1

Articulating policy mixes across scales & sectors to address adaptation to climate change challenges

in vulnerable tropical agricultural landscapes

D01a : Kick off meeting Montpellier, 16-18/01/2018 Jean-Francois Le Coq (CIRAD / CIAT)

With the support

of:

2

This work was supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) as part of its programme:

Resource Management and Adaptation to Climate Change (DS01) 2017,

bearing the reference ANR-17-CE03-0005

ARTIMIX aims to determine the conditions for success in the design and

implementation of policy mixes to support adaptation to climate change in

vulnerable tropical agricultural territories in Guadeloupe and Martinique, Brazil

and Colombia.

This project, funded by the ANR, is led by a multidisciplinary team of researchers in

political science, economics, sociology, agronomy, animal science and

environmental science from CIRAD, INRA, IT2, UAG, UnB and CIAT.

Project objective:

1. Analyze the concepts addressing adaptation in agriculture (agroecology, climate-

smart agriculture, ecosystem-based adaptation) and how they are taken into

account in climate change adaptation policies

2. Identify the factors favoring or limiting their implementation by considering their

coordination with sectoral policies

3. Characterize how current policy mixes affect farmers' practices and their socio-

economic and environmental outcomes.

3

Table of Contents

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4

Workshop content .................................................................................................................................... 4

1) General introduction......................................................................................................................... 4

2) Presentation of adaptation issues and existing policy dynamics at the 3 project sites ................... 7

3) WP1: Concepts and Policy Integration (E. Sabourin, A. Fallot, M. Hrabanski) ................................. 9

4) WP2: Policy implementation and coordination (MG. Piketty & G. Massardier) ............................ 15

5) WP3: Adoption of practices at producer level and their results (N. Andrieu and A. Fanchone) .... 21

6) Review of previous sessions and return to the field....................................................................... 23

7) Project organization and communication strategy ........................................................................ 26

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 28

Annex 1: List of Participants.................................................................................................................... 29

Annex 2: Programme of the project launch workshop ........................................................................... 30

4

Introduction

The kick-off workshop of Artimix project took place from 16 to 18 January 2018, at CIRAD in Montpellier.

It brought together 14 researchers involved in the implementation of the different tasks of the project

(see list of participants in Annex 1). Beyond a reminder of the objectives and expected products of the

project, this workshop aimed at : 1) building a shared understanding of the concepts mobilized in the

project; 2) making an inventory of existing research on the different study sites of the project; 3) and

clarifying the working methodology for the different tasks of the project, and in particular for its first

component on the analysis of the dynamics of concepts and their uses in policies (WP1).

This report includes the various presentations made during the kick-off workshop1 and reports the main

results and conclusions (see detailed programme in Annex 2).

Workshop content

1) General introduction

Objectives and programme of the Artimix project (JF Le Coq)

Problems identified and project entry points:

At the international level: several concepts attempt to articulate development and adaptation to

climate change (CC), but they generate many debates in terms of objectives, principles and

interpretation problems: why are these concepts not sufficiently operationalized in public

policies?

At the national level: adaptation policy documents exist but little effective implementation

At farm level: Climate Smart labelled practices are identified but their adoption remains limited,

either because farmers have a low perception of CC problems, or because they do not have

information on practices or their results

Lack of linkages between international agenda, national policies, producers' practices

o What operationalization of concepts? What combinations of relevant and coherent

policies and instruments? What role do public policy instruments play in the adoption of

agricultural practices that increase farmers' resilience?

o To what extent are concepts related to CC adaptation integrated into policies? Do they

facilitate the development of a coherent set of adaptation policy measures?

The project also plans to create spaces for dialogue with stakeholders with a succession of analytical

phases and dialogue phases with stakeholders allowing a feedback on practices, instruments and

concepts.

1 The presentations are available on the dropbox: ANR-Artimix \ 20 Kick off : https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nm6bjvnq5wgydih/AABJzlnyQiMvPXjhtiI_PtCea?dl=0

5

Comments and discussion:

Clarification of participants' expectations and identification of elements to be further clarified:

Specific situation

In Guadeloupe and Martinique, the CC's challenges are also characterized by the problem of rising

water levels

Clarification on the objectives and organization of the project:

o We are not looking for optimality: the objective is not to define the optimal combination

of instruments but rather to build an understanding of the existing combinations (as

results of the sets of actors) and the forms of articulation between these instruments

o We will try to explain the differences between the fields / sectors (factors explaining the

differences observed in terms of policy combinations, with entry through the actors'

interplay)

o WP1 must have sufficient knowledge of the content of public policies, WP2 must provide

a detailed understanding of the instruments, so that we can have a feedback on practices,

instruments, concepts

o WP1 and WP2 should be considered as a continuum

Policy mix

o Need for a policy mix definition

o Possible diversity of typologies of instruments: e.g.: governance instrument / technical

instrument affecting producers' practices (those that directly influence producers'

behavior)

o In the case of Brazil: ABC plan finally has few adaptation actions, in the North East Semi

Arid the 1 Million tanker programme is more related to the issue of adaptation to the CC

(drought, access to water) than the ABC plan itself; The instruments can remain on paper

or not; Also take into account municipal initiatives that can be decisive

o How many instruments in the policy mix should be considered => proposed instrument

identification process: 1) inventory of instruments, 2) check whether the instruments are

mobilized / implemented / or not, 3) selection of instruments (mix instrument) to be

considered by defining criteria in order to have a diversity of situations between countries

o Need to clarify the notion of a "sucessfull" policy mix in terms of support for producers

in a transformation process towards greater resilience

How to achieve the multi-level analysis? => Integration of the different WPs of the project

On the political process

o How to measure the effectiveness of open governance? In general, in open processes

(such as the Grenelle de l'environnement), it is necessary to reconcile participation and

technicality. So what about effectiveness in terms of openness, to what extent do the final

decisions reflect the demands of the actors? The paradox of open governance is that it

can lead to difficulties / delays in terms of implementation and effectiveness

o Policies can be relayed without civil society actors: the problem of translation by

technicians

6

o How to measure the "security" of decision-making in the face of an uncertain process

such as climate change. How is it defined? One option would be to use the Delphi Method

to allocate points and evaluate the decision

o Define who is responsible for regulation, even if the environment is a transversal domain,

the environment has been created as a sector;

o Need to consider the prioritization issue (and identify who is prioritizing?); Who is

responsible for CC regulation, is it a priority objective for stakeholders (prioritization of

objectives within and between sectors) e. g. in Brazil, agriculture must adapt to the CC

and reduce its emissions, but the export of commodities by Agrobusiness is key for the

country and is therefore a priority in relation to CC issues => How to identify economic

priorities and the prioritization made by the stakeholders?

o Consider the power issues between sectors and on which legitimacy it is based

o Type of sectorization / desectorization: need to define a methodology to identify the role

of power

Form of CC integration and sectorisation:

o Has CC regulation become a policy area?

o To what extent are adaptation policies built or existing policies adapted to the new

responsibility to manage climate issues (sectors are given the responsibility to act to solve the

climate problem)

On the evolution and dynamics of policies:

o In sectors, tendency to "change for not changing"

o Need to clarify one or more theories of change; to do this, need a descriptive table and

analysis of changes

o Change analysis: impact of the energy-climate plan, sector was not in the accompaniment,

but rather internationalization of the change (cf. Yves paper)... internationalization =

approximation of objectives in their own strategy

Summary of the discussion points

- Analysis grid proposed by WP1 (see Eric Sabourin's PWP) to be refined and validated

- Need for knowledge of the terrain / territorial level (and their problems) to define and limit the

number of instruments considered in the combinations of instruments

- Need for coordination of the 3 WPs to define the relevant policy mixes for the analysis to be

conducted in WP2 and WP3

7

2) Presentation of adaptation issues and existing policy dynamics at the 3 project sites

CC adaptation policy and agricultural development in Guadeloupe/Martinique

Yves Montouroy (UA)

In France, two issues with regard to the CC: mitigation and adaptation. Concerning mitigation, the political agenda is now clear, specific instruments are dedicated and inclusion in the set of actors and regulation of sectors. For adaptation following the Paris Agreement (COP21), creation of a second adaptation plan for the CC with a roadmap and 6 main lines of action: 1) Governance and management, 2) Knowledge and information, awareness-raising, 3) Prevention and resilience, 4) Adaptation and preservation of environments, 5) Vulnerability of economic sectors, 6) Strengthening of international action. But the agenda has yet to be drawn up, consultations are ongoing, the range of actors, the problems addressed and the instruments still to be defined and analyzed.

In terms of agriculture and CC, two dimensions are involved: climatic hazards (extreme weather events, rapid point variations, pathogen risks and flood/submersion) and medium- to long-term changes (recurrence, precipitation regime, average temperature and sunshine, crop calendar/predictability, salinization, sea level rise).

CC adaptation policy and agricultural development in Brazil

Carolina Milhorance / Marcel Bursztyn (UnB)

Brazil is the 7th largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet, and the second in terms of emissions related to land use change, third in terms of emissions related to agriculture. Land use change and agriculture account for 51% and 22% of Brazil's emissions respectively. Brazil and in particular the northeast region is particularly vulnerable to CC (increased frequency and magnitude of droughts). The effects of CC are not the main determinants of drought vulnerability in the northeast. Beyond climate, the socio-economic context and forms of water and land management increase the vulnerability of rural populations. Moreover, according to production systems, vulnerability and drought response strategies differ.

The institutional framework of the CC in Brazil is composed of 6 elements (Figure 1). The National CC Policy (NCCP) dates from 2009; and the National CC Adaptation Plan from 2016. 11 sectoral and thematic plans outline its policy frameworks. The concept of "Ecosystem based adaptation" is mentioned but in a superficial way.

The national adaptation plan for the CC does not provide new elements but is a combination of existing sectoral policies (layering?), structured around 4 main strategic axes (agriculture, food and nutritional security, biodiversity and ecosystem, population vulnerability). In each of these areas, multiple specific programs are considered.

The integration of climate change into policies leads to several types of tensions/conflicts: 1) political-institutional conflicts (e. g. between agribusiness and family agriculture in the ABC plan, between agricultural and environmental policy); 2) conflicts over the use of resources (e. g. in the use of water in the São Francisco basin between uses for irrigation, hydropower, transport and human consumption); 3) between mitigation and adaptation (e. g. on the development of hydro and wind or solar energy in response to local populations' lifestyles...).

8

Figure 1: Institutional framework for addressing climate change issues in Brazil

Policy integration is a political process that goes beyond the combination of instruments that interact. Integration involves conflicts between actors and agendas at different administrative levels and is based on power games. The combination of instrument types (science and technology, extension, market access, food safety net) is an approach that promotes producer resilience (combining generic development capacity building and specific capacities related to climate issues). There is a poor alignment of federal actions at the field level; this is not only the result of fragmentation problems but also of a lack of human and financial resources. The influence of local policies is strong with issues of program discontinuity and clientelism.

CC adaptation policy and agricultural development in Colombia

Jeimar Tapasco (CIAT)

Climate policy and institutions related to climate issues have been built in line with the international agenda since the 1990s (Figure 2). The main policy frameworks that make up Colombian climate policy are currently: the 2011 Conclusions, the Colombian Low Carbon Development Strategy, the National REDD+ Strategy, the National Contribution (INDC), and the National Climate Change Adaptation Plan (PNACC). These plans are divided into sector plans. In addition, the institutional framework also includes the establishment of specific local coordination structures at regional level (regional nodes) and integrated regional CC plans.

9

Figure 2: Chronology of policies and instruments in response to the CC in Colombia

However, the implementation of these instruments and institutions at local level (region, department) is lagging behind and varies greatly from region to region. The processes for building these local instruments also differ; they can be based on dynamics driven by local levels (local government) or driven from the national level (either through agricultural unions or by the central administration - national planning department).

3) WP1: Concepts and Policy Integration (E. Sabourin, A. Fallot, M. Hrabanski)

Presentations

Inventory of the dynamics of scientific production on concepts (CSA, Agro Eco, AbE, AbN)

based on a bibliometric and bibliographic review

Marie Hrabanski (ART-Dev)

While an evolutionary vision of global environmental regimes was generally mobilized in the literature, recent work now highlights the interdependencies between regimes, which can no longer be analyzed in a segmented and independent way, but according to analyses in terms of "complex regimes".

Concepts mobilized in the international CC regime:

- Within the IPCC created in 1988, the idea of adaptation to the CC appeared in the 1990 report; but it was seen as the adoption of technical measures for adaptation and not for the transformation of practices; this was only possible in 2001.

- In the Climate Convention (UNFCC): in 1992, the idea of adaptation appeared but was not central. It becomes more central and corresponds to a transformation of practices from 2001 onwards (in line with the notion of vulnerability). From then on, the notion of adaptation increases in power and becomes a priority on the political agenda, but the main priority remains mitigation.

10

Agriculture is present before 2009 in the international climate agenda but is only taken into account for

itself after 2009, under the impetus of the FAO, which supports NAPAS, then NAP, (constitution of an

agriculture group in the UNFFCC).

Concepts related to responses for agriculture: 1) Nature-based solutions (AbN) from 2000, taken up by

BN, EU, IUCN; 2) Agro-ecology: revisited in the 2000s to reconcile different ecological/economic entry

points, social and climate justice, 3) Climate-smart agriculture promoted by FAO (among others) and

mainly addresses technical aspects, unlike agro-ecology.

Controversy on concepts for adaptation to climate change based on a selection of cases of use

of the concept in policies (INDC/adaptation policy)

Abigail Fallot (Green)

What about the introduction of concepts in policy documents such as INDCs and national adaptation plans

to the CC?

The analysis of policy documents from Brazil, Colombia and France shows that several concepts are being

used to address adaptation issues in the CC (Table 1)

Table 1Concepts used to address CC adaptation in agriculture in INDCs and adaptation plans in Brazil, Colombia and France (Martinique/Guadeloupe)

Brazil Colombia Martinique & Guadeloupe

INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution

building RESILIENCE reducing VULNERABILITY provision of ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

RESILIENT development VULNERABLE country, areas… SOCIO-ECOSYSTEM-based adaptation

European Union's INDC on mitigation only

Specific considerations emphasis?

importance of biofuels, forest conservation and restoration ecosystem-based adaptation

context of peace building and poverty reduction community-based adaptation

atypical French territories involved in the CARICOM ‘Regional Framework for Achieving Development Resilient to Climate Change’ ACC and Disaster Risk Reduction

NAP National Adaptation Plan

PNAMC : agriculture is subject to one of the 11 strategies. The plan includes risk and vulnerability monitoring, objectives of sustainability and resilience

PNACC: rural development (low carbon and climate resilient) and ecosystem management (for adaptation & mitigation) are 2 or the 5 strategic lines

National VAC Strategy Risk mapping Oversee specificities in terms of vulnerability and adaptation Agriculture is one of the 6 sectors (account for changes, improve water management)

Different definitions of CC adaptation:

- At international level (IPCC): Adaptation = « The process of adjustment to actual or expected climate

and its effects. In human systems, adaptation seeks to moderate or avoid harm or exploit beneficial

opportunities. In some natural systems, human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected

climate and its effects »

11

- At national level: Brésil = « sustainable development with best practices for risk management and

reduction”; Colombia = “complementary strategy to disaster risk management to face climate

change and variability” ; France = “adaptation aims at reducing our vulnerability to the

consequences of CC”

- Analytical definitions

o Simple : development in a more hostile climate (Nicholas Stern 2009), climate-resilient

development (World Bank 2009)

o Normative : successful adaptation = effectiveness, efficiency, equity, legitimacy (Adger et al.

2005)

o Por default: adaptation is the contrary of maladaptation, that increases vulnerability by (1)

increasing GHG emissions, (2) disproportionately burdening the most vulnerable, (3) high

opportunity costs, (4) reducing incentives to adapt, and (5) path dependency (Barnett &

O'Neill 2010)

There is a debate about how to know if you are adapting. In fact, there are different approaches

depending on whether we consider different time horizons (short term - ST or long term - LT) (Table 2).

Table 2: Types of evaluation approach by issues and observations in the short and long term

Typologies of adaptation actions: several classifications exist according to objectives, modes of

implementation, or institutional form:

- Ecosystem-based; risk prevention and management; infrastructure (basic)

- Technological development; governmental programmes and insurance mechanisms; production

practices; finance management; farm financial management; + one indirect option, information (for

the agricultural sector, Smit & Skinner 2002)

- Physical investments ; intangible investments ; risk prevention and insurance instruments ; political

action (EcoAdapt project)

- Structural and physical options, social options, institutional options (IPCC AR5)

- Governance measures, technological adaptation and infrastructure, ecosystem-based (IPCC case

studies)

- Structural options, risk prevision and management, collective use of information (companion

assessment proposal)

12

According to the concepts mobilized (vulnerability, risk, resilience), the reflection on the actions to be

taken to adapt changes (see vulnerability: IPCC, 2011; risk: IPCC, 2016; resilience: Bene 2016)

Ultimately, adaptation to CC is an "interlocking" concept without a unanimous definition. Whatever the

definitions, there is a margin for interpretation, which implies consultation, since policies cannot refer

precisely and unambiguously to a predefined concept. Many interpretation issues, relating to the

prioritization and consistency of what is important for adaptation, the consideration of different time

horizons, and uncertainty.

Proposed question to be included in the analysis grid

- In the analysis of policy construction: - To what extent are CC characteristics (phenomenon over the long term, uncertainties

and irreversibilities…) considered when the concepts of adaptation, vulnerability, risk, resilience are mobilized?

- Who is involved in the choice, the use and clarification of concepts ? - What are the arguments put forward when asserting that an adaptation option reduces

vulnerability or increases resilience ? - …

- Question to ask the actors involved: • On the definition of adaptation: How do you know what you are adapting? • On the type of adaptation: What are the ways and means to adapt? • On vulnerability to CC or climate risks: what are the priority needs and for whom in terms of

adaptation?

Methodological proposal for policy mapping and concept integration in policies

Eric Sabourin (Art-Dev)

Research question and objective of WP1:

- « In which measure the concepts for CC adaptation are integrated in policies and enable a

coherent design of adaptation to CC policy instrument mix? ”

- ”Taking stocks of adaptation to CC concepts and analyses their integration in policies”

Tasks: - A critical review of concepts proposed to deal with CC adaptation in tropical landscapes (such as

EbA, Agro-ecology, CSA,…); - An analysis of current national policy frameworks, analyzing the degree of reliance to these

concepts, their characteristics in terms of content, to identify the national adaptation to CC policy mix.

Products • A critical state of the art on these concepts, contributing to a homogenization of understanding

within the ARTIMIX research team • Map the policies and instruments affecting farmers’ adaptation to CC and define pertinent policy

mix (instruments related explicitly or not to CC adaptation) to be considered in policy implementation analysis (WP2).

13

• At the end of the project, putting in perspective results from WP2 and WP3, WP1 will generate a dialogue between actors involved in policy design and implementation to develop recommendations regarding policy contents for CC adaptation.

Methodological proposal

Assumptions

On the integration of concepts into national policies:

- International concepts are not mobilized by national actors (because they are not known)

- Concepts are not explicitly mobilized in policy documents (CC Adaptation Strategic Plan)

- Other concepts are mobilized (which ones?)

On the dynamics of construction / development of adaptation policies to the CC in relation to agriculture

in countries and territories:

- Key role of the international agenda (climate regime?) through a diffusion and translation

process (methodological issue: how to measure the relative importance of international and

national influence in policy making processes)

- on policy mix configurations (inter sectors?)

- dominant position of agribusiness in the definition of climate policies for agriculture

Specific research questions

• Which concept (general / specific to agriculture) are mobilized (mentioned) in CC national / local policies regarding CC adaptation?

• HYP : specific concept to agriculture (CSA / agroeco / EbA/NbA) are not mobilized • HYP : General concept such as resilience, adaptation capacity, are mobilized

• Why these concepts are used? or not ? • HYP to CC / general concepts are known/unknown , operational or not, etc

• What is the dynamic of diffusion / translation of these concepts in national concept? Which processes? What are the key actors?

• What are the consequences of the use of such concepts? • Do they bring innovation? • Do they enable more coordinated policies?

WP1 analysis grid proposal

1) Policy mapping

- Identify existing policies and instruments (objectives, narrative, justification, targeting, origin,

implementation, financing, target audiences) = policy mapping at sectoral and intersectoral level

=> Characterization of the policy mix

=> Methodological issues: definition of the policy mix according to producers' issues or based on

existing documents,

- Analysis of policy documents + targeted interviews

- What vision or theory of change included in the documents and by the operators

14

2) Dynamics of change: since 1993 (historic beginning of these policies after the 1992 sustainable

development conference)

- Construct a time line, identify key moments and trajectories of policies and instruments

- Characterize the degree of innovation in relation to pre-existing policies:

What innovations related to the CC issue? Is there a recycling of pre-existing tools and policies?

At what levels and scales?

- Characterize the way in which climate issues are integrated into agricultural policies (see Rayner

and Howlett's (2009) proposal: 5 integration modes: "layering"2, "drift"3, "conversion"4,

"replacement"5and "exhaustion"6.

3) Actors/institutions

- Actors, responsibilities and functions (at different levels)

- Interest groups and coalitions and the controversies between them

- Key individuals (policy entrepreneurs, smugglers, translators)

Method of identifying actors and qualitative interviews (snowball,...)

4) Ideas: Characterization of dominant ideas and models in existing policies + ideas from

stakeholders

- Interpretation of the CC issue

- Role and mobilization of climate information

- CC Response Models: Adaptation and Mitigation

- Uses and integration of concepts: global (EBA, NBA,...), specific (CSA, Agroecology, vulnerability,

resilience)

- Information flows and forms of concept integration

- Influence of international agendas

Methods and protocol

- Inventory and review of policy documents (strategy, plan,...)

- Maintenance => construction of a common maintenance guide to be planned

Analysis method: Network analysis, Discourse analysis

2 Layering is defined as a process where new objectives and instruments are simply added to those of existing regimes without abandoning previous ones. 3 Drift' occurs when policy change objectives evolve without changing the instruments to implement them (with risks of inconsistency between objectives and instruments). 4 Conversion involves a situation where new combinations of instruments are introduced while the objectives remain unchanged. 5 Endogenous displacement is a process of rediscovering alternative logics and possibilities inherent in the existing complex regime. 6 Exhaustion occurs when a regime discredits itself over time, and creates the conditions for a radical change generated endogenously.

15

Comment and conclusion: Multiple theoretical corpuses are possible for policy analysis (ACF, MSF,...),

during the workshop no definitive choice of a single framework was made. But depending on the field

data, the relevant framework will be chosen. The approach by the coalition of actors (ACF, Sabatier)

nevertheless seems to attract the attention of the majority of participating researchers

Methodological test of the use of Big Data approach for public policy analysis: some results of

the use of text corpus analysis

Muriel Bonin & M Roche (CIRAD, Tetis)

The use of text mining tools makes it possible to quickly identify proximities and referential mobilized by

different types of actors (illustration on the case of the controversy on airborne phytosanitary treatments

in Guadeloupe/Martinique)

Comments and conclusion: These tools could be used in Artimix, in addition to the analysis of speeches

(based on qualitative interview data with stakeholders) or on several texts, the possibility of a specific

training course using these approaches will be evaluated during the first year of the project (and its

feasibility according to the means available).

Conclusions of the session

- Consolidate a common analysis grid and interview guides (to be adapted to situations)

Basic elements common to the studies of the different fields: - Make a list of policies related to field issues (to involve WP3 researchers) by mobilizing a top-

down and bottom-up approach. - Historical framework of policies and instruments (agriculture / CC + others by aggregation)

- Identification of key elements and events, particularly in relation to the international agenda,

but also subnational ("focusing events")

- Policy content analysis: including use of concepts and nature of instruments (typology of

instruments and combination of instruments)

- Interviews with stakeholders: use and understanding of concepts

Outstanding (to be defined after the workshop): - Data analysis method: discourse analysis, network analysis?

Mobilization of text corpus analysis with software developed by Tetis - Each field will define a specific conceptual framework to interpret the integration of concepts

(policy transfer, translation,...) and policy processes

4) WP2: Policy implementation and coordination (MG. Piketty & G. Massardier)

Presentations

Implementation and coordination issues (MG Piketty)

Climate governance is increasingly polycentric (Jordan & al., 2015) i.e. a complex form of governance with

multiple decision-making centres, operating with some degrees of autonomy (E. Ostrom, 2005; V. Ostrom,

Tiebout, & Warren, 1961). Adaptation strategies are more recent and can be defined as combinations of

16

policies and measures initiatives to reduce vulnerability to CC (Biesbroek et al., 2010). More and more

research points out that successful adaptation requires integration of strategies across sectors and

multiple levels of governance that coordinate (Biesbroek et al,. 2010). Societies have always adapted to

climate change, but not in an explicitly coordinated way. With the CC issue, adaptation has become an

explicit goal and organizing principle (Dovers and Hezri, 2010).

Proposed definition of Policy mix

The implementation of a policy mix for adaptation to the CC (for the project) = a combination of

evolving policy instruments that aim to reduce vulnerability to climate change (adapted from Barton

et al. 2017) and that are implemented by interacting organizations/actors.

This has several implications:

- A policy mix is not established by decree but is the result of social and political processes

resulting from interactions between actors at different levels.

- The instruments are "translated"/adapted by the actors to the characteristics of socio-

ecosystems (Davenport et al 2017)

- As with policies for promoting sustainable land use changes, it is premature to propose an

optimal mix of instruments (Lambin et al. 2014).

- Need for observation of "on-the-ground adaptation" observation (Biagini & al., 2014)

- Need for rigorous benchmarking to better understand how best to combine, sequence, target

policies (Lambin et al. 2014)

Implementation and coordination

Climate policy integration (CPI) is a particular case of environmental policy integration (EPI) (Runhaar et

al. 2014). There are many barriers to the CPI (Biesbroek et al. 2013): more than 200 identified barriers

(classified into financial barriers, knowledge and information barriers, cognitive barriers, socio-cultural

barriers, institutional barriers, etc.). It is important to highlight the socio-cultural and institutional barriers

that are context-specific. There is a great lack of research gaps in terms of how IPE and IPC are

implemented in practice and how this can be explained (Runhaar et al. 2014)

Research question

In the project proposal, the research question of WP2 is formulated as follow: “What are the enabling and

limiting factors for an effective implementation of CC adaptation policies articulated across sectors and

scales?”

This question raises problems: what is an effective implementation? A notion that is difficult to evaluate

for a policy mix in a given context, and risks making a new list of barriers without going deeper into what

is behind it, which explains a successful articulation/coordination for CC adaptation between scales and

sectors.

17

Proposal of reformulated questions:

- What are the enabling and limiting factors of a successful or innovative articulation of CC

adaptation policies across sectors and scales?

- What are the enabling and limiting factors of a successful of innovative articulation of CC

adaptation policies across policy instruments? (integration)

- What are solutions for “design problems associated with more complex arrangements” (Howlett,

Vince, del Rio, 2017) in a context of very polycentric policy process? (stakeholders coordination)

Proposed Timetable

June - Sept 2019:

- A description of existing policy instruments on the ground that promote producers' adaptation to

the CC: inventory of policy instruments (WP1 + list of regional / national / territorial instruments

(land tenure, decentralization, protected areas...), incentives (PES, sectors, training...), technology

(tree planting, genetics...) (Agrawal et al, 2014);

- An inventory of governance spaces (participation space, planning...)

- A first analysis of interactions (e.g. complementarities, substitution, antagonism)

In 2020:

- Data collection (January 2019 to August 2019) / Data analysis (September 2019 to February 2020

- Identification of enabling and limiting factors affecting a successful articulation of adaptation

policies: political processes and governance (relevant actors and institutions, multi-level political

coalitions)

Third set of results (December 2020):

- A set of recommendations to improve the successful articulation of adaptation policies, in their

implementation context

18

Assumptions on variables influencing coordination between levels, actors, sectors and articulation /

integration between instruments

Table 3: Idiotypes of coordination mode, types of actors involved and effectiveness criteria

Type of co-ordination/

types of actors and effectiveness

Sectoral regulation Policy networks Very polycentric process

Actors mobilized - Sector experts - Sectoral professionals (public/private) - Sectoral interests/lobbies

- Experts of various sectors - civil society - politics - scientists

- Experts of various sectors - civil society - politics - scientists

Effectiveness - Decisional spaces more reduced (number of decision spaces and of actors) and closed - Routinized decision process and tool implementation - More quickness/reactivity - More sectoral based: deep core of ideas - More robustness of decision/decisional and advocacy security - Less coordination between sectors - Less innovative

- Informal decisional spaces - Processing but routinized decision process and tool implementation - More or less lengthwise decision and implementation - Conflicts between networks - Decisions and implementation less guaranteed on long term - More intersectoral/or horizontal - Stable conflicts

- Difficulties to identify decisional spaces - More processing/decisional and implementation lengthwise - Controversies - Decisional and advocacy insecurity - More inter-sectoral and/or horizontal - Volatile conflicts

19

Table 4: Assumptions of involvement of the dominant types of coordination in terms of integration and effectiveness of coordination

Hypotheses for explaining the policy mix processes

Sectoral process Networking process Very polycentric

process

Integration between tools

Sector + Transversal -

Transversal + Transversal ++

Effectiveness of co-ordination during implementation process

Quickness +++ Reactivity +++ Innovation - - - Security of decisions ++

Quickness + Reactivity + Innovation +/- Security of decision +/-

Quickness - - - Reactivity - - - Innovation ++ Security of decision - -

Proposal for a method of analysis (ACF) and example of a study

Gilles Massardier

To analyze the interactions between the instruments: type of Flanagan mixes (according to target

populations, objectives...) but the operational question remains: What is the mix to be analyzed? How to

explain this mix?

The ACF approach was born from research on lake management in California. This approach opposed the

then dominant school of rational choice, emphasizing the importance of ideas in policy processes. This

approach considers that coalitions are stable over time because they share the same perception of the

problem and how to manage it. Coalitions dominate a policy subsystem. For policy change to occur, it

requires either an event that changes the relationships between coalitions or learning processes within

coalitions.

Gilles proposes to mobilize a method tested as part of the Bluegrass ANR that makes it possible to

integrate a detailed analysis of coalitions by adding the multi-level dimension and the social attributes of

the actors. In addition, it makes it possible to identify brokers (actors acting between levels and coalitions).

A sociology of brokers can be useful because these actors have specific attributes. In addition, it is

necessary to identify and analyse these brokers because they can have a decisive role in understanding

"how do the actors build the mix? ».

Within coalitions, we can identify a regular system of interactions (regularity of integrations), exchanges

of resources (access to decisions, funding, etc.). For example: stress on water in relation to CC and

increasing urbanization.

Comments

- Clarify the notion of policy mix / instrument mix => continue the literature review, and the "scope" of

the policy / instrument mix to be considered

- Need to characterize the relevant policy mix in each of the case studies in order to be able to

implement the method (and explain this policy mix)

- How to adapt the method proposed and tested on an instrument to a range of instruments?

20

- How many interviews are required to do this type of analysis? :

about thirty / forty interviews may be sufficient, we stop when we obtain redundancy... (in the

case of the application in the case of water management in Sau paulo in Brazil: 70 interviews of 1h30

were necessary)

- The person in charge of conducting interviews with the actors has an important role in this method

because it is he who enters the information (which allows a unified interpretation of the results of

qualitative interviews)

- The use of this approach (ACF) must be linked to a problem and a response, how to adapt it to the

issue of adaptation to climate change

- Possible reorganization of coalitions (e.g. study following Katarina, to show how to rethink policy) =>

possible methodological problem: how to account for the recomposition of coalitions over time?

Conclusions and conclusions

Point to be addressed or further developed:

- Clarify / stabilize an operational definition of policy mix / instrument mix for the project

- Need for a specific work block to define how to evaluate good / innovative coordination (starting

from the literature review initiated to complete the proposal presented during the workshop)

- Define the operational links between WP1 and WP2, to increase synergies, e.g. joint interviews with

the same actors

- Assess the feasibility of using a detailed coalition analysis that requires a significant investment of

processing time

21

5) WP3: Adoption of practices at producer level and their results (N. Andrieu and A. Fanchone)

Presentations of the analytical tools and methods available for the analysis of adaptation to CC at producer

level

This session aimed to present and discuss a proposal for an overall analytical framework for WP3 and

the different analytical tools and methods available (Figure 3)

Figure 3: Organization and tasks of WP3, overall analytical framework and available analysis tools

Five tools were presented and their advantages / limitations specified:

- Life cycle assessment (LCA) in Martinique (Laetitia nelson, IT2)

- Viability of island systems in Guadeloupe (Audrey Fanchone, INRA)

- Analysis of ecological networks in Guadeloupe (Audrey Fanchone, INRA)

- CSA calculator in Colombia (Nadine Andrieu, CIRAD/Ciat)

- LCA in Colombia (Nadine Andrieu, CIRAD/Ciat)

22

A synthesis of the characteristics, interests and limitations of the different analysis tools (Table 5) was

presented and discussed

Table 5: Summary of the characteristics of the interests/limitations of the tools for the analysis of outcomes at the level of producers and sectors

Tools & Tools Features and characteristics Interest and limits

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in Martinique

Standard and systematic method Includes all steps ("cradle to grave") Climate variables (C, water) considered Possibility of integrating social variables (although complex)

IT2 experience in Guadeloupe/Martinique (LCA banana 2009 and 2013) IT2 work axis

Viability of island systems

Based on viability theory, considers dynamic systems under stress Assessment variable = vulnerability Characterization of systems in agro-ecological terms

INRA experience in Guadeloupe (+) considers the notion of CC and dynamics (+) consideration of economic indicators (-) need for knowledge on the impact of practices on state variables and the impact of disruption on practices (+) Reference farm that can be mobilized (-) requires a significant research investment

Analysis of ecological networks

Based on systemic analysis of the structure and ownership of ecosystem functioning Input-output model Evaluation variable= resilience Link between performance and resilience

INRA experience in Guadeloupe On nitrogen analysis, 8 typical farms (+) allows to consider the CC in a multi-criteria way (-) only nitrogen in the current model (-) need for information on the impact of practices

CSA Calculator Includes food security CIRAD/Ciat experience in Colombia Easy to use and participatory

LCA in Colombia

Ditto ACV Guadeloupe CIRAD/CIRAD experience in Colombia applied to coffee

Comments on the report

- How to measure practice adoption based on practices already tested (trial implemented on a

larger scale)

- Consider the effect of policy mix, need to take into account time and accessibility of instruments

Conclusions and conclusions

- The decision on the final choice of analytical tools for WP3 will depend on the availability of

information from each of the fields and will be evaluated in 2018.

23

6) Review of previous sessions and return to the field

Assessment: Consensus, points to work on, and interface tasks

The discussions during the first 2 days of the workshop highlighted several consensus:

- The project is based on a multi-level approach (WP articulation) and a dynamic vision

- It is not a question of defining normative which policy mixes work (optimization) but of explaining

their nature, origin, and the characteristics that explain them, and their implications on the

trajectories of the actors

- The research strategy must combine a top-down (policy towards producers) AND bottom-up

(producer issues to adapt to policies) approach

- Concepts are not the main factors in policy making processes, but depend on the interplay of actors

(interests, ideas, institutions) at national and subnational levels

- Instrument mixes are not the only factors that explain the dynamics / results at the producer level

- Two CSA / agro-ecology concepts (associated with resilience / vulnerability / adaptive capacity) are

the main concepts considered in the project

- The results of the analyses planned in the project are highly context-dependent

However, beyond the exchanges, specific points remain to be clarified and reflections are still necessary:

- For WP1, in order to 1) define the boundaries of the policy inventory to be considered, 2) refine

possible links between concepts and performance/effects measurement (at producer level) - link

between WP1 and WP3, 3) define a specific analytical framework on concept dynamics (regime) and

their integration at national level (policy transfer?), 4) validate a common methodological guideline

(with common elements and specific elements).

- For WP2, in order to 1) refine the analytical frameworks and in particular clarify the definitions to be

used to understand the policy mix / instruments mix: by specifying in particular the criteria of the

policy/instrument mix (configuration or types of mix), criteria to characterize the coordination modes,

specify the links between specific hypotheses and proposed methodology (ACF, network analysis); 2)

specify a definition, a typology, instruments (distinguishing in particular between instruments directly

affecting producers - incentives, prohibitions, etc. - and which can be understood at WP3 level, and

instruments affecting the institutional environment (committee, new forms of decisions, etc.)

influencing the governance of sectors and (very) indirectly producers, this clarification should be

based on a specific literature review

- For WP3, in order to 1) specify the choice of methods to be used; 2) choose performance evaluation

criteria (adaptability, resilience, vulnerability, adoption of practices); 3) integrate the social dimension

(equity) into the performance analysis; 3) define a model / approach to differentiate the effects of

policies within the multiple other factors that explain the adoption of practices and their results.

"Interface tasks" between WPs are necessary for the consistency of project execution (and to achieve

the expected results):

- Definition and justification of specific problem-prone areas and allowing (illustrative) comparability

of a diversity of problems and situations in terms of policy mix (March/April 2018). The criteria to be

24

considered are: available data (WP3), diversity of policy processes, and configuration of policy mixes

(envisaged), diversity of institutional contexts, use of concept and allowing to apprehend different

configurations of policy / instruments mix in order to identify conclusions with a certain generality

- Definition of the scope of the policy mix to be considered (to be planned at the end of the WP1

analytical phase: Sept / October 2018)

- Definition of performance evaluation criteria (end of WP1 analytical phase - Sept /Oct 2018)

Back in the field: synthesis and identification of explanatory variables and specific hypotheses

The objective of this work phase was to: 1) to identify the explanatory variables that may link the policy

processes on the one hand and the adaptation processes of producers in their context on the other

hand; 2) to specify the assumptions for the different scales of analysis and the transversal assumptions

on the configurations that can be observed in the field.

To do this, the different fields (in groups) had to develop a conceptual model linking the 3 research

questions of the project (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Draft conceptual model linking the different dimensions of the project

Feedback from the working groups and collective synthesis

This work phase was devoted to clarifying the stakes of the possible study fields, the advances in terms of

knowledge and the hypotheses specific to these fields. Working groups by field were formed, then a

summary of the results of the different groups was presented.

25

1) Brazil

The analyses of the project in Brazil will focus on the case of the semi-arid Nordeste Case. The aim will be

to focus research on climate change adaptation policies in the agricultural sector. The hypothesis is to

work in the Petrolina - Juazeiro region, and to take into account the federal and state policies of Bahia and

Pernambuco.

In this region, there are 3 main production systems: irrigated perimeters, rainfed agriculture and

recession/dam lake agriculture. Concerning WP 3, there are more elements of adaptation of rainfed family

agriculture to the CC (NGOs and POs, agroecology), but more monitoring data in irrigated systems

(Embrapa, Codesvasf). For irrigated agriculture, there are new conflicts over access to water, salinization,

water and energy costs. Concerning the concepts mobilized, this area of Brazil mainly mobilizes the

concepts of vulnerability, agro-ecology and organic production, as well as various certifications.

In line with WP1, several policies have already been identified, namely the ABC plan (nitrogen

management and organic matter), water-related policies (irrigation) in relation to water saving issues. For

rainfed agriculture, there are several public actions: tanks and dams, cohabitation programme with semi-

arid, semi-arid insurance, extension + Pronaf credit. Concerning WP2, the networks of actors are more

structured and participatory or collegial in irrigated areas (CODEVASF, Irrigation Districts, Organization by

sector, certification and export); the other actors are those of sustainable water management and water

saving.

2) Colombia

The concepts used are those of sustainable agriculture adapted to the climate (Agricultura sostenible

adaptado al clima - ASAC) - which is the Spanish translation of climate smart agriculture. Beyond national

policies focused on mitigation (low-carbon development strategy - LCCD), a national climate change

adaptation plan is being implemented and is reflected in the implementation of regional plans. As part of

the project, the implementation of these plans will be analyzed in 3 regions with different degrees of

implementation: the Cauca region, the Cauca valley and the Tolima. The Cauca region is a vulnerable

region where a regional plan has been defined under the impetus of national actors but with little

ownership by local institutions and actors, some of which promote ASAC planning and development. In

the Cauca Valley, planning for adaptation to the CC involves the agricultural unions (gremios) of the sector

(Fenalce), particularly for an area focused on maize cultivation (Buga region); finally, in the Tolima region,

where irrigated rice cultivation predominates, climate change planning is still limited.

3) Guadeloupe and Martinique

The sites will be Nord grande Terre, Sud Basse Terre and possibly Marie-Galante. The starting point of the

survey is to identify what we know about each field, in particular from the Guadeloupe Rural Development

Plan, which provides information on the instruments available at regional level (incentives MAE, POSEI,

Ecophyto, EAFRD, etc.) and then identify the actors who interact in Guadeloupe around these instruments

(public, private; professional organisations, associations, etc.). It will be just as important to focus on

agriculture organized around products, sectors and direct and indirect aids as agriculture outside the

professional organization, which has no access to financial aid or technical support. A transversal starting

point for understanding the fields and the action of the actors could be articulated around the

mobilization of professional organizations towards instruments and aids (political component) and the

26

DAFF (technical component)? Look at how this is happening in what is becoming a collective construction

of public policy: influence the selection of issues and instruments by Region through the adoption of sub-

measures to decline DFAIT in the territories and operations of the adhering members.

7) Project organization and communication strategy

This last session aimed to clarify the points relating to: 1) the functioning of the project (coordination

meeting...), 2) the communication of the project (leaflet, website, research gate, etc...), 3) the scientific

valorisation strategy and publication (publication charters, agenda, special journal number, congresses...)

as well as to define the agenda of the next steps and meetings of the project (calendar).

Coordination meetings

- During the first 8 months, meetings at field level will be held at the initiative of the coordinators of

the different fields (Audrey : Guadeloupe/Martinique, Eric : Brazil, JF : Colombia)

- Every 2 months, follow-up meetings will be held between WP leaders to coordinate the progress of

the work

Scientific Committee

A scientific committee is provided for in the project document, composed of Andrew Jarvis, Jean-Marc

Touzard, Bruno Locatelli. For scheduling reasons, it was not possible to bring it together for the launch

workshop, but it is proposed to call on them on an ad hoc basis to present the progress of the project and

obtain their feedback.

Internal communication

Dropbox project

To initiate, this dropbox has the following structure: Project doc, Library by theme, Library by field, Doc

Kick off, Field, Products... but the structure may evolve according to the needs and functioning of the

project. The content of the dropbox will be updated by all project members as the project progresses. A

specific Drop Box per field can be created if the need arises.

Other means envisaged

Proposal to use Whatsapp, but seems irrelevant at the moment.

External communication

- Graphic charter and logo

Ongoing, CIRAD's support service will propose a charter and logo April 2018

- Web site website

Under construction with the support of CIRAD's communication department. An address is available for

the working version: https://www-travail.artimix.fr. In June, it will then be switched to a publicly

accessible version: www.artimix.fr.

- Research Gate

27

A project profile has been set up on Research gate

- Flyer

Flyers in French, English and Spanish will be produced in pdf format and posted on the website.

Project communication strategy

- To/with decision makers (outcomes)

A project communication strategy will be developed and will be implemented in a differentiated way

according to the case/terrain (types of actors, degree of policy progress, etc.).

It will be necessary to specify: What changes are expected? For each of the sites, a "theory of change"

targeted by the project can be explained in terms of contribution to the construction and policy

implementation in the different sites of the project.

In order to better define the types of recommendations and prepare the feedback phase at the different

scales (task 3 of WP1, 2 and 3), the managers of the different fields will consider the possibility and

relevance of setting up local monitoring / steering committees, serving as an interface between the

project and local policy actors.

- To/A with development actors (outputs)

The project information will be disseminated through CCAFS blogs and announcements on the website of

the Public Policy and Rural Development Network in Latin America PPAL (https://www.pp-al.org).

At the end of the project, a webinar can be held on methodological or results aspects (in partnership with

IICA or the Andes network).

Participation in key national meetings, ensures that the project researchers set up the project.

Dissemination of information on the project: already underway with EAF and SEAD Brazil, via IT2

(Guadeloupe) for banana professionals.

- To the scientific community: Project publications (outputs)

Files planned in reviews (Climate policy, Sustainability, Agricultural System, Environment Planning) etc,

a list will be set up in google docs/drop box

To produce these special issues, it will be necessary to identify a list of potential journals and contact the

publishers. The publication of such dossiers requires the development of alliances, particularly with

researchers from CCAFS or other collectives.

A list of possible papers will be set up: Xls file

In the short term (March 2018): a call for proposals for articles on CSA governance has been opened in

the journal "Sustainibility", but it is a little too early to propose articles, products of the Artimix project.

Participation in seminars and congresses: Which, when (GACSA, others), ideas for strategic congresses

will be identified as they occur (in 2019).

28

Working papers will be developed for the different work blocks of the project but priority will be given

to publications in journals.

Conclusion The ARTIMIX launch workshop allowed participants to take stock of the different possible methodologies

for the different tasks of the project (WPs) and to specify the operational plan for the first year of the

project. Several points have been identified and require further refinement and clarification during the

first year of the project. The use of a common vocabulary on the terms of policy instruments, types of

instruments, and the very notion of policy mix used in different fields (political science, economics) should

be clarified during this first year.

From an operational point of view, the need to "decompartmentalize" the WPs appeared necessary to

achieve good coherence in the execution of the project. A process of regular meetings involving the

different WP managers in the different fields has been agreed.

Operational Next Steps

- Develop profiles for student internships and recruitment (February/March 2018)

- Establishment of a 1st year work plan per field + precise methodological proposal based on the

presentations made during the workshop

- Specify the responsibilities for achieving milestones (Milestones) (see Shared xls file)

- Specify the responsibilities of the deliverables (Deliverable) (see shared xls file)

- Specify the list of "Intermediate Objects" and intermediate products and the persons

responsible for their realization

o Guide line on WP1 Concepts (Eric / Abigail / Marie / JF)

o Desk Review of concept analysis (Abigail / Marie)

o Inventory of policies and actors on the different fields (country teams)

- Provisional agenda of the next meetings of the entire team (in virtual format)

o March 2018: meeting to review progress on WP1 internships/studies (choice of fields,

internship profiles, specific methodology)

o June 2018 : Presentation of the progress made in the implementation of WP1 (progress

report)

o September 2018 : Virtual workshop to present the results of WP1 (concept analysis,

policy mapping),

o December 2018 : Preparation of activities 2019

29

Annex 1: List of Participants

Nadine Andrieu (CIRAD Innovations / CIAT)

Muriel Bonin (CIRAD Tetis)

Marcel Bursztyn (UnB)

Abigail Fallot (CIRAD, Green)

Audrey Fanchone (INRA Guadeloupe)

Marie Gabrielle Piketty (CIRAD, Green)

Marie Hrabanski (CIRAD Art-Dev)

Jean-Francois Le Coq (CIRAD Art-Dev / CIAT)

Gilles Massardier (CIRAD Art-Dev)

Carolina Milhorance de Castro (UnB)

Yves Montouroy (UA)

Leticia Nelson (IT2)

Eric Sabourin (CIRAD Art-Dev / UnB)

Mathieu Roche (CIRAD Tetis)

Jeimar Tapasco (CIAT)

30

Annex 2: Programme of the project launch workshop

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

8:30 - 9:00:00:00: Self introduction of participants

9:00 - 10:00:00 General introduction:

Reminder of the objectives and programme of the Artimix project (JF Le Coq)

Discussion: Clarification of the participants' expectations and points to be clarified

10:30 - 12:00 Presentation of adaptation issues and (dynamics) existing policies on the 3 project sites

(20 min/site + discussion)

CC adaptation policy and agricultural development in Guadeloupe/Martinique

Yves Montouroy (UAG)

CC adaptation policy and agricultural development in Colombia

Jeimar Tapazco (CIAT)

CC adaptation policy and agricultural development in Brazil

Carolina Milhorance / Marcel Bursztyn (UnB)

13:30 Concept and integration (WP1)

- Inventory of the dynamics of scientific production on concepts (CSA, Agro Eco, AbE, ABn) from

a bibliometric and bibliographical review Marie Hrabanski (ART-Dev)

Controversy on concepts for adaptation to climate change based on a selection of cases of use

of the concept in policies (INDC/adaptation policy)

Abigail Fallot (Green)

Methodological proposal for policy studies and concept integration

Eric Sabourin (Art-Dev)

+ Question / Discussion (10 min for each presentation)

15:30 - 16:30 Calibration of WP1 activities and products

TOR of national concept case studies (Guadeloupe/Colombia/Brazil)

Procedure, responsibility

Expected outputs and timetable

31

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

9:00 WP2: Policy implementation and coordination (MG piketty & G Massardier)

Presentation of WP2 methodological proposal[20 / 30 min]

Marie Gabrielle Piketty (Green) & Gilles Massardier (ART-Dev)

Discussion on the methodology

11:00 - 12:00 Calibration of WP2 activities and products

Common analysis grid

TOR of the case studies (Guadeloupe/ Martinique / Colombia / Brazil)...

proposal from the different fields

Procedure, responsibility

Expected outputs schedule

13:30 WP3: Farmers practices adoption and outputs assessment (N Andrieu and A. Fanchone)

Presentation of the tools and analysis method available for the analysis of adaptation to CC at

producer level

o INRA tools and experiences in Guadeloupe / Martinique

Audrey Fanchone (INRA)

o IT2 tools and experience in Guadeloupe / Martinique

Laetitia Nelson (IT2)

o CIRAD tools and experience / innovation in Colombia

Nadine Andrieu (Innovation)

15:30 Proposal / discussion of a common analytical framework for analysis at producer level and its

feasibility in the different sites (Audrey & Nadine)

Collective debate: definition of indicators, feasibility, preliminary information required from the

other WP...

Thursday, January 18, 2018

9:00 Clarification / identification of one or more conceptual models linking concepts/policies/

implementation and dynamics of adaptation to climate change

Assessment of the past 2 days and points of clarification

Introduction

In working groups per field:

o Identify the explanatory variables that may link policy processes and producers'

adaptation processes in their context

o Specify the assumptions for the different scales of analysis and transversal assumptions

on the configurations observable in the field

Feedback from the working groups and collective synthesis

32

13:30 Project organization and communication strategy (JF and WP leaders)

Project functioning (coordination meeting,...)

Communication of the project (leaflet, website, research gate, etc...)

Scientific valorization strategy and publication (publication charters, agenda, special journal

number, congresses...)

Next step and meetings (schedule)

15:30 - 16:30: 30 organization continuation and end

33

Partners & Contact

Jean-Francois Le Coq jflecoq@cirad.fr

jf.lecoq@cgiar.org

CIRAD

42, rue Scheffer, 75116 Paris, France

Tel: +33 1 53 70 70 20 00

Art-Dev E. Sabourin M. Hrabanski; G. Massardier Green A. Fallot, M.G. Piketty, Innovation N. Andrieu

URZ Guadeloupe A. Fanchone IT2

L. Nelson

UA / LC2S Y. Montouroy

UNB / CDS Mr. Bursztyn C. Milhorance CIAT DAPA J. Tapasco F. Howland