to ensure the sustainability of project
outcome; and (iv) its contribution to the foreseen impact and catalytic effects.
An evidence base for
developing and
implementing policies
and investments for
climate smart
agriculture is built in
the three (3) partner
countries
Follow up action to
ensure sustainability
Resources/Institution Contribution of follow Contribution to
s in place to ensure
up action to
overall project impact
continuity
sustainability
Ownership of national
universities and
implementation of research
through national MSc and
PhD students ensures
continued capacity and
interest in developing
evidence base required to
support better policy-making
National universities and
the Masters and PhD
students trained under the
project
Perhaps the main issue
on sustainability of the
evidence base is how it
will be used – e.g. how
effective will it be for
In all three partner
policy development? By
countries research
making a link between
institutions are
researchers and policyestablishing new
makers at the national
programs/curricula related level the project creates a
to climate change and
sustainable link for
agriculture and the project effective use of the
will work with them to
evidence base as well as
development of curricula conditions for its ongoing
with National research
expansion and
partners to ensure
improvement
continued and relevant
Building an evidence base
is essential to achieving
successful climate smart
agricultural systems and
this project will build not
only the evidence base
needed, but also the
ongoing capacity to
expand it in direct
response to policy needs
26
training
Country-owned
strategic frameworks
for climate-smart
agricultural activities
are formulated
A permanent channel to new
sources of finance (e.g.
climate finance) are
established to support
strategic frameworks
Project will help to build
institutions required to
open climate finance
channels working with
existing institutions for
channelling finance to
Partnership between Ministry farmers and accessing
of Ag. and Ministry of
ODA and/or GEF funds
Environment in working on
strategic framework
Policies and institutions in
enhanced through
place to ensure continuity
implementation of specific
of the project vary by
elements
country but may include
national policy
instruments such as
National Adaptation Plans
or National Integrated
Climate Change Policy
Program
Establishment of
institutions and procedures
for accessing climate
finance to support
smallholder agricultural
systems is an essential
component of achieving
sustainable models of
climate smart agriculture in
countries
The process of bringing
together policy makers
from agriculture,
environment and other
relevant areas to develop a
unified (and somewhat
detailed) strategy for
coping with climate
change in the context of
agricultural development
in and of itself, will create
new capacities, and
channels of
communication required
to achieve climate smart
agriculture in countries
Climate smart
agriculture investment
proposals are
formulated and
possible financing,
including from
climate finance is
identified
The most important follow
up action here is to ensure
these proposals get financed
and implemented –
essentially achieving this is
envisioned as part of the
project outcome – which
guarantees that the next steps
for achieving climate smart
agriculture (e.g. actually
implemented a financed
project) takes place
Climate finance
institutions internationally
are only now emerging –
including Cancún Fund
and other instruments
managed by the World
Bank. One of the main
functions of this project
will be to help build
capacity to receive these
funds at country level
Accessing finance and
implementing the
investment proposals is an
essential part of achieving a
sustainable capacity to
implement climate smart
agriculture in countries
The financing of the
investment proposals
developed under the
project is a major step
(and necessity) for
achieving the project
objective of enhancing
country capacity to
implement climate smart
agricultural systems
The investment and
financing proposals
developed during the project
provide for continued
capacity building to support
implementation of climate
smart agriculture
National research
institutions partnered with
the project – as well as the
national policy partners –
e.g. staff in Ministry of
Agriculture
The ongoing ability to
identify, plan and execute
programs on climate smart
agriculture is very
important for achieving
project sustainability
Maintaining and
augmenting the capacity
in country to plan and
implement climate smart
agriculture systems is
essential to achieving
project impact – that
country’s have the
capacity to achieve
climate smart agricultural
systems
Capacity for
evidence-based
planning,
implementing and
financing climate
smart agriculture is
built in the three (3)
partner countries
At the country level –
there is likely to be a
range of institutions
involved – from Ministry
of Finance through
financing channels to
small farmers via credit,
safety net programs or
fertilizer subsidy
programs – any of these
may serve as an
institution for channelling
climate finance
3.5 Risks and Assumptions
The Project aims to assist countries to develop sound policies to address the twin challenges
of food security and climate change in a coordinated way and to develop road maps for their
27
implementation. In this section, the risks are first considered related to the three main
assumptions associated with Project impact and outcomes; this is followed by a discussion of
risks related to Project activities. The three impacts and outcome risks are:
1.
Impact Risk: Declining political commitment to climate change and food security, and
unwillingness to address them in a harmonized way. Low-Medium risk. Potentially high
impact.
2.
Outcome Risk: Lack of engagement by relevant line ministries and staff, in terms of
actively participating in capacity building for generating evidence-based climate smart
agriculture strategies. Low risk. Potentially high impact.
3.
Outcome Risk: Lack of demand/financing for carbon sequestration Projects. Medium
risk. Potentially high impact.
The Project has addressed Risk ‘1’ by judicious selection of countries for case studies –
picking those with a genuine commitment to addressing the joint climate change and food
security challenges and a willingness of relevant government ministries and other
stakeholders to work together in solving problems. Specifically, contacts have been made
with EC representatives as well as high-level officials in the agriculture ministries to obtain
feedback on the Projects objectives, activities and organization. In addition, two members of
the team have already visited two of the target countries (Zambia and Malawi), and have met
with a number of key stakeholders both within the key line ministries and departments (e.g.
agriculture, livestock, environment and meteorology), with the EC representatives and other
donors investing in climate change and agriculture activities, with University and other
research staff working on issues related to climate change and agriculture, and with relevant
private sector representatives (e.g. private farmer organizations that promote adoption of
sustainable land management practices).
The country selection process also addresses Risk ‘2’, as contacts have already been
established with key stakeholders in all three countries, and particularly in Zambia and
Malawi where stakeholder meetings were held. Feedback from these meetings and from email
communications will help us continue to refine Project activities so that these are relevant to
ministries staff and other stakeholders. The Project also has a strong capacity building
component to engage ministry staff, which will link to ongoing work by donors, including the
EC, in capacity building of developing country stakeholders on climate change issues.
Working within the existing policy and institutional frameworks in both the climate change
and agricultural sectors within countries will reduce “overload” on ministry staff and
resources. And finally, a process will be followed by which research activities are being
integrated with the development of strategic policy documents and the development of
investment proposals to reduce the risk that the evidence base is underutilized.
Risk ‘3’ is real, given the financial pressures facing both developed and developing countries,
however, the commitments to food security and climate change made at L'Aquila and
Copenhagen, respectively, reduce the likelihood of occurrence.
Next risks associated with activities required to meet Project objectives are considered. The
first set of activities focuses on improving the evidence base beyond what is currently
available in our target countries. The main risk is not being able to adequately generate
sufficient information to develop the evidence base. To address this potential risk, existing
household dataset for household information on barriers to adoption of CSA and other,
similar, technologies have already been identified, and our major University partner for the
28
carbon sequestration work is Pete Smith at the University of Aberdeen who has well-known
expertise in this area. In addition, summary statistics have already been generated from some
of the existing household datasets; thus, key data gaps have preliminarily been identified
within those that will be augmented with targeted data collection instruments. In particular, an
“institutional-level” survey will be developed and implemented, with data collected in
geographic areas that correspond to households in the datasets, so that these two levels of
information can be combined.
The second risk is that country partners do not actively contribute to developing the policy
simulation model, which would limit the usefulness of simulation results. The third risk is that
materials generated from the analyses and simulation model are available as useable inputs
into policy processes. To address these two risks, it is foreseen to establish focal point staff in
the relevant ministries with whom a working relationship will be established in order to
ensure the analysis and modelling generate relevant information and that that information is
then made available in formats that can be used as inputs into policy processes. Periodic
workshops will also be held to obtain feedback from a wider range of stakeholders, and in
tandem with the development of CSA strategic frameworks and CSA financing proposal
development. Overall, this set of activities is believed to be low risk.
The second set of activities focuses on developing country-level strategic frameworks for
pursuing CSA. Preliminary conversations with a number of stakeholders in the target
countries have resulted in strong support in achieving this objective. One risk expressed by
country partners is that this work might be undertaken in isolation and thus not effectively
integrated into the wide range activities concerning climate change and agriculture in partner
countries. To mitigate this risk, stakeholders have been actively engaged from a wide range of
ministries, to ensure that the agriculture sector specific strategic climate change frameworks
developed are coherent with the national plans covering both agricultural development and
climate change. Additionally, stakeholders in Malawi and Zambia were also concerned that
this work also be consistent with, and supportive of, the CAADP process.
The CAADP plan for Malawi was reviewed, and revised where necessary to ensure
consistency; and communication has also been established with relevant CAADP partners at
both country and regional level for Malawi and Zambia, Furthermore, an opportunity was
identified to work with the World Bank to develop criteria for screening CAADP plans for
CSA in regional investment plans. A second risk is that stakeholders do not actively
participate in developing the roadmaps. As noted above, focal points in government ministries
as well as workshops will address the risk of low stakeholder participation; and in fact,
opportunities will be sought to hold workshops together with other stakeholders to minimize
“workshop fatigue” and to maximize coherence across complimentary activities being
pursued by other Projects. Another risk associated with this set of activities concerning
costing out the various options. Relevant cost information will be collected where this is
available at the household level; however, costs for certain options may not be readily
available from these sources (e.g. agroforestry options that have not yet been adopted).
Instead, it may be likely that cost data will need to be obtained from existing Projects that are
implementing pilot activities; contacts have already been made with a number of such
Projects and will continue to build a database of total Project costs, including inputs, capacity
building and training, etc.
The third set of activities focuses on identifying priority CSA activities within each country,
and then developing a final investment proposal for a CSA investment, including identifying a
29
financing source, following the business model tailored to that source, and developing a
protocol for Project monitoring and evaluation. As noted above, the main risk here is that the
carbon emissions market collapses. A second assumption is that feasible financing
mechanisms and instruments exist to reach smallholders; to reduce the risk that no feasible
mechanisms/instruments exist, experiences of similar Projects in other countries are first
being reviewed and secondly, the proposal development process itself will aim to ensure that
such instruments can successfully reach smallholders.
The fourth set of activities focuses on improving in-country capacity for undertaking
evidence-based planning and implementation of CSA strategies and investments, including
participating in international climate change policy processes. The main risk here is that
national partners and stakeholders limit their active participation in knowledge generation and
capacity building. To minimize this risk, the successful example of earlier Projects is
followed, which have provided support for Masters and PhDs in relevant areas, and where
students also actively contribute to Project activities. The participation of agricultural
policymakers at international and regional climate change meetings will also be supported.
Finally, as noted above, information on all other relevant stakeholders who are also involved
in climate change-based Projects is actively being compiled so that capacity building
materials and courses are complimentary to other exercises.
4.
4.1
IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
Institutional Framework and Coordination
The Project institutional structure consists of a Project Team located at FAO headquarters in
the ESA division, country Project coordinators in each country, and partner research and
policy institutions in each country. The institutional framework is shown in the chart in
Appendix 4.
The organizational structure and proposed Project Team reflect the three major components
of the action: research, policy and institutional strengthening. Aside from the core Project
Management/Technical Team described above, additional Project Team consultants for
Coordination, Geographic Information System (GIS) and Investment/Financing are also
foreseen. The policy component would use external consultants for the review of policy
instruments and facilitated dialogue across ministries. Preparation of strategic frameworks for
action and investment proposals would be nationally led and internationally supported. Close
working arrangements with national staff and institutions would be the rule of thumb, in order
to strengthen capacities for continuity and sustainability of action beyond the lifetime of the
proposed Project.
In each partner country the MoA is the main policy partner for the Project with close linkages
to other relevant ministries (e.g. of Environment, Development Planning and Finance). In
Malawi this is MAFS, in Zambia MACO and MLF, and in Vietnam MARD. In each case, the
partner country will designate a department and staff person to be the focal point for the
Project. In addition, each country will have a research partner institution. For example, these
may include Bunda or Chancellor College in Malawi, University of Zambia or Copperbelt
University in Zambia or an Agriculture Research Institute in Vietnam. Selection of the
research partner institution will be done in consultation with the country policy partners. The
Project will recruit a country Project coordinator for each of the partner countries. This staff
person may be placed in the FAO representation in country or in one of the country partner
30
institutions. Final placement will be decided upon consultation with country policy partners
and FAO country representations.
ESA will establish an ITF at FAO headquarters involving relevant FAO Units and have
regular meetings to review work plans and thematic reports and documents as required,
monitor and provide guidance to the Project.
4.2
Strategy/Methodology
The methodology for implementation is based on the notion of first establishing an evidence
base for climate smart practices and constraints, which would involve assembling both
existing data and collecting targeted new data. This data would inform: (i) policy formulation
to overcome the constraints identified; (ii) the preparation of a strategic framework or
roadmap of prioritized and costed action; and (iii) in the context of the strategic framework,
the development of investment proposals and the identification of their financing. The reason
for using such a methodology is to enable policy and strategy formulation to be based on
country/agro-ecological regional-specific data. The strategic framework will in turn inform
the preparation of the investment proposals.
The methodology fully recognizes that national action is not starting from zero and can build
upon ongoing activities at country level (for example, conservation agriculture programs in
the case of Malawi and Zambia). It also fully recognizes the importance of and benefits that
accrue from nationally led and owned efforts in the context of the proposed action.
The organizational structure and proposed Project Team reflect the three major components
of the action: research, policy and institutional strengthening. Aside from the core Project
Management/Technical Team described above, additional Project Team consultants for
Coordination, Geographic Information System (GIS) and Investment/Financing are also
foreseen. The policy component would use external consultants for the review of policy
instruments and facilitated dialogue across ministries. Preparation of strategic frameworks for
action and investment proposals would be nationally led and internationally supported. Close
working arrangements with national staff and institutions would be the rule of thumb, in order
to strengthen capacities for continuity and sustainability of action beyond the lifetime of the
proposed Project.
The main means of implementation of the action involves compiling data, including from
household and institutional surveys, as well as evaluation of this data and analyses of
potential policies for which computers would be needed for data processing. The policy work
may require some audio-visual equipment for presentations and showing simulations.
Preliminary consultation with stakeholders has reflected a positive attitude to the idea of
addressing food security and climate change together and seeking ways to maximize
synergies and minimizing trade-offs across the multiple objectives, on which agriculture is
expected to deliver.
FAO will implement the Project in manner consistent with existing technical and policy
support Projects being executed in developing countries. FAO ESA will take the lead for
Project implementation, expanding the existing technical, policy support and administrative
capacity of the unit to support Project level activities.
31
Activities will be carried out in three pilot countries. Criteria for country selection include:
(i) importance of smallholder agriculture sector for food security; (ii) interest of key policymakers institutions to participate; (iii) a clear desire for better harmonization of policies on
climate change and agriculture; (iv) availability of data; (v) links to other ongoing FAO work,
including work on the transformation of smallholder agriculture and the design of social
safety-nets; and (vi) links to ongoing or planned EC funded activities under GCCA or
ENRTP.
The final selection of countries was based on further consultation with the country
governments concerned, as well as with EU Delegations, FAO Representations and other key
in-country stakeholders. In the interests of generating regionally relevant results, and
capturing economies of scale in travel and staff time, the final selection involved a maximum
of two regions (e.g. Africa and Asia).
Project implementation will be achieved through the establishment of partnerships and LOAs
with a Lead Technical Unit and Lead Policy Unit in each country (See Figure 1). The Project
involves significant staff time by both FAO ESA and partners in the selected countries.
FAO ESA will develop capacity-building activities for country partners with external partners
as well as through FAO-lead training activities. Country technical partners will be supported
by FAO ESA technical staff to assist in the design of dataset development and economic
analysis. In addition, the Project will support a PhD student from each of the pilot countries
for work on the technical analysis that can also be used for doctoral research. This is a
successful model of FAO collaboration that has been applied in previous ESA Projects.
Country policy partner institutions will also be supported by capacity-building activities, as
well as FAO staff support.
4.3
4.3.1
Inputs
FAO Inputs
To undertake Project activities using the above discussed strategy, FAO ESA will contribute
significant staff time of the Project Director, the Senior Research Economist, other technical
staff, the Senior Policy Consultant and the Project M&E Coordinator. FAO representation in
partner countries will also contribute staff time. Information inputs that will be utilized
include the existing data sets from previous FAO, World Bank LSMS, IFPRI and WOCAT
Projects. The Project will implement targeted household and institutional surveys to
complement the existing data, given the shortcomings of existing information base on climate
smart agricultural practices and institutional settings that affect their adoption. Physical inputs
required include computers for data processing and audio-visual equipment for presentations
to disseminate results and develop capacity in partner country policy institutions.
The ESA programme of work on building climate smart agricultural systems integrates
regular and extra budgetary resources, including support from the Swedish International
Development Agency (SIDA) as well as the MICCA multidonor trust fund.
4.3.2
Government Inputs
In addition to the 62 percent of the budget which will be provided as a grant by the EC
(EUR 3 300 000) as well as the 38 percent (totalling EUR 2 000 000) committed by FAO,
governments of the three partner countries will provide a co-funding contributions to support
the successful implementation of the Project. These contributions are estimated about 10% in
32
the budget. Government contributions, which will be decided during the inception phase,
might include: (i) provision of office space for the NPC and allowance for support staff;
(ii) commitment to Project objectives and its implementation; (iii) active membership in the
NSC; and (iv) facilitation of links required with different public central and decentralized
authorities, Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) and the private sector.
4.3.3
Donor Inputs
The maximum European Union contribution is EUR 3 300 000. The foreseen operational
duration is 36 months as from the date agreed as stated in the signed Contribution Agreement.
4.4
Technical Support/Linkages
As indicated above, Project technical support will be lead by a Senior Economist, Food
Security and Climate Change for the research component, and a Senior Policy Adviser for the
policy component.
Consultants, both national and international, will assist in providing technical inputs to
specific Project activities. Project activities will be carried out to the greatest extent possible
within existing national and regional initiatives (e.g. NAPs, NAMAs, CAADP and
COMESA) and linked to FAO activities and its field programme in support of regional and
global efforts for sustainable agricultural development for food security and climate change
adaptation and mitigation.
The Project with FAO support, will seek all possible linkages and collaboration with relevant
centres of excellence, international and regional organizations, particularly the AU/NEPAD
agriculture-climate change framework programme, the World Bank/CAADP climate smart
agriculture investment platform, COMESA programme activities on agriculture and climate
change and European Union supported sustainable agriculture Projects in partner countries.
4.5
Management and Operational Support Arrangements
As indicated above, the LTU and Budget Holder (BH) will be located at FAO headquarters,
supported by an ITF to provide guidance, management and operational support to the Project,
with linkages to relevant regional offices (FAO/Regional Office for Africa [RAF] and
FAO/Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific [RAP]). Project operational support will be
based entirely at FAO HQ; the role of the FAO/RAF and FAO/RAP will be advisory only.
Partner-country ministries will appoint competent officers, knowledgeable and experienced in
agricultural development to act as Project focal points to liaise with Country Project
Coordinators as well as with the Project Team at FAO headquarters for the planning,
implementation and monitoring of Project activities. The national focal points will be
responsible for leading and coordinating in-country activities with the support of the technical
and coordination arrangements outlined above.
Partner-country ministries will establish and lead an NSC, headed by a high-ranking officer of
the key-responsible institution/entity and including representatives of relevant ministries,
institutions, organizations and the donor (EC). The NSC will meet at least twice a year to
oversee and guide Project implementation.
33
5.
BUDGET OF EACH PARTNER COUNTRY
Consultants
Contracts/LOAs
Travel (international)
Travel (local)
Training/Capacity Building
Expendable (stationary)
Non-expendables (computers)
Monitoring and Evaluation
General operating expenses
Euro
€ 165,000
€ 383,333
€ 16,333
€ 10,000
€ 162,000
€ 5,550
€ 3,969
€ 12,500
€ 11,000
Total Euro
Total USD (1 euro=1.30 USD)
€ 769,685
$1,000,591
The budget is an estimate of the funding that will flow to the partner country, by major expenditure
category.
The budget will be revised upon the completion of the 6 month project initiation
period.
34
6.
MOTIVATION, PROJECT ACTIVITIES
AND COUNTRY BUDGET FOR VIETNAM
General Project Background
Food security, climate change adaptation and mitigation intersect in the agriculture sector.
The Project examines them together in order to capture multiple benefits and manage tradeoffs across these challenges. The Project would build an evidence base to support
identification of:
a) climate smart agricultural practices/technologies and barriers to their adoption by
smallholder farmers
b) policy and institutional options that could promote their uptake, including local
institutional arrangements.
c) investment proposals that cost and prioritize promising climate smart agricultural
options, linking proposals to possible financing (ODA and climate)
The project will analyze climate smart agricultural options to assess their contributions to
food security and adaptation (with potential mitigation side benefits) in the Northern
Mountainous regions of Vietnam. The analysis will rely on large scale household data from
repeated surveys (as many years as possible from the same sample of households) with
detailed information on agricultural practices at the plot level, socio-economic data and other
income generating activities. These data will be merged with historical climatic data and
mitigation potential of practices to assess the interactions of climate change with the costs and
benefits of CSA practices and serve as a basis for the identification of policy and institutional
options for the uptake of priority practices.
An important component for building the evidence base, while building capacity, will be the
project’s support for Masters and PhD student research in areas of relating o the tradeoffs and
synergies between food security, adaption to climate change, and mitigation of GHG
emissions. Faculties are encouraged to contribute as Co-Principal Investigators or
supervisors. A call for student proposals will be advertised after project approval based on the
detailed topics identified for analysis and research grants will be awarded after the selection
process is carried out. The project will also support capacity building for MARD engagement
in international negotiations affecting the agriculture sector (in particular agriculture at
UNFCCC meetings).
The project is being funded by the EC, with a budget of 1 million USD for each partner
country over three years. The project is interregional and is also being implemented in Malawi
and Zambia, which provides opportunities for the exchange of experiences and lessons
learned. We are mindful that the budget is not large but the project is timely and could
contribute to the achievement of MARD targets on agriculture and climate change.
Regional Focus
Vietnam is likely to be among the countries most affected by climate change, and its farmers
are among the most vulnerable to climatic disruption, both in coastal areas and in the
highlands. The choice of regional focus for the project is driven by two factors:
1. Regions where agricultural vulnerability to climate change is a key risk to food
security for households;
35
2. Areas where suitable data is available to analyze barriers to adoption of climate smart
practices and provide evidence-based policy advice.
The first point tends to exclude areas where off-farm income from urban and non-farm
sources is a major and increasing source of household income, since the focus of the project
is on managing agriculture for food security under climate change. The second requirement
will direct the project where there are data available on households and production decisions,
and where there have been changes in adoption of new techniques (for which we could test
drivers of adoption).
With respect to these two criteria the FAO team believes that the Northern Mountainous
region is the best candidate for inclusion in the project. In the Northern Uplands farming
remains the most important economic sector and the population in this region is increasing.
Currently, the Northern Uplands remains among the poorest regions in the country (29%
poverty rate compared to 17% in the rest of rural Vietnam). Research indicates that in this
area, food shortages and food insecurity due to climate shocks is already an issue (Fischer and
Buchenrieder, 2010).
Despite the challenging situation farmers face in the Northern Mountainous region,
considerable improvements have occurred in the last two decades in terms of intensifying
production, reforesting degraded lands, adopting new crop varieties, and diversifying into
other crops. The contribution of a number of MARD’s institutions (NOMAFSI, CASRAD,
and others) to these developments, are a valuable resource for the project objective to
understand barriers to adoption of new practices.
Given the resources available for the project and the factors mentioned above, we envision
undertaking activities in a limited number of provinces in the Northern Mountainous area.
Given also the need to rely on existing data we propose to focus on the provinces where
household level data are available. Upon preliminary investigation we have found the
following potentially useful data sources for understanding costs and benefits of CSA
practices and potential barriers to adoption:
(i) the Vietnam Access to Resources Household Survey (VARHS) led by the Central
Institute for Economic Management (CIEM);
(ii) The Agricultural Census, conducted by the GSO (2006 & 2011 forthcoming)
(iii)The Vietnam Household Living Standards Survey, conducted by the GSO.
In particular, the VARHS has been conducting detailed rural household surveys in 12
provinces of Vietnam every 2 years since 2006. The VARHS surveys collect detailed
information at the plot level on land use rights, the types/varieties of crops cultivated,
productivity, soil and water conservation infrastructure, expenditures on inputs; as well as
detailed information on other income generating activities, access to agricultural extension
services and credit, shocks and risk coping and social networks.
The VARHS data set covers four provinces in the northern region: Lao Cai, Lai Chau, Phu
Tho and Dien Bien. The data from 2006, 2008 and 2010 can be used to assess the costs and
benefits of some CSA practices, though the number of observations per province is small.
Based on the above consideration on data availability, the project is considering carrying out
36
the project in the three provinces of Lao Cai, Lai Chau, and Dien Bien. However, a final
decision would be made once an in-depth analysis of the data is made. The possibility of
working in other provinces such as Son La or Yen Bai should be taken into consideration
based on the other sources of data for those provinces.
The Northern Mountainous region has a considerable area of upland cultivation of maize on
very steep slopes subject to soil erosion, and subject to landslides. With climate change the
risks associated with soil erosion are likely to increase due to a higher frequency of extreme
events. Relevant topics that could be analyzed by the project as part of a CSA approach are
(i) sustainable land management practices for maize systems in the uplands and barriers to
their adoption, and (ii) diversification of productive activities into other crops (such as coffee
and tea) and the investments necessary for diversification to occur. Aspects of value chain
improvement could also be considered in this context, especially production and marketing as
they relate to Arabica coffee and higher value tea varieties.
To conclude, the FAO project team believes the Northern Mountainous region has the right
combination of relevance to the broader agricultural context, ongoing research by research
institutions, and general data availability in order to ensure that the project delivers its desired
impact, and we look forward to further discussions with MARD for finalizing the details of
the planned project activities.
Indicative Budget
-
From the donor:
€ 769,685 ($1,000,591)
Country’s contribution: $ 100.000
Below is an estimate of the funding that will flow to Vietnam as a partner country, by major
expenditure category. Agreements of collaboration with NOMAFSI and other in-country
research institutions would fall under the Contract/LOA item. The funding of students is
typically done through a partner institution to be decided in consultation with MARD. If for
example VAAS coordinates and manages the call for student proposals and the selection
process, then the budget for student funding would be transferred in its entirety to VAAS,
who would then carry out all coordination and supervisory functions concerning students
theses.
Technical Coordinator & Consultants
Contracts/LOAs [includes travel to field]
Funding of students (4 MSc, 1 PhD)
Travel (international)
Travel (local)
Training/Capacity Building
Expendable (stationary)
Non-expendables (computers)
Monitoring and Evaluation
General operating expenses
€ 165,000
€ 263,333
€ 120,000
€ 16,333
€ 10,000
€ 162,000
€ 5,550
€ 3,969
€ 12,500
€ 11,000
Total Euro
Total USD (1 euro=1.30 USD)
€ 769,685
$1,000,591
37
From its part, Vietnam will contribute an equivalent to US$ 100.000, including office space,
computer and other working facilities, salaries and allowance for NSC and support staff.
Details of this contribution will be decided during the inception phase, might include:
38