1
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
best practices in investment design
FAO INVESTMENT CENTRE
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmesA guidance document
2
FAO INVESTMENT CENTRE
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmesA guidance document
Katia Medeiros DuBois Senior Environmental OfficerInvestment Centre Division, FAO
Zhijun ChenIrrigation and Rural Infrastructure EngineerInvestment Centre Division, FAO
Hideki KanamaruNatural Resources OfficerClimate, Energy and Tenure Division, FAO
Christina Seeberg-ElverfeldtNatural Resources OfficerClimate, Energy and Tenure Division, FAO
best practices in investment design
Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations
Photo credits Cover picture: ©FAO/G. Napolitano; page 9: ©FAO/Bangladesh; page 15: ©FAO/G. Gobet; page17: ©FAO/G. Bizzarri; page18: J. Kienzle; page 20: ©FAO/F. Botts; page 21: FAO/FO-0072; page 22: ©FAO/K. Boldt; page 23: C. Seeberg-Elverfeldt; page 24: ©FAO/G. Tortoli; page 25: ©FAO/Sri Lanka; page 31: L. Callerholm; page 41: ©FAO/S. Ghazaryan.
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of FAO.
All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such permission should be addressed to:
Director Investment Centre Division FAO Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy or by e-mail to: [email protected]
©FAO 2012
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms 5
Acknowledgements 6
Preface 7
1. Introduction 8
Context 8
Climate change mainstreaming 8
How to use this guidance document 9
2. Adaptation and mitigation in the agricultural sectors 11
Basic elements 11
An ecosystem approach for climate-smart agriculture 11
Adaptation and mitigation options 15
Good practices 18
Core principles 24
Focus on food security 24
Support a country-driven process 25
Design participatory, gender-sensitive and local activities 25
Build partnership among stakeholders 26
Support transboundary collaboration 26
Priority areas 26
Data and knowledge generation and sharing 26
Institutions, policies and financing for capacity development 26
Sustainable land and water management and biodiversity 27
Development and dissemination of technologies, practices and process 27
Disaster risk reduction 27
3. Incorporating climate change considerations into
agricultural investment projects/programmes 28
Project/programme conceptualization stage 31
Overview 31
Identifying entry points 31
Working with partners and stakeholders 34
Incorporating climate change mitigation and adaptation in concept notes 35
Project/programme preparation stage 37
Preparing for detailed project/programme design 37
Moving from concept note to project/programme proposal 38
Project/programme supervision and evaluation 40
Supervision 40
Evaluation 42
Project/programme completion evaluation 42
4
4. A few words on finance options
and economic and financial analyses 44
Financing options for climate change activities 44
Reflecting climate change aspects in economic and financial analysis 45
Essential reading and glossaries 47
References 49
Annexes
1. Incorporating climate change mitigation and adaptation
in project formulation, supervision and evaluation 51
2. Approaches to rapid assessments of impacts of
climate variability and climate change on agriculture
in the project area 62
3. Tools and information systems for climate change adaptation
and mitigation in agricultural sectors 92
4. Options, good practices and concepts for climate change adaptation
and mitigation in agricultural sectors 107
5. Framework and options for disaster risk reduction
in agricultural sectors 117
6. Identifying climate change-related indicators 126
7. Finance options for climate change activities 137
5
ADB Asian Development BankAFOLU Agriculture, Forestry and Land-Use ChangeAR IPCC Assessment ReportCA Conservation AgricultureCDM Clean Development MechanismCH4 methaneCIF Climate Investment FundsCO2 carbon dioxideCO2e carbon dioxide equivalentCSA Climate-Smart AgricultureDRM Disaster Risk ManagementDRR Disaster Risk ReductionEU European UnionEX-ACT Ex Ante Carbon-balance ToolFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFAO-Adapt FAO’s Framework Programme on Climate Change AdaptationFP DRR FAO Framework Programme on Disaster Risk Reduction GEF Global Environment FacilityGHG Greenhouse GasGIZ (ex-GTZ) Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbHHFA Hyogo Framework for ActionICZM Integrated Coastal Zone ManagementIFAD International Fund for Agriculture DevelopmentIFI International Financing InstitutionIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeLCA Life Cycle AssessmentLDCs Least Developed CountriesLDCF Least Developed Countries FundMDG Millennium Development GoalM&E Monitoring and EvaluationMRV Monitoring, Reporting and VerificationNAMAs Nationally Appropriate Mitigation ActionsNAPAs National Adaptation Programmes of ActionN2O nitrous oxideOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentPT Project/programme TeamREDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest DegradationRF Results FrameworkSCCF Special Climate Change FundSLM Sustainable Land ManagementSRI System of Rice IntensificationUNDAF United Nations Development Assistance FrameworkUNDG United Nations Development GroupUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster ReductionUN-REDD UN Collaborative Programme on REDD in Developing CountriesUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentWB The World BankWG IPCC’s Working GroupWOCAT World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies
ACrONymS
6
This guidance document was prepared by a team of professionals from FAO:
Katia Medeiros DuBois and Zhijun Chen (Investment Centre Division) coordinated
the work and prepared the main text and five annexes; Hideki Kanamaru (Climate,
Energy and Tenure Division, NRC) prepared Annex 2 and provided inputs to the
main text and coordinated the work within NRC; and Christina Seeberg-Elverfeldt
(NRC) prepared Annexes 4 and 7 and provided inputs to the main text.
The authors would like to thank their FAO colleagues for their help, in particular:
Astrid Agostini for having granted support and overall supervision to the work;
Maria Presmanes for assisting in the identification of climate change-related
indicators; Hans Thiel for the guidance provided on aspects related to forest
management; Giacomo Branca for providing inputs to economic and financial
analysis; Claudia Hiepe, Stephan Baas, Pamela Pozarny, Friedrich Theodor,
Susan Braatz, Wendy Mann, Thomas Osborn and Thomas Muenzel for providing
useful comments; Fabiana Biasini for assistance and guidance on how to
make effective use of the guidelines; various other colleagues for their helpful
comments during the review of the guidelines; Suzanne Raswant for assigning
time for her staff to work on the document; Nada Zvekic for assisting with the
publishing process, Brett Shapiro for support on the editorial process; and
Adriana Brunetti for the design.
ACkNOwLEdgEmENTS
7
One of the emerging challenges faced by the world’s agricultural sectors is a changing climate. Climate change alters the basics of productive ecosystems, impacts on natural resources and affects food security. From a socio-economic perspective, smallholder farmers, forest dwellers, herders and fishers, groups least able to adapt, will be the most affected by climate change. Moreover climate change cannot be effectively addressed without addressing emissions from the agricultural sectors, estimate to contribute some one-third of all greenhouse gases. As a result there is a growing need to ensure that climate change considerations are mainstreamed into agricultural investment projects and programmes with particular interest on the linkages with and among food security and rural livelihoods.
In recent years, different partners have developed tools and guidelines to facilitate the mainstreaming of climate change in specific sectors. However, in order to capture synergies and manage trade-offs among the objectives of adaptation, mitigation, food security and sustainable development, a specific tool is needed for agriculture investment projects / programmes.
This following guidance document aims to assist investment project formulation practitioners in incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment projects and programmes. The main focus is on project/programme formulation (i.e. identification and design), although some aspects of supervision and evaluation will also be presented. It is intended for national and international staff and consultants, as well as government staff involved in mobilizing investment for agriculture and rural development, mainly through assistance to project or programme identification, formulation and supervision. It is meant to apply to investment projects or programmes in agriculture and rural development (agriculture in the broad sense, including fisheries, livestock and forestry). It can also be used for stand-alone climate change projects or programmes; however, for most stand-alone climate change projects/programmes, there are specific guidelines provided by their funding agencies and other development partners.
The document is organized as follows: an introductory section (Chapter 1), followed by Chapter 2 which describes the basics of climate change adaptation and mitigation in the agricultural sectors; Chapter 3 suggests approaches and procedures for incorporating climate change considerations into all project/programme stages: conceptualization, preparation, supervision and evaluation; and Chapter 4 briefly describes some options for financing climate change activities. The Annexes offer summary information and pointers/links to more substantial documents or Web sites where they are already available.
This publication is not intended to be a training manual, but rather a guidance document with: (i) references to information (e.g. documents, tools and information systems) available in FAO and other agencies (mainly multilateral partners) which is relevant to agricultural and rural development projects or programmes; and (ii) guidance on rapid assessments, possible options and good practices for mitigation, adaptation and disaster risk reduction (DRR).
It is the authors’ hope that this document will help a project/programme team (PT) to: (i) increase its awareness and understanding of the basics of climate change adaptation and mitigation in the agricultural sectors; (ii) identify the relevance of climate change to a proposed agricultural investment project/programme; (iii) identify and use key tools, information sources and methods for climate change adaptation and mitigation in agricultural sectors (to address both technical and institutional aspects); and (iv) incorporate climate change considerations into every stage of the project/programme cycle.
PrEFACE
8
Context
The world’s agricultural sectors, including
agriculture, forestry and fisheries,1 face many
challenges in meeting the food requirements of
an ever-increasing population – such as intensive
competition for land and water resources
and a degrading environment – and these are
compounded by a changing climate. Climate
change alters the basics of productive ecosystems
(e.g. temperature and rainfall), impacts on
natural resources (e.g. land and water availability)
and affects food security, rural livelihoods and
sustainable development at global, regional and
local levels. Smallholder farmers, forest dwellers,
herders and fishers will be the most affected by
climate change because of their limited capacity
to adapt to its impacts. These groups could
immensely benefit from efforts to strengthen their
adaptation capacity. Adaptation is needed now.
Postponing action increases adaptation costs.
Climate change cannot be effectively addressed
without addressing emissions from the agricultural
sectors. Agriculture, forestry and land-use change
(AFOLU) are responsible for about one-third
of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Agriculture accounts for 13.5 percent of GHG
emissions, mainly in the form of methane (CH4)
and nitrous oxide (N2O) from fertilized soils, enteric
fermentation, biomass burning, rice production
and manure and fertilizer production. Land-use
change and forestry account for 17.4 percent,
mainly from deforestation (IPCC, 2007b). About
three-fourths of the emissions from agriculture
and land-use change originate in developing
countries (IPCC, 2007b). Conversion of rangelands
and forests to croplands is a major cause of
emissions. Recently released figures show an
average deforestation rate of 14.5 million ha per
1 The agricultural sectors in this publication refer to agriculture (i.e. crop and livestock production), fisheries and forestry as consistent with FAO terminology (Article 1-Functions of the Organization, FAO Basic Texts, FAO, 2011).
Chapter 1 - Introduction
year between 1990 and 2005, a large part of which
was the result of conversion to agriculture.2 Good
opportunities exist in the agricultural sectors for
mitigating climate change through increasing
carbon sequestration or reducing GHG emissions.
The overall objective of climate change adaptation
and mitigation in the agricultural sectors is to
capture the synergies and manage the trade-
offs with the priorities of the agricultural sectors
in developing countries – food security, rural
livelihoods and sustainable development.
Adaptation builds resilience to climate change
in the agricultural sectors by reducing its
negative impacts and promoting its positives
ones. Mitigation addresses the root causes of
climate change, thereby limiting over time the
extent and cost of adaptation. Some options can
benefit adaptation, mitigation and food security
simultaneously; others may involve trade-offs,
some of which can be managed. In these efforts,
it is critical to follow the guidelines of national
climate strategies, under the framework of
integrated planning at the ecosystem level, and
pay special attention to smallholder farmers and
the most vulnerable groups.
Climate change mainstreaming
Different agencies define “climate change
mainstreaming” in different ways. The United
Nations Development Group (UNDG) defines
it as “the process by which actions to address
the causes and consequences of climate
change are implemented as part of a broader
suite of measures within existing development
processes and decision cycles” (UNDG, 2010).
This definition is now commonly used by UNDG
in country analysis and formulation of United
Nations Development Assistance Frameworks.
It entails efforts over many years with multiple
2 http://foris.fao.org/static/data/fra2010/RSS_Summary_Report_lowres.pdf
9
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
stakeholders at various levels – from national
planning to sector strategies and individual
development activities. The need to mainstream
climate change considerations into agricultural
investment projects and programmes has
become increasingly apparent with the general
recognition of the close linkage among food
security, rural livelihoods and climate change.
Adaptation and mitigation in the agricultural
sectors can be implemented as stand-alone
projects/programmes or included as distinct
components of larger ones. More importantly,
they need to be incorporated into each individual
activity, wherever or whenever possible. All
agricultural development activities need to be
climate-proofed to avoid doing business as
usual. For example, irrigation and agriculture
water management activities should assess
the impacts of climate change on local water
availability and demands and incorporate them
into system planning and engineering design.
How to use this guidance document
In recent years, different partners have developed
tools and guidelines to facilitate climate change
mainstreaming, and some examples are provided
in this document. However, in order to capture
synergies and manage trade-offs among the
objectives of adaptation, mitigation, food
security and sustainable development, a specific
mainstreaming tool is needed for agricultural
investment projects/programmes which can
contribute to these objectives and cover all
4 agricultural sectors (i.e. crops, livestock,
fisheries and forestry).
This guidance document aims to assist
agricultural investment formulation practitioners in
incorporating climate change considerations into
agricultural investment projects and programmes.
It is intended for national and international staff
and consultants, as well as government staff
involved in mobilizing investment for agriculture
and rural development, mainly through assistance
to project or programme identification, formulation
and supervision. It is meant to apply to investment
projects or programmes in agriculture and rural
development (agriculture in the broad sense,
including fisheries, livestock and forestry). It can
also be used for stand-alone climate change
projects or programmes; however, for most stand-
alone climate change projects/programmes, there
10
are specific guidelines provided by their funding
agencies and other development partners.
This guidance document will help a project/
programme team (PT)3 to:
• increase its awareness and understanding of
the basics of climate change adaptation and
mitigation in the agricultural sectors;
• identify the relevance of climate change to
a proposed agricultural investment project/
programme;
• identify and use key tools, information
sources and methods for climate change
adaptation and mitigation in agricultural
sectors (to address both technical and
institutional aspects); and
• incorporate climate change considerations
into every stage of the project/
programme cycle (i.e. project/programme
conceptualization, preparation, supervision4
and evaluation) by:
– conducting a rapid impact assessment of
impacts of climate variability and climate
change on agriculture (and people) in the
project/programme area;
– understanding and using climate data
sources in project/programme formulation,
including national and project/programme
area information on climate change
vulnerability and impact assessment;
– identifying mitigation and adaptation
options and good practices (and selecting
related measures, when applicable); and
– understanding and using specific indicators
to measure progress and achievement of
climate change-related project/programme
activities and results.
This publication is not intended to be a training
manual, but rather a guidance document with:
• references to information (e.g. documents,
tools and information systems) available in
FAO and other agencies (mainly multilateral
3 A project/programme team is usually comprised of international and national consultants, government staff and the project/programme staff. Some international financing institutions (IFIs) are also included on project/programme teams, as well as civil society representatives, notably representative members of producer organizations.4 This document does not include guidance for incorporating climate change during the implementation phase of agricultural projects or programmes; rather, it provides guidance on how to supervise climate change aspects of their implementation.
partners) which is relevant to agricultural and
rural development projects or programmes; and
• guidance on rapid assessments, possible
options and good practices for mitigation,
adaptation and disaster risk management
(DRM).
The main focus is on project/programme
formulation (i.e. identification and design),
although some aspects of supervision and
evaluation will also be presented.
The document is organized as follows:
• Chapter 2 describes the basics of climate
change adaptation and mitigation in the
agricultural sectors.
• Chapter 3 suggests approaches and
procedures for incorporating climate change
considerations into all project/programme
stages: conceptualization, preparation,
supervision and evaluation.
• Chapter 4 briefly describes some options for
financing climate change activities.
• Annexes offer summary information and
pointers/links to more substantial documents:
– Annex 1: General questions and detailed
guidance, including cross-references to
other annexes and a list of sources of
useful information
– Annex 2: Practical guidance on how to
identify relevant data and conduct rapid
assessments of impacts of climate
variability and climate change on agriculture
in the project/programme area5
– Annex 3: A list of tools and information
sources that have been recently developed
by FAO and other partners for climate
change adaptation and mitigation in
agricultural sectors
– Annex 4: Options and examples of good
practices for climate change adaptation and
mitigation
– Annex 5: Options and examples of good
practices for disaster risk reduction (DRR)
– Annex 6: An illustrative list of climate
change-related indicators
– Annex 7: A list of finance options for
climate change activities
5 Annex 2 is meant to be a stand-alone annex. The idea is to keep it as part of the document so that readers can obtain all the necessary information in a single integrated document.
11
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Basic elements
An ecosystem approach for climate-smart agriculture
Development partners widely accept that
climate change adaptation and mitigation in the
agricultural sectors should follow the framework
of integrated planning at the ecosystem level
in order to capture the synergies and manage
the trade-offs among food s ecurity, sustainable
development, environmental sustainability and
climate change adaptation and mitigation (see
FAO 2009b, 2011d, 2011f; Branca et al. 2011;
McCarthy et al. 2011).
Agricultural sectors or systems are connected to
each other through their common linkage with
natural resources. Interventions in one sector
or system may have implications for others:
upstream water diversion may affect downstream
water users; agriculture development may have
environmental implications; and bioenergy
development may affect food production. The top
priority of the agricultural sectors in developing
countries is to increase productivity to improve
food security and rural livelihoods, and this often
involves interventions aimed at infrastructure
improvement, sustainable nature resources
management, technical innovations and capacity
development. Integrated planning ensures that
different interventions in individual sectors or
areas are consistent with one another. The
objective of integrated planning at the ecosystem
level is to maximize the synergies and minimize
the trade-offs, while maintaining ecosystem
functions and services, through proper planning
and auditing of natural resources. Tools and
methods which can be applied for an ecosystem
approach include sustainable land management
(SLM), integrated water resources management,
integrated mountain development and integrated
ecosystem management.
Synergies may be captured at different levels
(see Table 1). There may be opportunities
for introducing “win-win” options which can
benefit both food security and climate change
adaptation or mitigation, and also opportunities
for introducing “triple-win” options which can
benefit all three objectives. A list of synergic
options are illustrated and described in Annex
4. “Triple-win” options are also called options
for “climate-smart agriculture” (CSA),6 which is
defined as “agriculture that sustainably increases
productivity, resilience (adaptation), reduces/
removes GHGs (mitigation) and enhances
achievement of national food security and
development goals”.7 For developing countries
highly dependent on agriculture and with a large
share of food insecure people in the agricultural
sector, the main objective of climate smart
agriculture is to improve food security, making
adaptation of production systems a fundamental
necessity. In this context, opportunities for
mitigation should be considered as an additional
objective that could potentially be financed by
external mitigation funding sources (FAO, 2011f).
In formulating agricultural investment projects/
programmes, opportunities for capturing the
synergies should be fully investigated and
explored. When trade-offs occur in agriculture-
based countries, the clear priority is to increase
productivity to improve food security; climate
change adaptation improves longer-term
stabilization and improvement of food security,
and climate change mitigation comes as a co-
benefit.
6 FAO (in partnership with other agencies) is currently preparing a CSA Sourcebook which covers CSA practices, finance and policies. It is expected to be published by the end of 2012. 7 FAO. Climate-smart agriculture policies, practices and financing for food security, adaptation and mitigation, 2010.
Chapter 2 - Adaptation and mitigation in the agricultural sectors
12
8
Capturing the synergies among food security,
climate change adaptation and mitigation through
integrated planning at the ecosystem level will
also ensure consistency with the requirements of
Greening the Economy with Agriculture (GEA).
The GEA concept suggests aiming to increase
food security (in terms of food availability, access,
stability and utilization) while using fewer natural
resources by improving efficiency, resilience and
equity throughout the food value chain, in order
to contribute towards the development of
8 For examples of synergies in crop production, see FAO Save and Grow: A policymaker’s guide to the sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production (FAOb, 2011): http://www.fao.org/ag/save-and-grow/
a global green economy. Its overall strategy is
to apply an ecosystem approach to agriculture,
fisheries and forest management in a manner
that addresses the multiplicity of social needs
and desires, without jeopardizing the options
for future generations (http://www.fao.org/
rio20). There is no blueprint for CSA; the specific
contexts of countries and communities would
need to shape how it is ultimately implemented
(FAO, 2011f, lesson 3). Indeed, the impacts of
climate change vary by region, as summarized in
Table 2.
Table 1:
Capturing the synergies8
Increased productivity
Increased
resilience
Reduced GHG
emissions
Win-win adaptation √ √
Win-win mitigation √ √
Climate-smart agriculture √ √ √
Source: Adapted from FAO, 2011d
13
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Table 2: Overview of selected possible regionalized impacts of climate change
Agriculture ForestryFisheries and aquaculture
Asia and Pacific
• Freshwater availability in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia is likely to decrease.
• Temperature increases will lead to a substantial increase in demand for irrigation water for sustained productivity in arid and semi-arid Asia and South and East Asia.
• Land suitable for crop cultivation is expected to increase in East and Central Asia, but decrease in other areas, especially in South Asia.
• Crop yields could increase in East and Southeast Asia, while they could decrease in Central and South Asia, even considering the fertilization effects of carbon dioxide (CO2).
• There will likely be a northward shift of agricultural zones.
• Heat stress and limited pasture availability would limit the expansion of livestock numbers.
• Forest expansion and migration are affected, and biodiversity is threatened by land use, land cover change and population pressure in most of Asia.
• In North Asia, forest growth and northward shift in the extent of boreal forests is likely.
• The frequency and extent of forest fires and the risk of invasive species, pests and diseases in Asian forests are likely to increase.
• Risks for the Pacific include: increased incidence, intensity and impact of extreme weather events such as inundation, storm surge, erosion and other coastal hazards; loss of mangrove forests; severe flooding and cyclones; and increased invasion by non-native species.
• Sea-water intrusion is likely to increase the habitat of brackish water fisheries, but coastal inundation is likely to have serious effects on the aquaculture industry and infrastructure, particularly in heavily populated mega deltas.
• Increased frequency of El Niño would cause a general decline in fishery production in the coastal waters of East, South and Southeast Asia.
• Warming may make the Arabian Sea more productive.
• Small island developing states (SIDS), highly reliant on fisheries and highly exposed to the changes, will probably suffer most.
Europe and Central Asia
• Countries in the more temperate and polar regions are likely to benefit from climate change.
• Countries in mid-latitudes will benefit at first but will begin to be negatively affected if temperatures rise by more than 2.5ºC.
• The combination of temperature rise and increasing CO2 concentration will result in slightly positive agricultural development in southeastern Europe, while the Mediterranean area and southwest Balkans will suffer.
• Central Asia, dependent on irrigation and with high inter-annual variations in yields, can be affected by climate extremes and a decrease in water availability.
• Cattle and small livestock could suffer from increasing heat stress and spread of diseases.
• In northern Europe, the area of tree species’ native occurrence will grow and shift northwards.
• In the Mediterranean area, forest ecosystems or individual species will start to contract.
• The tree species structure will change, e.g. shrubs may increasingly dominate trees in southern Europe.
• Warm water species are likely to spread to the north, with local extinctions occurring at the boundaries.
• Higher winter temperature can increase growth, but also cause greater risk of diseases.
• Marine productivity is likely to increase in temperate areas.
14
Near East • Maize yields in North Africa would suffer first with rising temperatures, followed by yields in western Asia and the Middle East.
• Water availability would decrease in most of the region, although it may slightly increase in some areas such as most of Sudan, Somalia and southern Egypt.
• Temperature increase may lead to increased pasture production in mid-latitudes, with increases in livestock production.
• Warmer winters may benefit livestock, while greater summer heat stress can have negative effects.
• A depletion of soil moisture may cause the productivity of major forest species to decline, increase fire risk and change the patterns of the region’s main pests and diseases.
• The severe water shortages due to decreasing summer precipitation in western Asia will affect forest growth.
• Some countries already have experience in afforestation, using sewage water for irrigation, which will counteract negative effects of climate change.
• Many basins in the region already suffer from lack of water (Mediterranean, Near East), and the usable net water resources are still likely to decline.
• In the Mediterranean, there will be changes in fish populations, recruitment success, trophic interactions and migratory patterns of fish populations.
Africa • The number of extremely dry and wet years is expected to increase in sub-Saharan Africa during this century.
• Drying in the Mediterranean area and in much of southern Africa is expected.
• There may be an increase in East and West African rainfall.
• Some areas, such as the Ethiopian highlands, could benefit from a longer growing season.
• Rangeland degradation and more frequent droughts may lead to reduced forage productivity and quality, particularly in the Sahel and southern Africa.
• Mangrove forests protect coastal zones from storms and floods and forests in general regulate water flows and reduce flooding.
• Through its impact on forests, climate change also will affect wildlife, bush meat and non-timber forest production, which are important for food security in several parts of Africa.
• Availability of water rather than increases in temperature will affect forest growth in Africa.
• African forests will generally face deforestation, degradation, increased forest fires and major changes, e.g. in mountain ecosystems.
• Sea level rise poses a threat to coastlands, lagoons and mangrove ecosystems, especially on eastern and western shores of Africa.
• Changes in coastal ecosystems and delta areas, such as destruction of coral reefs, will have direct effects on the productivity of fish stocks.
• Productivity of the East African lakes could decline.
• Temperature increases as such may not affect pond aquaculture in the tropical regions, but the availability of water may become an issue.
Latin America and Caribbean
• In temperate zones, such as southeastern South America, yield of certain crops (such as soy and wheat) will increase.
• As a result of increased thermal stress and drier soils, productivity in tropical and subtropical regions is expected to decline.
• In arid zones, such as central and northern Chile and northeastern Brazil, the salinization and desertification of agricultural land will possibly increase.
• Rainfed agriculture in semi-arid zones will face increasing risks of losing crops.
• In temperate areas, pasture productivity may increase, benefiting livestock production.
• Tropical forests are probably affectedmore by (i) changes in the availability of water in the soil and (ii) CO2 fertilizationthan by temperature changes.
• There will be a tendency towards "savannization" of eastern Amazonia.
• A high risk of forest loss is suggested for Central America and Amazonia, and more frequent wildfires are possible in Amazonia.
• More runoff is suggested in northwestern South America, and less runoff will occur in Central America.
• Mangrove areas will likely be under threat in several parts of the Caribbean and Central and South America.
• More frequent storms, hurricanes and cyclones will affect aquaculture and fishing in coastal communities, especially in the Caribbean area.
• Availability of water for some aquaculture production technologies may be affected by retreating glaciers in some areas of the Andes.
• Distributions of some fish species in the tropical and subtropical seas may change southwards.
• Primary production in the tropical Pacific may decline because of increased stratification and decreased nutrient supply.
Source: compiled from IPCC, 2007b, for the FAO-Adapt, 2011
15
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Adaptation and mitigation options
Climate change adaptationClimate change affects agricultural sectors and
food security in many ways that vary by region.9
While farmers in some regions may benefit
temporarily from the effect of CO2 fertilization,
longer growing seasons and higher yields, the
general consequences of climate change are
expected to be adverse, particularly for the
poor and marginalized. Climate change affects
vulnerable people differently, according to, for
example, their gender, age, health or education.10
People and communities living in fragile
environments, such as drylands, mountain areas
and coastal zones, will be particularly affected.
Climate change adaptation refers to adjustments
in natural or human systems – in response to
actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects
– which moderate harm or exploit beneficial
opportunities. Proper adaptation can significantly
mitigate the negative impacts of climate change
and promote the positive ones. Adaptation
aims to reduce vulnerability to the impacts and
9 FAO’s Framework Programme on Climate Change Adaptation (FAO-Adapt) provides detailed analysis about climate-change impacts on different agricultural sectors and food security dimensions. More information is available in the documents listed in Annex 4.10 FAO-Adapt (FAO.a., 2011)
risks of climate change, and to make sure that
development initiatives do not inadvertently
increase vulnerability. Vulnerability is defined
as the degree to which a system is susceptible
to and unable to cope with adverse effects of
climate change, including climate variability and
extremes. It is a function of exposure, sensitivity
and adaptive capacity (IPCC, 2007):
• Exposure refers to people, property, systems
or other elements present in hazard zones
that are subject to suffering potential losses.11
• Sensitivity is the degree to which a system
can be affected by climate variability or
change.12 It is determined in part and where
relevant by development status.
• Adaptivecapacity is the ability of a human
or nature system to adjust to climate change
to moderate potential damages, to take
advantage of opportunities or to cope with
the consequences.13
Climate change adaptation can be enhanced
by altering exposure, reducing sensitivity and
increasing adaptive capacity. Table 3 illustrates
some options in each category.
11 UNISDR, Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, 200912 IPCC, the Fourth Assessment Report, Contribution of Working Group I, Appendix I: Glossary, 200713 IPCC, the Fourth Assessment Report, Contribution of Working Group II, Appendix I: Glossary, 2007
16
Adaptation processes need to be location- and
context-specific, integrated and flexible. Farmers,
forest-dependent people and fishers possess
indigenous knowledge which can be a valuable
entry point for localized adaptation, such as
locally adapted crops, fish and livestock, farming
systems, soil, water and nutrient management
methods, agroforestry and vegetation fire
management systems. Nevertheless, indigenous
knowledge needs to be complemented by
scientific know-how in efforts to address complex
and long-term problems caused by climate
change. This can include conducting local impact
and vulnerability assessments and engaging and
working with stakeholders to develop institutional
capacity and identify, evaluate, prioritize and select
adaptation options and tools. Annex 2 introduces
a detailed approach and methods for conducting
rapid climate change impact assessments.
Climate change adaptation seeks ways to deal
with various risks induced by climate change,
such as increases in temperature and sea level,
melting of glaciers, increased frequency and
intensity of extreme weather events, alteration
of available land and water resources, shifts
in cropping zones and changes in pest and
disease patterns. Risk management can plan an
important role in the process. The United Nations
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
(UNISDR) defines risk management as the
systematic approach and practice of managing
uncertainty to minimize potential harm and loss,
consisting of risk assessment and analysis and
the implementation of risk control, reduction
and transfer.14 Various methodologies and tools
14 UNISDR, Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, 2009.
have been developed to focus on DRR. Some
information sources are listed in Annex 3.
In developing countries, short-term challenges,
including immediate climate risks, are often so
great that long-term climate risks cannot be
given sufficient attention. Designing responses
that acknowledge both short and long-term
food security usually requires parallel processes
– phased and iterative planning alongside the
introduction of short and long-term measures.
Because of the uncertainty of climate-change
impacts and limited national and local capacities,
reliable data and information may not be available
at the local level for impact and vulnerability
assessments. When it is not possible to make
localized projections of climate-change impacts,
FAO favours the “no-regrets approach”, which
assumes that adaptive practices and actions
will be beneficial even if future impacts are not
certain and climate change threats do not occur
exactly as anticipated (FAO, 2009).
Climate change mitigation Climate change mitigation means implementing
policies to reduce GHG emissions and enhance
carbon sinks15, and the agricultural sectors have
great potential in these areas. Agriculture has the
technical potential to mitigate between 1.5-1.6
GtC eqv/yr (5.5–6 Gt of CO2 eqv./yr (IPCC 2007))
by 2030, mainly through soil carbon sequestration
in developing countries, while the biophysical
mitigation potential of forestry is estimated to
average 1.5 GtC eqv./yr (5.4 Gt CO2 eqv./yr (IPCC
2001)) up until 2050. About 70 percent of the
mitigation potential in the agriculture sectors
15 IPCC, the Fourth Assessment Report, Contribution of Working Group II, Appendix I: Glossary, 2007.
Table 3: Options for climate change adaptation in the agricultural sectors
Altering exposure Reducing sensitivity Increasing adaptive capacity
• Assess impacts and map hazard zones
• Conduct proper land and water-use planning
• Protect watersheds and establish flood retention zones
• Resettle humans and restructure agriculture
• Change cropping patterns
• Develop or adopt suitable crop, plant and animal varieties
• Improve irrigation and drainage systems
• Enhance soil nutrition and on-farm water management
• Diversify cropping and agricultural activities
• Adopt disaster-prevention construction standards
• Develop adaptive strategies and action plans
• Diversify sources of household income
• Improve water and other infrastructure systems
• Establish disaster and crop insurance schemes
• Promote technical transfer and capacity building
17
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
exists in developing countries. Without realizing a
substantial part of this potential, climate change
mitigation targets cannot be met.16 Climate
change mitigation in the agricultural sectors can
be realized by:
• reducing emissions through efficient
management of carbon and nitrogen flows;
• avoiding or displacing emissions by improving
energy use efficiency or replacing fossil fuel
energy with clean energy; and
16 Ibid.
• removing emissions by enhancing soil carbon
sequestration above and below the ground17
and reducing deforestation and forest
degradation.
Table 4 presents some options.
Agriculture mitigation practices (e.g. crop and
grazing land management, agroforestry and
restoring cultivated organic soils) generate great
additional benefits for smallholders, such as
increasing their productivity, household food
17 Smith, P, D., Martino, Z., Cai, D., Gwary, H., Janzen, P., Kumar, B., McCarl, S., Ogle, F., O’Mara, C., Rice, B., ScholesO. Sirotenko, 2007: Agriculture. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Table 4: Options for climate change mitigation in the agricultural sectors
Reducing emissionsAvoiding or displacing
emissions Removing emissions
• Increase feed-use efficiency to reduce CH4 emissions
• Increase fertilizer and water-use efficiency
• Reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD)
• Decrease fishmeal use and reduce excess fishing capacity
• Lower post-harvest losses and increase waste recycling
• Replace fossil fuel energy with bioenergy from wood, agricultural feed stocks and residues
• Improve energy use efficiency in the agricultural sectors
• Undertake forestry conservation activities to help avoid emissions
• Substitute materials with wood products
• Practise afforestation, reforestation and forest restoration
• Engage in sustainable forest management (SFM)
• Improve cropland and grassland management
• Engage in agroforestry• Restore degraded land
18
security, resilience and ecosystem services.
Because these synergies differ across localities, it
is necessary first to identify where the synergies
and potential trade-offs may occur, considering the
possible implications of bioenergy development
for food security and poverty reduction.
A major challenge is to design financing
mechanisms to remunerate environmental services
in smallholder agriculture. These mechanisms need
to offer an incentive for providing and safeguarding
ecosystem services such as watershed protection,
carbon sequestration and biodiversity provision.
For smallholders to be able to participate and
benefit from financial rewards and adopt mitigation
practices, mechanisms need to cover up-front
investment costs. Proper monitoring, reporting and
verification (MRV) models need to be developed
to aggregate the mitigation reductions across
smallholders in order to reduce monitoring and
transaction costs.
Some agencies advocate using a life cycle
assessment (LCA) approach to monitor the carbon
footprints of agricultural production systems along
the food chain and value chain. This approach is
currently being used in the environment sector to
identify, understand and reduce the environmental
impacts of material inputs throughout the entire
life cycle of a product, technology or process.
In an agricultural investment programme, GHG
mitigation gains realized in one area may be lost in
other areas. For example, gains from reforestation
interventions may be lost because of the need
to use many vehicles to monitor and manage
forests; gains from increased water-use efficiency
as the result of introducing pressurized irrigation
may be offset by the increased use of industrial
products and fossil fuel energy. Therefore, to
assess and reduce the overall carbon footprint
of investment programmes, it is necessary to
conduct whole programme carbon-performance
evaluation. FAO developed a carbon-balance
analysis tool which could be used to make ex
ante estimations of the impact of agriculture
and forestry development projects/programmes
on GHG emissions and carbon sequestration,
indicating the effects on the carbon balance (FAO
EX-ACT Webpage, 2011).
Good practices
This section provides a brief introduction to some
widely accepted practices in the agricultural
sector for climate change adaptation and
19
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
mitigation, including conservation agriculture,
integrated coastal zone management (ICZM),
agroforestry, rainwater harvesting, improved rice
cultivation, irrigation modernization and rangeland
management. Detailed information is provided
in Annex 4, while Table 5 illustrates some typical
examples of good practices.
Conservation agriculture Conservation agriculture is an approach to
managing agro-ecosystems to improve and
sustain productivity and increase profits and food
security while preserving and enhancing the
resource base and the environment.18 It has been
18 FAO Conservation Agriculture Web site: http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/1a.html
Table 5: Good practices and concepts for climate change adaptation and mitigation
Agricultural sector/subsector good practices and concepts Adaptation Mitigation
Climate- smart
agriculture
Crop
Conservation agriculture x x x
Integrated pest management x x x
System for rice intensification x x x
Livestock
Improved pasture management x x x
Improved grazing management x x x
Improved manure management x x x
Forestry
Agroforestry x x x
Sustainable forest management x x x
Afforestation, reforestation and forest restoration x x x
Fishery
Decreased use of fish meal and fish oil feeds x
Reduced excessive fishing capacity x
Species diversification x
Land management
Sustainable land management x x x
Improved crop and grassland management x x x
Restoration of degraded lands and organic soils x x x
Water management
Irrigation modernization x x x
Rainwater harvesting x x x
Cross-sector
Efficient energy use x x x
Reduced post-harvest losses and waste recycling x x x
Disaster risk management x
Adoption of suitable crop, plant and animal varieties and strengthening of seed systems
x
20
adopted in large areas in Brazil, China and North
America, among other places, and is characterized
by three linked principles: (1) continuous minimum
mechanical soil disturbance; (2) permanent
organic soil cover; and (3) diversification of crop
species grown in sequences and/or associations.
It can enhance soil and water conservation,
increase crop tolerance to climate variations,
stabilize and improve agriculture productivity,
reduce use of fossil fuel and mineral fertilizer,
mitigate GHG emissions and minimize run-off and
soil erosion. Major disadvantages are the high
initial costs of specialized planting equipment
and the new dynamics of farming systems,
which require advanced management skills and a
learning process.
Integrated coastal zone managementICZM is an integrated approach for managing
the coast, including geographical and
political boundaries, in an attempt to achieve
sustainability. The concept of ICZM was born in
1992 during the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro,
and it is set out in the proceedings of the summit
within Agenda 21, Chapter 17. In near-coastal
areas, ICZM calls for considering the needs of
fisheries, and marine species in general, when
designing coastal zone management plans or
specifications to cope with a changing climate.
For example, if coastal protection measures
against a rising sea include coastal dams, there
can be no inland movement of beaches and
marshes which are critical to many species’
reproduction. Careful planning is necessary
to meet the needs of marine life and coastal
infrastructure and agriculture.
An ecosystem approach to fisheries and aquacultureImplementing an ecosystem approach to fishery
and aquaculture can help to respond more
effectively to expected changes in water surface
temperature, pH levels, sea levels and extreme
events and to improve the resilience of aquatic
ecosystems and fisheries production systems.
In the mean time, implementing an ecosystem
approach can reinforce the sector’s move to
environmentally friendly and fuel-efficient
fishing, mainly through energy conservation
across the fishery and aquaculture supply chain
(e.g. including the subsectors of catching,
producing, farming, processing, packaging and
distributing) and also with the consumption and
disposal of fishery products, while reducing
21
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
possible negative impacts on aquatic systems,
such as mangroves and seagrasses. Carbon
sequestration potential can be better exploited,
such as by enhancing carbon management in
semi-intensively managed pond aquaculture
(e.g. fish farming) – which constitutes one of the
most widespread farming systems in Asia – and
by replanting mangroves in many aquaculture
and fisheries areas around the world. Enhanced
carbon retention (although not carbon burial) and
capture in coastal ecosystems could be achieved
by conducting extractive aquaculture operations
with seaweeds and filter feeders (e.g. molluscs).
Cultivating seaweed can enhance primary
production in coastal waters and contribute to
carbon sequestration.19
Sustainable forest managementSustainable forest management is enabled by
policies, laws, institutions and practices that
ensure the stewardship and use of forests
and forest lands in a way that maintains forest
biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity,
vitality and potential to fulfil, now and in the
future, ecological, economic and social functions
19 FAO 2011. Fisheries and aquaculture in our changing climate. COFI Working Paper 6
at local, national and global levels. Forest policy-
makers have to address trade-offs between
production and conservation objectives; cater
to intergenerational equity; and make sure that
forests provide ecological, economic and social
benefits. Sustainably managed forests can
potentially store up to one-tenth of the global
carbon emissions projected for the first half of
this century.20
Around 350 million people are considered to be
highly dependent on forests (World Bank 2008),
and therefore sustainable forest management
will play a core role in poverty reduction as well.21
Forest management therefore has profound
political, environmental, economic and social
implications. In addition to the other objectives
of forest management, forest policy-makers and
managers need to consider their role in helping
forests and forest-dependent people adapt to
new conditions created by climate change and in
enhancing forests’ contribution to climate change
mitigation. Improved forest management practices
for climate change mitigation and adaptation
20 FAO Forestry and climate change Web site: http://www.fao.org/forestry/climatechange/53459/en/21 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTFORSOUBOOK/Resources/01-FSB-Ch01.pdf
22
would best be planned and implemented in
tandem, as they are closely linked. (FAO 2011:
Managing Forests for Climate Change).
Agroforestry The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
defines agroforestry as a collective name for
land-use systems and technologies where
woody perennials (e.g. trees, shrubs, palms,
bamboos) are deliberately used on the same
land management unit as agricultural crops
and/or animals, either in some form of spatial
arrangement or temporal sequence (ICRAF,
1993). Agroforestry systems have great potential
to diversify food and income sources, improve
land productivity and stop and reverse land
degradation through their ability to provide a
favourable microclimate, supply permanent
cover, improve organic carbon content, improve
soil structure, increase infiltration, decrease
soil erosion and enhance fertility and biological
activity of soils. A wide variety of agroforestry
systems are found throughout the world,
including tree crops, orchards (i.e. fruit trees),
home gardens, boundary plantings, on-farm
timber or fuelwood lots, shelterbelts, parkland
systems, multistrata forest gardens, mixed
tree and livestock systems, alley croppings
and shifting cultivation. The World Bank (2008)
estimates that 1.2 billion people are dependent
on agroforestry throughout the world.22
Rainwater harvesting Rainwater harvesting refers to all technologies
where rainwater is collected to make it available
for agricultural production or domestic purposes.
A rainwater harvesting system usually consists
of three components: (1) a catchment area
which produces runoff; (2) a conveyance system
through which the runoff is directed (e.g. bunds,
ditches or channels); and (3) a storage system
where water is accumulated or held for use (e.g.
in soil, pits, ponds, tanks or dams). A special form
of rainwater harvesting is in situ, which enables
the soil to completely infiltrate rainfall through
deep reaching vertical biopores; this results in
only marginal surface runoff.
Rainwater harvesting is applicable in humid, semi-
humid and semi-arid areas with common seasonal
droughts. In an extreme form, rainwater harvesting
can be used in arid regions to concentrate the
rainfall from a larger surface area to obtain
22 Ibid
23
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
sufficient water to grow a crop on a smaller area.
It is mainly used for supplementary watering
of cereals, vegetables, fodder crops and trees,
but also provides water for domestic and stock
use and sometimes for fish ponds. Rainwater
harvesting can increase water availability, reduce
risk of production failure, enhance crop and
livestock productivity, reduce soil erosion, improve
groundwater recharge and enhance carbon
sequestration above and below ground.
Improved rice cultivationRice is grown in more than 100 countries
as the staple food for more than half of the
human population. Traditional rice production
systems are a major contributor to GHG
emissions. Improved rice cultivation, through
the combination of breeding new varieties,
using fertilizer efficiently, alternating wet and
dry irrigation and properly using crop residues,
can reduce GHG emissions while increasing
productivity and building climate resilience.
The system of rice intensification (SRI) is a
methodology for increasing the productivity
of irrigated rice by changing the management
of plants, soil, water and nutrients. It involves
careful planting of young seedlings, keeping
the soil moist but well-drained and well-aerated
and adding compost or other organic material
to the soil as much as possible. During the
past ten years, this methodology has been
adopted in many countries and has shown good
results in increasing rice yield while reducing
the needed quantity of seeds, irrigation water
and chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Further
improvements can be achieved by combining
SRI with conservation agriculture, in which the
SRI agronomy is applied on no-till land with
residue retention and no flooding. The rice crop is
irrigated to field capacity only, maintaining, as in
SRI, aerobic soil conditions.
Irrigation modernizationWater is the primary medium through
which climate change influences the earth’s
ecosystems, agriculture production and people’s
livelihoods. Adaptation to climate change
is mainly about better water management,
and in the agricultural sectors, irrigation
modernization is considered a good option.
Irrigation modernization aims to improve resource
utilization and water delivery service to farmers
by upgrading the technical and managerial
24
aspects of irrigation schemes and making
institutional reforms.23 It highlights the need for
systematic strategies to address institutional,
physical and technical issues coherently
through participatory approaches. The concept,
technologies and tools have been disseminated
and piloted in many countries in recent years,
especially in Asia, and have proven to be effective
in building climate resilience in agriculture
water management and increasing resource
use efficiency, especially water productivity.
Combining this technical approach with water-
saving crop and land management concepts,
such as conservation agriculture, leads to further
increases in efficiency.
Grazing land management Degraded or overgrazed land can be restored to
produce more biomass by selectively planting
grasses, adding phosphate fertilizers and
alternating grazing with rest periods for the
land. Increased biomass productivity enhances
soil cover, increases moisture availability and
increases the overall amounts of stable organic
matter in the soil. These will benefit livestock
23 FAORAP, the future of large rice-based irrigated systems in Southeast Asia, Bangkok, 2007.
production and herders’ livelihoods while
decelerating grazing land desertification.
Core principles
In addition to integrated planning at the
ecosystem level and mainstreaming climate
change considerations into development
activities, some core principles on climate change
adaptation and mitigation in the agricultural
sectors have been identified by various
stakeholders.
Focus on food security
Climate change is likely to severely threaten
people’s ability to achieve food security, and thus
it will impact the international community’s ability
to achieve its foremost Millennium Development
Goal (MDG1) to reduce extreme poverty and
hunger. In agriculture-based countries, where
agriculture is critical for economic development,
increasing productivity to achieve food security
is clearly a priority, and that is projected to entail
a significant increase in emissions from the
agricultural sectors in developing countries (IPCC
2007).24 Therefore, climate change adaptation
24 Ibid
25
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
in the agricultural sectors will focus on actions
which can reduce vulnerability and ensure food
and nutrition security.
Smallholder farmers, forest dwellers, herders
and fishers who are already food insecure will
be the most affected. It is therefore imperative
to provide more targeted financial and technical
assistance to the most vulnerable groups.
Another focus of adaptation measures is to
ensure environmental sustainability (MDG7),
which is essential to achieving food security
and poverty alleviation over the long term.
Food security will be difficult, if not impossible,
to achieve in most countries suffering from
natural resource degradation. Many examples
of such adaptation measures are found in the
forest sector, such as watershed protection,
agroforestry for more stable, diversified farming
systems and forest protection of coastal areas
and inland waterways.
Support a country-driven process
Mainstreaming of climate change considerations
into agriculture and rural development activities
largely depends on local awareness, political
willingness, obligations within global climate
change frameworks and technical and economic
conditions. Climate change adaptation and
mitigation interventions must be formulated and
implemented in response to a country’s specific
demands and needs and must be in line with
national and local climate change strategies
and action plans, especially National Adaptation
Programmes of Action (NAPAs) and Nationally
Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs).
Design participatory, gender-sensitive and local activities
Climate change is global, but its impacts are
individual. Interventions for climate change
adaptation and mitigation must be tailored
to specific local conditions to ensure their
relevance and effectiveness. Multi-stakeholder
consultations are needed to jointly prioritize
options and make decisions. It is therefore
important to adopt demand-driven, location-
specific approaches and participatory modalities
that consider gender-specific vulnerabilities,
needs and capabilities as well as the priorities of
indigenous people and vulnerable communities.
Proper social analysis enables planners and
practitioners to put the human dimensions
26
– stakeholders, target groups, intended
beneficiaries or other affected people – at the
centre of development interventions. Various
manuals and user guides on social analysis are
already available. In 2011, FAO developed three
guides – a Manager’s Guide, a Practitioner’s
Guide and a Field Guide – in the series “Social
analysis for agriculture and rural investment
projects”. These guides can be used by project/
programme practitioners to help design and
implement participatory, gender-sensitive and
local-specific climate change-related activities.
Build partnership among stakeholders
Good partnership among stakeholders helps
to build joint efforts towards climate change
adaptation and mitigation. Partnerships could
be built among governments departments, the
UN system, international and national research
institutions, donor agencies, civil society and the
private sector. Within the UN system, available
partnership platforms include the “Delivering
as One” UN initiative in pilot countries and the
UNDAF.
Support transboundary collaboration
Transboundary collaboration is already required
when countries address ecosystem approaches,
shared resources (e.g. fish stocks) and climate-
change impacts (e.g. pests and diseases, water
shortages, rising seawater levels and melting
glaciers). Interdependence and collaboration will
become even more important because countries
will need to access genetic resources to adapt to
new climatic conditions. Some good examples
of this are national and regional cooperation
networks established in recent years to manage
natural disasters, control animal and plant
diseases and monitor food risks.
Priority areas
Even though climate change interventions vary
for different types and locations of agriculture
and rural development activities, there are some
common high-priority issues that need to be
addressed in developing countries.
Data and knowledge generation and sharing
To conduct scientific planning and make informed
decisions, it is necessary to have reliable data
and information on climate-change impacts,
local vulnerability and GHG emissions from
different production and agro-ecosystems;
however, needed data and information often
are not available at local or national levels. This
can be remedied by improving relevant data
monitoring and processing systems; adopting
suitable methodologies and technologies for
climate change modelling and downscaling;
and applying practical methods and tools
for impact and vulnerability assessments.
Where it is not feasible to generate localized
data and information for technical or financial
reasons, alternative options could be explored
to share climate modelling information through
subregional or regional cooperation or to use
reference data and information from neighbouring
areas or countries. It is also important to
collect and analyse socio-economic information
for different climate change adaptation and
mitigation interventions.
Institutions, policies and financing for capacity development
Coping with climate change in the agricultural
sectors requires adjusting institutional
structures and arrangements. This includes
defining adequate national policy and legislative
frameworks and assigning and coordinating
responsibilities within the governance structures
of countries and regions. Agriculture is currently
excluded from the major global climate financing
mechanisms; a few financing windows are
available mainly for mitigation. As a result,
it is necessary to have innovative financing
mechanisms and investment policies to support
agriculture, reward synergistic actions and
address specific needs of smallholder farming.
Proper mechanisms are needed to: (1) realize
iterative planning through participatory, integrated
approaches and strong stakeholder engagement;
and (2) better reflect agriculture-related aspects
in NAPAs and NAMAs. Institutions and decision-
making must remain flexible in order to deal with
the uncertainties of potential climate-change
impacts.
27
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Sustainable land and water management and biodiversity
Maintaining biological and genetic diversity
is necessary for the health and resilience of
ecosystems. To maintain and increase the
resilience of agricultural systems to climate
change, it is crucial to engage in sustainable
and adaptive natural resources management,
especially land and water resources
management. Since the specific threat of
climate change is new, the response strategy
may require major qualitative changes in natural
resource management, not just fine-tuning
certain ongoing practices. It is important to better
understand and sustain the ecosystem services
furnished by agricultural, aquatic and forest
biodiversity.
Development and dissemination of technologies, practices and process
Development and dissemination of relevant
technologies, practices and processes is urgently
needed to improve national and local capacities
in developing countries. Crucial technical issues
to be addressed include: generating more
reliable climate-change models and projections;
developing and adopting suitable crop and plant
varieties and animal species; strengthening seed
systems; efficiently using agriculture inputs;
engaging in proper waste management; and
conducting MRV of mitigation interventions in
smallholder farming. Capacity building should
be designed for different groups based on
proper needs assessments. The Farmer Field
School method is a good approach for capacity
development at the community and farmer levels.
The United Nations Collaborative Programme
on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-
REDD), jointly initiated by FAO, the UNDP and
the UNEP, is a good model for sector capacity
development.
Disaster risk reduction
DRR is considered to be a good entry point for
climate change adaptation in countries suffering
from frequent disaster threats and expecting
increased frequency and intensity of extreme
weather events as a result of climate change.
The UNISDR defines DRR as the concept and
practice of reducing disaster risks through
systematic efforts to analyse and manage the
causal factors of disasters, including through
reduced exposure to hazards, lessened
vulnerability of people and property, wise
management of land and the environment and
improved preparedness for adverse events.25
A comprehensive approach to reduce disaster
risks is set out in the United Nations-endorsed
Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), adopted
in 2005. The UNISDR system provides a
vehicle for cooperation among governments,
organizations and civil society actors to assist
in the implementation of the Framework. The
FAO Framework Programme on Disaster Risk
Reduction (FP DRR) reflects the HFA and strives
to assist member states to implement its five
priorities for action in the agricultural sectors.
It promotes integrated implementation of four
major pillars: (i) institutional strengthening
and good governance; (ii) information and
early warning systems; (iii) preparedness
for effective response and recovery; and (iv)
prevention, mitigation and building resilience with
technologies, approaches and practices.26 Four
cross-cutting priorities are identified, including:
capacity development, knowledge management
and communication, strategy partnerships and
gender equity. Annex 5 introduces the details of
DRR framework and options.
25 UNISDR, Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, 200926 Resilient Livelihoods–disaster risk reduction for food and nutrition security–an FAO framework programme, 2011.
28
Most activities in agricultural investment projects/
programmes are rarely designed to specifically
address climate change adaptation or mitigation
strategies; however, they are often relevant to
climate change issues and could be adjusted
to enhance climate change-related measures.
Even when project/programme objectives do
not include climate change adaptation and/or
mitigation, steps should be taken to ensure that
the project/programme does not reduce the
potential to realize climate change objectives in
the future.
This chapter details approaches and procedures
for incorporating climate change in each of the
four commonly recognized phases27 of the
project/programme cycle: conceptualization,
27 These phases are often equivalent to the following widely recognized terms: (i) identification (conceptualization stage), (ii) formulation and appraisal or detailed design (preparation stage) and (iii) supervision and evaluation (of implementation).
preparation, supervision28 and evaluation (see
Figure 1). Table 6 presents a list of relevant
questions to consider throughout a project or
programme. The entry points presented in this
chapter are supported by annexes which include
summary information and pointers or links to
more substantial documents or Web sites where
they are already available.
28 This document does not include guidance for incorporating climate change during "implementation and monitoring" phases of agricultural projects/programmes; rather, it provides guidance on how to supervise climate change aspects during those phases.
Figure 1 Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural development programmes and
projects
Chapter 3 - Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment projects/programmes
29
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Table 6: Questions to guide incorporating climate change throughout the project/programme
Subject Question*
A. Questions which are relevant to both the conceptualization and preparation stages
A.1Policy aspects and country priorities (applicable to both mitigation and adaptation)
National and local strategies and priorities
1) Is there any available climate change and DRR or DRM strategy or action plan at the national, subnational or local level? If so, what are the priorities for the agricultural sectors? Which are relevant to the project/programme concept?
2) In least developed countries (LDCs), which priorities have been identified in the NAPAs that are relevant to the project/programme concept?
3) If NAMAs have already been formulated and submitted, which priorities, targets or actions have been included?
A.2 Institutional aspects (applicable to both mitigation and adaptation)
Stakeholder identification and engagement
1) Which are the major institutions coordinating and implementing climate change-related actions at the national and project/programme levels, and how could they contribute to the project/programme with data and/or specific actions? Are additional efforts needed to ensure coordination?
2) Is a stakeholder consultation process in place, including an appropriate delivery strategy (to be used in the consultation events), that allows capturing key climate change-related issues?
3) Which local stakeholders (e.g. local governments, communities, civil society, producer associations and businesses) could have a key role as project/programme partners?
Barriers, constraints and capacity development needs
1) Which constraints, gaps and related financial, technical and other capacity development needs have been identified at the national and project/programme levels?
A.3. Adaptation
Impacts of climate change and climate variability on agricultural sectors
1) What are the expected impacts of climate change on the country’s agriculture sectors?2) How can existing data and related assessments on the impacts of climatic variability
on agriculture in the project/programme area be identified?Should a rapid assessment be conducted?
Impacts of climate change and climate variability on people
1) How are these impacts affecting the project/programme beneficiaries1 and other potential stakeholders?
Adaptive capacity of the project/programme-supported activities
1) How can the project/programme become more climate-resilient (i.e. how can it be improved to increase the resilience of the agricultural systems and livelihoods to climate change impacts)?
Options for disaster risk reduction (DRR)
1) Is there a DRR framework in place to protect beneficiaries’ livelihoods from shocks and strengthen their capacity to absorb the impact of, and recover from, disruptive climatic events (when applicable)? If not, how can the project/programme help with that?
A.4. Mitigation
Impacts 1) What are the possible impacts of the project/programme on climate change in terms of increasing/reducing/avoiding GHG emissions?
2) Which anticipated impacts on climate change could come from improved agricultural systems or from changes in land use?
3) Which other types of project/programme activities (other than production) have a potential impact on the project/programme’s carbon balance?
Mitigation potential of the project/programme
1) Which activities/practices/technologies proposed by the project/programme have mitigation potential?
2) What is the climate change mitigation potential of the project/programme?
Win-win opportunities that include mitigation
1) Based on the project/programme’s climate change mitigation potential, are there agricultural technologies and practices which would reduce/remove GHGs (mitigation) and, at the same time, sustainably increase productivity, resilience (adaptation) and enhance achievement of national food security and development goals, or at least two of these?
30
29
29 Project/programme beneficiaries are not a distinct group of stakeholders but comprise different categories of people who will likely be affected in different ways.
Subject Question*
Mitigation options 1) What specific mitigation interventions could be proposed in view of local natural, social and economic conditions in the project/programme areas?
2) How would you prioritize these possible interventions in the order of CSA, win-win options and mitigation interventions, based on the government’s willingness?
Funding source 1) Are there any financing sources, in addition to the project/programme fund, that can be used for the identified mitigation opportunities?
B. Questions which arerelevant to the preparation stage (i.e. after concept note development)
Project/programme technical strategy and approaches
1) Has a strategy been defined to respond to climate change issues? 2) Which integrated planning approach is being proposed at the landscape or ecosystem
level to ensure the future sustainable development of rural communities in the project/programme area?
3) Is the project/programme seeking to capture synergies and manage trade-offs among food security, climate adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development?
Climate change-related activities
1) Have the climate change-related activities been identified? Should these activities be bundled under a stand-alone climate change component/subcomponent or integrated (mainstreamed) into one or more project/programme components?
Project/programme results framework and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) arrangements
1) Have climate change considerations been incorporated into the project/programme’s results framework? Have climate change-related indicators been identified?
Institutional aspects 1) What are the implementation arrangements to ensure that climate change activities will be properly executed?
Governance 1) Is there any governance risk which could jeopardize the implementation of project/programme activities including those related to climate change?
Intersectoral coordination
1) Have intersectoral linkages been properly addressed?
C. Questions which are relevant to the supervision stage
Supervision at project/programme start-up
1) Is consultation with project/programme beneficiaries and partner institutions – including those partners responsible for climate change-related activities – planned for this stage?
2) Which subjects and documents should be reviewed by the supervision team?
Project/programme supervision
1) Were all the climate change considerations (i.e. impact, adaptation and/or mitigation) addressed in project/programme design? If not, are stakeholders raising any climate change issues which could affect the achievement of the project/programme’s objective?What can be done to reduce this risk?
2) Have field visits and discussions with relevant institutions (directly or indirectly involved in the implementation of climate change-related activities) been planned?
3) Which climate change-related subjects and documents should be reviewed by the supervision team? What adjustments are needed?
D. Questions which are relevant to project/programme evaluation
Baseline information and baseline survey
1) What should be assessed during ex ante evaluation in terms of climate change?
Mid-term review (MTR)
1) What should be assessed during MTR in terms of climate change?
Project/programme completion and final evaluation
1) What could be included in the evaluation to generate lessons learned on achievements related to incorporating climate change considerations in the project/programme?
(*) For each question, Annex 1 provides detailed guidance and a list of useful sources of information.
31
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Project/programme conceptualization stage
Overview
Project/programme conceptualization and the
preparation of a concept note represent the
initial phase of project/programme design and
occur before the project/programme is placed in
the financing pipeline of a donor or international
financing institution (IFI). In most countries,
each donor agency should have an up-to-date
country support strategy or programme30 that
includes mutually agreed opportunities to address
key national priorities and, in some cases,
specific regions of the country. The concept
note is prepared to be fully consistent with the
existing donor strategy (when available) and the
government development strategy for the country.
While specifics vary with different IFIs, the main
objective at the concept stage is to identify the
critical issues, potential underlying causes (or
“drivers”) and solutions, strategic rationale for the
donor agency’s involvement and potential project/
programme risks. From the donor’s perspective,
30 In a number of countries, donors and governments aim to increase the harmonization of donor efforts through a Joint Assistance Strategy (JAS).
it is crucial to obtain early guidance and
agreement on the approach to project/programme
preparation and issues that need to be addressed.
This an excellent time to begin analysing and
incorporating climate change considerations into
the project/programme design.
Identifying entry points
The PT, including the project/programme
proponent, should identify the main entry points
for climate change mitigation and/or adaptation
in relevant interventions so that they can be
incorporated into the project/programme concept
note.31 The PT can review the illustrative list of
possible entry points which is provided in Table
6 and detailed actions which are suggested in
Annex 1. During all project/programme stages,
the project or programme manager should
ensure that all PT members are aware that
mitigation and adaptation cannot be achieved
with disconnected alternative activities, but
require a conceptual systems approach tied into a
coherent strategy.
31 This assumes that a project idea already exists and warrants discussion between the IFI and the client.
32
The PT should complete a screening of potential
climate change issues by addressing two
interrelated questions presented in Table 6:
• What are the impacts of climate change and
climate variability on agriculture in the project/
programme area?
• What are the possible impacts of the project/
programme on climate change (i.e. how
will the project/programme affect GHG
concentrations in the atmosphere in terms of
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)?32
Annex 2 offers detailed guidance on how to
address these questions. Depending on the
level of information available for the project/
programme area, it may only be possible at
the identification stage to address impact
assessment questions in qualitative terms. If this
is the case, the PT should try to support activities
to collect additional data and information in order
to be able to include quantitative aspects in the
formulation stage.
Box 1: Climate change screening
Climate change screening is a key step in the conceptualization phase. According to the UNDP (2010), climate change screening (often simply termed “climate screening”) is “a way of establishing information on the impacts of climate change on development activities, and of how these linkages are or can be taken into account in development activities as well as in the national planning and decision-making processes”.
A number of IFIs, other funding sources and potential partners have developed climate change screening methodologies and tools. Examples include the World Bank Climate Change Portal – which contains a mapping visualization tool displaying key climate variables data and a computer-based prototype screening tool for assessment and design for adaptation to climate change (ADAPT) – and the UNDP (2010) “Tools and Guidelines to Mainstream Climate Change Adaptation –A Stocktaking Report”, which presents climate risk screening methods, tools and guidance.
32 A carbon dioxide equivalent is the unit used to report GHG emissions or reductions. GHGs are converted to CO2e by multiplying emissions by their respective global warming potential (GWP). The CO2e allows for reporting of overall GHG emissions in one standardized value and aids in GHG emission comparisons.
Box 2: Climate risk screening
Where there is evidence of increasing frequency and/or intensity of extreme weather events in the project/programme area, the screening process should include climate risk screening. Climate risk screening is defined by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as “analysing project concepts, with a view to identifying:
• whether climate risks have been taken into consideration;
• whether [concepts are] vulnerable to climate change;
• whether plans could lead to increased vulnerability; and
• what steps taken in project design are needed to reduce risks and associated costs.”
(ADB, 2009, p. 67)
An illustrative list of references for identifying
possible entry points in different agricultural
sectors is provided in Box 3. For a more detailed
list, see Annex 3 (under its section 2.1)
Climate change mitigation challenges The following challenges may arise when
addressing climate change mitigation during a
project/programme identification mission:
Challenge: The client (i.e. government partner
or project proponent) is not familiar with or
interested in considering mitigation measures as
part of project/programme design.
Recommendation: Most countries now have
a national strategic framework in place that
addresses climate change-related issues. In
rare cases, some governmental agencies may
not be familiar with these policies, and it can
be assumed that there may be a need for more
information about how these policy issues can
be addressed in their respective sectors. New
projects/programmes often represent ideal
opportunities to promote the integration of new
climate change policies. The PT should analyse,
discuss and advise the government on these
national policies and how they relate to the
proposed project/programme. The PT should
describe the possible benefits that could accrue
to smallholders and/or other project/programme
stakeholders from including mitigation actions.
33
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Examples of “win-win” opportunities include:
(1) investments that increase organic material
to improve land productivity also enhance the
ability to sequester CO2; and (2) integrated crop-
livestock production that includes ecological
sustainability criteria increases environmental
resilience and contributes to climate change
adaptation and mitigation.33
Challenge: The client is unaware that key
agricultural issues addressed by the project/
programme will also produce climate change-
related benefits (e.g. enhance the ability to
sequester GHGs).
Recommendation: When climate change
mitigation is a national priority that is described
in national policies or strategies and when there
is opportunity in the project/programme area, the
PT could advise the government about how to
capitalize on this opportunity by making climate
change mitigation more explicit in the project/
programme proposal.34
Challenge: The client is interested in introducing
climate mitigation solutions, but does not know
how best to go about it.
33 See FAOb, 2011. Save and Grow: A policymaker’s guide to the sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production: http://www.fao.org/ag/save-and-grow/34 For example, by establishing a climate change adaptation and mitigation awareness activity in the project and introducing specific climate change mitigation activities and indicators in the project’s results framework.
Recommendation: The PT could undertake a
number of actions to guide the client, such as
applying existing tools (e.g. the FAO EX-ACT
Tool) to assess the carbon balance and mitigation
potential of the project/programme. For further
details, see Annex 3.
Challenge: Not all key actors are involved in the
project/programme.
Recommendation: The PT should urge the
project/programme proponent to reach out to
potential partners. Past experiences have shown
that bringing other partners on board early in
the project/programme preparation process
contributes to advancing the climate change
agenda in the project/programme area and often
reduces delays in obtaining all the necessary
project/programme approvals. Potential partners
might include a climate change body or national
agency responsible for leading the formulation
of national climate change strategy and actions
plans; research institutions generating climate
data and/or undertaking downscaling scenarios;
and existing “champions” such as key civil society
members, NGOs, specific forums, etc. For more
information on institutions to be contacted,
see Annexes 1 and 2 and the section below on
working with partners and stakeholders.
In all four situations above, the PT should also
endeavour to identify, discuss and advise the
government and donor representative on possible
Box 3: References for entry points in different agricultural sectors
There are many sources for information on climate change in agricultural sectors. The illustrative list below presents some publications from FAO and its partners by sector.
Crop production• Save and Grow: A policymaker’s guide to the
sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production. FAO, 2011 http://www.fao.org/ag/save-and-grow/
• Food security and agricultural mitigationhttp://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1318e/i1318e00.pdf
Livestock• Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector – a
life cycle assessment. FAO, 2010 http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/k7930e/k7930e00.pdf
Forestry• Strategic framework for forests and climate change.
Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) http://www.fao.org/forestry/16639-064a7166b1dd027504bbfbb763878af99.pdf
Fisheries• Fisheries and aquaculture in our changing climate
(FAO brochure) ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/brochure/climate_change/policy_brief.pdf
• Climate change implications for fisheries and aquaculture. FAO, 2009
• See other relevant documents at http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/13788/en
Agricultural water management• Climate change, water and food security. FAO, 2011
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2096e/i2096e00.htm
34
additional sources of funding. See the section
below on finance options for climate change
activities.
Climate change adaptation challengesGovernment partners are usually receptive
to incorporating climate change adaptation
considerations in agricultural investment projects
and programmes, providing that they are in line
with national priorities. Nevertheless, there are
a number of challenges that the PT should be
ready to address if they arise. Some of the more
common ones are listed below.
Challenge: Funding for adaptation is limited.
Recommendation: Even in cases where
the client has requested loans for projects/
programmes that include activities that address
(either directly or indirectly) adaptation issues,
funding for climate change adaptation activities
in most cases is sought through grants serving
as co-financing to the loan. Whenever needed,
the PT should advise the client and donor
representative about possible additional sources
of funding (e.g. bilateral cooperation, the Least
Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), the Special
Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and the global
Adaptation Fund). See the section below on
finance options for climate change activities.
Challenge: There are limitations to achieving
adaptation in a single intervention.
Recommendation: Adaptation objectives are
rarely achieved through a single intervention
(FAO-Adapt, 2011). Adaptation should be viewed
more as a continuum, requiring an overarching
approach that incorporates interventions that
range from those that address underlying drivers
of vulnerability to those designed exclusively to
respond to climate change impacts (ODI, 2010).
Such interventions may include establishing
a climate change adaptation and mitigation
awareness activity in the project/programme and
introducing climate change mitigation indicators
in the project/programme’s results framework.
Challenge: There are limited data to guide
effective decision-making.
Recommendation: The PT should make efforts
to identify relevant data (or conduct a rapid
assessment) of impacts of climatic variability
on agriculture in the project/programme area.
Climate change adaptation can be enhanced
through: (i) altering exposure, (ii) reducing
sensitivity of the system and/or (iii) increasing the
adaptive capacity of the system. Having relevant
data can help identify which approach(es) are
relevant to the project/programme concept and
which climate change adaptation activities are
appropriate (for details on the assessment of
impacts, see Annex 2).
Challenge: Local characteristics must be
considered when identifying adaptation measures.
Recommendation: Adaptation is location- and
context-specific, and needs to be integrated
and flexible (FAO-Adapt, 2011). If impact and
vulnerability assessments are not available for
the project/programme area, a rapid assessment
should be completed either during the
identification or preparation phase. Based on the
results of the assessments, the PT should engage
stakeholders to determine any needed capacity-
building activities and identify, evaluate, prioritize
and select available adaptation options and tools
to be supported by the project/programme.
Challenge: The project/programme concept
should identify where synergies exist among
food security, sustainable development,
adaptation and mitigation.
Recommendation: The PT should coordinate
well with relevant national agencies. Further,
it should screen project/programme-relevant
development and sectoral policies, strategies
and plans through a climate lens to determine
whether they might lead to maladaptation or
miss important opportunities arising from climate
change (adapted from UNDP, 2010).
Challenge: Not all key actors are involved in the
project/programme.
Recommendation: As stated above, it is critical
to reach out to potential partners. This topic is
addressed in more detail below and in Annexes
1 and 2.
Working with partners and stakeholders
A project/programme cannot be successful
without the active participation of those involved
35
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
in or affected by the project/programme. To ensure
widespread participation, an initial stakeholder
analysis is often conducted during project/
programme conceptualization.37 Usually there are
many sector players undertaking adaptation and
mitigation actions in a project/programme area
(or in neighbouring locations), and they should
be considered as potential stakeholders. These
include line ministries, climate bodies, research
and meteorological organizations, sector-specific
commissions or environmental commissions,
parliamentary committees focused on sectoral
or environmental issues, donor agencies and
NGOs with a sectoral or environmental focus (for
further guidance, see Annex 1). Among these
players are those responsible for leading the
formulation of national and subnational climate
change strategies and actions plans (usually a line
ministry), such as the National Communications
to the UNFCCC, NAMAs, NAPAs, UNFCCC
National Adaptation Programme of Actions and
the Global Environment Facility (GEF) National
Portfolio Formulation Exercise (NPFE). In addition,
existing “champions” (e.g. NGOs, grassroots and
specific forums) are also key potential partners.
Although some of these players may not be
directly involved in adaptation or mitigation actions
in agriculture, the scope of this list demonstrates
the need to coordinate climate change-related
actions in a project/programme area (particularly
in adaptation) in order to increase the efficiency
of the project/programme and avoid duplication
of efforts (see Section A.2 of Annex 1 for more
detailed guidance).
Social analysis is instrumental in designing
and implementing successful pro-poor policy
and institutional reforms and poverty-targeted
investment programmes and projects, including
those addressing climate change issues. It is
fundamental to understand the complexities
of social diversity, gender and the various
dimensions of poverty (e.g. low income, lack of
assets, vulnerability, exclusion, powerlessness,
lack of voice and an inability to withstand shocks).
A social analysis perspective enables planners
and practitioners to put the human dimensions
– stakeholders, target groups, intended
beneficiaries or other affected people – at the
centre of development interventions. Many
manuals and user guides on social analysis exist
already,35 although they do not necessarily apply
to climate change and agriculture investment
projects/programmes. In the context of project/
programme development and implementation,
FAO has recently developed three guides in the
series “Social analysis for agriculture and rural
investment projects” – a Manager’s Guide, a
Practitioner’s Guide and a Field Guide – which
can be used by project/programme practitioners
when designing and implementing participatory,
gender-sensitive and local-specific climate
change-related activities.
Incorporating climate change mitigation and adaptation in concept notes
A project/programme concept note should be
short; it typically averages between five and eight
pages. It is important that it reflect the potential
mitigation and adaptation issues of the proposed
project/programme to ensure their full integration
into project/programme design and to the extent
possible, opportunities to address those issues.
In particular, that could include CSA, which
maximizes synergies and minimizes trade-offs
among food security, climate change adaptation
and mitigation.
Once data collection, discussions and analysis
have been done and key questions from Table 6
have been addressed, the PT should incorporate
climate change considerations into the project/
programme’s draft concept note. The note should
explicitly address relevant climate change issues,
propose possible activities to be supported by the
project/programme (including scaling up climate
change mitigation and/or adaptation measures),
identify potential outputs and outcomes and
provide a list of possible partners.
Table 7 provides an illustrative annotated outline
of a concept note with examples of climate-
related information to be included. Each donor or
IFI has its own template or outline for a concept
note, so the exact content will vary. Depending
on the situation, writers may give more emphasis
to certain aspects over others while addressing
the questions from Table 6.
35 For references on how to conduct stakeholder and social analysis in project design, see Section A.2 of Annex 1 (under stakeholder identification and engagement).
36
Table 7: Illustrative outline of a concept note focusing on climate change mainstreaming
Section Typical information to be provided
Background, context and rationale
Backgroundandcontext:
This subsection provides the background and basis for the project/programme rationale. In terms of climate change, it would benefit from: (i) a short paragraph briefly describing the geography, climate, population of the project/programme area and, if available, the estimated number of people at risk from the consequences of climate change; and (ii) a second paragraph with an overview of national climate change issues and related priorities (with emphasis on the project/programme area), based on existing or easily generated information.
Most of the information required at the national level (and eventually the subnational level) would be available in the Country National Communications to the UNFCCC or other national reports (when available) such as NAPAs, NAMAs and NPFE (links to these reports are included in Annex 1 under "policy aspects and country priorities"). Hints on how to identify climate change impacts and related issues in the project/programme area are available in Annex 2.
This section also summarizes the agricultural and institutional context in which the project/programme will be implemented. For this, the PT may refer to government institutions responsible for climate change on issues relevant to the project/programme (e.g. meteorological agencies providing drought forecasts). Finally, this section could include information on the relation between the proposed project/programme and the country’s donor programme or strategy (assuming that a donor has already been identified) and the donor’s objectives and policies or strategies. A sentence should describe the climate change-related priorities and policies and how the project/programme would support them.
Project/programmerationaleandreasoningformainstreamingclimatechange(andforfunding):
Based on the information provided in the background and context, this section: (1) justifies the proposed project/programme investments; (2) specifies why additional (or adjusted types of) climate change-related investments are needed; and (3) describes the kind of interventions that would be best suited to address existing climate change circumstances. An analysis should contrast the likely scenario without the proposed climate change actions (i.e. what would happen if the project/programme were implemented without climate change considerations, or what would happen if the project/programme were not implemented) with the scenario of a project/programme incorporating the proposed climate change actions.
Proposed project/programme objectives and main results
Thedevelopmentobjectiveandresults:
The development objective states which needs the project/programme will address and focuses on the impact/outcome for which the project/programme can be held accountable. Since most agricultural and rural development projects/programmes are not designed specifically as climate change adaptation or mitigation strategies, they do not necessarily reflect climate change considerations in their statement of objectives. However, after conducting participatory forums and identifying the climate change issues which need to be addressed by the project/programme, the PT should try to make climate change explicit in one or more of the project/programme’s intermediary results/outcomes (or outputs to these outcomes), in order to contribute to the achievement of the project/programme’s objective. A list of output and outcome indicators is provided in Annex 6. The PT should facilitate the preparation of the project/programme’s results framework (or M&E framework). While that task is usually undertaken after concept approval, some IFIs require a draft results framework at this stage.
37
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Project/programme preparation stage
Project/programme preparation may be started
following the approval of the concept note by
the government and the donor. The project/
programme proposal is detailed at this stage,
and it represents a critical entry point for
incorporating climate change considerations
through key actions that will ensure the delivery
of climate change-related outputs and outcomes.
Preparing for detailed project/programme design
Before getting into detailed project/programme
preparation, it is best to identify the resources
needed to prepare the project/programme. The
PT usually identifies and proposes the following
information:
• The required technical composition of the
team: Is specific climate change expertise
needed? If so, prepare terms of reference
and estimate the amount of effort required
(usually in person-weeks). It would also be
prudent to discuss and obtain commitment
from the project/programme proponent
(government or other agency) about who
on their staff would be made available to
compose a project/programme formulation
task team, including experts from specialized
agencies working with climate change, and
the timing for their involvement.
Section Typical information to be provided
Concept brief Conceptdescription:
This section describes the project/programme concept and how its proposed design would address the project/programme objective. Depending on the donor, a specific component description may not be required. Nevertheless, the PT should attempt to link each component with one or more of the expected results/outcomes identified above. While it is not necessary to refer to all of the climate change problems presented in the background and context, the issues that will be directly addressed by the project/programme should be included in this section.
If preliminary descriptions of the proposed components are included, the PT should identify the entry points for climate change. It is also desirable to include a brief description (or estimation) of the global mitigation and national adaptation benefits of the project/programme.
Project/programmestakeholderanalysis:
This section briefly summarizes the stakeholders in the country and sector, their roles and their potential contribution to the project/programme. It should identify and describe those government or private-sector partner agencies which may not necessarily execute the project/programme but which could provide climate change-related information, training or funding. It should also specify (if appropriate) the role of the climate change lead institutions (e.g. supervision, project/programme steering committee).
Executing/implementingagency:
This section names the local or national government agency(ies) that will execute the project/programme. It should include a preliminary description of the project/programme implementation and M&E arrangements, including those for executing and assessing progress on climate-related activities. If significant climate change action is proposed at this stage, this section could include feedback from the project/programme into the formulation or revision of a broader climate change strategy or larger programmes (this information may fit better during the further preparation stage).
Indicativefinancing:
Depending on the donor agency, it may be necessary to provide an overall idea about project/programme cost and financing, although not necessarily with a detailed breakdown by component. Any potential additional climate change financing that has been identified should be mentioned here.
Project/programme risks
This section indicates the risk(s) that might prevent the project/programme objective from being achieved, such as design, capacity, quality, delivery and fiduciary and safeguard issues. While many may not be identified, the PT should flag those which are relevant for the project/programme.
Source: Adapted from GEF and other IFIs’ guidelines.
38
• The project/programme preparation
budget: Are additional costs involved to
incorporate climate change activities? Prepare
a financing plan summary, particularly when
there is more than one source of financing for
(i.e. cofinancing sources).
• An estimate of the project/programme
preparation timeframe: This should also
specify whether climate change activities will
require additional time.
• Proposed project/programme preparation
activities: Identify, and if required by the
donor agency, justify the main project/
programme preparation activities.
Moving from concept note to project/programme proposal
At this stage, the PT should consider the
following important actions to ensure the
delivery of climate change-related outputs and/or
outcomes and should include this information in
the final project/programme document:
• Assess whether questions posed in
Table 6 have been properly addressed
(see detailed guidance for each question in
Annex 1). As mentioned earlier, it is likely
that questions related to impact assessment
(including vulnerability) may have been
addressed only in qualitative terms during
the conceptualization stage. The PT should
try to obtain additional information or carry
out studies to be able to include some
quantitative aspects where possible in the
formulation of responses to those questions.
• Conduct preparation studies and/or
assessments. Studies or assessments
which were agreed upon during the project/
programme conceptualization stage should
be conducted to facilitate the incorporation
of climate change considerations into project/
programme design. The PT should also
conduct an institutional mapping study to
identify appropriate approaches to address
cross-cutting themes while incorporating
climate change (e.g. environmental
assessment, gender inclusion, youth,
vulnerable groups and promotion of local
ownership to enhance sustainability). If
there is insufficient time or resources to
undertake studies or assessments during
project/programme preparation, the PT
should make sure that: (1) the studies will
be included in one of the project/programme
components to be carried out during the first
year of implementation (or between project/
programme approval and effectiveness);
and (2) the project/programme design is
flexible enough to allow the identification and
selection of eligible options and practices
after the completion of studies (in PY1). This
will ensure that effective climate change
adaptation and/mitigation activities will be
properly identified.
• Define the objectives and strategy that
will respond to the climate change issues
identified during the conceptualization
phase. If climate change issues were
not properly identified during the
conceptualization phase, go back to the
questions posed in Table 6 to assess in more
detail: (1) the impacts of climate change and
climate variability on agriculture in the project/
programme area (i.e. adaptation); and (2) the
possible impacts of the project/programme
on climate change (i.e. mitigation).
• Identify climate change-related indicators
to be incorporated in the project/
programme’s results framework or the
M&E framework):
– Indicators: Identifying and selecting project/
programme indicators may be complex
for a number of reasons, including the
following: (1) challenges in distinguishing
adaptation interventions from development
activities (only necessary if the project/
programme targets adaptation funding);
(2) uncertainty of climate change impacts;
(3) difficulty in monitoring and evaluating
long-term impacts; (4) complexity of
climate change issues; and (5) gaps in
MRV of climate mitigation interventions in
agriculture, especially in smallholder farming
systems. Table 6.1 of Annex 6 presents an
illustrative list of climate change-related
indicators in agricultural investment projects
or programmes, and Table 6.2 summarizes
some indicators collected from project/
programme documents in a number of
39
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
organizations. Annex 6 also includes general
information on project/programme indicators
and results frameworks.
– M&E plan: Incorporate climate change
considerations in the project/programme’s
M&E plan, based on the project/
programme’s M&E framework (which may
also be referred to as the results framework
or results management framework,
depending on the IFI). The PT must
ensure that the targets and indicators for
monitoring the climate change outcomes
and outputs are clearly defined in the
project/programme monitoring plan. The PT
should also identify the necessary tools and
arrangements needed to monitor realistic
climate change-related indicators included in
the project/programme’s results framework.
• Review capacity of the collaborating
institutions and identify required actions
to set up the institutional framework for
climate change mainstreaming. This will
include discussions and agreement about
the implementation arrangements. The PT
must reassess whether the appropriate
partnerships have been identified and
negotiated to implement the climate-related
activities. If not, the PT needs to work with
the project/programme proponents to ensure
that this aspect of the project/programme
is fine-tuned before the project/programme
document is finalized.
• The PT must identify which institutions
within the project/programme executing
agency and implementing partners will be
responsible for executing, monitoring and
evaluating the project/programme activities.
This should include an assessment of the
executing agency’s capacity-development
needs to ensure effective inclusion of climate
change considerations and participatory
implementation of the climate change
activities. It may be necessary to define
reporting links to key national climate change
institutions and determine what kind of
support (e.g. advisory or quality control) they
could provide to the project/programme.
These implementation arrangements should
address decentralized and community-based
operational matters.
• Review the project/programme
proponent’s (or proposed executing
agency’s) processes for multistakeholder
consultation, coordination and/
or cooperation during the project/
programme. These processes should enable
the inclusion of a climate change agenda
during project/programme preparation and
implementation.
• Define activities/options to address climate
change issues and challenges, including
inputs (e.g. who, when, how much) and
outputs. Depending on the relevance
of adaptation and/or mitigation to the
project/programme, the PT should focus on
identifying one or more of the following:
– Technical options:
1. Stand-alone adaptation activities to
minimize the impacts of climate change
and climate variability on agriculture
(e.g. crop, livestock, fisheries and/
or forestry sectors) in the project/
programme area;
2. Stand-alone mitigation activities to
reduce emissions or remove GHGs,
hence minimizing the impacts of the
project/programme on climate change;
and
3. CSA (win-win options) to address food
security, adaptation and mitigation.
– Cross-cutting themes which can be
considered in identifying activities to
incorporate climate change considerations:
1. Strategy and policy advice (e.g.
formulation or harmonization and
implementation of relevant strategies,
policies and regulations – conducted
through studies, workshops, etc.);36
2. Institutional strengthening (e.g.
establishment and functioning of
36 These guidelines put more emphasis on field projects/programmes supporting on-the-ground investments in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. They are less relevant to projects focused specifically on policy and institutional reform. However, policy and institutional issues can be (and are often) addressed as specific components or outcomes of agricultural and rural investment programmes/projects.
40
mechanisms, institutions, networks and
organizations);
3. Science and technology development
(e.g. studies, research for development
and adaptation of new varieties,
adaptation and mitigation options and
MRV techniques);
4. Data and information generation (e.g.
for climate modelling, impact and
vulnerability assessment and decision-
making);
5. Capacity development for climate
change mainstreaming at national, local
and farm levels; and
6. Information management and
knowledge sharing.
• Ensure that activities are properly placed
or clustered into the various project/
programme components/outcomes.
This should follow the logic of the project/
programme’s results framework.
• Estimate costs for adaptation and
mitigation options to be incorporated in
the project/programme budget. The PT
should estimate the costs for each identified
climate change-related activity, include them
in the project/programme components/
outcomes and incorporate them in the
project/programme cost table (such as
Costab).37 The source of funding for these
activities can be the project/programme
itself (e.g. an IFI loan) or an additional climate
change grant or loan identified by the PT
during the preparation phase (for additional
finance options for climate change activities,
see section 4 below). Depending on the size,
scope and cost of climate change adaptation
and/or mitigation actions, as well as on the
type of finance available for these actions, the
project/programme proponent (e.g. a national
government) and the IFI may consider having
a round of discussions to decide whether to
incorporate these actions into the project/
programme or whether to develop a separate,
37 Costab is software for preparing, organizing and analysing project costs. The first version was originally designed by the World Bank. The current version is used by various IFIs. Costab data can be printed or displayed in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Various reports can be prepared, such as financing plans and tables for costs and disbursements.
but linked, project/programme for climate
change adaptation and mitigation.
• Assess whether there are any governance
risks. Corruption may adversely affect
the degree to which target groups can
participate in and benefit from the proposed
project/programme activities, including
those related to climate change mitigation
and adaptation. Consider whether any
measures are required to mitigate against
the envisaged governance risk.
• Determine whether the possible
intersectoral linkages have been properly
addressed. If they have not, identify how the
project/programme could be fine-tuned in this
respect.
Finally, the PT should ensure that the wording
of climate change mainstreaming and, when
applicable, climate change measures are properly
captured in the legal instrument signed between
the donor and the client (e.g. member country or
project/programme proponent).
Project/programme supervision and evaluation
Supervision
Supervision missions attempt to review the
progress of project/programme implementation
against the annual operating plan and budget.
A supervision mission is also an opportunity
to discuss with PT experts how to improve
operations and how to adapt interventions. It
is critical to engage the full project/programme
team and have sufficient exchange and
consultation with a wide range of implementing
actors and key beneficiaries. If possible, a
climate change expert should be part of project/
programme supervision missions.
During the project/programme launching
stage, it is important to build local ownership
of the activities and the link to sustainability.
At this time,the donor’s task team (i.e. the PT
responsible for the first supervision mission) and
the project/programme coordination team should
dialogue with project/programme beneficiaries
and partner institutions to assess their awareness
41
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
of climate change-related activities and outcomes
foreseen by the project/programme and the
inclusion of these activities in the project/
programme’s first year implementation plan,
budget and procurement plans. In addition,
the PT should discuss and review the project/
programme’s monitoring plan and certify that the
tools to be employed include ways to measure
climate-related indicators. The dialogue with key
representatives from farmer and producer groups
and other community leaders should be linked
back to the project/programme design, where the
same people or representatives identified these
climate change interventions as critical to their
future livelihoods.
During all supervision missions, procedures
similar to those described for the project/
programme launching stage should be applied.
In addition, field visits should be conducted to
supervise on-the-ground achievements of climate
change-related activities (e.g. at the household,
community, watershed, ecosystem or municipal
levels). Discussions and reviews on climate
change activities should be minimally based on
the following reference documents and systems
(depending on the donor, the terminology
may change): (1) annual implementation plan
(including budget); (2) project/programme’s
operational manual; (3) project/programme’s
M&E plan; (4) procurement plan; and (5) project/
programme document and legal agreement.
During the first year of implementation,
discussions may be necessary to fine-tune the
methodology to measure the project/programme’s
climate-related indicators. Special attention should
also be given to examine whether the capacity-
development activities on climate change have
been well-designed and implemented. It may
be necessary to plan additional climate change
training, policies or other types of activities
(after jointly identifying them with the executing
agency). This should be documented in the
missions’ Aide Memoir, including provisions to
allocate a budget, identify a source of funding
(e.g. reallocation of project/programme budget or
leveraging new resources) and determine timing
for these additional activities.
42
Evaluation
Baseline information and baseline surveyIf sufficient baseline information has not been
obtained during project/programme preparation,
it may be necessary to collect baseline data
at the beginning of the implementation phase
to support climate change-related indicators
identified during project/programme preparation.
These data serve as a reference point for M&E
and provide the basis for measuring progress
in achieving project/programme objectives,
outcome and outputs. If specific numbers are not
available or if it is too costly and/or complex to
collect data, rough approximations can be used
instead. During a baseline assessment, team
members should survey existing data to see if
they fit their needs.
A detailed baseline survey may also be necessary
prior to the development intervention. This can
include data on individual primary stakeholders
and is usually linked to the project/programme’s
impact evaluation process. The PT should assess
whether data needed to monitor the project/
programme climate change indicators are
available and sufficient, or whether they need to
be collected in the baseline survey. The results
of such a survey can also serve as an important
reference for the completion evaluation.
Mid-term review (MTR)The MTR review will determine:
• whether climate change-related issues to
be addressed by the project/programme are
being effectively mainstreamed;
• if the foreseen outputs and outcomes are
in line with the climate adaptation and/or
mitigation activities of the project/programme;
• whether there is a need to adjust or redirect
the project/programme because of any
weakness in incorporating climate change
considerations in project/programme design;
and
• the extent to which the expected outcomes
of the project/programme will be realized.
Particular attention should be given to: (1) the
adequacy of the climate change-related indicators
and whether there is any need to adjust them;
and (2) the efficacy of the methodology used
to measure them. A climate change expert
should be part of the mid-term review or the
independent evaluation team hired by the project/
programme should include such an expert. The
independent mid-term evaluation team’s report
should be reviewed and discussed in detail
with the project/programme management team
and partner institutions and verified through
interviews with project/programme beneficiary
groups and other relevant stakeholders during
field visits.
Project/programme completion evaluation
The final project/programme evaluation and
its completion report should be used to
generate lessons learned about incorporating
climate change considerations into the project/
programme and about institutional capacities,
strengths and weaknesses. It is also an
opportunity to assess if the project/programme
has been linked to larger national processes
– including if project/programme approaches
or lessons have been communicated – such
as NAPAs, NAMAs and other climate change
strategies and action plans. It should also
identify opportunities for scaling up, if possible.
The following issues should be taken into
consideration by the PT while conducting
missions and analysis that will support the
preparation of the final evaluation report:
• Include a climate change expert if climate
change links are significant.
• Verify whether baseline information
(or a survey, when applicable) and an
MTR provided feedback on the project/
programme’s climate change mitigation and/
or adaptation aspects, and adjust activities
and policy, when required, based on M&E
results.
• Assess the achievement of climate change-
related outcomes foreseen in project/
programme design (if any). To do this, the
PT must collaborate closely with the project/
programme’s M&E Team (and, if applicable,
institutions or departments involved in
measuring climate change-related indicators)
and hold meetings with project/programme
beneficiaries and partner institutions.
43
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
• Identify the lessons on climate change
mainstreaming in agricultural and rural
development projects/programmes
which might be learned from the project/
programme.
• Examine whether the incorporation of climate
change has received attention at all stages of
the project/programme cycle.
• Assess (e.g. by reviewing the mission’s aide
memoirs) whether the project/programme
supervision team took time to supervise
progress against climate change-related
activities throughout the life of the project/
programme, including field visits.
• Assess whether project/programme
beneficiaries directly benefit from the project/
programme’s mitigation and/or adaptation
measures.
• Check whether the project/programme design
facilitated the collection of climate change-
related data to update the baseline data
and support the adjustment of the project/
programme’s climate change strategy when
necessary.
• Identify lessons to strengthen the design
of any future similar projects/programmes,
in particular those related to whether the
project/programme’s outcomes that should
have contributed to climate adaptation and
mitigation were achieved.
• Assess whether links have been established
with institutions responsible for climate
change and related knowledge networks.
44
Financing options for climate change activities
Regular private and public sector funds in
support of agricultural development provide
most of the funding to support CSA, and these
need to be oriented towards adopting a climate
lens. Public funding must create a conducive
enabling environment and reduce barriers to
transitioning to more sustainable agricultural
systems, leveraging much larger flows of
private investment to embrace adaptation and
mitigation opportunities. Because LDCs are often
considered high risk ar eas for investors, the
UNFCCC has a role to play in finding new ways
to at tract private investment for adaptation and
mitigation projects/programmes.
Traditionally within the UNFCCC negotiations,
mitigation and adaptation have been separated,
which has resulted in different financing
streams. However, it is not so easy to distinguish
adaptation and mitigation benefits in agriculture,
and this presents challenges in identifying the
appropriate funding source. In these situations,
the type of activities supported by the project/
programme (e.g. afforestation, reforestation,
REDD, energy efficiency, renewable energy, soil
management, fisheries, agroforestry) can help
identify opportunities to tap into finance sources
for mitigation and adaptation.
Finance options for climate change activities can
be differentiated between: (1) finance sources for
mainstreaming climate change interventions into
agricultural investment projects or programmes;
and (2) stand-alone climate projects or
programmes. Climate-specific finance provides
resources to support low-carbon and climate-
resilient development. To date, 21 dedi cated
bilateral and multilateral public climate finance
initiatives are in place, in addition to dozens of
car bon funds and development initiatives with
a climate change focus. This raises hope that
additional funding will be made available to
tackle climate change. The main actors dealing
with climate change mitigation and adaptation
funding are devel oped country governments
working through a num ber of bilateral initiatives,
the World Bank through its administration of
the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) and the
Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and the
Kyoto Protocol Adaptation Fund. Moreover, the
multilateral development banks are playing an
increasing role in scaling up climate finance.
Annex 7 provides a list of climate finance
initiatives designed to help developing countries
address the challenges of climate change.
Funding for climate change mitigation is available
through a number of sources (e.g. market-
based climate change mitigation instruments to
meet defined emission reduction targets that
involve emissions trading between developed
and developing countries). The voluntary carbon
market represents complementary funding
sources for climate change mitigation in
agriculture. Funding for climate change adaptation
is also available through many financing
mechanisms. The four multilateral adaptation
finance in struments that have disbursed funds
to date are: the LDCF and the SCCF, both
administered by the GEF; the Pilot Program for
Climate Resilience (PPCR), which is a programme
under the CIF; and the Adaptation Fund (AF).
Because institutions are important vehicles to
channel global sources of funds to those most
in need, climate finance also faces issues of
governance. It is essential that the money goes
to those who are most vulnerable to devastating
climate change impacts and is not lost to
corruption or poor governance. The Institute for
Security Studies (ISS, 2011) has monitored the
governance of climate finance realities and funding
arrangements across developing countries.
Chapter 4 - A few words on finance options and economic and financial analyses
45
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Reflecting climate change aspects in economic and financial analysis38
Models such as the FAO EX-ACT Tool39 can
be used to estimate the mitigation potential
of rural development projects/programmes.
Such estimates would be of great relevance
for accounting for GHG emissions reductions
and carbon sequestration and providing a basis
for seeking climate finance – either public or
market-based and integrated with existing
official development assistance (ODA official
development assistance) – which can increase
investment flows to the agricultural sector of
developing countries.
It is possible to classify projects/programmes
which are of interest for agricultural development
(Branca et al., 2010):
• Type 0 – no mitigation potential
• Type 1 – low mitigation potential
• Type 2 – medium mitigation potential
• Type 3 – high mitigation potential.
38 Text adapted by G. Branca (Agricultural Development Economics Division, FAO) from the FAO Investment Centre publication on "Estimating Mitigation Potential of Agricultural Projects: an Application of the Ex-Ante Carbon-balance Tool (EX-ACT) in Brazil", FAO, Rome, 2010.39 See: http://www.fao.org/tc/exact/en/
Type 0 projects/programmes are a net source
of GHG emissions, and they are not taken into
consideration here because they cannot benefit
from any additional climate financing. Types 1,
2 and 3 projects/programmes show mitigation
potential since their activities are able to increase
biomass above and below ground and/or soil
organic carbon, albeit with a different intensity
(see Figure 2).
Type 1 projects/programmes have low mitigation
potential so that the mitigation benefits are
smaller than the costs of MRV of the mitigation
activities. There would be no space for additional
support from climate finance sources; ODA
public funds remain the main financing source for
this category of projects/programmes.
For Type 2 projects/programmes, the benefits of
pursuing low-carbon agricultural strategies may
be greater than the costs associated with the
adoption of basic MRV for public implementation.
In this case, public climate funding may be a
possible financing source which could integrate
ODA funds, as project/programme offsets
are considered public goods and therefore
purchased by a public institution. An example
would be a project/programme implementing
agricultural practices that improve agricultural
Figure 2:
Financing options for agriculture development and mitigation projects/programmes
Financing: No Carbon Financing
Financing: Public Fundingfor Low-Carbon Agriculture
Financing: Credit Mechanisms
$ T/Ha/Yr
Costsof CarbonCrediting
Costsof Public
Implementation
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Benefit_T/Ha/Yr
C. MitigationPotential (T/Ha/Yr)
Source: Adapted from FAO 2009b
46
productivity and resilience and thus contribute
to food security in developing countries. In
the future, with climate change considerations
being mainstreamed into public sector global
development objectives, it is plausible that these
agriculture multipurpose projects/programmes
will become increasingly important.
For Type 3 projects/programmes, mitigation
benefits are greater than the costs of adopting
and meeting stringent MRV requirements (in
most cases, they are higher than MRV for
publicly financed options). For this category of
projects/programmes, market-based climate
financing mechanisms (e.g. carbon crediting on
voluntary or mandatory markets) are a viable
source of financing.
It is not easy to estimate the transaction costs
related to the accounting of agricultural mitigation
activities at public or market levels, given the lack
of information and the fact that data available
are not in a standard format to allow accurate
comparison. Therefore more research is needed.
Nevertheless, for the purpose of this document,
it is assumed that the transaction costs for
public implementation are equal toUS$4/t CO2e
ha-1 yr-1 which is an arbitrary but plausible value
based on literature (Cacho et al., 2005; Lipper et
al. 2010; Mooney et al., 2004). The transaction
costs for selling carbon credits on the market
will be obviously higher, given the number and
type of requirements (e.g. establish baseline and
carbon flows of the project/programme, design
monitoring plan, establish permanent sampling
plots, prepare project/programme design
document, design individual farm plans, monitor
carbon stocks reported by farmers, verification
and certification) (Cacho and Lipper 2006).
FAO has tested the application of the EX-ACT
Tool on various occasions, including two rural
development projects in Brazil, the Santa Catarina
Rural Competitiveness (SC Rural) project and the
Rio de Janeiro Sustainable Rural Development
(Rio Rural) project. Based on the test, both SC
Rural and Rio Rural projects can be classified as
Type 1 projects without any feasible option of
receiving climate finance. Average mitigation
potential of the SC project amounts to 0.92 t
CO2e ha-1 per year. It could be valued using a
price of US$3 per t CO2e, which is the average
carbon price for agricultural soil carbon at the
retail level on the voluntary market in 2008
(Hamilton et al., 2009). Therefore, the value of
the average mitigation potential of the project
amounts to US$2.76 per t CO2e (per hectare and
per year), which is below the level of transaction
cost for public implementation (US$4 per t CO2e).
Similarly, the average mitigation potential of the
Rio Rural project is equal to 0.19 t CO2e ha-1 per
year, i.e. US$0.57 per t CO2e (per hectare and per
year), well below the level of transaction cost for
public implementation.
However, it is interesting to note that a relatively
small change in the design of the SC Rural project
could slightly increase its mitigation potential
and expand climate financing opportunities. For
example, the mitigation potential of the project
in the “optimistic scenario” considered during
the EX-ACT text is equal to 1.1 t CO2e ha-1 per
year. Clearly, if the project is designed with
explicit multiple objectives and specific mitigation
activities, and if the corresponding mitigation
potential value exceeds the level of transaction
costs for public implementation, the project
could then be potentially considered for public
financing for low-carbon agriculture. In this case,
since yearly mitigation potential of the SC Rural
project would be equal to 0.6 Mt CO2e, mitigation
benefits would be worth US$1.8 million per year-1
at the price ofUS$3 per t CO2e. Given that the
total average project cost is US$31.5 million per
year-1, public carbon finance would therefore
potentially cover about 6 percent of these costs.
47
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Essential reading and glossaries The following resources offer additional guidance. See Box 4 below for a number of key climate
change glossaries.
General context and overall guidance (for a description of each publication, see Annex 3):
IPCC fourth assessment report: Climate change 2007 (AR4). The following sections are of particularly
relevance to agriculture:
• Food and agriculture: Chapter 5 with contribution ofIPCC Working Group II to AR4: Impacts,
adaptation and vulnerability http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5.html
• Mitigation in agriculture: Chapter 8 with contribution of IPCC Working Group III to AR4: Mitigation
of climate change http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch8.html
• Mitigation in forestry: Chapter 9 with contribution of IPCC Working Group III to AR4: Mitigation of
climate change http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch9.html
• AR4 synthesis report: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html
FAO profile for climate change. FAO, 2009. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1323e/i1323e00.htm
FAO framework programme on climate change adaptation. FAO, 2011. http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/
i2316e/i2316e00.pdf
FAO framework programme on disaster risk reduction (FP DRR). FAO, 2011. http://www.fao.org/
docrep/015/i2540e/i2540e00.pdf
Climate-smart agriculture – policies, practices and financing for food security, adaptation and
mitigation. FAO, 2010. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/an177e/an177e00.pdf
Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in agriculture and natural resources management
projects. World Bank Web site: http://www.worldbank.org/adaptnotes
Mainstreaming climate change adaptation into development planning: A guide for practitioners.
UNDP and UNEP, 2011. http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/Guide%20Mainstreaming%20
Climate%20Change%20Adaptation%202011.pdf
Carbon climate change mitigation finance for smallholder agriculture. A guide book to harvesting soil
carbon sequestration benefits.
http://www.fao.org/climatechange/29763-0daebeae838c70f713da780982f16e8d9.pdf
Climate-smart agriculture: Smallholder adoption and implications for climate change adaptation and
mitigation. FAO, 2011. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2575e/i2575e00.pdf
Publications by sector (for a description of each publication, see Annex 3):
Water: Climate change, water and food security – FAO water reports No. 36. FAO, 2011. http://www.
fao.org/docrep/014/i2096e/i2096e00.htm
Energy: “Energy-smart” food for people and climate: Issue paper. FAO, 2011. http://www.fao.org/
docrep/014/i2454e/i2454e00.pdf
48
Crops:
• Climate-smart agriculture: A synthesis of empirical evidence of food security and mitigation
benefits from improved cropland management, FAO, 2011:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2574e/i2574e00.pdf
• Save and grow: A policymaker’s guide to the sustainable intensification of smallholder crop
production. FAO, 2011: http://www.fao.org/ag/save-and-grow/
Forestry: Climate change for forest policy-makers – An approach for integrating climate change into
national forest programmes in support of sustainable forest management. FAO, 2011. http://www.fao.
org/forestry/climatechange/64862/en/
Fisheries: Strategy for fisheries, aquaculture and climate change. Framework and aims 2011-
2016. FAO, 2011. ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/brochure/climate_change/stragegy_fi_aq_climate/2011/climate_
change_2011.pdf
Livestock: Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector – a life cycle assessment. FAO, 2010.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/k7930e/k7930e00.pdf
Box 4: Climate change glossaries
Many climate change glossaries are available in the literature and on the Web. These references can assist project/programme practitioners who may not necessarily be fully familiar with technical terms used in climate change discussions.
FAO climate change glossary: http://termportal.fao.org/faocc/main/start.doAvailable in English, French, Spanish and Chinese.
Intergovernmental panel on climate change glossaries http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_glossary.shtml
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) glossary of climate change acronyms: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/glossary/items/3666.php
Glossary of CDM terms: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Guidclarif/glos_CDM.pdf
49
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
ReferencesADB. 2009. Understanding and Responding to Climate Change in Developing Asia. ADB, Manila.
http://www.adb.org/publications/understanding-and-responding-climate-change-developing-asia
Branca, G., Lipper, L. & Bockel, L. 2010. Potential use of the Ex-Ante C-balance Tool (EX-ACT) in the
economic and financial analysis of agriculture and mitigation projects. Working paper. FAO. Rome, Italy.
Branca, G., McCarthy, N., Lipper, L. & Jolejole, M.C. (2011). Climate-smart Agriculture: A Synthesis of
Empirical Evidence of Food Security and Mitigation Benefits from Improved Cropland Management.
MICCA series n.3. Rome, FAO.
Cacho, O.J., Marshall, G.R. & Milne, M. 2005. Transaction and abatement costs of carbon-sink
projects in developing countries. Environment and Development Economics 10, 1-18. doi: 10.1017/
S1355770X05002056.
Cacho, O.J. & Lipper L. 2006. Abatement and transaction costs of carbon-sink project involving
smallholders. Working paper. FAO. Rome, Italy. European Commission. 2009. Guidelines on the
Integration of Environment and Climate Change in Development Cooperation, European Commission,
2009. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/infopoint/publications/europeaid/172a_en.htm
EuropeAid. 2009. Guidelines on the integration of environment and climate change in development
cooperation. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/infopoint/publications/europeaid/172a_en.htm
FAO. 2008. Climate Change and Food Security: A Framework Document. IDWG on Climate Change.
FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2009a. Profile for Climate Change, FAO, Rome. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i1323e/i1323e00.pdf
FAO. 2009b. Food Security and Agricultural Mitigation in Developing Countries: Options for Capturing
Synergies: http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1318e/i1318e00.pdf
FAO. 2010a. “Climate-Smart” Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation
and Mitigation, FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1881e/i1881e00.htm
FAO. 2010b. Estimating Mitigation Potential of Agricultural Projects: an Application of the Ex-Ante
Carbon-balance Tool (EX-ACT) in Brazil. Working Paper LAC/03/10. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/
k7846e/k7846e.pdf
FAO. 2011a. FAO-Adapt: Framework Programme on Climate Change Adaptation. http://www.fao.org/
climatechange/27594-03ecd7bd225b93086e7dca3944de64307.pdf
FAO. 2011b. Save and Grow: A policymaker’s guide to the sustainable intensification of smallholder crop
production: http://www.fao.org/ag/save-and-grow/
FAO. 2011c. Social analysis for agriculture and rural investment projects: Manager’s Guide, Practitioner’s
Guide, Field Guide http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2816e/i2816e00.htm
50
GIZ. 2011. Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Cooperation: A Practice-oriented
Training based on the OECD Policy Guidance. GIZ, 2011. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/4/46905379.pdf
Hamilton, K., Sjardin, M., Shapiro, A. & Marcello, T. Fortifying the Foundation: State and trends of the
voluntary market 2009. A Report by The Ecosystem Marketplace (Washington, DC, USA) and New
Carbon Finance (New York), May 2009.
IPCC. 2007. The fourth assessment report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC): Climate change 2007- Synthesis report. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html
ISS. 2011. Monitoring the governance of climate finance: Critical perspectives from Africa, Asia and
Latin America. Institute for Security Studies (ISS) Financial Report, 2011.
Liniger, H.P., R. Mekdaschi Studer, C. Hauert & M. Gurtner. 2011. Sustainable Land Management
in Practice – Guidelines and Best Practices for Sub-Saharan Africa. TerrAfrica, World Overview of
Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) and FAO.
Lipper, L., Dutilly-Diane, C. & McCarthy, N. 2010. Supplying Carbon Sequestration from West African
Rangelands: Opportunities and Barriers. Rangeland Ecology and Management 63: 155-166. doi: 10.2111/
REM-D-09-00009.1
Mooney, S., Brown, S. & Shoch, D. 2004. Measurement and monitoring costs: Influence of parcel
contiguity, carbon variability, project size and timing of measurement events. Report to The Nature
Conservancy Conservation Partnership Agreement. Winrock International. 20 pp. Available at http://
www.winrock.org/ecosystems/files/Mooney_et_al_MMCosts-1-15-04.pdf [Accessed 30 July 2011]
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2008. Strategic environmental
assessment and adaptation to climate change. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc28513/
Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gway, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., Ogle, S., O’Mara, F., Rice,
C., Scholes, B. & Sirotenko, O. 2007: Agriculture. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution
of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davdison, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
UNDG. 2010. Integrating climate change considerations in the country analysis and the UNDAF – A
guidance note for United Nations country teams, United Nations Development Group.
UNDP and UNEP. 2011. Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation into Development Planning: A Guide
for Practitioners. http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/Guide%20Mainstreaming%20Climate%20
Change%20Adaptation%202011.pdf
UNDP. 2010. Tools and Guidelines to Mainstream Climate Change Adaptation –A Stocktaking Report.
http://www.adaptationlearning.net/sites/default/files/UNDP%20Stocktaking%20Report%20CC%20
mainstreaming%20tools.pdf
World Bank. 2010. Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in agriculture and natural resources
management projects. Climate Change Team, Environment Department, World Bank. http://www.
worldbank.org/adaptnotes
51
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
ANNEX 1 Incorporating climate change mitigation and adaptation in project formulation, supervision and evaluation
52
AN
NE
X 1
Inco
rpor
atin
g cl
imat
e ch
ange
miti
gatio
n an
d ad
apta
tion
in p
roje
ct fo
rmul
atio
n, s
uper
visi
on a
nd e
valu
atio
n
Su
bje
ctQ
ues
tio
nG
uid
ance
(e.
g. a
ctio
ns,
wh
o t
o t
alk
to)
So
urc
es o
f in
form
atio
n
A. Q
ues
tio
ns,
so
urc
es a
nd
gu
idan
ce r
elev
ant
to b
oth
th
e co
nce
ptu
aliz
atio
n a
nd
pre
par
atio
n s
tag
es
A.1
. Po
licy
asp
ects
an
d c
ou
ntr
y p
rio
riti
es (
app
licab
le t
o b
oth
mit
igat
ion
an
d a
dap
tati
on
)
Nat
ion
al a
nd
lo
cal p
rio
riti
es1.
Is
th
ere
any
nat
ion
al
clim
ate
chan
ge
(CC
) an
d D
RR
/DR
M
stra
teg
y o
r ac
tio
n
pla
n a
vaila
ble
? If
so
, w
hat
are
th
e p
rio
riti
es
for
the
agri
cult
ura
l se
cto
rs?
Wh
ich
are
re
leva
nt
to t
he
pro
ject
co
nce
pt?
2. I
n le
ast
dev
elo
ped
co
un
trie
s (L
DC
s),
wh
ich
pri
ori
ties
hav
e b
een
iden
tifi
ed in
th
e N
APA
s th
at a
re
rele
van
t to
th
e p
roje
ct
con
cep
t?
3. I
f N
atio
nal
ly
Ap
pro
pri
ate
Mit
igat
ion
A
ctio
ns
(NA
MA
s)
hav
e al
read
y b
een
fo
rmu
late
d a
nd
su
bm
itted
, wh
ich
p
rio
riti
es, t
arg
ets
or
acti
on
s h
ave
bee
n
incl
ud
ed?
•N
atio
nal/s
ubna
tiona
l pol
icy
docu
men
ts, a
ctio
n pl
ans
and
prio
ritie
s on
CC
– N
APA
s,
NA
MA
s, N
atio
nal C
omm
unic
atio
ns t
o th
e U
NFC
CC
, etc
. – c
an u
sual
ly b
e fo
und
on
the
Web
site
s of
the
UN
FCC
C a
nd t
he n
atio
nal m
inis
try
or o
rgan
izat
ion
resp
onsi
ble
for
over
all C
C c
oord
inat
ion
(usu
ally
the
nat
iona
l UN
FCC
C F
ocal
Poi
nt).
•Th
e N
atio
nal (
Ope
ratio
nal)
GE
F Fo
cal P
oint
coo
rdin
ates
the
form
ulat
ion
of t
he
Nat
iona
l Por
tfol
io F
orm
ulat
ion
Exe
rcis
e (N
PFE
) (in
clud
ing
prio
ritie
s fo
r C
C f
undi
ng)
and
endo
rses
pro
ject
pro
posa
ls b
efor
e su
bmitt
ing
to t
he G
EF
Sec
reta
riat
for
fund
ing
in m
itiga
tion
(GE
F Tr
ust
Fund
) or
adap
tatio
n (L
DC
F an
d S
CC
F).
•Th
e M
inis
try
of E
nviro
nmen
t m
ay n
ot b
e th
e fo
cal p
oint
for
GE
F or
UN
FCC
C, b
ut
in m
any
coun
trie
s it
is r
espo
nsib
le fo
r na
tiona
l env
ironm
enta
l str
ateg
ies
cove
ring
CC
asp
ects
, whi
le t
he M
inis
ter
of F
orei
gn A
ffairs
cov
ers
the
coun
try’
s in
tern
atio
nal
com
mitm
ents
on
CC
.
•N
atio
nal d
evel
opm
ent
stra
tegi
es a
nd r
epor
ts r
elev
ant
to C
C (f
rom
agr
icul
tura
l, en
viro
nmen
tal,
scie
ntifi
c, d
isas
ter
risk
man
agem
ent
(DR
M) a
nd m
eteo
rolo
gica
l or
gani
zatio
ns) a
re u
sual
ly a
vaila
ble
(or
refe
renc
ed) a
t th
e of
ficia
l Web
site
of
the
conc
erne
d m
inis
try
or d
epar
tmen
t.
•It
is r
ecom
men
ded
to a
sses
s w
heth
er in
form
atio
n pr
ovid
ed in
the
afo
rem
entio
ned
docu
men
ts m
ay o
r m
ay n
ot b
e fu
lly r
elev
ant
to y
our
proj
ect,
in v
iew
of
loca
tion,
sc
ope
and
othe
r pr
ojec
t ch
arac
teris
tics.
The
y sh
ould
giv
e an
ove
rvie
w o
f th
e m
ajor
pr
iorit
ies
whi
ch a
re r
elev
ant
to C
C a
nd a
gric
ultu
re (i
nclu
ding
fis
herie
s an
d fo
rest
ry)
with
in t
he c
ount
ry.
•Fo
r a
desc
riptio
n an
d lin
ks t
o na
tiona
l pol
icy
docu
men
ts a
nd a
ctio
n pl
ans,
see
An
nex
3 (u
nder
its
sec
tio
n 2
.2 o
n "N
atio
nal p
olic
ies
and
prio
ritie
s").
For
natio
nal i
nfor
mat
ion
and
docu
men
ts r
elev
ant
to
cond
uctin
g a
rapi
d as
sess
men
t, s
ee A
nn
ex 2
•N
atio
nal F
ocal
Poi
nts
to t
he U
NFC
CC
: ht
tp://
mai
ndb.
unfc
cc.in
t/pu
blic
/nfp
.pl
•N
atio
nal G
EF
Foca
l Poi
nt:
http
://w
ww
.the
gef.o
rg/g
ef/fo
cal_
poin
ts_l
ist
•"F
rom
NA
MA
s to
low
-em
issi
on d
evel
opm
ent
in
agric
ultu
re" c
an b
e do
wnl
oade
d fr
om t
he F
AO
E
asyP
ol W
eb s
ite: h
ttp:
//ww
w.fa
o.or
g/ea
sypo
l/out
put/
Abs
Lang
uage
.asp
?id=
881&
lang
a=E
N
•Va
rious
too
ls a
nd o
ther
sou
rces
of
info
rmat
ion
rele
vant
to
ques
tions
pos
ed h
ere
are
pres
ente
d an
d br
iefly
des
crib
ed in
An
nex
3
53
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Su
bje
ctQ
ues
tio
nG
uid
ance
(e.
g. a
ctio
ns,
wh
o t
o t
alk
to)
So
urc
es o
f in
form
atio
n
A.2
. In
stit
uti
on
al a
spec
ts (
app
licab
le t
o b
oth
mit
igat
ion
an
d a
dap
tati
on
)
Sta
keh
old
er
iden
tifi
cati
on
an
d
enga
gem
ent
1.
Wh
ich
are
th
e m
ajo
r in
stit
uti
on
s co
ord
inat
ing
an
d
imp
lem
enti
ng
CC
-re
late
d a
ctio
ns
at t
he
nat
ion
al a
nd
pro
ject
le
vels
, an
d h
ow
co
uld
th
ey c
on
trib
ute
wit
h
dat
a an
d/o
r sp
ecifi
c ac
tio
ns
to t
he
pro
ject
?
2. I
s th
e st
akeh
old
er
con
sult
atio
n p
roce
ss
in p
lace
, in
clu
din
g a
n
app
rop
riat
e d
eliv
ery
stra
teg
y th
at a
llow
s ca
ptu
rin
g k
ey C
C-
rela
ted
issu
es?
3. W
hic
h lo
cal
stak
eho
lder
s co
uld
h
ave
a ke
y ro
le a
s p
roje
ct p
artn
ers?
•N
atio
nal i
nstit
utio
ns c
oord
inat
ing
CC
act
iviti
es a
re u
sual
ly m
inis
trie
s/or
gani
zatio
ns
resp
onsi
ble
for
envi
ronm
ent
man
agem
ent
and/
or fo
reig
n af
fairs
. Oth
er o
rgan
izat
ions
w
ith s
peci
fic c
oord
inat
ing
man
date
s ar
e m
inis
trie
s/de
part
men
ts o
f m
eteo
rolo
gy,
DR
M, s
cien
ce a
nd t
echn
olog
y an
d sp
ace
expl
orat
ion.
Key
act
ors
to b
e co
nsul
ted
incl
ude
foca
l poi
nts
for
UN
FCC
C a
nd G
EF,
nat
iona
l off
ices
of
UN
age
ncie
s an
d bi
late
ral d
evel
opm
ent
inst
itutio
ns a
nd n
atio
nal a
nd in
tern
atio
nal N
GO
s.
•M
ain
natio
nal C
C im
plem
entin
g in
stitu
tions
can
be
line
min
istr
ies/
orga
niza
tions
, un
iver
sitie
s, e
tc.,
alth
ough
not
nec
essa
rily
with
a C
C-s
peci
fic m
anda
te. F
or in
stan
ce,
a na
tiona
l/sub
natio
nal d
epar
tmen
t of
fore
stry
or
agric
ultu
re m
ay b
e im
plem
entin
g ke
y ac
tiviti
es r
elat
ed t
o R
ED
D, a
nd a
nat
iona
l/sub
natio
nal w
eath
er s
ervi
ce m
ay b
e ge
nera
ting
data
and
pro
vidi
ng k
ey c
limat
e in
form
atio
n re
leva
nt t
o ru
ral p
rodu
cers
and
de
velo
pmen
t pr
ogra
mm
es.
•R
evie
w t
he p
roce
ss a
dopt
ed b
y th
e pr
ojec
t pr
opon
ent
for
mul
tista
keho
lder
s co
nsul
tatio
n, c
oord
inat
ion
and
coop
erat
ion.
An
appr
opria
te d
eliv
ery
stra
tegy
(to
be
used
in c
onsu
ltatio
n ev
ents
) sho
uld
be d
esig
ned
to a
llow
cap
turin
g ke
y C
C-r
elat
ed
issu
es. L
inki
ng u
p w
ith e
xist
ing
"cha
mpi
ons"
(e.g
. key
civ
il so
ciet
y m
embe
rs, N
GO
s,
spec
ific
foru
ms
in t
he c
ount
ry) c
ould
be
very
use
ful f
or fo
rwar
ding
the
CC
age
nda
in
the
proj
ect
area
.
•D
epen
ding
on
the
gove
rnan
ce s
truc
ture
(i.e
. the
div
isio
n of
res
pons
ibili
ties
betw
een
cent
ral a
nd p
rovi
ncia
l/sta
te g
over
nmen
ts),
key
inst
itutio
ns m
ay in
clud
e th
ose
at t
he
subn
atio
nal l
evel
.
•M
any
guid
elin
es (n
ot s
peci
fic t
o C
C) a
re a
vaila
ble
on h
ow t
o co
nduc
t st
akeh
olde
r an
d so
cial
ana
lysi
s (s
ee a
djac
ent
colu
mn)
.
•Ke
y st
akeh
olde
rs a
re m
entio
ned
in n
atio
nal a
nd
subn
atio
nal p
olic
y an
d st
rate
gy d
ocum
ents
and
ac
tion
plan
s pr
esen
ted
in A
nn
ex 3
(und
er it
s se
ctio
n 2
.2 o
n "N
atio
nal p
olic
ies
and
prio
ritie
s")
•E
xam
ples
of
stak
ehol
der
anal
ysis
gui
delin
es:
•1)
FA
O (2
011)
Soc
ial a
naly
sis
for
agric
ultu
re a
nd ru
ral
inve
stm
ent
proj
ects
: Man
ager
’s G
uide
, Pra
ctiti
oner
’s
Gui
de, F
ield
Gui
de
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
14/i2
816e
/i281
6e00
.htm
•2)
FA
O (2
006)
A r
apid
gui
de fo
r m
issi
ons,
Ana
lysi
ng
loca
l ins
titut
ions
and
live
lihoo
ds
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
sd/d
im_p
e4/p
e4_0
6040
1_en
.htm
•3)
Wor
ld B
ank
(200
7) To
ols
for
Inst
itutio
nal,
Polit
ical
an
d S
ocia
l Ana
lysi
s of
Pol
icy
Ref
orm
: A S
ourc
eboo
k fo
r D
evel
opm
ent
Prac
titio
ners
ht
tp://
site
reso
urce
s.w
orld
bank
.org
/EX
TTO
PP
SIS
OU
/R
esou
rces
/142
4002
-118
5304
7942
78/
TIP
s_S
ourc
eboo
k_E
nglis
h_Pa
rtI.
pdf?
&re
sour
ceur
lnam
e=TI
Ps_
Sou
rceb
ook_
Eng
lish_
Part
I.pdf
•4)
FA
O (2
003)
Loc
al In
stitu
tions
and
Liv
elih
oods
: G
uide
lines
for A
naly
sis,
by
Nor
man
Mes
ser
& P
hilip
To
wns
ley
ht
tp://
ww
w.fa
o.or
g/do
crep
/006
/y50
84e/
y508
4e00
.HTM
•5)
LE
AD
/FA
O/G
TZ/IP
TRID
(200
6): A
sta
keho
lder
an
alys
is s
ectio
n in
the
man
ual"P
roje
ct D
esig
n an
d M
anag
emen
t: Tr
aini
ng P
rogr
amm
e fo
r Pr
ofes
sion
als
in t
he W
ater
Sec
tor"
ht
tp://
pdm
.lead
.org
/doc
s/pa
rtic
ipan
ts_m
anua
l.pdf
54
Su
bje
ctQ
ues
tio
nG
uid
ance
(e.
g. a
ctio
ns,
wh
o t
o t
alk
to)
So
urc
es o
f in
form
atio
n
Bar
rier
s,
con
stra
ints
an
d c
apac
ity
dev
elo
pm
ent
nee
ds
1.
Wh
ich
co
nst
rain
ts,
gap
s an
d r
elat
ed
fin
anci
al, t
ech
nic
al
and
oth
er c
apac
ity
dev
elo
pm
ent
nee
ds
hav
e b
een
iden
tifi
ed
at t
he
nat
ion
al a
nd
p
roje
ct le
vels
?
•N
APA
s an
d N
AM
As
shou
ld p
rovi
de in
form
atio
n on
mai
n is
sues
and
und
erly
ing
caus
es
of c
onst
rain
ts a
nd g
aps
and
rela
ted
finan
cial
, tec
hnic
al a
nd c
apac
ity n
eeds
/prio
ritie
s.
•To
iden
tify
barr
iers
and
opp
ortu
nitie
s sp
ecifi
c to
the
pro
ject
are
a:
- A
pply
a m
etho
dolo
gy t
o di
agno
se b
arrie
rs t
o C
C a
dapt
atio
n an
d m
itiga
tion.
For
ad
apta
tion,
for
inst
ance
, one
can
app
ly t
he f
ram
ewor
k de
velo
ped
by M
oser
and
E
kstr
om (2
010)
, whi
ch in
clud
es a
use
ful t
able
with
dia
gnos
tic q
uest
ions
by
the
stag
e in
the
ada
ptat
ion
proc
ess
and
the
adap
tatio
n sy
stem
com
pone
nts.
-
Incl
ude/
mai
nstr
eam
the
afo
rem
entio
ned
met
hodo
logy
(or
anot
her)
in t
he
proj
ect
prep
arat
ion
diag
nost
ic s
tudy
of
the
curr
ent
situ
atio
n (i.
e. w
ithou
t pr
ojec
t/pr
ogra
mm
e sc
enar
io),
to id
entif
y m
ain
CC
pol
icy
and
inst
itutio
nal i
ssue
s, b
arrie
rs
and
oppo
rtun
ities
for
poss
ible
pro
ject
sup
port
. Als
o id
entif
y ex
istin
g an
d pl
anne
d pr
ojec
ts/p
rogr
amm
es a
ddre
ssin
g C
C is
sues
, inc
ludi
ng a
rran
gem
ents
on
how
to
coor
dina
te w
ith t
he p
ropo
sed
prog
ram
me.
•M
oser
, S. C
. and
Jul
ia E
kstr
om. (
2010
). A
fra
mew
ork
to d
iagn
ose
barr
iers
to
clim
ate
chan
ge a
dapt
atio
n.
http
://w
ww
.sus
anne
mos
er.c
om/p
ublic
atio
ns.
adap
tatio
n.ph
p
•A
nn
ex 3
(und
er s
ecti
on
3 o
n "T
ools
and
info
rmat
ion
syst
ems
for
adap
tatio
n an
d m
itiga
tion"
)pre
sent
s lin
ks t
o ot
her
met
hods
tha
t ca
n al
so b
e us
ed t
o id
entif
y is
sues
, bar
riers
and
opp
ortu
nitie
s
A.3
. Ad
apta
tio
n
Imp
acts
of
clim
ate
chan
ge
and
clim
ate
vari
abili
ty o
n
agri
cult
ura
l se
cto
rs
1.
Wh
at a
re t
he
exp
ecte
d
imp
acts
of
CC
on
th
e co
un
try’
s ag
ricu
ltu
re
sect
ors
?
2. H
ow
can
exi
stin
g
dat
a an
d r
elat
ed
asse
ssm
ents
on
th
e im
pac
ts o
f cl
imat
ic v
aria
bili
ty
on
ag
ricu
ltu
re in
th
e p
roje
ct a
rea
be
iden
tifi
ed?
Sh
ou
ld a
ra
pid
ass
essm
ent
be
con
du
cted
?)
•D
ocum
ents
ava
ilabl
e th
roug
h na
tiona
l ins
titut
ions
men
tione
d in
thi
s ta
ble
(see
row
ab
ove
unde
r "N
atio
nal a
nd lo
cal p
riorit
ies"
) sho
uld
prov
ide
a ge
nera
l ove
rvie
w o
f im
pact
s.
•A
rap
id a
sses
smen
t of
fut
ure
pote
ntia
l im
pact
s of
CC
sho
uld
be c
onsi
dere
d as
a f
irst
step
in p
roje
ct fo
rmul
atio
n. It
is im
port
ant
to a
t le
ast
unde
rsta
nd t
he p
ast
and
curr
ent
loca
l clim
ate
and
then
fin
d th
e ch
arac
teris
tics
of h
isto
rical
impa
cts
by e
xam
inin
g ob
serv
edpa
st im
pact
s of
clim
ate
varia
bilit
y an
d ch
ange
on
agric
ultu
re. T
his
sets
the
ba
sis
for
asse
ssin
g fu
ture
pot
entia
l im
pact
s.
•S
ee A
nn
ex 2
on
how
to
iden
tify
rele
vant
dat
a an
d co
nduc
t a
rapi
d as
sess
men
t of
im
pact
s of
clim
atic
var
iabi
lity
on a
gric
ultu
re in
the
pro
ject
are
a so
as
to d
irect
the
id
entif
icat
ion
of p
ossi
ble
effe
ctiv
e C
C a
dapt
atio
n ac
tiviti
es/o
ptio
ns. A
nn
ex 2
als
o pr
ovid
es g
uida
nce
on in
stitu
tions
to
talk
to
at t
he c
ount
ry le
vel.
•A
nn
ex 2
•Fo
r an
ove
rvie
w o
f re
gion
aliz
ed im
pact
s of
CC
in
agric
ultu
ral s
ecto
rs, s
ee C
hap
ter
2
•A
nn
ex 3
(und
er s
ecti
on
3 o
n "T
ools
and
info
rmat
ion
syst
ems
for
adap
tatio
n an
d m
itiga
tion"
) pre
sent
s lin
ks t
o ot
her
met
hods
to
desi
gn a
sses
smen
t st
udie
s of
CC
impa
cts
and
rela
ted
adap
tatio
n st
rate
gies
•Th
eWor
ld B
ank
CC
Por
tal a
nd A
DA
PT:
ht
tp://
go.w
orld
bank
.org
/AW
JKT6
0300
Imp
acts
of
CC
an
d c
limat
e va
riab
ility
on
p
eop
le
1.
Ho
w a
re t
hes
e im
pac
ts
affe
ctin
g t
he
pro
ject
b
enefi
ciar
ies
and
oth
er
po
ten
tial
sta
keh
old
ers?
•In
coo
rdin
atio
n w
ith t
he t
echn
ical
info
rmat
ion
gath
erin
g su
gges
ted
in A
nn
ex 2
, thi
s in
form
atio
n ca
n be
obt
aine
d by
hol
ding
dis
cuss
ions
with
gov
ernm
ent
part
ners
and
ke
y in
form
ants
suc
h as
farm
ers’
org
aniz
atio
ns, N
GO
s w
orki
ng o
n C
C a
nd r
esea
rch
and
envi
ronm
enta
l ins
titut
ions
. The
se c
ould
be
unde
rtak
en t
hrou
gh a
dis
cret
e ev
ent
(suc
h as
a r
apid
rura
l app
rais
al) w
ith a
n al
loca
ted
budg
et, o
r th
roug
h m
eetin
gs a
nd
wor
ksho
ps d
urin
g th
e pr
ojec
t id
entif
icat
ion
and
prep
arat
ion
stag
es.
•Fo
r m
etho
ds a
vaila
ble
in t
he li
tera
ture
on
how
to
plan
and
con
duct
sta
keho
lder
s’ c
onsu
ltatio
ns, s
ee
links
on
sect
ion
A.2
of
this
tab
le, u
nder
"Sta
keho
lder
id
entif
icat
ion
and
enga
gem
ent"
55
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Su
bje
ctQ
ues
tio
nG
uid
ance
(e.
g. a
ctio
ns,
wh
o t
o t
alk
to)
So
urc
es o
f in
form
atio
n
Ad
apti
ve
cap
acit
y o
f th
e p
roje
ct-
sup
po
rted
ac
tivi
ties
1.
Ho
w c
an t
he
pro
ject
b
eco
me
mo
re
clim
ate-
resi
lien
t (i
.e. h
ow
can
it b
e im
pro
ved
to
incr
ease
th
e re
silie
nce
of
the
agri
cult
ura
l sys
tem
s an
d li
velih
oo
ds
to C
C
imp
acts
)?
•A
pro
per
way
to
dire
ct t
he id
entif
icat
ion
of p
ossi
ble
effe
ctiv
e C
C a
dapt
atio
n op
tions
(i.
e. c
limat
e re
silie
nt in
terv
entio
ns) i
s to
gat
her
info
rmat
ion
on t
he im
pact
s of
clim
atic
va
riabi
lity
on a
gric
ultu
re in
the
pro
ject
are
a (s
ee A
nn
ex 2
). W
ith t
hat
info
rmat
ion
in
hand
, var
ious
rec
omm
enda
tions
on
adap
tatio
n op
tions
are
ava
ilabl
e in
the
lite
ratu
re.
•Fo
r a
gene
ral o
verv
iew
of
poss
ible
ada
ptat
ion
optio
ns, s
ee t
hose
pro
mot
ed b
y th
e FA
O F
ram
ewor
k Pr
ogra
mm
e on
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Ada
ptat
ion
(FA
O-A
dapt
– s
ee A
nn
ex
3), w
hich
incl
udes
opt
ions
for:
- bu
ildin
g ca
paci
ties
for
impr
oved
dat
a an
d kn
owle
dge;
- es
tabl
ishi
ng a
n en
ablin
g en
viro
nmen
t (e
.g. i
nstit
utio
ns, p
olic
ies
and
finan
cing
);-
supp
ortin
g cl
imat
e-sm
art
man
agem
ent
of la
nd, w
ater
and
bio
dive
rsity
;-
impl
emen
ting
DR
M a
ctio
ns; a
nd-
deve
lopi
ng a
nd d
isse
min
atin
g te
chno
logi
es, p
ract
ices
and
pro
cess
es fo
r ad
apta
tion
in a
gric
ultu
re, f
ores
try,
fish
erie
s an
d ru
ral e
nerg
y.
•C
onsi
derin
g th
at w
omen
hav
e lim
ited
acce
ss t
o ap
prop
riate
tec
hnol
ogie
s, w
hich
cu
rbs
thei
r pr
oduc
tivity
pot
entia
l, pa
y sp
ecia
l att
entio
n to
ens
urin
g th
at t
hey
have
ad
equa
te a
cces
s to
tec
hnol
ogie
s.
•S
ee A
nn
ex 3
(und
er it
s se
ctio
n 2
.1 o
n "G
ener
al a
nd
agric
ultu
ral s
ecto
r do
cum
ents
") fo
r de
scrip
tion
and
links
to
rele
vant
pub
licat
ions
•S
ee A
nn
ex 4
for
poss
ible
opt
ions
and
goo
d pr
actic
es fo
r C
C a
dapt
atio
n, a
nd A
nn
ex 5
for
DR
M
optio
ns
•S
ee a
lso
Sec
tio
n 5
of
An
nex
3
Op
tio
ns
for
dis
aste
r ri
sk
red
uct
ion
(D
RR
)
1.
Is t
her
e a
DR
R
fram
ewo
rk in
pla
ce t
o
pro
tect
ben
efici
arie
s’
livel
iho
od
s fr
om
sh
ock
s an
d t
o
stre
ng
then
th
eir
cap
acit
y to
ab
sorb
th
e im
pac
t o
f, an
d r
ecov
er
fro
m, d
isru
pti
ve
clim
atic
eve
nts
? If
no
t,
ho
w c
an t
he
pro
ject
h
elp
wit
h t
hat
?
•Th
e P
T sh
ould
iden
tify
whe
ther
the
re is
a g
ener
al a
gric
ultu
re r
isk
redu
ctio
n an
d m
anag
emen
t fr
amew
ork
in p
lace
to
supp
ort
smal
l-sca
le p
rodu
cers
(e.g
. far
mer
s,
fishe
r fo
lk, f
ores
t dw
elle
rs) i
n th
e pr
ojec
t ar
ea. F
or s
ome
risks
, ear
ly w
arni
ng a
nd
prev
entio
n ca
n w
ork
effic
ient
ly, b
ut fo
r ot
her
risks
, ex-
post
res
pons
e, in
sura
nce
and
cont
inge
ncy
plan
ning
can
wor
k be
tter
, dep
endi
ng o
n th
e fr
eque
ncy
and
expo
sure
of
thei
r as
sets
.
•Fo
r a
gene
ral o
verv
iew
of
poss
ible
prio
rity
DR
R t
hem
es a
nd a
ctio
ns, s
ee t
hose
pr
omot
ed b
y th
e FA
O’s
Fra
mew
ork
Prog
ram
me
on D
isas
ter
Ris
k R
educ
tion
for
Food
an
d N
utrit
ion
Sec
urity
and
the
FA
O-A
dapt
.
•S
ee A
nn
ex 5
on
fram
ewor
k an
d po
ssib
le D
RR
op
tions
, as
wel
l as
a br
ief
desc
riptio
n of
var
ious
pu
blic
atio
ns w
ith p
ract
ical
gui
danc
e fo
r di
sast
er
resp
onse
and
ris
k m
anag
emen
t in
fis
herie
s, c
rop
prod
uctio
n, n
utrit
ion
and
livel
ihoo
ds
•S
ee A
nn
ex 3
(und
er it
s se
ctio
n 2
.1 o
n "G
ener
al a
nd
agric
ultu
re s
ecto
r do
cum
ents
") fo
r de
scrip
tions
and
lin
ks t
o re
leva
nt p
ublic
atio
ns.
56
Su
bje
ctQ
ues
tio
nG
uid
ance
(e.
g. a
ctio
ns,
wh
o t
o t
alk
to)
So
urc
es o
f in
form
atio
n
A.4
. Mit
igat
ion
Imp
acts
1.
Wh
at a
re t
he
po
ssib
le
imp
acts
of
the
pro
ject
o
n C
C in
ter
ms
of
incr
easi
ng
, red
uci
ng
o
r av
oid
ing
GH
G
emis
sio
ns?
2. W
hic
h a
nti
cip
ated
im
pac
ts o
n C
C c
ou
ld
com
e fr
om
imp
rove
d
agri
cult
ura
l sys
tem
s o
r fr
om
ch
ang
es in
lan
d
use
?
3. W
hic
h o
ther
typ
es o
f p
roje
ct a
ctiv
itie
s h
ave
a p
ote
nti
al im
pac
t o
n
the
pro
ject
’s c
arb
on
b
alan
ce?
•N
AM
As
and
othe
r ke
y na
tiona
l CC
doc
umen
ts (s
ee r
ow a
bove
on
natio
nal a
nd lo
cal
prio
ritie
s) a
nd s
peci
aliz
ed li
tera
ture
can
ass
ist
the
PT
in d
evel
opin
g a
prel
imin
ary
idea
on
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
s of
the
pro
ject
’s p
ropo
sed
inte
rven
tions
on
CC
. In
form
atio
n pr
ovid
ed in
nat
iona
l doc
umen
ts m
ade
avai
labl
e by
nat
iona
l ins
titut
ions
m
entio
ned
in t
his
tabl
e (u
nder
"nat
iona
l prio
ritie
s") m
ay o
r m
ay n
ot b
e fu
lly r
elev
ant
to y
our
proj
ect,
but
the
y sh
ould
ass
ist
in id
entif
ying
the
pos
sibl
e im
pact
s of
the
pr
ojec
t.
•A
gric
ultu
ral p
rodu
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es g
ener
atin
g G
HG
em
issi
ons
(whi
ch t
here
fore
cou
ld
be t
arge
ted
to r
educ
e em
issi
ons)
may
com
e bo
th f
rom
cha
nges
in p
rodu
ctio
n sy
stem
s (e
.g. c
hang
es w
ithin
the
sam
e la
nd o
r w
ater
use
) or
from
cha
nges
in la
nd
or w
ater
use
(e.g
. fro
m d
egra
ded
past
ure
to a
grof
ores
try)
. A p
roje
ct/p
rogr
amm
e m
ay in
volv
e bo
th; f
or d
etai
ls, s
ee g
uida
nce
prov
ided
bel
ow r
egar
ding
how
to
estim
ate
clim
ate
chan
ge m
itiga
tion
pote
ntia
l of
the
proj
ect
and,
in p
artic
ular
, in
form
atio
n pr
ovid
ed o
n m
odel
s av
aila
ble
to e
stim
ate
the
miti
gatio
n po
tent
ial o
f ch
ange
s in
agr
icul
tura
l pro
duct
ion
syst
ems
and
land
use
.
•O
ther
pro
ject
inte
rven
tions
may
hav
e a
nega
tive
impa
ct o
n C
C, i
f no
t m
itiga
ted.
Th
ey c
an b
e re
late
d w
ith p
roje
ct m
anag
emen
t an
d po
licie
s. F
or e
xam
ple,
if p
roje
ct
impl
emen
tatio
n is
exp
ecte
d to
inte
nsify
tec
hnic
al a
ssis
tanc
e of
pro
ject
exe
cute
rs
curr
ently
ope
ratin
g in
the
are
a (a
nd/o
r ne
w f
ield
sta
ff t
o be
rec
ruite
d by
the
pro
ject
), it
can
resu
lt in
a s
ubst
antia
l inc
reas
e in
the
ann
ual c
ar f
uel c
onsu
mpt
ion
and,
hen
ce,
an e
xpec
ted
incr
ease
in G
HG
em
issi
ons.
Bui
ldin
gs (i
nclu
ding
off
ice,
agr
o- in
dust
ries
or o
ther
pos
t-ha
rves
ting
units
) and
oth
er in
stal
latio
ns c
onst
ruct
ed o
r re
habi
litat
ed
by t
he p
roje
ct c
an a
lso
be e
xpec
ted
to g
ener
ate
emis
sion
s if
low
car
bon-
inte
nse
solu
tions
are
not
impl
emen
ted.
See
An
nex
2 s
ectio
ns o
n "m
itiga
tion"
and
"lis
t of
re
sour
ces"
In a
dditi
on, f
or a
n ov
ervi
ew o
f po
ssib
le im
pact
s:•
of a
gric
ultu
ral p
roje
cts
in g
ener
al: F
AO
Miti
gatio
n of
C
limat
e C
hang
e in
Agr
icul
ture
(MIC
CA
) Pro
gram
me
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
clim
atec
hang
e/m
icca
/en/
•of
cro
p pr
oduc
tion:
FA
O P
ublic
atio
n on
Foo
d se
curit
y an
d ag
ricul
tura
l miti
gatio
n, h
ttp:
//ww
w.fa
o.or
g/do
crep
/012
/i131
8e/i1
318e
00.p
df
•of
live
stoc
k, F
AO
pub
licat
ions
on
gree
nhou
se g
as
(GH
G) e
mis
sion
s fr
om t
he d
airy
sec
tor-a
life
cyc
le
asse
ssm
ent,
htt
p://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
12/k
7930
e/k7
930e
00.p
df
•of
fore
stry
pro
ject
s, F
AO
pub
licat
ion
on S
trat
egic
fr
amew
ork
for
fore
sts
and
clim
ate
chan
ge, h
ttp:
//w
ww
.fao.
org/
fore
stry
/166
39-0
64a7
166b
1dd0
2750
4bb
fbb7
6387
8af9
9.pd
f
•of
irrig
atio
n, F
AO
pub
licat
ion
on C
limat
e ch
ange
, w
ater
and
food
sec
urity
, htt
p://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
14/i2
096e
/i209
6e00
.htm
•of
fis
herie
s pr
ojec
ts, F
AO
pub
licat
ion
on C
limat
e ch
ange
impl
icat
ions
for
fishe
ries
and
aqua
cultu
re,
ftp:
//ftp
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/fa
o/01
2/i0
994e
/i099
4e.p
df
See
als
o A
nn
ex 3
(mai
nly
sect
ion
3)
Mit
igat
ion
p
ote
nti
al o
f th
e p
roje
ct
1.
Wh
ich
act
ivit
ies,
p
ract
ices
or
tech
no
log
ies
pro
po
sed
b
y th
e p
roje
ct h
ave
mit
igat
ion
po
ten
tial
?
2. W
hat
is t
he
clim
ate
chan
ge
mit
igat
ion
p
ote
nti
al o
f th
e p
roje
ct?
•B
ased
on
gove
rnm
ent
will
ingn
ess,
the
PT
shou
ld id
entif
y op
port
uniti
es t
o ad
just
th
e pr
opos
ed in
terv
entio
ns t
o re
duce
GH
G e
mis
sion
s an
d in
crea
se c
arbo
n si
nks
in
orde
r to
pur
sue
prod
uctiv
ity a
nd a
dapt
atio
n ob
ject
ives
.
•Th
ere
are
mod
els
avai
labl
e (a
nd o
ther
s be
ing
deve
lope
d) t
hat
estim
ate
the
miti
gatio
n po
tent
ial o
f ch
ange
s in
agr
icul
tura
l pro
duct
ion
syst
ems
and
land
use
an
d to
sup
port
pro
ject
man
ager
s in
clim
ate
chan
ge d
ecis
ion-
mak
ing.
The
EX
-Ant
e C
arbo
n-ba
lanc
e To
ol (E
X-A
CT)
is o
ne s
uch
mod
el d
evel
oped
by
FAO
to
prov
ide
an e
x an
te e
valu
atio
n of
the
impa
ct o
f ru
ral d
evel
opm
ent
proj
ects
on
GH
G e
mis
sion
s an
d C
seq
uest
ratio
n, t
hus
estim
atin
g th
e po
tent
ial c
ontr
ibut
ion
of t
he a
gric
ultu
re s
ecto
r to
clim
ate
chan
ge m
itiga
tion
(Ber
noux
et a
l., 2
010,
Cer
ri et
al.,
201
0). T
he m
odel
can
be
use
d to
ref
ine
proj
ect
com
pone
nts
and
activ
ities
to
incr
ease
, whe
neve
r po
ssib
le,
the
proj
ect’s
miti
gatio
n be
nefit
s.
•S
ee m
ore
info
rmat
ion
on E
X-A
CT
and
othe
r m
odel
s in
sec
tio
n 2
of
An
nex
2, u
nder
the
sub
sect
ion
on
"em
issi
ons,
miti
gatio
n op
tions
and
pot
entia
l").
•D
ND
C B
ioge
oche
mis
try
Mod
el- h
ttp:
//ww
w.d
ndc.
sr.u
nh.e
du/
•E
NC
OFO
R C
arbo
n A
ccou
ntin
g an
d Pr
ojec
t D
esig
n To
ol, h
ttp:
//ww
w.jo
anne
um.a
t/en
cofo
r/to
ols/
tool
_de
mon
stra
tion/
dow
nloa
d_to
ols.
htm
57
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Su
bje
ctQ
ues
tio
nG
uid
ance
(e.
g. a
ctio
ns,
wh
o t
o t
alk
to)
So
urc
es o
f in
form
atio
n
Win
-win
o
pp
ort
un
itie
s th
at in
clu
de
mit
igat
ion
1.
Bas
ed o
n t
he
pro
ject
’s
CC
mit
igat
ion
p
ote
nti
al, a
re
ther
e ag
ricu
ltu
ral
tech
no
log
ies
and
p
ract
ices
wh
ich
w
ou
ld r
edu
ce G
HG
s (m
itig
atio
n)
and
, at
the
sam
e ti
me,
su
stai
nab
ly
incr
ease
pro
du
ctiv
ity
and
res
ilien
ce
(ad
apta
tio
n)
and
en
han
ce a
chie
vem
ent
of
nat
ion
al f
oo
d
secu
rity
an
d
dev
elo
pm
ent
go
als,
or
at le
ast
two
of
thes
e?
•O
nce
it ha
s be
en d
eter
min
ed in
wha
t ar
eas
the
proj
ect
has
high
er m
itiga
tion
pote
ntia
l (e.
g. p
astu
re m
anag
emen
t, a
nnua
l or
pere
nnia
l cro
p m
anag
emen
t,
mea
sure
s to
add
ress
def
ores
tatio
n or
fore
st d
egra
datio
n is
sues
and
man
agem
ent)
, th
e P
T sh
ould
con
sult
loca
l pro
duce
rs (b
enef
icia
ries)
to
disc
uss
the
adop
tion
of d
oubl
e- o
r tr
iple
-win
opt
ions
, suc
h as
tho
se id
entif
ied
as C
SA in
Ch
apte
r 2.
E
xam
ples
of
man
y ty
pes
of c
limat
e-sm
art
prod
uctio
n sy
stem
s ar
e pr
ovid
ed in
the
lit
erat
ure
(see
adj
acen
t co
lum
n).In
the
se g
uide
lines
, som
e ex
ampl
es a
re g
iven
in
An
nex
4.
•Fo
r cr
op, f
ores
try,
gra
ssla
nds
and
lives
tock
pro
ject
s, t
his
ques
tion
can
also
be
phra
sed
as t
his:
if t
he p
roje
ct in
tend
s to
incr
ease
land
pro
duct
ivity
of
smal
lhol
ding
s,
how
cou
ld it
als
o en
hanc
e th
e ab
ility
to
sequ
este
r ca
rbon
dio
xide
equ
ival
ent
(CO
2e)?
• If
the
re is
inte
rest
in a
ddin
g pr
ojec
t ac
tiviti
es in
volv
ing
"fore
st c
arbo
n pr
ojec
ts",
the
Fore
st C
arbo
n Po
rtal
(fro
m E
cosy
stem
Mar
ketp
lace
) inc
lude
s a
com
preh
ensi
ve
serie
s of
gui
danc
e do
cum
ents
on
fore
st c
arbo
n pr
ojec
t de
velo
pmen
t. F
or f
undi
ng
proj
ect
activ
ities
on
redu
cing
em
issi
ons
from
def
ores
tatio
n an
d fo
rest
deg
rada
tion,
th
e R
educ
ing
Em
issi
ons
from
Def
ores
tatio
n an
d Fo
rest
Deg
rada
tion
(RE
DD
+)
Part
ners
hip
Web
site
pro
vide
s us
eful
gui
danc
e. F
or m
ore
info
rmat
ion,
an
exte
nsiv
e lis
t of
fin
ance
opt
ions
for
clim
ate
chan
ge a
ctiv
ities
(inc
ludi
ng c
limat
e m
itiga
tion)
is
pres
ente
d in
An
nex
7.
•S
ee A
nn
ex 4
and
An
nex
3 (u
nder
its
sect
ion
2.1
) for
de
scrip
tions
and
link
s to
rel
evan
t pu
blic
atio
ns s
uch
as F
AO
"Sav
e an
d G
row
, sec
tion
on m
itiga
tion
of F
AO
Pr
ofile
for
Clim
ate
Cha
nge,
etc
.
•FA
O p
age
on C
SA:
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
clim
atec
hang
e/70
746/
en/
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
13/i1
881e
/i188
1e00
•R
ED
D+
Par
tner
ship
Web
site
: (h
ttp:
//red
dplu
spar
tner
ship
.org
/en/
)
•E
cosy
stem
Mar
ketp
lace
– a
pro
ject
of
Fore
st
Tren
ds h
ttp:
//ww
w.fo
rest
-tre
nds.
org/
– is
a le
adin
g so
urce
of
new
s, d
ata,
and
ana
lytic
s on
mar
kets
and
pa
ymen
ts fo
r ec
osys
tem
ser
vice
s, in
clud
ing
carb
on
sequ
estr
atio
n: h
ttp:
//ww
w.e
cosy
stem
mar
ketp
lace
.co
m/
•Fo
rest
car
bon
port
al: h
ttp:
//ww
w.fo
rest
carb
onpo
rtal
.co
m/c
onte
nt/b
uild
ing-
fore
st-c
arbo
n-pr
ojec
ts
Mit
igat
ion
o
pti
on
s1.
W
hat
sp
ecifi
c m
itig
atio
n
inte
rven
tio
ns
cou
ld
be
pro
po
sed
in v
iew
o
f lo
cal n
atu
ral,
soci
al a
nd
eco
no
mic
co
nd
itio
ns
in t
he
pro
ject
are
as?
2. H
ow
wo
uld
yo
u
pri
ori
tize
th
ese
po
ssib
le in
terv
enti
on
s in
th
e o
rder
of
CS
A,
win
-win
op
tio
ns
and
mit
igat
ion
in
terv
enti
on
s, b
ased
o
n t
he
gov
ern
men
t’s
will
ing
nes
s?
•In
ass
essi
ng p
ossi
ble
optio
ns, p
roje
ct d
evel
oper
s an
d in
vest
men
t fo
rmul
atio
n pr
actit
ione
rs s
houl
d co
nsid
er t
he a
vaila
bilit
y of
loca
l kno
wle
dge
and
supp
ort
syst
ems
for
prop
osed
inno
vatio
ns –
i.e.
agr
icul
tura
l res
earc
h in
stitu
tions
, adv
isor
y se
rvic
es/e
xten
sion
and
inpu
t su
pplie
rs (e
.g. s
eeds
, too
ls, a
groc
hem
ical
s).
•Fo
r as
sess
ing
the
effic
ienc
y of
pos
sibl
e C
C m
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s be
ing
cons
ider
ed
unde
r th
e pr
ojec
t/pr
ogra
mm
e, c
ross
-ref
eren
ce c
ould
be
mad
e, fo
r ex
ampl
e,
betw
een
the
rele
vant
mea
sure
s ta
ken
from
An
nex
4 (o
r ot
her
sour
ces)
and
th
e re
sults
of
appl
icat
ion
of a
mod
el s
uch
as F
AO
EX
-AC
T To
ol (s
ee r
ow a
bove
n
miti
gatio
n po
tent
ial),
whi
ch c
an p
rovi
de c
lear
gui
danc
e on
mor
e ef
fect
ive
miti
gatio
n op
tions
. Too
ls p
rese
nted
in A
nn
ex 3
can
als
o be
use
ful t
o an
swer
thi
s qu
estio
n
•A
num
ber
of a
gric
ultu
ral p
ract
ices
com
bini
ng C
SA, C
C m
itiga
tion
and
othe
r be
nefit
s (s
uch
as fo
od s
ecur
ity a
nd a
dapt
atio
n) a
re a
lread
y be
ing
used
by
rura
l pr
oduc
ers.
How
ever
, kno
wle
dge
gaps
stil
l exi
st r
egar
ding
the
sui
tabi
lity
and
use
of
the
prod
uctio
n sy
stem
s an
d pr
actic
es a
cros
s a
wid
e va
riety
of
agro
-eco
logi
cal a
nd
soci
o-ec
onom
ic c
onte
xts
and
scal
es. M
any
prac
tices
als
o ha
ve lo
cal a
nd t
empo
ral
bene
fits
or im
pact
s, t
hus
bein
g ve
ry c
ase-
spec
ific.
Sev
eral
pra
ctic
es a
re li
sted
in
Tabl
e 4.
1 of
Ann
ex 4
.
•Fo
r an
illu
stra
tive
list
of in
vest
men
t op
tions
/pra
ctic
es
for
CSA
, CC
ada
ptat
ion,
miti
gatio
n an
d D
RR
, see
A
nn
exes
4 a
nd 5
.
•Fo
r a
list
of p
ossi
ble
CC
miti
gatio
n m
easu
res,
see
A
nn
ex 4
(und
er it
s se
ctio
ns
2, 3
and
4).
Sec
tor
docu
men
ts a
re r
efer
red
to in
An
nex
3 (
unde
r its
se
ctio
n 2
.1),
incl
udin
g th
e M
ICC
A S
erie
s pr
oduc
ed
unde
r th
e FA
O M
itiga
tion
of C
limat
e C
hang
e in
A
gric
ultu
re (M
ICC
A) P
rogr
amm
e. F
or t
ools
, see
A
nn
ex 3
(und
er it
s se
ctio
n 3
).
•IP
PC
gui
delin
es (a
vaila
ble
in s
ix la
ngua
ges)
on
"Goo
d Pr
actic
e G
uida
nce
for
Land
Use
, Lan
d-U
se C
hang
e an
d Fo
rest
ry":
ht
tp://
ww
w.ip
cc-n
ggip
.iges
.or.j
p/pu
blic
/gpg
lulu
cf/
gpgl
uluc
f.htm
l
•Fo
r an
illu
stra
tive
list
of f
inan
ce o
ptio
ns fo
r C
C
adap
tatio
n an
d m
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s, s
ee A
nn
ex 7
(a
nd a
lso
Ch
apte
r 4)
.
Fun
din
g
sou
rce
1.
Are
th
ere
any
fin
anci
ng
so
urc
es, i
n a
dd
itio
n t
o
the
pro
ject
fu
nd
, th
at
can
be
use
d f
or
the
iden
tifi
ed m
itig
atio
n
op
po
rtu
nit
ies?
•Fi
nanc
e op
tions
for
clim
ate
chan
ge a
ctiv
ities
can
incl
ude
eith
er:
- fin
ance
sou
rces
for
agric
ultu
ral a
nd ru
ral d
evel
opm
ent
inve
stm
ent
proj
ects
or
prog
ram
mes
whi
ch c
anin
clud
e (a
s an
opt
ion,
not
man
dato
ry) c
limat
e ch
ange
in
terv
entio
ns; o
r-
stan
d-al
one
clim
ate
proj
ects
or
prog
ram
mes
or
proj
ects
to
supp
ort
miti
gatio
n an
d/or
ada
ptat
ion
bene
fits.
•S
ee C
hap
ter
4 an
d A
nn
ex 7
.
58
Su
bje
ctQ
ues
tio
nG
uid
ance
(e.
g. a
ctio
ns,
wh
o t
o t
alk
to)
So
urc
es o
f in
form
atio
n
B.Q
ues
tio
ns
and
so
urc
es o
f in
form
atio
n v
alid
fo
r th
e p
rep
arat
ion
sta
ge
(i.e
. aft
er c
on
cep
t n
ote
dev
elo
pm
ent)
Pro
ject
te
chn
ical
st
rate
gy
and
ap
pro
ach
es
1.
Has
a s
trat
egy
bee
n
defi
ned
to
res
po
nd
to
C
C is
sues
?
2. W
hic
h in
teg
rate
d
pla
nn
ing
ap
pro
ach
is
bei
ng
pro
po
sed
at
th
e la
nd
scap
e o
r ec
osy
stem
le
vel t
o e
nsu
re t
he
futu
re s
ust
ain
able
d
evel
op
men
t o
f ru
ral
com
mu
nit
ies
in t
he
pro
ject
are
a?
3. I
s th
e p
roje
ct s
eeki
ng
to
cap
ture
syn
erg
ies
and
man
age
trad
e-o
ffs
amo
ng
fo
od
se
curi
ty, c
limat
e ad
apta
tio
n, m
itig
atio
n
and
su
stai
nab
le
dev
elo
pm
ent?
•Th
e ob
ject
ives
and
str
ateg
y sh
ould
be
defin
ed d
urin
g pr
epar
atio
n to
add
ress
re
leva
nt C
C is
sues
iden
tifie
d du
ring
the
conc
eptu
aliz
atio
n ph
ase.
If C
C is
sues
hav
e no
t be
en p
rope
rly id
entif
ied,
go
back
to
the
ques
tions
pos
ed t
o as
sess
in m
ore
deta
il: a
) the
impa
cts
of c
limat
e ch
ange
and
clim
ate
varia
bilit
y on
agr
icul
ture
in t
he
proj
ect
area
(ada
ptat
ion)
; and
b) t
he p
ossi
ble
impa
cts
of t
he p
roje
ct o
n cl
imat
e ch
ange
(miti
gatio
n).
•It
is r
ecom
men
ded
to a
dopt
land
scap
e-le
vel a
ppro
ache
s, s
uch
as In
tegr
ated
E
cosy
stem
Man
agem
ent
(IEM
), fo
r th
e te
chni
cal p
lann
ing
and
impl
emen
tatio
n st
rate
gy. I
EM
was
dev
elop
ed t
o en
sure
tha
t th
e pr
ovis
ion
of e
nviro
nmen
tal "
good
s an
d se
rvic
es" i
s su
stai
nabl
e an
d th
at t
he in
tegr
ity o
f th
e ec
osys
tem
on
whi
ch t
hey
depe
nd r
emai
ns in
tact
.The
str
ateg
y sh
ould
als
o se
ek t
o ca
ptur
e sy
nerg
ies
in t
erm
s of
tec
hnol
ogie
s an
d pr
actic
es b
y ad
optin
g w
in-w
in o
ptio
ns s
uch
as C
SA p
ract
ices
lis
ted
in C
hap
ter
2 an
d A
nn
ex 4
, Tab
le 4
.1.
•FA
O p
age
on C
SA:
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
clim
atec
hang
e/70
746/
en/
•FA
O p
ublic
atio
n "S
ave
and
Gro
w: A
pol
icym
aker
’s
guid
e to
the
sust
aina
ble
inte
nsifi
catio
n of
sm
allh
olde
r cr
op p
rodu
ctio
n: h
ttp:
//ww
w.fa
o.or
g/ag
/sav
e-an
d-gr
ow/
•Fo
r ap
proa
ches
, see
als
o C
hap
ter
2 an
d A
nn
ex 3
.
Clim
ate
chan
ge-
rela
ted
ac
tivi
ties
1.
Hav
e th
e C
C-r
elat
ed
acti
viti
es b
een
id
enti
fied
?
2. S
ho
uld
th
ese
acti
viti
es b
e b
un
dle
d
un
der
a s
tan
d-a
lon
e C
C c
om
po
nen
t o
r su
bco
mp
on
ent
or
inte
gra
ted
into
oth
er
pro
ject
co
mp
on
ents
?
•S
ee C
hapt
er 3
(und
er it
s se
ctio
n "P
roje
ct/p
rogr
amm
e pr
epar
atio
n st
age"
, sub
-se
ctio
n "M
ovin
g fr
om c
once
pt n
ote
to p
roje
ct/p
rogr
amm
e pr
opos
al")
for
guid
ance
on
the
def
initi
on o
f C
C-r
elat
ed a
ctiv
ities
•
Dep
endi
ng o
n th
e re
leva
nce
of a
dapt
atio
n an
d/or
miti
gatio
n to
the
pro
ject
and
as
soci
ated
str
ateg
y, t
he P
T m
ay r
efer
to
the
optio
ns a
nd g
ood
prac
tices
intr
oduc
ed
in A
nn
ex 4
and
An
nex
5
•Th
e di
scus
sion
s on
the
pro
ject
’s r
esul
ts f
ram
ewor
k ca
n be
use
ful t
o de
cide
whe
ther
to
bun
dle
(or
not)
CC
-rel
ated
act
iviti
es u
nder
a s
tand
-alo
ne C
C c
ompo
nent
. In
a te
chni
cal c
oope
ratio
n pr
ojec
t, a
ctiv
ities
are
usu
ally
agg
rega
ted
in c
ompo
nent
s by
te
chni
cal t
hem
atic
are
as s
uch
as "i
mpr
oved
fore
st m
anag
emen
t", "
agric
ultu
ral l
and
man
agem
ent"
, "ad
dres
sing
clim
ate
chan
ge a
dapt
atio
n" a
nd "c
onse
rvat
ion
of a
gro-
biod
iver
sity
". H
owev
er, i
n in
vest
men
t pr
ojec
ts, c
ompo
nent
agg
rega
tes
cons
ist
of (u
sual
ly) k
ey a
reas
to
addr
ess
barr
iers
/con
stra
ints
whi
ch a
re im
pedi
ng t
he
gene
ratio
n of
ben
efits
(suc
h as
rura
l pov
erty
alle
viat
ion
or in
crea
sed
prod
uctiv
ity)
asso
ciat
ed w
ith t
he p
roje
ct o
bjec
tive.
Bar
rier-r
elat
ed t
hem
es in
the
se in
vest
men
t pr
ojec
ts a
re (u
sual
ly) n
ot t
echn
ical
but
cro
ss-c
uttin
g th
emes
, suc
h as
"cap
acity
de
velo
pmen
t", "
plan
ning
, pol
icy
& in
stitu
tiona
l str
engt
heni
ng",
"adv
isor
y se
rvic
es"
or "i
nves
tmen
ts t
o im
prov
e pr
oduc
tion
syst
ems"
. CC
act
iviti
es a
re u
sual
ly
mai
nstr
eam
ed in
to t
hese
var
ious
bar
rier-r
elat
ed t
hem
es; h
owev
er, d
epen
ding
on
the
proj
ect
prop
onen
t an
d do
nor
stra
tegy
, the
y ca
n al
so b
e bu
ndle
d un
der
a st
and-
alon
e C
C c
ompo
nent
, pro
vide
d th
at t
his
com
pone
nt w
ill a
lso
addr
ess
the
iden
tifie
d ba
rrie
rs r
elat
ed t
o C
C.
•A
nn
exes
4 a
nd 5
•FA
O p
age
on C
limat
e-S
mar
t Agr
icul
ture
: ht
tp://
ww
w.fa
o.or
g/cl
imat
echa
nge/
7074
6/en
/
•FA
O p
ublic
atio
n "S
ave
and
Gro
w: A
pol
icym
aker
’s
guid
e to
the
sust
aina
ble
inte
nsifi
catio
n of
sm
allh
olde
r cr
op p
rodu
ctio
n: h
ttp:
//ww
w.fa
o.or
g/ag
/sav
e-an
d-gr
ow/
•FA
O p
ublic
atio
n "S
ave
and
Gro
w: A
pol
icym
aker
’s
guid
e to
the
sust
aina
ble
inte
nsifi
catio
n of
sm
allh
olde
r cr
op p
rodu
ctio
n: h
ttp:
//ww
w.fa
o.or
g/ag
/sav
e-an
d-gr
ow/
59
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Su
bje
ctQ
ues
tio
nG
uid
ance
(e.
g. a
ctio
ns,
wh
o t
o t
alk
to)
So
urc
es o
f in
form
atio
n
Pro
ject
res
ult
s fr
amew
ork
an
d M
&E
ar
ran
gem
ents
1.
Hav
e C
C
con
sid
erat
ion
s b
een
in
corp
ora
ted
in t
he
pro
ject
’s r
esu
lts
fram
ewo
rk (
RF)
?
2. H
ave
CC
-rel
ated
in
dic
ato
rs b
een
id
enti
fied
?
•S
ee C
hap
ter
3 fo
r ge
nera
l gui
danc
e on
inco
rpor
atin
g C
C a
spec
ts in
the
RF
and
M&
E p
lan;
see
An
nex
6 fo
r an
illu
stra
tive
list
of C
C-r
elat
ed in
dica
tors
for
each
ag
ricul
tura
l sec
tor
or t
hem
e an
d a
list
of in
dica
tors
col
lect
ed f
rom
FA
O’s
and
oth
er
deve
lopm
ent
part
ners
’ pro
ject
doc
umen
ts. O
nce
activ
ities
hav
e be
en id
entif
ied
(see
row
bel
ow),
ensu
re t
hat
they
are
pro
perly
clu
ster
ed in
to t
he v
ario
us p
roje
ct
com
pone
nts/
outc
omes
fore
seen
by
the
proj
ect,
follo
win
g th
e lo
gic
of t
he p
roje
ct’s
R
F.
•D
eter
min
e to
ols
and
arra
ngem
ents
to
mon
itor
clim
ate
chan
ge-r
elat
ed in
dica
tors
in
clud
ed in
the
pro
ject
’s r
esul
ts f
ram
ewor
k. B
ased
the
fin
al p
roje
ct’s
RF,
inco
rpor
ate
CC
con
side
ratio
ns in
the
pro
ject
’s M
&E
pla
n. T
he P
T m
ust
ensu
re t
hat
the
targ
ets
and
indi
cato
rs fo
r m
onito
ring
the
CC
out
com
es a
nd o
utpu
ts a
re c
lear
ly d
efin
ed in
th
e pr
ojec
t m
onito
ring
plan
.
•A
nnex
6
Inst
itu
tio
nal
as
pec
ts1.
W
hat
are
th
e im
ple
men
tati
on
ar
ran
gem
ents
to
en
sure
th
at C
C
acti
viti
es w
ill b
e p
rop
erly
exe
cute
d?
•R
evie
w t
he c
apac
ity o
f th
e co
llabo
ratin
g in
stitu
tions
and
iden
tify
actio
ns r
equi
red
to s
et u
p th
e in
stitu
tiona
l fra
mew
ork
for
CC
mai
nstr
eam
ing,
incl
udin
g di
scus
sion
s an
d ag
reem
ent
on im
plem
enta
tion
arra
ngem
ents
. The
PT
will
iden
tify
the
spec
ific
inst
itutio
ns (w
ithin
the
org
aniz
atio
nal s
truc
ture
of
the
proj
ect
exec
utin
g ag
ency
and
im
plem
entin
g pa
rtne
rs) w
hich
will
be
resp
onsi
ble
for
exec
utin
g, m
onito
ring
and
eval
uatin
g th
e pr
ojec
t ac
tiviti
es r
elat
ed t
o C
C. T
his
shou
ld in
clud
e as
sess
ing
the
capa
city
dev
elop
men
t ne
eds.
Whe
re a
ppro
pria
te, d
elin
eate
rep
ortin
g lin
ks t
o ke
y na
tiona
l CC
inst
itutio
ns a
nd s
peci
fy p
oten
tial a
dvis
ory
or q
ualit
y co
ntro
l sup
port
the
y ca
n pr
ovid
e.
n.a.
Gov
ern
ance
1.
Is t
her
e an
y g
over
nan
ce r
isk
wh
ich
co
uld
jeo
par
diz
e th
e im
ple
men
tati
on
of
pro
ject
act
ivit
ies,
in
clu
din
g t
ho
se r
elat
ed
to C
C?
•A
sses
s w
heth
er t
here
are
any
gov
erna
nce
risks
(e.g
. cor
rupt
ion)
tha
t m
ay a
ffect
th
e le
vel o
f pa
rtic
ipat
ion
and
the
degr
ee t
o w
hich
tar
get
grou
ps m
ay b
enef
it in
the
pr
opos
ed p
roje
ct a
ctiv
ities
(inc
ludi
ng t
hose
rel
ated
to
CC
miti
gatio
n an
d ad
apta
tion)
. D
eter
min
e w
heth
er a
ny m
easu
res
are
requ
ired
to m
itiga
te a
gain
st t
he e
nvis
aged
go
vern
ance
ris
k, a
nd if
so,
iden
tify
the
mea
sure
s.
•Fo
r co
nsid
erat
ions
on
mon
itorin
g go
vern
ance
of
CC
fin
ance
, see
Ch
apte
r 4.
Inte
rsec
tora
l co
ord
inat
ion
1.
Hav
e in
ters
ecto
ral
linka
ges
bee
n p
rop
erly
ad
dre
ssed
?
•In
terv
entio
ns in
one
sec
tor
or s
yste
m m
ay h
ave
impl
icat
ions
for
othe
rs. I
f in
ters
ecto
ral i
ssue
s ha
ve b
een
iden
tifie
d as
rel
evan
t (i.
e. if
the
y ca
n af
fect
the
pr
ojec
t ob
ject
ive
or t
he e
xecu
tion
of C
C a
ctiv
ities
), th
e pr
ojec
t sh
ould
con
side
r in
clud
ing
inte
rven
tions
on:
- in
tegr
ated
land
scap
e pl
anni
ng (
e.g.
at
ecos
yste
m,
mic
roca
tchm
ent
or r
iver
bas
in
leve
l), in
clud
ing
disc
ussi
ons
on C
C is
sues
, to
ensu
re th
at d
iffer
ent i
nter
vent
ions
in
indi
vidu
al s
ecto
rs o
r ar
eas
are
cons
iste
nt w
ith o
ne a
noth
er;
- es
tabl
ishm
ent
of
inst
itutio
nal
mec
hani
sms
to
faci
litat
e in
tegr
ated
an
d cr
oss-
sect
oral
man
agem
ent
prac
tices
suc
h as
inst
ance
s of
tra
nsfe
rrin
g re
sour
ces
from
co
mm
uniti
es t
hat
bene
fit f
rom
eco
syst
em s
ervi
ces
to t
hose
tha
t he
lp t
o m
aint
ain
them
;-
deve
lopm
ent
of m
echa
nism
s fo
r co
nflic
t re
solu
tion
amon
g re
sour
ce u
sers
and
ot
her
stak
ehol
ders
in
tran
sitio
ns f
rom
con
vent
iona
l to
int
egra
ted
ecos
yste
m
man
agem
ent
appr
oach
es; a
nd
- de
velo
pmen
t of
pu
blic
/com
mun
ity/p
rivat
e-se
ctor
pa
rtne
rshi
ps
for
inte
grat
ed
ecos
yste
m m
anag
emen
t pl
anni
ng a
nd im
plem
enta
tion.
n.a.
60
Su
bje
ctQ
ues
tio
nG
uid
ance
(e.
g. a
ctio
ns,
wh
o t
o t
alk
to)
So
urc
es o
f in
form
atio
n
C. Q
ues
tio
ns,
so
urc
es a
nd
gu
idan
ce f
or
the
sup
ervi
sio
n s
tag
e
Su
per
visi
on
at
pro
ject
sta
rt-
up
1.
Is c
on
sult
atio
n w
ith
p
roje
ct b
enefi
ciar
ies
and
par
tner
inst
itu
tio
ns
pla
nn
ed f
or
this
sta
ge?
2. W
hic
h s
ub
ject
s an
d
do
cum
ents
sh
ou
ld
be
revi
ewed
by
the
sup
ervi
sio
n t
eam
?
•Th
is d
ialo
gue
incl
udes
sup
ervi
sion
mis
sion
dis
cuss
ions
(pre
fera
bly
wor
ksho
ps) w
ith
bene
ficia
ries
and
part
ner
inst
itutio
ns o
n th
eir
awar
enes
s of
clim
ate-
rela
ted
activ
ities
an
d ou
tcom
es fo
rese
en b
y th
e pr
ojec
t.
•C
heck
the
incl
usio
n of
CC
-rel
ated
act
iviti
es a
nd a
rran
gem
ents
for
impl
emen
tatio
n (r
espo
nsib
ilitie
s) in
the
follo
win
g pr
ojec
t do
cum
ents
: (i)
the
oper
atio
nal m
anua
l (w
hen
requ
ired
by t
he d
onor
); (ii
) the
ann
ual i
mpl
emen
tatio
n (o
pera
tiona
l) pl
an fo
r th
e fir
st y
ear;
(iii)
bud
get
and
proc
urem
ent
plan
s; a
nd (i
v) t
he p
roje
ct’s
mon
itorin
g pl
an. A
lso
ensu
re t
hat
self/
inte
rnal
mon
itorin
g w
ill b
e im
plem
ente
d on
an
ongo
ing
basi
s in
pro
ject
man
agem
ent;
thi
s, h
owev
er, s
houl
d ce
rtify
tha
t th
e to
ols
to b
e em
ploy
ed in
clud
e w
ays
to m
easu
re c
limat
e-re
late
d in
dica
tors
incl
uded
in t
he
proj
ect’s
res
ults
fra
mew
ork
and
also
in a
ny a
dditi
onal
low
er-le
vel i
ndic
ator
s (a
t th
e ou
tput
and
act
ivity
leve
l) in
clud
ed in
the
pro
ject
’s o
pera
tiona
l man
ual a
nd/o
r an
nual
im
plem
enta
tion
plan
. If
poss
ible
, a C
C e
xper
t sh
ould
be
part
of
this
firs
t m
issi
on.
n.a.
Pro
ject
su
per
visi
on
1.
Wer
e al
l th
e C
C
con
sid
erat
ion
s in
corp
ora
ted
in p
roje
ct
des
ign
? If
yes
, see
q
ues
tio
ns
bel
ow
; if
no
t, a
re t
her
e an
y C
C
issu
es b
ein
g r
aise
d
by
stak
eho
lder
s w
hic
h c
ou
ld a
ffec
t th
e ac
hie
vem
ent
of
the
pro
ject
’s
ob
ject
ive?
Wh
at s
ho
uld
b
e d
on
e to
red
uce
th
is
risk
?
2. H
ave
fiel
d v
isit
s an
d
dis
cuss
ion
s w
ith
re
leva
nt
inst
itu
tio
ns
bee
n p
lan
ned
?
3. W
hic
h C
C-r
elat
ed
sub
ject
s an
d
do
cum
ents
sh
ou
ld
be
revi
ewed
by
the
sup
ervi
sio
n t
eam
? W
hat
ad
just
men
ts a
re
nee
ded
?
•If
pos
sibl
e, a
CC
exp
ert
shou
ld b
e pa
rt o
f th
e pr
ojec
t su
perv
isio
n an
d m
onito
ring
team
s. A
pro
ject
is a
pro
cess
; hen
ce, a
djus
tmen
ts a
re r
equi
red
whe
n w
ell-j
ustif
ied.
Th
is e
xper
t w
ould
als
o be
abl
e to
ass
ist
in id
entif
ying
new
act
iviti
es t
o be
pro
pose
d in
suc
h ad
just
men
ts, p
artic
ular
ly in
cas
es w
here
rel
evan
t C
C c
onsi
dera
tions
w
ere
not
inco
rpor
ated
in p
roje
ct d
esig
n an
d ar
e ?
If y
es, s
ee q
uest
ions
bel
ow; i
f no
t, a
re t
here
any
CC
issu
es b
eing
rai
sed
by s
take
hold
ers
whi
ch c
ould
affe
ct t
he
achi
evem
ent
of t
he p
roje
ct’s
obj
ectiv
e.
•Fo
r gu
idan
ce o
n fie
ld v
isits
and
doc
umen
ts t
o be
rev
iew
ed, s
ee C
hap
ter
3 (u
nder
its
sect
ion
"Pro
ject
/pro
gram
me
supe
rvis
ion
and
eval
uatio
n", s
ubse
ctio
n "S
uper
visi
on").
•Th
e lis
t of
inst
itutio
ns t
o be
vis
ited
shou
ld b
e re
ferr
ed t
o in
the
pro
ject
doc
umen
t.
For
natio
nal i
nstit
utio
ns c
oord
inat
ing
and/
or im
plem
entin
g C
C a
ctiv
ities
(not
ne
cess
arily
und
er t
he p
roje
ct b
eing
sup
ervi
sed)
, see
sec
tion
A.2
of
this
Ann
ex
(inst
itutio
nal a
spec
ts).
•S
ee C
hap
ter
3 on
pro
ject
/pro
gram
me
supe
rvis
ion
61
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Su
bje
ctQ
ues
tio
nG
uid
ance
(e.
g. a
ctio
ns,
wh
o t
o t
alk
to)
So
urc
es o
f in
form
atio
n
D. Q
ues
tio
ns
spec
ific
to p
roje
ct e
valu
atio
n
Bas
e lin
e in
form
atio
n
and
bas
elin
e su
rvey
1.
Wh
at s
ho
uld
be
asse
ssed
pri
or
to
the
dev
elo
pm
ent
inte
rven
tio
n in
ter
ms
of
CC
?
•B
ased
on
CC
-rel
ated
indi
cato
rs id
entif
ied
durin
g pr
ojec
t pr
epar
atio
n (a
nd in
clud
ed
in t
he p
roje
ct d
ocum
ent)
, bas
elin
e da
ta h
ave
to b
e co
llect
ed a
t th
e be
ginn
ing
of
the
impl
emen
tatio
n ph
ase,
alth
ough
som
e do
nors
and
inte
rnat
iona
l fin
anci
ng
orga
niza
tions
(IFI
s) r
equi
re b
asel
ine
data
col
lect
ion
durin
g pr
ojec
t pr
epar
atio
n. It
se
rves
as
a st
artin
g po
int
for
succ
essf
ul m
onito
ring
and
eval
uatio
n (M
&E
), pr
ovid
ing
a ba
sis
for
mea
surin
g pr
ogre
ss in
ach
ievi
ng p
roje
ct o
bjec
tives
, out
com
e an
d ou
tput
s. W
ithou
t kn
owin
g w
hat
cond
ition
s ar
e lik
e pr
ior
to t
he s
tart
of
a pr
ojec
t (in
clud
ing
the
situ
atio
n re
leva
nt t
o th
e ex
ecut
ion
and
mon
itorin
g of
CC
act
iviti
es),
it w
ould
be
impo
ssib
le t
o m
easu
re p
rogr
ess.
Not
too
muc
h tim
e or
effo
rt s
houl
d be
spe
nt o
n th
is p
roce
ss. I
f sp
ecifi
c nu
mbe
rs a
re n
ot a
vaila
ble
or if
it is
too
cos
tly
to c
olle
ct d
ata,
rou
gh a
ppro
xim
atio
ns c
an b
e us
ed. D
urin
g a
base
line
asse
ssm
ent,
te
am m
embe
rs s
houl
d su
rvey
exi
stin
g da
ta t
o se
e if
they
fit
thei
r ne
eds.
•A
det
aile
d ba
selin
e su
rvey
/stu
dy m
ay a
lso
be n
eces
sary
(see
par
agra
ph o
n th
is
subj
ect
in C
hap
ter
3 un
der
"Pro
ject
/pro
gram
me
eval
uatio
n").
Ther
e se
em t
o be
no
maj
or s
ourc
es o
f in
form
atio
n on
met
hodo
logi
es fo
r ba
selin
e co
llect
ion
and
surv
ey
spec
ific
to in
vest
men
t pr
ojec
ts in
corp
orat
ing
CC
co
nsid
erat
ions
. The
re a
re, h
owev
er, v
ario
us b
asel
ine
and
mon
itorin
g m
etho
dolo
gies
ava
ilabl
e fo
r st
and-
alon
e C
C
proj
ects
, suc
h as
the
Cle
an D
evel
opm
ent
Mec
hani
sm
(CD
M) (
http
://cd
m.u
nfcc
c.in
t/m
etho
dolo
gies
/inde
x.ht
ml).
Als
o, fo
r in
vest
men
t pr
ojec
ts, e
ach
IFI u
sual
ly h
as
its o
wn
guid
elin
es o
n pr
ojec
t ev
alua
tion,
incl
udin
g gu
idan
ce o
n ba
selin
e da
ta c
olle
ctio
n an
d su
rvey
, whi
ch
can
also
be
usef
ul fo
r C
C-r
elat
ed in
dica
tors
. The
se a
re
usua
lly a
vaila
ble
on t
he IF
I hom
epag
e/lin
k to
eva
luat
ion.
For
exam
ple,
the
Web
site
of
the
Inte
rnat
iona
l Fun
d fo
r Agr
icul
ture
Dev
elop
men
t (IF
AD
) has
a s
peci
al li
nk
to e
valu
atio
n, t
o he
lp p
roje
ct m
anag
ers
and
M&
E
staf
f im
prov
e th
e qu
ality
of
M&
E in
IFA
D-s
uppo
rted
pr
ojec
ts:h
ttp:
//ww
w.if
ad.o
rg/e
valu
atio
n/in
dex.
htm
Mid
-ter
m
revi
ew(M
TR
)
1.
Wh
at s
ho
uld
be
asse
ssed
du
rin
g M
TR
in
ter
ms
of
CC
?
•S
ee g
uida
nce
on M
TR in
Ch
apte
r 3
unde
r "P
roje
ct/p
rogr
amm
e ev
alua
tion"
.S
ee in
form
atio
n ab
ove
on b
asel
ine
met
hodo
logi
es; i
t in
clud
es in
form
atio
n on
pro
ject
eva
luat
ion,
whi
ch is
als
o re
leva
nt t
o M
TR.
Pro
ject
co
mp
leti
on
an
dev
alu
atio
n
1.
Wh
at c
ou
ld b
e in
clu
ded
in t
he
eval
uat
ion
to
gen
erat
e le
sso
ns
lear
ned
on
ac
hie
vem
ents
rel
ated
to
inco
rpo
rati
ng
CC
co
nsi
der
atio
ns
in t
he
pro
ject
?
•Th
e te
n ta
sks
sugg
este
d in
Ch
apte
r 3
(und
er P
roje
ct C
ompl
etio
n E
valu
atio
n) s
houl
d be
tak
en in
to c
onsi
dera
tion
by t
he P
T w
hile
con
duct
ing
mis
sion
s an
d an
alys
is t
hat
will
sup
port
the
pre
para
tion
of t
he f
inal
eva
luat
ion
repo
rt:
See
info
rmat
ion
abov
e on
bas
elin
e m
etho
dolo
gies
, w
hich
incl
udes
info
on
proj
ect
eval
uatio
n w
hich
is a
lso
rele
vant
to
proj
ect
com
plet
ion.
62
Table of ContentsIntroduction 63
A set of questions 63
Minimum assessments 64
Rapid literature review of impacts and vulnerability studies 65
Seasonal climate and crop calendar 66
Basic characteristics of the project site 66
Climate normals 66
Extreme events 68
Local agriculture 69
Crop calendar 70
Historical climate trends 71
Historical mean climate trend 71
Historical trend of extreme events 72
Historical climate impacts on local agriculture 73
Agriculture under a normal climate 73
Past trend in local agriculture 73
Relationship between past climate and agriculture 74
Identifying dominating climatic factors 75
Adaptation options 76
Projected future climate impacts on yields 76
Projected future climate 76
Projected impact on agriculture 77
Adaptation options 78
Detailed assessments 78
Impact assessments for livestock, forestry and fisheries 79
Vulnerability 79
Mitigation 82
Rapid literature review 82
Emissions, mitigation options and potential 82
Life cycle assessment 84
List of resources 85
Climate change science 85
Impacts 85
Vulnerability 87
Mitigation 87
ANNEX 2 Approaches to rapid assessments of impacts of climate variability and climate change on agriculture in the project area
63
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Introduction
Either at the project formulation stage or during the initial phase of the project, it is recommended to
conduct a rapid assessment of the impacts of climate variability and climate change on agriculture in
the project area. Such an assessment will be helpful in properly identifying possible effective climate
change adaptation activities. It is also advisable to gather basic information on the project site’s
mitigation potential to guide mitigation activities and seek synergies between adaptation and mitigation.
A set of questions
It is necessary to understand the historical impacts of climate change in order to assess its possible
future impacts. A rapid assessment should address the set of questions presented below in order to
better characterize the climate interface of the project. This annex will help you answer these questions
by discussing where to find basic sets of data from public archives and how to analyse them.
The focus of this annex is on crop agriculture; other agriculture sectors, such as livestock, fisheries and
forestry, are not addressed here. However, the same principles should apply to impact assessments
on non-crop agriculture, while data requirements and methodologies may differ. Examples of impact
assessments in these sectors will be given in a later section to help you design such studies as necessary.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the flow of assessment steps, supporting data and major products, using yield
(and/or area harvested) as a proxy for local crop agriculture productivity. The numbers and letters in
Figure 2.1 correspond with those that appear in the list of questions below and in the list of minimum
assessments (discussed later):
Seasonal climate and crop calendar (1)• How large is the project area? What are different agro-ecological zones within the area?
• What is the average climate of the project site? What is the seasonal cycle of the local climate? (A)
• What kind of extreme events are common in the project site? At what time of year do extreme
events typically occur? (B)
• What are the types of local agriculture? What kind of agriculture does the project address?
• What are local crop calendars? (C)
Historical climate trends (2)• Do you find a trend in the recent climate records for the project site? (D)
• What is the recent history of local extreme events? (E)
Historical climate impacts on local agriculture (3)• What is the state of local agriculture under the normal climate?
• How has the productivity of local agriculture changed in the past? Do you find a trend in the state of
local agriculture? (F)
• Is there a relationship between climate trends and agriculture in the local area? How has climate
been affecting agriculture in the local area? (G)
• What climatic factors affect agriculture more: temperature, rainfall or extreme events? During what
time of the year is agriculture more sensitive to climatic factors? (H)
• What can be done to cope with current and historical impacts? (I)
Projected future climate impacts on yields (4)• What is the projected change in the local climate in the future? What are possible ranges of change? (J)
• What is the projected impact on local agriculture in the future? (K)
• What can be done to cope with projected future impacts (L)?
64
Vulnerability• What is the nature of local vulnerability to climate change?
• What is the expected direction of changes in vulnerability with interventions?
• What can be the measures for reducing vulnerability?
Mitigation• What is the emission of an activity?
• What are possible mitigation measures in the local area?
• What are their mitigation potentials?
• How much GHG does the food production chain emit?
• What can be done to increase carbon efficiency?
Figure 2.1 Steps, supporting data and major products from a rapid assessment of climate impacts on crop agriculture
A. Seasonal climate (mean T, max T, min T, rainfall)
B. Extreme events calendar
C. Crop calendar
Integrated seasonal climate and crop
calendar
D. Observed mean climate
trends
E. Chronology of extreme
events
Historical climate trends
F. Historical yield (and/or area harvested)
G. Historical trends (climate and yield
overlay)
H. Identified major causes for yield variability - mean
climate and/or extreme events?
I. Priorities for coping with current impacts
J. Projected future climate (seasonal, annual mean, extreme events) - changes and possible ranges
K. Projected future yield changes
L. Priorities for coping with projected future impacts
1. Seasonal climate and crop calendar
2. Historical climate trends
3. Historical climate impacts on yields
4. Projected future climate impacts on yields
Supporting data
Major products
Legend
This annex presents practical steps for answering some of these questions regarding seasonal climate
and crop calendar, historical climate trends, historical climate impacts on local agriculture, projected
future climate impacts on yields and mitigation in the local area. Assessments of vulnerability are
beyond the scope of this annex as they usually require much more time and resources.
Minimum assessments
Not all assessments and products are possible because of limited data availability and resources.
At the minimum, you should gain an understanding of the following from a rapid assessment:
Seasonal climate and crop calendar (1)• Normal mean temperature, maximum temperature, minimum temperature and precipitation
(monthly scale) for the local area (A)
65
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
• Types of extreme events and the seasons (months) they typically occur (B)
• Crop calendars for major crops (C)
Historical climate trends (2)• No minimum requirements because obtaining long-term data may be difficult
Historical climate impacts on yields (3)• Qualitative characteristics of climate impacts on yields for the local area (H)
Projected future climate impacts on yields (4)• Future projected changes in climate for the region and possible range of changes (J)
• Implications for impacts on local agriculture given the projected future climate (K)
Mitigation• Mitigation potential of possible local mitigation measures
Adaptation• Possible adaptation measures, which preferably do not conflict with climate change mitigation (I and L)
Rapid literature review of impacts and vulnerability studies
Impact assessment is the practice of identifying and evaluating, in monetary and/or non-monetary terms,
the effects of climate change on natural and human systems. Impact in the context of climate change is
defined as the effect of climate change on those systems. Vulnerability is the degree to which a system is
susceptible to and unable to cope with the adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability
and extremes. It is a function of exposure (i.e. impacts), sensitivity and adaptive capacity (IPCC, 2007).
In order to rapidly draw useful information for adaptation actions, a review of literature is highly
recommended to gather already available information for the country and local areas. A literature review
would identify knowledge gaps, and a rapid assessment would complement the literature review by
collecting additional data and analysing them.
Abundant information on climate change and its impact on agriculture are available at global and
regional scales. Information at national and subnational scales are scarcer but can be found from the
following sources. These sources of information may or may not be relevant to your project depending
on the extent of the project area, but they should give an overview of the state of climate change and
agriculture within the country:
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Reports. The IPCC fourth
assessment reports (AR4) consist of Synthesis Report, Working Group (WG) 1 (science), WG 2
(impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) and WG 3 (mitigation). The most relevant chapters are WG1
Chapter 3 (observations: atmospheric surface and climate change), Chapter 10 (global climate
projections) and Chapter 11 (regional climate projections); WG2 Chapter 5 (food, fibre and forest
products) and other sector-oriented chapters of your interest as well as Chapters 9 to 16 (by region).
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
• National Communications to the UNFCCC. They typically report national circumstances, such as
geography and climate as well as assessments of impact and vulnerability and adaptation options.
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/non-annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/items/653.php
• UNFCCC National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). They summarize climatic/
environmental conditions and identify key adaptation needs of the country. Their focus is on urgent
66
and immediate needs rather than a long-term perspective. http://unfccc.int/cooperation_support/
least_developed_countries_portal/submitted_napas/items/4585.php
• National climate change strategy and action plans. Many countries have designed their own
climate change strategies and action plans. These documents should contain an overview of climate
change issues in the country.
• Academic papers. Institutions like FAO have subscriptions to literature databases such as Scopus
(http://www.scopus.com) and Web of Science (http://www.isiknowledge.com). Peer-reviewed
journal articles can be located by searching on these databases with relevant keywords.
• Grey literature (non peer-reviewed reports and other documents). A large amount of information
produced for developing countries tends to be published in non peer-reviewed reports. The
academic databases mentioned above cover grey literature to some extent. Google Scholar (http://
scholar.google.com) can also point you to both peer-reviewed and grey literature.
• National ministries, climate change bodies, research institutions and universities. It is highly
recommended to inquire with relevant ministries, institutions and universities in the country for
other useful information that is not published on the Internet.
When there are no good existing assessments and associated tools available from relevant institutions
at the national/local level, it is highly recommended to conduct a rapid assessment of the impacts of
climate variability and climate change on agriculture in the project area, as detailed in the rest of this
annex. Impact assessments consist of four broad types of analysis. They are: (1) seasonal climate and
crop calendar; (2) historical climate trends; (3) historical climate impacts on yields; and (4) projected
future climate impacts on yields.
Seasonal climate and crop calendar
You can start a rapid assessment by assessing the characteristics of the project site and by
understanding its local climate (past and current) and local agriculture. Then, examine observed (past
and current) impacts of climate variability and climate change on agriculture. This sets the basis for
assessing future potential impacts.
Basic characteristics of the project site
In this section, you will answer these questions: How large is the project area? What are different agro-
ecological zones within the area?
Agricultural investment projects vary a lot in terms of spatial extent. You should find out the size and
basic geography of the project area. If it encompasses different geographic features (e.g. proximity to
ocean/lake/river, elevation, terrain), determine whether different agro-ecological zones exist within the
area. The Agro-Ecological Zones (AEZ) approach, developed by FAO in collaboration with the International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), enables rational land-use planning on the basis of an
inventory of land resources and an evaluation of their biophysical limitations and potential for crop
production. At this stage of rapid assessment, it is sufficient to consult several global maps (Plate A-L)
from the 2002 report (Fischer et al., 2002). If distinctly different agro-ecological characteristics are found
within the area, the same set of rapid assessments needs to be done for each agro-ecological zone.
Climate normals
In this section, you will answer these questions: What is the average climate of the project site? What
is the seasonal cycle of the local climate? (A)
Basic climatic variables of interest to the agricultural sector include precipitation (i.e. rainfall),
temperature (i.e. daily maximum, daily minimum, daily mean), wind speed and direction, solar radiation,
67
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
humidity, evaporation and runoff. They are measured at tens of thousands of land-based weather
stations across the world at least once a day and often more frequently. They are complemented by
observation by ships, radiosondes, aircraft and satellites. The data collected at each weather station
are archived by different frequencies (e.g. hourly, daily, monthly and yearly), usually by national weather
services. Some of the data are shared through the World Meteorological Organization with the
international community, and others are withheld by the country. Therefore, it is advisable to inquire
with the national weather service about data availability in the first place. This annex presents an
alternative way to draw information mainly from public Web sites and services. Please note that data
availability varies significantly by location, country, climatic variables and temporal frequencies, and data
quality also varies. Whenever possible, choose quality-controlled data.
The data are usually available at points (e.g. weather stations) or on grids (spatial resolution may vary).
If you are dealing with a large area and want to visualize climate and impacts in a map, gridded data
may be easier to use than station data. In this annex, we focus on climate information at a particular
location, mainly from land-based weather station data, because they are the primary data source for any
local area. Even though this annex gives general pointers to useful online resources, proper processing
and interpretation of climate data often require expert knowledge. It is strongly recommended to
read the background document that accompanies data sets to understand the nature of the data
before using them for your work. In case you cannot find data at your project location, use data from
neighbouring locations or at different scales (e.g. provinces or even national data), but interpret the
data carefully considering spatial heterogeneity in climate, agricultural practices and ecosystems. It is
recommended to obtain the longest-possible datasets in order to establish observed trends (discussed
later), but be aware of changes in observation locations and measurement methods which may cause
discontinuity in time series (irrespective of climate change).
Climate change manifests itself in mean changes in climate and also in shifts in seasonal cycles.
Therefore, it is always important to understand long-term mean climate (both annual mean and
seasonal cycle) at a location. Climate normals are usually an average of a 30-year period (e.g. 1961
to 1990). There are a number of Web sites where you can get such data. In addition, FAOClim-NET
provides weather station data (i.e. monthly climate normals, 1961–1990) from all over the world. There
is no need for special software for simple analyses. See Figure 2.2 for a sample plot of precipitation
drawn in Excel. You will understand the seasonal cycle of rainfall (i.e. dry season and rainy season).
Figure 2.2
Long-term average precipitation in Rome (1961-1990)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug S ep Oct Nov Dec
mm
68
For locations where no weather station is available, it may be possible to derive information by
spatially interpolating data from neighbouring stations. FAO’s New_LocClim and Web LocClim provide
interpolation tools with monthly, dekadal (10-daily) and daily data. The desktop application New_LocClim
has more functions than its Web counterpart, Web LocClim. Figure 2.3 is a sample plot of temperature
drawn in Excel with output from Web LocClim.
Figure 2.3 Long-term average temperature in Nyala, Sudan (1961-1990)
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
degr
ees
C
Extreme events
In this section, you will answer these questions: What kind of extreme events are common in the
project site? At what time of year do extreme events typically occur? (B)
Intensity and frequency of extreme weather events are expected to change because of climate change.
There are many types of extreme weather events: heat wave, wind storm, cold spell, drought, flooding,
heavy rain, etc. You should learn which types of extreme events are common in the local area – and
in which months/seasons they tend to occur – by talking with farmers and other local people. You can
combine the extreme events information with temperature and precipitation plots to produce a climate
calendar. Figure 2.4 is an example of a seasonal climate calendar from a project in the Philippines.
69
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Figure 2.4 Seasonal climate calendar for Bicol, the Philippines (1994-2009)
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
24.5
25.5
26.5
27.5
28.5
25
26
27
28
29
January
FebruaryMarch
April MayJune
JulyAugust
September
October
November
December
rainfall
temperature
rain
fall
(mm
)
tem
pera
ture
(deg
ree)
Qua 1 Qua 2 Qua 3 Qua 4
Annual rainfall: 3,200 mm Mean annual air temperature: 27.3°CWetter season: Qua 4: Typhoons Drier season: Qua 2: Drought
Local agriculture
In this section, you will answer these questions: What are the types of local agriculture? What kind of
agriculture does the project address?
At this point you should review the types of local agriculture, e.g. crops, livestock, forestry, aquaculture
or fisheries:
• Climate change has direct effects on livestock productivity because of heat stress, changes in water
availability, livestock diseases and disease vectors. Climate change will also affect the quality and
quantity of available feed supply and the carrying capacity of pastures.
• Fisheries and aquaculture production systems are likely to suffer from increased water
temperatures, rise in sea levels and decreased pH, changes in sea productivity patterns, flooding,
droughts and increases in frequency and intensity of storms and other extreme weather events.
• Forests and rangelands will be sensitive to climate variation, weather extremes and long-term
changes, such as changes in day, night and seasonal temperatures; storm patterns; duration and
intensity of heat waves; droughts and floods; presence of invasive species; incidence of pests and
diseases; frost, snow and ice cover; biodiversity; and increases in wildfires.
The rest of this annex focuses on crop agriculture; non-crop agriculture is beyond the scope of this
document, except for references to some sample studies which are discussed later.
70
Crop calendar
In this section, you will answer this question: What are local crop calendars?(C)
Crops are affected by climate differently through their life cycle. Figure 2.5 illustrates the sensitivity
of rice to different types of extreme events; it helps to understand the stages of crop growth that are
most commonly affected by seasonal extreme climate events.
Figure 2.5 Sensitivity of rice crop to climate-related extremes
Source: FAO E-learning tool
Talk with farmers and extension workers about the major crops that are cultivated in the local area.
In order to understand local agricultural practices, compile a crop calendar from sowing to harvesting
for each major crop. You can start with the FAO crop calendar and revise it after becoming familiar
with the local situation (http://www.fao.org/agriculture/seed/cropcalendar/welcome.do). For example,
the database tells you that the sowing/planting period for sweet potato in Uganda’s southwestern
highlands is from 15 April to 30 September and the harvest period is between 25 July and 28 February.
Note there is also a possibility of the double cropping farming system and changes in the system over
time. Also you should make sure to verify the information from databases with local people.
To create an integrated seasonal climate and crop calendar, combine crop calendars with climate
calendar results. Figure 2.6 is an example of crop calendar and extreme events calendar. You can also
easily plot temperature and the seasonal rainfall cycle along with these calendars.
71
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Figure 2.6 Crop and extreme events calendar for Shandong, China
Source: FAO E-learning tool
Historical climate trends
Historical mean climate trend
In this section, you will answer this question: Do you find a trend in the recent climate records for the
project site? (D)
To determine if there has indeed been a significant trend in the historical climate record, you need to
obtain long time series of weather station observations. FAOClim-NET provides long time series from
around the world, and from there you can obtain monthly averages. Daily averages are much more
useful as crops are usually affected by weather at much smaller temporal scales (10 days or shorter)
than monthly scales. Extreme weather events, such as heavy rainfall (i.e. over a few days), may not be
apparent in climate records at monthly time scales and may require analysis at daily scales.
There are a number of public data archives that provide daily averages or information from stations that
FAOClim-NET does not cover. The United States National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) offers a wide
range of data (e.g. Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), Global Summary of the Day (GSOD)).
Figures 2.7(a) and 2.7(b) are plots drawn in Excel using NCDC Global Climate Observing System
(GCOS) Surface Network Monthly (GSNMON) data for El Fahser, Sudan.
72
Figure 2.7 Time series of temperature and rainfall in El Fasher, Sudan
(a) March mean temperature (degrees C) (b) Annual rainfall (mm)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
Temperature1917-1945 (25.1C)1946-1975 (24.3C)1976-2005 (25.8C)Trend (Temperature)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
Rainfall1917-1945 (319mm)
1946-1975 (293mm)1976-2005 (193mm)
Trend (Rainfall)
While you can find a long-term increasing trend (linear regression) of March temperature over the
89-year period plotted, the middle 30-year block (1946-1975) was actually cooler than the preceding
29 years (1917-1945), according to this local record. Therefore, it is important to obtain the longest
record possible when you examine trends. If the data were not quality controlled, we could not rule
out the possibility that the trend might not be true, but be due, for example, to changes in the location
of the weather station or its surrounding environment. Please also note large year-to-year variability,
particularly with rainfall, which is often larger than the observed long-term rate of change in mean
climate. For investigating long-term trends of climatic variables, you can analyse either annual averages
or only selected months for the growing season, rainy season, dry season, etc.
The next best data to weather stations, when station data cannot be found from public archives,
is high-resolution gridded observations (such as those from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic
Research Unit (UEA CRU)) which offer data on 0.5-degree grids. However, be mindful that weather
stations are still the original source of the data that went into the gridded products. So, in places where
stations do not exist, they are interpolated from neighbouring stations that may be quite far away. Thus,
only limited confidence can be placed on climate information in those places, even if sophisticated
methods are used to fill the gap.
Historical trend of extreme events
In this section, you will answer this question: What is the recent history of local extreme events? (E)
It is a good idea to produce a chronological list of historical extreme weather events for the location,
however qualitative and subjective it may be. EM-DAT1 is a database of historical disasters at the
country level. UNEP PREVIEW2 also provides an overview of natural disaster risks in a given country.
You may also be able to identify historical extreme weather events from weather data (preferably at a
daily scale).
When analysing extreme events, pay particular attention to intensity and frequency – both of which
are expected to change in the future. Heavy precipitation events can be found in monthly rainfall
1 The WHO Collaborating Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) maintains an Emergency Events Database EM-DAT.2 PREVIEW stands for Project for Risk Evaluation, Information and Early Warning. It is supported by UNEP, UNDP/Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR)’s Global Risk Identification Program (GRIP), UNISDR and World Bank.
73
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
data (compared with climate normals) or daily rainfall data (i.e. a sum of daily values for a series of
consecutive rainy days). Heat waves can be recognized in monthly temperature averages (i.e. either
daily maximums, daily minimums or daily means, compared with the normal climate for the same
month) or the number of consecutive hot days (above a certain threshold which can be defined for a
given location) in daily temperature data. Droughts can be characterized by total monthly precipitation
(compared with a normal climate) or by the number of consecutive no-rain days. Frequency can be
expressed, for example, in the number of extreme events per year.
In order to analyse the nature of disasters that are not purely meteorological (e.g. flooding, landslides,
agricultural/hydrological droughts), most probably you would need to get data from relevant institutions.
Historical climate impacts on local agriculture
Agriculture under a normal climate
In this section, you will answer this question: What is the state of local agriculture under a normal
climate?
You have compiled crop calendars for major crops. Now, to understand local agricultural productivity,
you should consult with local farmers and extension workers to find out the expected production,
yield and/or harvested area under a normal climate (i.e. without particularly good or bad weather)
through a cropping season at the subnational (or smaller) administrative unit of the project area. You
can also obtain data about the size of the planted area, in addition to the harvested area. Whenever
possible, look for data on all these variables because crop yield and harvested area are affected by
climate in different ways. When collecting data, distinctions should be made between different types
of agricultural practices (e.g. irrigated and rainfed croplands) because they have different responses to
climate conditions.
Past trend in local agriculture
In this section, you will answer this question: How has the productivity of local agriculture changed in
the past? Do you find a trend in the state of local agriculture? (F)
To learn more about how climate has been affecting agriculture, you should try to obtain long time
series data on crop yields, production and harvested/planted area by contacting national and local
institutions that handle agricultural statistics. Depending on data availability, you can either study the
project site, the province where it is located or the entire country if data at smaller spatial scales are
not available. For national data, FAOSTAT, which provides time-series and cross sectional data relating to
food and agriculture for about 200 countries, may be useful.
You can plot a time series of annual (or seasonal) crop yield, production or harvested/planted area to
see how much variability exists from year to year or to see if there is an increasing/decreasing trend
in the series. A steady increasing trend may be due to progress in technology (e.g. better varieties,
infrastructure, fertilizer use) and may have nothing to do with climate. In such a case, the time series
may be “detrended” by subtracting increasing technology effects from it.If you see any jumps in the
data series, contact someone knowledgeable about local agriculture to find out why. It could be errors
in the data set, significant policy changes, changes in the way statistics are logged, etc. Figure 2.8 is an
example of detrending rice yields.
74
Figure 2.8 Annual yield of irrigated rice for each quarter of the year in Bicol, the Philippines and its long-term trend found by fitting a smooth curve (left), and % deviation from the trend (detrended year-
to-year anomaly)
Annual production of rice Anomaly of annual rice production
400
500
600
700
800
19961992 2000 2004 2008
Ric
e pr
oduc
tion
(100
0t) -
Bic
ol r
egio
n
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
19961992 2000 2004 2008D
evia
tion
(%)
Relationship between past climate and agriculture
In this section, you will answer this question: Is there a relationship between climate trends and
agriculture in the local area? How has climate been affecting agriculture in the local area? (G)
After obtaining long-term data of climate and agriculture, you may plot a time series of crop yield with
climatic variables (e.g. temperature, rainfall and extreme events) side-by-side. For example, do you see
a drop/gain in yield in years with smaller/larger rainfall? Do you find a loss in yield when an extreme
event was reported? Please note that different types of extreme events affect different combinations
of crops and practices (e.g. irrigation vs. rainfed).In Figure 2.9, the decline in annual rice production of
Bicol (in the Philippines) appears to be related to recorded large typhoons (1998 and 2006).
Figure 2.9 Annual rice production of Bicol, the Philippines
400
500
600
700
800
19961992 2000 2004 2008
Ric
e pr
oduc
tion
(100
0t) -
Bic
ol r
egio
n
If there is no apparent relationship between the two time series (i.e. agriculture vs. climate) with annual
average climate data, consider looking at monthly/seasonal data. You can try to establish a statistical
relationship between the series, but it is beyond the scope of a rapid assessment.
75
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Identifying dominating climatic factors
In this section, you will answer these questions: What climatic factors affect agriculture more:
temperature, rainfall or extreme events? What time of the year is agriculture more sensitive to climatic
factors? (H)
There are many pairs of climate and agriculture variables which may have a meaningful causal
relationship. Examine different pairs carefully. There are usually only one or two dominating climatic
factors (e.g. average climatic variables or extreme events) that affect a particular crop under a particular
agricultural practice. You can also pay attention to critical stages of crop growth (refer to crop calendars)
that are especially susceptible to changes in climate or extreme events.
Figure 2.10 shows an example of dominating extreme events that impacted major crops in Bicol, the
Philippines, which were found by multiple regressions. The same study went further (Figure 2.11) to
derive common types of extreme events that affect a crop by quarter and by production system
(i.e. irrigation or rainfed).
Figure 2.10 Chronology of dominating extreme events that impacted rice production in Bicol, the Philippines. (Quarter 1=green, 2=blue, 3=yellow and 4=red)
76
Figure 2.11 Generalized dominating extreme events that impact rice yield and area harvested by quarter and by production system (i.e. irrigation and rainfed), in Bicol, the Philippines. (+) means positive and (-) means negative impact for yield or area harvested.
Adaptation options
In this section, you will answer this question: What can be done to cope with current and historical
impacts? (I)
It is suggested that you discuss your findings on climatic factors critical to local agricultural productivity
with local extension workers and other knowledgeable professionals. The type of impact assessment
we have been discussing so far is a top-down approach. This is a point where you can check whether
the data-driven assessment agrees with the local perception of current and past climate risks. If there
are discrepancies between these, you need to investigate why: Are the data not appropriate in terms
of spatial scale and temporal scale? Are there critical errors in the data? Are you making assumptions in
the analysis that may not hold? Are local farmers’ perceptions biased by misconceptions and prejudice?
Once you agree on which critical climate risks for local farming need to be tackled, you can consult
with subject experts and relevant institutions (e.g. an agronomist and water resources manager) to
come up with viable adaptation options. You can start by asking how farmers have been coping with
weather extremes in the past. Are they diversifying sources of income by growing more than one
type of crop, or working in non-crop agriculture or a non-agriculture sector? Do they count on aids
from the government in a bad crop year? Ideally, the actions for adapting to climate risks should boost
productivity without degrading environmental conditions and without increasing greenhouse gas
emissions.
To give you an example, the Bicol study found that excessive water from typhoons is a larger problem
than drought is for rice. Therefore, improving the drainage system and introducing water-tolerant
varieties would be effective in reducing rice yield loss. On the other hand, corn was found to be more
sensitive to droughts than rice, so better irrigation systems would be a good option for corn fields.
Projected future climate impacts on yields
Projected future climate
In this section, you will answer these questions: What is the projected change in the local climate in the
future? What are possible ranges of change? (J)
Future projections of climate are outputs from global climate models which typically operate at a coarse
resolution of about 200km x 200km. IPCC Data Distribution Center, CMIP3 and CMIP5 (Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project Phase 3 and 5) archives provide global climate model outputs, but expert
77
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
knowledge is usually needed to analyse those data. Data on such a coarse resolution is usually not
relevant or useful for local applications. There are, however, Web sites that offer data on global climate
change projections in an accessible format for non-experts, including the University of Cape Town’s
Climate Information Portal (CIP) and the World Bank Climate Change Knowledge Portal.
Global data are often translated into finer spatial scales by downscaling methods for use by applications
(e.g. impact and vulnerability assessment studies, adaptation projects). FAO’s Modelling System
for Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change (MOSAICC) has a module for statistical downscaling.
Performing climate downscaling requires expert knowledge, so it is beyond the reach of rapid
assessments.
Downscaled climate data are often produced for specific applications by experts, but there are a few
sites that provide ready-made downscaled products. University of Cape Town’s Data Dissemination
System is an example. Under a new programme, Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling
Experiment (CORDEX), institutions worldwide are currently running models to compare downscaled
climate data, which will be made available to the public soon.
There are a couple of cautionary notes about the use of future climate projections:
Uncertainties. Future climate projections carry inherently deep, multi-layered uncertainties, and we
only discuss a few of them here. We do not know how human activities will evolve in the coming
decades, which will determine GHG emissions and further affect future climate change. All projections
are based on emission scenarios that represent possible socio-economic development pathways. Even
for the same emission scenario, different climate models project different future climates, although
all of them are known to reasonably reproduce the past climate. Therefore, it is highly recommended
to not base your assessment on one global climate model and one emission scenario. Always choose
at least a couple of climate models and a couple of emission scenarios to understand the range of
possible future climates.
Useofclimatemodeloutputs. Usually you cannot subtract current local climate values (observation)
from future projected climate values (model output) to derive the size of future climate change because
model outputs have biases and do not exactly match observation. Instead, take the difference between
the future and current climate from the same model in order to quantify future changes in local climate.
Projected impact on agriculture
In this section, you will answer this question: What is the projected impact on local agriculture in the
future? (K)
An assessment of future changes in crop yield requires technical expertise beyond a rapid assessment.
One way to do this is to establish a statistical relationship between the local climate and yield and then
apply the same relationship to the future climate to derive the future yield. Note that in the immediate
future (e.g. the next 10 years), the interannual variability may be much larger than long-term changes in
mean climate. Therefore, it is even more important to understand the local nature of extreme weather
impacts and assume the possibility for the same or even worse impacts in the future.
Another, more elaborate, way to project future changes is to calibrate a crop model with historical
climate, yield and other data, and use the same model to estimate future yields. See, for example,
a study on future climate change impacts on Moroccan crop yields (FAO, 2009a). FAO’s tool called
MOSAICC facilitates such studies by national institutions.
78
Adaptation options
In this section, you will answer this question: What can be done to cope with projected future impacts (L)?
Once you understand the future potential impacts of climate change on agriculture, you should see
if there are any significant changes in the characteristics of climate risks between the present (as
identified in previous sections) and the future. It is a good idea to revisit the integrated seasonal
climate and crop calendar and examine potential shifts in the seasonal cycles. The exercise will
highlight adaptation measures for future climate change. Modifications to the set of current adaptation
options (as identified by assessing current risks), taking into account future impacts, should be made
in consultation with experts and relevant institutions. Additional consideration may be given to the
mitigation potential of selected actions (presented in a separate section) whenever appropriate.
Detailed assessments
When a project is identified as relevant to climate change by rapid climate change assessments or
climate change screening, and when specific climate change components/interventions are included in
the project concept note, it is necessary during project preparation to assess the availability of relevant
data and information and identify gaps in order to propose complementary studies that can enable
quantitative analysis. More elaborate assessments usually require good data, i.e. long time-series of
relevant variables at appropriate locations.
As an extension to assessing projected future yield changes (K in Figure 2.1), you can assess future
impacts of climate change by employing FAO’s MOSAICC, for example. MOSAICC consists of climate
downscaling, crop models, hydrology models and economic models. It is necessary to form a national
team of technical experts and provide training so they can run models after calibrating them for local
conditions. With MOSAICC, the team can downscale historical climate and future projections to a local
scale and simulate future surface water resources, evaluate crop yield changes and derive economic
implications for the country. There are also a number of other crop models (often for specific crops),
water models and economic models.
As an extension to assessing projected future climate (J in Figure 2.1), you can suggest downscaling
historical and future climate data, rather than using ready-made products. In addition to MOSAICC’s
downscaling component, there are a number of tools such as Providing REgional Climates for Impacts
Studies (PRECIS) of the UK Met Office and the Statistical Downscaling Model (SDSM). These tools
can be run only by trained experts. Please note that downscaling is not a magic operation that can
provide all the information you need at local scales. If global climate models perform poorly at a location
(e.g. large uncertainties in future rainfall projection), a downscaling method (which uses global climate
model data as inputs) cannot reduce such uncertainties. You may want to think backwards from the
end product (e.g.the impact and vulnerability information you need) and decide if downscaling is really
necessary to produce the information.
As an extension to assessing adaptation options (I and L in Figure 2.1) and mitigation options, you can
summarize and compare possible adaptation and mitigation practices in terms of their cost-benefit,
technical complexity and effectiveness. Before implementing any interventions, it is suggested to
investigate and summarize local-friendly practices for measuring and assessing the effectiveness of
adaptation and mitigation actions. This will contribute to formulating and implementing the project
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework.
79
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Impact assessments for livestock, forestry and fisheries
This annex focuses on rapid assessments for crop agriculture, but a few notable studies for livestock,
forestry and fisheries are mentioned below as a reference when designing impact assessments for
non-crop agriculture sectors:
• For an overview of how climate change affects livestock see Thornton et al. (2007) and Thornton et
al. (2009). Batima (2006) assessed impacts of climate change on Mongolia’s livestock sector from
climate projections, including water resources, snow cover, permafrost, pasture and finally livestock.
The report concludes with suggested adaptation measures.
• For the forestry sector, Forner (2006) provides their project’s approach to assessments (“Tropical
Forests and Climate Change Adaptation, TroFCCA”), which could be adapted for your use. Zhao et
al. (2005) discuss climate impacts on forestry with case studies from the Philippines and Malaysia.
Kirilenko and Sedjo (2007) provide more forest industry-oriented views of the impacts of climate
change on forestry.
• Allison et al. (2005) is a good overview document about climate change impacts and the
vulnerability of fisheries from poverty-reduction perspectives. Brander (2010) discusses the impacts
of climate change on fisheries in general, including methodologies. Brander (2007) discusses a
multitude of climate-related threats to future fish production. For freshwater fisheries, see also
Ficke et al. (2007). For marine wild capture fisheries, Perry (2010) summarizes potential impacts
from recent studies.
Vulnerability
In this section, you will answer these questions: What is the nature of local vulnerability to climate
change? What is the expected direction of changes in vulnerability with interventions? What measures
can reduce vulnerability?
While decision-makers must know the impacts of climate change on agriculture sectors, they also need
to understand the current and future vulnerabilities of their food systems, ecosystems, societies and
national economies to the impacts of climate change and variability.
There are a number of definitions of vulnerability. The IPCC defines vulnerability as “the degree to
which a system or society is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate
change, including climate variability and extremes” (Figure 2.12). In addition to biophysical impacts
assessed in previous sections, an analysis of vulnerability would require an evaluation of local adaptive
capacities to cope with the expected impacts.
80
Figure 2.12 Outcome vulnerability is a function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity
Climate change
Exposure unit
Potential impact
Outcome vulnerability
Sensitivity
Adaptive capacity
This definition of vulnerability is referred to as “outcome vulnerability” as opposed to “contextual
vulnerability” which takes a more holistic view of the issue. In the contextual vulnerability assessment
framework, climate projections are only one part of the assessment of threats to social and
environmental resources (other parts include political and institutional changes and economic and social
changes, as shown in Figure 2.13); however, this kind of assessment makes it possible to identify the
most vulnerable area/sector/practice that requires immediate attention.
Figure 2.13 Contextual vulnerability
Political and institutional
structures and changes
Contextual conditions
Responses
Climate variability and
change
Economic and social structures
and changes
Contextual vulnerability
Institutional
Biophysical
Socio - economic
Technological
Source: Adapted from O’Brien et al., 2007
81
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Vulnerability assessments usually require much more data than impact assessments and elaboration,
and they cannot be conducted in a rapid way. Any vulnerability assessment should carefully consider
the context (i.e. physical, socio-economic and institutional), temporal and spatial scales and inherent
uncertainties to offer a framework for policy measures for adaptation. An assessment should be
designed to answer these questions from the adaptation community:
• Which main population sectors, household groups, etc. are at risk in a given area?
• What are the dominant factors contributing to their vulnerability?
• What actions should we take, given that we cannot exactly predict the future, to reduce the
possibility of an undesirable outcome to an acceptable level?
• What is the best strategy given a variety of possible outcomes?
Vulnerability assessments are not conducted using just one set of tools which could be applied to
any situation. There are a variety of tools that can be used for different vulnerability assessments (see
Figure 2.14). It is very important for you to know how to choose a methodology for the appropriate
temporal and spatial scales of your study.
Figure 2.14 Vulnerability assessment tools on different temporal and spatial scales
TemporalScales
Global toRegional
Regional to National
National to Local
Vulnerability profiles
Vulnerability indicatorsand mapping
Participatorymodeling and
GIS
Oral histories
Syndromes
Risk analysis
Livelihoodsindicators
Delphitechniques
Institutionalanalysis
BrainstormingRole play
Spatial scale
Source: Environment Development Action in the Third World (ENDA), 2004
82
There are several questions to ask when selecting relevant tools for vulnerability assessments:
• What is the context and who are the users/clients of the assessment?
• What is the time scale of the problem?
• What are the expected results of the policies?
• What is the targeted scale/spatial level?
• Which stakeholders are involved in the assessment?
• What resources (e.g. time, finance) are available for the assessment?
You can also focus on specific aspects of vulnerability – food security, rural livelihoods, agro-
ecosystems, etc. Once you understand the characteristics of local vulnerability (whether of the
outcome or contextual type), it is good to simulate the impact of proposed project interventions. An
intervention may reduce a certain type of vulnerability, but may expose the same community to a new
risk. A vulnerability model could be used to design a strategy that would minimize overall vulnerability
to a range of possible risks.
Mitigation
In this section, you will answer these questions: What are possible mitigation measures in the local
area? What is their mitigation potential? How much GHG does the food production chain emit? What
can be done to increase carbon efficiency?
To the extent possible, it is recommended that you gain an understanding of current carbon stocks and
emissions of GHGs from the agriculture, fisheries, forestry and other land-use sectors in the project
area, as well as possible impacts of project interventions on GHG emissions and mitigation possibilities.
Rapid literature review
GHG emissions vary a lot (e.g. by location, ecosystems, soil, agricultural practices, source of emission,
type of gas), so it may be difficult to make even a back-of-the-envelope estimate. Nevertheless, the
following resources may at least help to understand possible ranges of a typical value:
• IPCC Fourth Assessment Reports (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_
data_reports.shtml)These reports consist of a Synthesis Report, Working Group 1 (science), Working
Group 2 (impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) and Working Group 3 (mitigation). The most relevant
chapters for mitigation are Chapter 8 (agriculture) and Chapter 9 (forestry) in Working Group 3.
• National communications, which typically report national GHG inventory and mitigation measures.
These include: national communications by the countries to the UNFCCC (http://unfccc.int/national_
reports/items/1408.php); national climate change strategy and action plans; academic papers;
grey literature (i.e. non peer-reviewed reports and other documents); and publications of national
ministries, climate change bodies, research institutions and universities (see also under “Rapid
literature review of impacts and vulnerability studies” above).
Emissions, mitigation options and potential
In this section, you will answer these questions: What is the emission of an activity? What are possible
mitigation measures in the local area? What is their mitigation potential?
There are a number of resources that provide relevant data which can help you answer these questions.
They are briefly described below:
IPCC’s Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) publishes guidelines for national GHG
inventories. Two of the most relevant publications are “2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories” and “Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry”. TFI
83
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
also offers the Emission Factor Database (EFDB), which is a database on emission factors and other
parameters with background documentation or technical references that can be used for calculating
emissions by sources and removals by sinks of GHGs. The estimated emission of a given emission/
removal activity is calculated as the intensity of the activity multiplied by an emission factor. Parameters
reported from similar environmental conditions and emission estimates based on them could be used
as a reference for a rapid assessment in the project development stage.
Seeberg-Elverfeldt and Tapio-Biström (2011) (not yet published; see their Tables 2.2 to 2.5 quoted below
as Table 2.1) give an overview of the GHG mitigation potential of practices (i.e. agroforestry, grassland,
crop farming, and rice management) in different regions.
More succinct information is available in a 2010 FAO publication – Global survey of agricultural
mitigation projects, Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture Series 1 (FAO, 2010b) – in its Table 4
(quoted below as Table 2.2; compiled from IPCC AR4 WG3) and Annex I, where examples are provided
from different case studies of the carbon sequestration and mitigation potential of different land-use
systems. In the cases presented in FAO (2010b), all projects use different methodologies for estimating
GHG emissions: the Voluntary Carbon Standard methodology for the adoption of sustainable agricultural
land management (SALM) by farmers; the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) methodologies; the
Plan Vivo Standards; and other measurement methodologies with carbon accounting through forestry
assessment, IPCC guidelines and carbon soil determination methodologies. Also, see Annex II of FAO
(2010b) for more information on the range of methodologies for agriculture, forestry and other land uses
from different institutions.
Written mainly for the United States, T-AGG Report (Eagle et al., 2011) describes the mitigation potential
for a variety of agricultural management practices (e.g. conservation tillage) and conversions of land
use (e.g. from cropland to pasture). The numbers presented could be used as a rough indication of
mitigation potential in different locations. See Table 31 of the report for a comparison of all practices
(quoted below as Table 2.3), in which the authors present three categories of GHG impacts: (1)
change in soil C; (2) change in land emissions (N2O and CH4); and (3) change in upstream and process
emissions (e.g. fuel, fertilizer and other).
There are other references available for specific practices. For soil carbon sequestration, West and
Post (2002) looked at the effects of changing from conventional tillage to no-till and enhancing crop
rotation (see their Table 2 and 3). For agroforestry, Nair et al. (2009) reviewed the carbon sequestration
potential of prominent agroforestry systems (see their Table 1).For grassland management, Conant and
Paustian (2002) summarized potential carbon sequestration by continent, level of current overgrazing
and climate (see their Tables 4 and 5). FAO (2009b) gives a good summary of potential in drylands
pastoral systems. Tennigkeit and Wilkes (2008) review the carbon sequestration potential of rangeland
management practices (see their Table 6). Thornton and Herreros (2010) reviewed mitigation options
and their potential for livestock and pasture management. Wassmann et al. (2000) present mitigation
opportunities and potential for reducing methane emissions from rice fields.
The Ex Ante Carbon-balance Tool (EX-ACT) of FAO (http://www.fao.org/tc/exact/en/) is a more elaborate
tool for ex ante estimations of the impact of agriculture and forestry development projects on GHG
emissions and carbon sequestration; however, it is not appropriate for rapid assessments because it
requires some data collection. It is a set of Excel sheets to estimate changes in emissions from land-
use and management practices using IPCC default values and ad hoc coefficients. Although the use
of EX-ACT may be beyond rapid assessment in the project development stage, it is recommended
to use EX-ACT for a project with more focus on mitigation activities in the initial stage of project
implementation. The EX-ACT model can be used to refine project components and activities in order to
84
increase (whenever possible) the project’s mitigation benefits. The following information is needed in
EX-ACT:
• current land use, together with land-use changes, in the “without project” and”with project”
scenarios, with a description of the possible relevant farming systems, livestock production, input
use, and other project investments; and
• land management options which will be promoted within every subsector (e.g. forests, cropland,
grasslands).
If the aforementioned data are not available, you may hold discussions with relevant stakeholders
during the conceptualization stage to plan for obtaining data later during the preparation phase.
For farm-level assessments, there is also the Cool Farm Tool (http://www.unilever.com/aboutus/supplier/
sustainablesourcing/tools/?WT.LHNAV=Tools) which allows farmers to calculate their carbon footprint
and how to reduce it.
Life cycle assessment
In this section, you will answer these questions: How much GHG does the food production chain emit?
What can be done to increase carbon efficiency?
A life cycle assessment (LCA) approach is necessary to estimate the GHG emissions on the entire
food chain throughout the life cycle of a product, including production, transport of inputs (e.g. fertilizer,
pesticide and feed), transport of the product, processing, packaging and distribution of the product to
retailers.
The LCA approach is widely accepted in agriculture and other industries as a method to evaluate the
environmental impacts of production and to identify the resource and emission-intensive processes
within a product’s life cycle (FAO, 2010c). The method is defined in the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) standards 14040 and 14044 (ISO, 2006).The methodology is useful for identifying
effective approaches to reduce emissions or for studying the effect of a certain change in a production
process on the overall lifecycle.
However, a comprehensive LCA requires a large set of data which may not be always available for the
agriculture sector. There are also many subjective elements in an LCA model, such as system boundary
delineation, functional units and allocation techniques. Sensitivity tests would clarify the relative
importance of those elements in an LCA study.
A good starting point is FAO’s LCA study of the dairy sector (FAO, 2010c), which presents an overview
of typical LCA study specifications, including data and methodology. Another short introduction to LCA
is a fact sheet by Australia Climate Change Research Strategy for Primary Industries (CCRSPI) (2009).
The International Dairy Federation (IDF) has also produced a useful LCA guideline for the dairy sector
(IDF, 2010). For the livestock sector, a good example is the European Union’s Joint Research Centre
study (Leip et al., 2010). For the agriculture and horticulture commodities, there is a UK Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) report (Williams et al., 2006), which covers production of
bread wheat, oilseed rape, potatoes, animal feed crops, grasslands and tomatoes, crop by-products and
feed processing, buildings and machinery and animal production.
85
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
List of resources
Climate change science
• FAO E-learning Tool Community-based adaptation to climate change, Module 1, http://www.fao.org/
climatechange/67624/en/
• IPCC, 2007a, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.
ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
• UNFCCC, 2011, Feeling the Heat: Climate Science and the Basis of the Convention, http://unfccc.int/
essential_background/the_science/items/6064.php (last accessed on 10 December 2011)
Impacts
• Allison, E.H, Adger, W.N., Badjeck, M.C., Brown, K., Conway, D., Dulvy, N.K., Halls, A., Perry, A. and
Reynolds, J.D. (2005): Effects of climate change on the sustainability of capture and enhancement
fisheries important to the poor: analysis of the vulnerability and adaptability of fisherfolk living in
poverty, DFID.
• Batima, P., 2006. Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Livestock Sector of Mongolia.
A Final Report Submitted to Assessments of Impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change (AIACC),
Project No. AS 06. International START Secretariat.
• CMIP3 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) Multi-Model Dataset Archive http://www-pcmdi.
llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php
• CMIP5 http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/
• CORDEX Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment, http://wcrp.ipsl.jussieu.fr/SF_
RCD_CORDEX.html
• EM-DAT http://www.emdat.be/database
• FAO Climpag, http://www.fao.org/nr/climpag
• FAOClim-NET, http://geonetwork3.fao.org/climpag/agroclimdb_en.php Data from over 20 000
weather stations worldwide. Monthly averages from 1950s to present and climatological mean
(1961-1990).
• FAO E-learning Tool Community-based adaptation to climate change, Module 2 Climate Change and
Food Security, http://www.fao.org/climatechange/67624/en/
• FAO New_LocClim http://www.fao.org/nr/climpag/pub/en3_051002_en.asp
and FAO Web LocClim http://www.fao.org/nr/climpag/locclim/locclim_en.asp
Both provide estimates of average climatic conditions at locations for which no observations are
available. New_LocClim can: (a) create climatic maps; (b) extract data in various formats from the
database for further processing; and (c) display graphs showing the annual cycle of monthly climate
and the crop calendar.Web LocClim provides (b) only. The user can choose from several interpolation
methods and apply standard corrections such as altitude corrections. Data from over 20 000 weather
stations worldwide. 30-year climatological mean of monthly, dekadal (10-day) and daily record.
• FAO MOSAICC http://www.fao.org/climatechange/mosaicc
• FAO STAT http://faostat.fao.org/
• FAO, 2009a, Impact of climate change on agricultural yields in Morocco, http://www.fao.org/nr/
climpag/pub/FAO_WorldBank_Study_CC_Morocco_2008.pdf
• FAO, 2010a, Climate change, water and food security, http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2096e/
i2096e00.htm
• FAO, 2011a, A Technical Report for the Study on Impacts of Climatic Variability on Agriculture in the
Bicol Region of the Philippines: Implications for climate change adaptation
• Fischer et al., 2002. Global Agro-ecological Assessment for Agriculture in the 21st Century:
Methodology and Results http://www.fao.org/nr/land/databasesinformation-systems/aez-agro-
ecological-zoning-system/en/
86
• Forner, C., 2006. An introduction to the impacts of climate change and vulnerability of forests.
Background document for the Southeast Asian Kick-off meeting of the project Tropical Forests and
Climate Change Adaptation (“TroFCCA”), Bogor, 29 – 30 May 2006.
• GTZ, 2009. Climate change information for effective adaptation. A practitioner’s manual http://
www2.gtz.de/dokumente/bib-2009/gtz2009-0175en-climate-change-information.pdf
• International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI) Climate database, http://iridl.ldeo.
columbia.edu/docfind/databrief/cat-atmos.html
Provides a large number of climate datasets
• IPCC Data Distribution Center http://www.ipcc-data.org/
• IPCC, 2007b, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html
• Tearfund, 2009. CEDRA Climate Change and Environmental Degradation Risk and Adaptation
Assessment, http://tilz.tearfund.org/webdocs/Tilz/Topics/Environmental%20Sustainability/
CEDRA%20D5.pdf
• Thornton, P. et al., 2007. Vulnerability, Climate Change and Livestock – Research Opportunities and
Challengesfor Poverty Alleviation. SAT eJournal, Vol.4, Issue1, p. 1-23.
• Thornton, P. et al., 2009. The impacts of climate change on livestock and livestock systems in
developing countries: A review of what we know and what we need to know. Agricultural Systems,
101, 113–127.
• UNDP, 2009. Applying climate information for adaptation decision-making, http://www.undp.org/
content/undp/en/home/librarypage/environment-energy/low_emission_climateresilientdevelopment/
applying-climate-information-for-adaptation-decision-making.ht
• UNEP PREVIEW Global Risk Data Platform, http://www.grid.unep.ch/index.php?option=com_cont
ent&view=article&id=73&Itemid=400&lang=en&project_id=1765D705 Spatial data information on
global risk from natural hazards.
• UNFCCC National Communications non-Annex I Parties, http://unfccc.int/national_reports/non-
annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/items/653.php
• UNFCCC NAPA National Adaptation Programmes of Action, http://www.grid.unep.ch/index.
php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73&Itemid=400&lang=en&project_id=1765D705
• University of Cape Town, Climate Systems Analysis Group, Data Dissemination System
Downscaled regional climate change data (currently for Asia and Africa)
• University of Cape Town, Climate Information Portal, http://cip.csag.uct.ac.za/webclient/introduction
Observational climate data as well as projections of future climate, globally (as of August 2011, CIP
seems to be still under development).
• University of East Anglia (UEA), Climatic Research Unit (CRU), High-resolution gridded data and
country climate data http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg/
• US National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html. Under NCDC
there are a number of useful data products. Here are a few examples:
– GCOS Surface Network (GSN), Monthly (GSNMON), http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/plclimprod/
cdomain.abbrev2id?datasetabbv=GSNMON
– Global Surface Summary of Day (GSOD), http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/res40.pl?page=gsod.
html
– GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network), http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-daily
– http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/
• World Bank Climate Change Knowledge Portal, http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/
Key climate variables (historical and projections) from different data sources. Most data are at
2-degree grid, and some are weather station levels. Also crop yield projections from Global Agro-
ecological Zones (G-AEZ)
87
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
• World Bank, 2009. Guidance Notes Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change in Agriculture
andNatural Resources Management Projects, 3 Assessing Climate Risk http://climatechange.
worldbank.org/climatechange/content/note-3-assessing-climate-risk
Vulnerability
• Antwi-Agyei, P., Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, A. J., Stringer, L. C., & Simelton, E. (2012). Mapping the
vulnerability of crop production to drought in Ghana using rainfall, yield and socio-economic data.
Applied Geography, 32(2), 324-334. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.06.010
• Dessai, S., & Hulme, M. (2004). Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Climate Policy,
4(2), 107-128. doi:10.3763/cpol.2004.0411
• ENDA, 2004, Capacity strengthening in climate change vulnerability and adaptation strategy
assessments. Background on frameworks, methodologies and tools for vulnerability and adaptation
assessments: How to move from reactive to proactive approaches, http://c3d-unitar.org/c3d/
userfiles/Module_2/EM2_Background.pdf
• FAO, 2011b, Effects of global warming on vulnerability to food insecurity in rural Nicaragua, http://
www.fao.org/docrep/014/am900e/am900e00.pdf
• Füssel, H.-M. (2007). Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change
research. Global Environmental Change, 17(2), 155-167. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.05.002
• Füssel, H.-M. (2009). Review and quantitative analysis of indices of climate change exposure,
adaptive capacity, sensitivity and impacts. Background note to the World Development Report 2010.
• O’Brien, K., Eriksen, S., Nygaard, L. P., & Schjolden, A. N. E. (2007). Why different interpretations of
vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Climate Policy, 7, 73-88.
• Pielke Sr., R.A., R. Wilby, D. Niyogi, F. Hossain, K. Dairuku, J. Adegoke, G. Kallos, T. Seastedt, and
K. Suding, 2011: Dealing with complexity and extreme events using a bottom-up, resource-based
vulnerability perspective. AGU Monograph on Complexity and Extreme Events in Geosciences, in press.
• UNEP, 2009, IEA Training Manual, Volume Two, Vulnerability and Impact assessments for Adaptation
to Climate Change (VIA Module), http://www.unep.org/publications/contents/pub_details_search.
asp?ID=4129
• UNFCCC, Nairobi work programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change
(NWP) -Understanding vulnerability, fostering adaptation, http://unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi_work_
programme/items/3633.php (last accessed 10 Dec 2011)
• World Bank, 2010. World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change, http://
wdronline.worldbank.org/worldbank/a/c.html/world_development_report_2010/abstract/WB.978-0-
8213-7987-5.abstract
Mitigation
• Brander KM. Global fish production and climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America. 2007; 104(50):44 - 46.
• Brander K. Impacts of climate change on fisheries. Journal of Marine Systems. 2010;79(3-4):389-402.
• British Standards Institute PAS2050, 2008. Specification for the assessment of the life cycle
greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services (BSI, 2008).
• CCRSPI, 2009. Life Cycle Assessments: A useful tool for Australian agriculture, Climate change
research strategies for primary industries, Australia
• Conant & Paustian, 2002. Potential soil carbon sequestration in overgrazed grassland ecosystems.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16(4): 1143.
• Eagle et al., 2011. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential of Agricultural Land Management in the
United States, A Synthesis of the Literature, Companion Report to Assessing Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Opportunities and Implementation Options for Agricultural Land Management in the
United States. Technical Working Group on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (T-AGG) Report. Nicholas
Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions Report, NI R 10-04. http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/
ecosystem/land/TAGGDLitRev
88
• FAO, 2009b. Review of evidence on drylands pastoral systems and climate change: Implications and
opportunities for mitigation and adaptation
• FAO, 2010b. Global survey of agricultural mitigation projects, Mitigation of Climate Change in
Agriculture Series 1
• FAO, 2010c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Dairy Sector: A Life Cycle Assessment
• Ficke, A.D., Myrick C. A., & Hansen, L.J. Potential impacts of global climate change on freshwater
fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 2007;17(4):581-613.
• FAO 2011. Mainstreaming Carbon Balance Appraisal in Agriculture. EASYPol Module 099. FAO,
Rome. http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/869/mainstream-crbn-blnce-apprsl-agric-prj-plics_099en.pdf
• IPCC, 2007c, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.
ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/contents.html
• IDF, 2010. A common carbon footprint approach for dairy: The IDF guide to standard lifecycle
assessment methodology for the dairy sector. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 445/2010.
• ISO, 2006. Environmental management – Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and guidelines -
BS EN ISO 14044.
• Johnson, J.M., Franzluebbers, A.J., Lachnicht Weyers, S.L. & Reicosky, D.C. 2007. Agricultural
Opportunities to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Environmental Pollution. 150:107-124.
• Kirilenko, A.P. & Sedjo, R. A. Climate change impacts on forestry. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2007;104(50):19697-702.
• Leip et al., 2010. Evaluation of the livestock sector’s contribution to the European Union greenhouse
gas emissions (GGELS) Final Report. European Commission, Joint Research Centre.
• Nair, P. K. R., Kumar, B. M. & Nair, V. D. 2009. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration,
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. Vol. 172, no. 1, pp. 10-23.
• Perry, R.I. Potential impacts of climate change on marine wild capture fisheries: an update. The
Journal of Agricultural Science. 2010;149(S1):63-75.
• Seeberg-Elverfeldt, C. & Tapio-Biström, M-L., 2011. Agricultural Mitigation Approaches for
Smallholders in Different Farming Systems - An overview of farming systems and mitigation options
In Wollenberg, E., Nihart, A., Tapio-Biström, M-L. & Grieg-Gran, M. (eds) 2011. Climate Change
Mitigation and Agriculture. London: Earthscan. (not yet published)
• Tennigkeit & Wilkes, 2008. An assessment of the potential for carbon finance in rangelands. ICRAF
Working Paper No.68.
• TerrAfrica, 2009. SLM in Practice, Promoting Knowledge on Sustainable Land Management for
Action in Sub-Saharan Africa.
• Thornton, P. K. & Herrero, M. 2010. Potential for reduced methane and carbon dioxide emissions
from livestock and pasture management in the tropics, PNAS www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/
pnas.0912890107
• UNFCCC Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions, http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_15/copenhagen_
accord/items/5265.php
• Wassmann, R. et al., 2000. Characterization of methane emissions from rice fields in Asia. III.
Mitigation options and future research needs, Nutrient Cycling in Agro-ecosystems, 58: 23–36, 2000.
• West, T.O. & Post, W.M. 2002. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation: a
global data analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 66: 1930–46.
• Williams, A.G., Audsley, E. & Sandars, D.L. (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and
resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities.Main Report. Defra
Research Project IS0205. Bedford: Cranfield University and Defra. Available on http://www.cranfield.
ac.uk/sas/naturalresources/research/projects/is0205.html, and www.defra.gov.uk
• Zhao, Y., Wang, C., Wang, S. & Tibig, L.V. Impacts of Present and Future Climate Variability on
Agriculture and Forestry in the Humid and Sub-Humid Tropics. Climatic Change. 2005;70(1-2):73-116.
89
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Table 2.1. Mitigation potential of different management practices
Table 2.2 Carbon sequestration potential in different agroforestry systems
Farming practice Region t CO2/ha/yr Source
Fodder bank Ségou, Mali, W. African Sahel 1.06 Takimoto et al. (2008)*Coffee-based system Central Kenya 1.80 Forest Trends (2010)Live fence Ségou, Mali, W. African Sahel 2.17 Takimoto et al. (2008)*
Tree-based intercropping Canada 3.05 Peichl et al. (2006)*
Traditional agroforestry
parklands
Ségou, Mali, W. African Sahel 4.00 Takimoto et al. (2008)*
Silvopasture W. Oregon, USA 4.07 Sharrow and Ismail (2004)*
Agrisilviculture Chattisgarh, Central India 4.62 Swamy and Puri (2005)*
Silvopastoralism Kurukshetra, India 5.03 Kaur et al. (2002)*
Full-sun cocoa Southern Cameroon 7.19 Gockowski and Sonwa (2011)
Shaded cocoa Southern Cameroon 13.03 Gockowski and Sonwa (2011)
Home and outfield gardens Panama 15.74 Kirby and Potvin (2007)*
Agroforestry woodlots Kerala, India 23.97 Kumar et al. (1998)*
Indonesian homegardens Sumatra 29.36 Roshetko et al. (2002)*
Cacao agroforests Turrialba, Costa Rica 40.66 Beer et al. (1990)*
Agroforestry woodlots Puerto Rico 44.19 Parrotta (1999)*
Mixed species stands Puerto Rico 55.82 Parrotta (1999)*
Sources with * reviewed in Nair et al. (2009).
Table 2.3 Carbon sequestration potential of different grassland management practices
Farming practice Region t CO2/ha/yr Source
Transition from heavy to moderate grazing Eurasia 0.18 Conant and Paustian (2002)
Transition from heavy to moderate grazing Australia/Pacific 0.33 Conant and Paustian (2002)
Avoided land cover/land-use change Global 0.40 Tennigkeit and Wilkes (2008)
Transition from heavy to moderate grazing North America 0.59 Conant and Paustian (2002)
Transition from heavy to moderate grazing Africa 0.77 Conant and Paustian (2002)
Improved grazing management, rangeland USA 1.26 Eagle et al. (2010)
Fertilization on grasslands Global 1.76 Tennigkeit and Wilkes (2008)
Improved grazing on rangelands Global 1.98 Conant et al. (2001)
Grazing management Global 2.16 Tennigkeit and Wilkes (2008)
New grasslands USA 2.20 FAO (2010b)
Transition from heavy to moderate grazing South America 2.53 Conant and Paustian (2002)
Fire control on grasslands Global 2.68 Tennigkeit and Wilkes (2008)
Improved grazing management, pasture USA 4.26 Eagle et al. (2010)
Vegetation cultivation Global 9.39 Tennigkeit and Wilkes (2008)
90
Table 2.4 Carbon sequestration potential in crop farming management practices
Farming practice/system Region t CO2/ha/yr Source
Diversify annual crop rotations USA 0.66 Eagle et al. (2010)
Organic agriculture Global 0.73–1.46 Niggli et al. (2009)
Conventional to no-tillage USA 1.12 Eagle et al. (2010)
Conventional to conservation tillage USA 1.23 Eagle et al. (2010)
Conventional to no-tillage Global 2.09 West an d Post (2002)
Maize-based farming system
(increasing residue production, tree plantations)
Western
Kenya
2.10 Forest T rends (2010)
Application of organic matter (manure) USA 2.63 Eagle et al. (2010)
Table 2.5 Mitigation potential of rice management practices
Farming practice/system Region t CO2e/ha/yr Source
Rice variety development for CH4 various sites 1.34 Eagle et al. (2010)
Rice water management for CH4 various sites 1.94 Eagle et al. (2010)
Source: Tables 2.2 to 2.5 of Seeberg-Elverfeldt & Tapio-Biström (2011)
Table 2.2. Annual mitigation potential for different climate regions for agricultural practices
Table 4. Annual mitigation potential for different climate regions for agricultural practices
Improved land management
practice
all GHG (t CO2eq/ha/yr)
Cool-dry Cool-moist Warm-dry
Warm-
moist
Agronomic practices 0.39 0.98 0.39 0.98
Soil nutrient management 0.33 0.62 0.33 0.62
Tillage and residue management 0.17 0.53 0.35 0.72
Water management 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14
Set-aside and land cover (use) change 3.93 5.36 3.93 5.36
Agroforestry 0.17 0.53 0.35 0.72
Grazing, fertilization, fire 0.13 0.80 0.11 0.81
Restoration of organic soils 33.51 33.51 70.18 70.18
Restoration of degraded soils 3.53 4.45 3.45 3.45
Application of manure/bio-solids 1.54 2.79 1.54 2.79
Bioenergy (soils only) 0.17 0.53 0.35 0.72
Source: IPCC, 2007
Source: Table 4 of FAO (2010)
91
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Table 2.3. Comparison of GHG mitigation potential for agricultural land management practices in the United States, summarized from scientific literature.
Activity Soil Carbon (t/ha/yr)Land Emissions (N2O
and CH4, t/ha/yr)
Direct Impact (t/ha/yr) [sum
of the two]
Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean
Conventional to no-till 1.08 2.60 -0.26 -0.18 0.72 -0.91 0.90
Conventional to conservation till 0.91 1.82 0.00 0.07 0.38 0.00 0.98
Eliminate summer fallow 0.48 2.35 -0.88 -0.03 0.16 -0.30 0.45
Use winter cover crops 0.84 3.24 0.37 0.20 1.05 0.00 1.03
Diversify annual crop rotations 0.58 3.01 -2.50 0.07 0.33 -0.04 0.65
Include perennial crops in rotations 0.57 2.20 -1.75 0.03 0.55 -0.55 0.59
Change from annual to perennial crops 2.26 4.67 0.00 0.12 0.84 -0.55 2.38
Application of organic materials (esp. manure) 2.19 5.10 0.18 0.19 1.81 -1.35 2.38
Reduce fertilizer N application rates 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 1.32 0.14 0.38
Change fertilizer N source – slow-release 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 1.43 0.00 0.46
Use nitrification inhibitors 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 2.23 0.00 1.01
Improve manure management (N2O) No data 0.89 1.22 0.37 0.89
Rice water management for CH4 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 5.22 -0.88 1.56
Rice variety development for CH4 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17 2.71 0.00 1.17
Reduced rice area* No data 4.82 10.26 2.32 4.82
Improved grazing management, rangeland 0.93 4.99 -0.10 0.28 0.31 0.27 1.22
Improved grazing management, pasture 2.71 5.86 0.55 0.28 0.31 0.27 2.99
Source: Adapted from Table 31a of Eagle et al. (2011)
Note: All GHG units are in equivalents of carbon dioxide (CO2e) with 100-year time horizon global warming potential.* Impact of reduced rice acreage depends on subsequent land use. These estimates account for elimination of current CH4 emissions
92
ANNEX 3 Tools and information systems for climate change adaptation and mitigation in agricultural sectors
93
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
AN
NE
X 3
Tool
s an
d in
form
atio
n sy
stem
s fo
r cl
imat
e ch
ange
ada
ptat
ion
and
miti
gatio
n in
agr
icul
tura
l sec
tors
Too
ls a
nd
info
rmat
ion
sys
tem
sD
escr
ipti
on
So
urc
es a
nd
lin
ks
1. G
ener
al c
on
text
an
d o
vera
ll g
uid
ance
The
four
th a
sses
smen
t re
port
(AR
4) o
f th
e In
terg
over
nmen
tal P
anel
on
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
(IPC
C):
clim
ate
chan
ge 2
007-
syn
thes
is r
epor
tC
ore
Writ
ing
Team
, R.K
. Pac
haur
i & A
. Rei
sing
er
(eds
.)IP
CC
, Gen
eva,
Sw
itzer
land
. 104
pp.
Con
trib
utio
ns o
f Wor
king
Gro
ups
I, II
and
III t
o IP
CC
AR
4, w
hich
pro
vide
s an
inte
grat
ed
view
of
CC
, inc
ludi
ng (i
) obs
erve
d ch
ange
s an
d th
eir
effe
cts;
(ii) c
ause
s of
the
obs
erve
d ch
ange
s; (i
ii) p
roje
ctio
ns o
f fu
ture
cha
nge
and
rela
ted
impa
cts;
(iv)
ada
ptat
ion
and
miti
gatio
n op
tions
and
the
ir in
tera
ctio
ns w
ith s
usta
inab
le d
evel
opm
ent;
(v) r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
adap
tatio
n an
d m
itiga
tion;
and
(vi)
maj
or fi
ndin
gs a
nd r
emai
ning
key
un
cert
aint
ies
in t
he a
sses
smen
t.
http
://w
ww
.ipcc
.ch/
publ
icat
ions
_and
_dat
a/ar
4/sy
r/en
/con
tent
s.ht
ml
IPC
C A
R4:
clim
ate
chan
ge 2
007
- the
phy
sica
l sc
ienc
e ba
sis
S. S
olom
on, D
. Qin
, M. M
anni
ng, Z
. Che
n, M
. M
arqu
is, K
.B. A
very
t, M
. Tig
nor,
H.L
. Mill
er (e
ds.)
Cam
brid
ge U
nive
rsity
Pre
ss, C
ambr
idge
, UK
and
N
ew Y
ork,
NY,
USA
, 996
pp.
Con
trib
utio
n of
Wor
king
Gro
up I
to IP
CC
AR
4, w
hich
pro
vide
s: t
he m
ost
com
plet
e an
d qu
antit
ativ
e as
sess
men
t of
hum
an a
ffect
s on
the
rad
iativ
e en
ergy
bal
ance
in
the
atm
osph
ere;
a m
ore
exte
nsiv
e as
sess
men
t of
cha
nges
obs
erve
d th
roug
hout
the
cl
imat
e sy
stem
; a d
etai
led
asse
ssm
ent
of p
ast
CC
and
its
caus
es; t
he fi
rst
prob
abili
stic
as
sess
men
t of
clim
ate
mod
el s
imul
atio
ns a
nd p
roje
ctio
ns; a
nd a
det
aile
d as
sess
men
t of
CC
obs
erva
tions
, mod
elin
g, a
nd a
ttrib
utio
n fo
r ev
ery
cont
inen
t.
http
://w
ww
.ipcc
.ch/
publ
icat
ions
_and
_dat
a/ar
4/w
g1/
en/c
onte
nts.
htm
l
IPC
C A
R4:
clim
ate
chan
ge 2
007-
impa
cts,
ad
apta
tion
and
vuln
erab
ility
M.L
. Par
ry, O
.F. C
anzi
ani,
J.P.
Pal
utik
of, P
.J. v
an d
er
Lind
en &
C.E
. Han
son
(eds
.)C
ambr
idge
Uni
vers
ity P
ress
, Cam
brid
ge, U
K a
nd
New
Yor
k, N
Y, U
SA.
Con
trib
utio
n of
Wor
king
Gro
up II
to
IPC
C A
R4,
whi
ch p
rovi
des
a co
mpr
ehen
sive
as
sess
men
t of
the
CC
lite
ratu
re o
n ob
serv
ed c
hang
es; t
he m
etho
ds a
vaila
ble
for
impa
cts
anal
ysis
and
sce
nario
s; c
urre
nt a
nd f
utur
e C
C im
pact
s on
sys
tem
s, s
ecto
rs
and
regi
ons;
vul
nera
bilit
ies
to t
hese
impa
cts
and
stra
tegi
es fo
r ad
apta
tion;
pos
sibl
e ad
apta
tion
resp
onse
s an
d th
e sy
nerg
ies
with
miti
gatio
n; a
nd t
he in
ter-r
elat
ions
hips
be
twee
n C
C a
nd s
usta
inab
ility
.
http
://w
ww
.ipcc
.ch/
publ
icat
ions
_and
_dat
a/ar
4/w
g2/
en/c
onte
nts.
htm
l
IPC
C A
R4:
clim
ate
chan
ge 2
007-
miti
gatio
n of
cl
imat
e ch
ange
B. M
etz,
O.R
. Dav
idso
n, P
.R. B
osch
, R. D
ave
&
L.A
. Mey
er (e
ds.)
Cam
brid
ge U
nive
rsity
Pre
ss, C
ambr
idge
, UK
and
N
ew Y
ork,
NY,
USA
.
Con
trib
utio
n of
Wor
king
Gro
up II
I to
IPC
C A
R4,
whi
ch p
rovi
des
auth
orita
tive,
tim
ely
info
rmat
ion
on a
ll as
pect
s of
tec
hnol
ogie
s an
d so
cio-
econ
omic
pol
icie
s, in
clud
ing
cost
-ef
fect
ive
mea
sure
s, t
o co
ntro
l GH
G e
mis
sion
s.
http
://w
ww
.ipcc
.ch/
publ
icat
ions
_and
_dat
a/ar
4/w
g3/
en/c
onte
nts.
htm
l
2. S
trat
egie
s, p
olic
ies
and
fra
mew
ork
s
2.1.
Gen
eral
an
d a
gri
cult
ura
l sec
tor
do
cum
ents
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
and
Food
Sec
urity
. E-le
arni
ng
cour
se. F
AO
, 201
1A
bas
ic d
iscu
ssio
n of
CC
and
food
sec
urity
, inc
ludi
ng c
limat
e sc
ienc
e, C
C a
dapt
atio
n,
miti
gatio
n an
d C
SA.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
clim
atec
hang
e/le
arni
ng@
1554
40/e
n
FAO
pro
file
for
clim
ate
chan
geFA
O R
ome,
200
9A
n FA
O p
olic
y pa
per,
whi
ch b
riefs
the
con
text
of
CC
ada
ptat
ion,
miti
gatio
n, fo
od
secu
rity
and
sust
aina
ble
deve
lopm
ent
in a
gric
ultu
ral s
ecto
rs; i
ntro
duce
s ge
nera
l ap
proa
ches
and
opt
ions
for
capt
urin
g th
e sy
nerg
ies
and
man
agin
g th
e tr
ade-
offs
; and
ou
tline
s FA
O c
urre
nt a
nd f
utur
e pr
iorit
ies
on C
C.
ftp:
//ftp
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/fa
o/01
2/i1
323e
/i132
3e00
FAO
Fra
mew
ork
Prog
ram
me
on C
limat
e C
hang
e A
dapt
atio
n (F
AO
-Ada
pt)
FAO
Rom
e, 2
011
Dis
cuss
es C
C im
pact
s on
the
agr
icul
ture
sec
tors
and
food
sec
urity
; defi
nes
adap
tatio
n in
the
con
text
of
the
agric
ultu
re s
ecto
rs; d
escr
ibes
mea
ns a
nd m
easu
res
for
adap
tatio
n;
intr
oduc
es F
AO
’s w
ork
on C
C a
dapt
atio
n w
ith it
s co
re p
rinci
ples
and
prio
rity
adap
tatio
n th
emes
and
act
ions
; and
pre
sent
s FA
O-A
dapt
’s im
plem
enta
tion
prop
osal
s.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
clim
atec
hang
e/27
594-
03ec
d7bd
225b
9308
6e7d
ca39
44de
6430
7.pd
f
94
Too
ls a
nd
info
rmat
ion
sys
tem
sD
escr
ipti
on
So
urc
es a
nd
lin
ks
FAO
Fra
mew
ork
Prog
ram
me
on D
isas
ter
Ris
k R
educ
tion
(FP
DR
R)
Prov
ides
str
ateg
ic d
irect
ion
to t
he im
plem
enta
tion
of D
RR
mea
sure
s in
mem
ber
stat
es
acro
ss t
he a
gric
ultu
ral-r
elat
ed s
ecto
rs. P
rom
otes
an
inte
rdis
cipl
inar
y an
d pr
ogra
mm
atic
ap
proa
ch t
o D
RR
by
inte
grat
ing
the
agric
ultu
re, l
ives
tock
, fish
erie
s, fo
rest
ry a
nd n
atur
al
reso
urce
man
agem
ent
sect
ors
to r
espo
nd m
ore
effe
ctiv
ely
to t
he d
iver
se li
velih
oods
of
smal
l-sca
le fa
rmer
s an
d to
the
com
plex
set
of
fact
ors
whi
ch c
ontr
ibut
e to
dis
aste
r ris
k.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
15/i2
540e
/i254
0e00
Ada
ptat
ion
to c
limat
e ch
ange
in a
gric
ultu
re,
fore
stry
and
fish
erie
s: P
ersp
ectiv
e, f
ram
ewor
k an
d pr
iorit
ies
FAO
Rom
e, 2
007
Rev
iew
s th
e im
pact
s of
CC
in a
gric
ultu
ral s
ecto
rs; o
utlin
es t
he f
ram
ewor
k an
d ap
proa
ches
for
CC
ada
ptat
ion
in a
gric
ultu
re, f
ores
try
and
fishe
ries;
and
intr
oduc
es
FAO
’s w
ork
rela
ted
to C
C a
dapt
atio
n.
ftp:
//ftp
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/fa
o/00
9/j9
271e
/j927
1e.p
df
Clim
ate
chan
ge a
nd fo
od s
ecur
ity: a
fra
mew
ork
docu
men
tFA
O R
ome,
200
8
Prov
ides
bac
kgro
und
info
rmat
ion
on t
he in
terr
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
CC
and
food
sec
urity
an
d w
ays
to d
eal w
ith t
he n
ew t
hrea
t. S
how
s op
port
uniti
es fo
r th
e ag
ricul
ture
sec
tor
to
adap
t, a
nd d
escr
ibes
how
it c
an c
ontr
ibut
e to
miti
gatin
g th
e cl
imat
e ch
alle
nge.
ftp:
//ftp
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/fa
o/01
0/a1
508e
/a15
08e0
0.pd
f
"Sav
e an
d G
row
: A p
olic
ymak
er’s
gui
de t
o th
e su
stai
nabl
e in
tens
ifica
tion
of s
mal
lhol
der
crop
pr
oduc
tion
FAO
Rom
e, 2
011
Prov
ides
a n
ew a
ppro
ach
to fa
ce C
C (a
quo
te o
n th
is p
ublic
atio
n fr
om t
he N
ew Y
ork
Tim
es: "
To fe
ed a
gro
win
g w
orld
pop
ulat
ion,
we
have
no
optio
n bu
t to
inte
nsify
cro
p pr
oduc
tion;
but
farm
ers
face
unp
rece
dent
ed c
onst
rain
ts; i
n or
der
to g
row
, agr
icul
ture
m
ust
lear
n to
sav
e.")
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
ag/s
ave-
and-
grow
/
Clim
ate
chan
ge, w
ater
and
food
sec
urity
- FA
O
wat
er r
epor
ts N
o. 3
6Tu
rral
, H.,
Bur
ke, J
. & F
aurè
s, J
.FA
O R
ome,
201
1
Sum
mar
izes
cur
rent
kno
wle
dge
of t
he a
ntic
ipat
ed im
pact
s of
CC
on
wat
er a
vaila
bilit
y fo
r ag
ricul
ture
; exa
min
es t
he im
plic
atio
ns fo
r lo
cal a
nd n
atio
nal f
ood
secu
rity;
dis
cuss
es
the
met
hods
and
app
roac
hes
to a
sses
s C
C im
pact
s on
wat
er a
nd a
gric
ultu
re;
emph
asiz
es t
he n
eed
for
clos
er a
lignm
ent
betw
een
wat
er a
nd a
gric
ultu
ral p
olic
ies;
and
m
akes
the
cas
e fo
r im
med
iate
impl
emen
tatio
n of
"no-
regr
ets"
str
ateg
ies.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
14/i2
096e
/i209
6e00
.ht
m
Food
Sec
urity
and
Agr
icul
tura
l Miti
gatio
n in
D
evel
opin
g C
ount
ries:
Opt
ions
for
Cap
turin
g Sy
nerg
ies.
Man
n, W
., Li
pper
, L.,
Tenn
igke
it, T.
, McC
arth
y N
.&
Bra
nca,
G.F
AO
. 200
9.
Exp
lore
s po
tent
ial s
yner
gies
am
ong
food
sec
urity
, ada
ptat
ion
and
CC
miti
gatio
n fr
om la
nd-b
ased
agr
icul
tura
l pra
ctic
es in
dev
elop
ing
coun
trie
s, w
hich
cou
ld h
elp
to
gene
rate
the
ben
efits
nee
ded
to a
ddre
ss t
he m
any
dem
ands
pla
ced
on a
gric
ultu
re.
Pres
ents
pro
mis
ing
miti
gatio
n op
tions
with
syn
ergi
es, o
ptio
ns t
hat
invo
lve
trad
e-of
fs,
poss
ible
opt
ions
for
requ
ired
finan
cing
and
pos
sibl
e el
emen
ts in
des
igni
ng c
ount
ry
impl
emen
tatio
n pr
oces
ses.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
12/i1
318e
/i131
8e00
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Miti
gatio
n Fi
nanc
e fo
r S
mal
lhol
der
Agr
icul
ture
- A
gui
de b
ook
to h
arve
stin
g so
il ca
rbon
seq
uest
ratio
n be
nefit
sLi
pper
, L.,
Nev
es, B
., W
ilkes
, A.,
Tenn
igke
it, T.
,G
erbe
r, P.
, Hen
ders
on, B
., B
ranc
a, G
. & M
ann,
W.
FAO
, 201
1
Focu
ses
on C
C m
itiga
tion
finan
cing
for
smal
lhol
ders
. FA
O, h
owev
er, f
ully
rec
ogni
zes
that
ada
ptat
ion
may
be
the
impe
rativ
e an
d th
e pr
iorit
y ov
er t
he s
hort
- and
med
ium
-ter
m
for
man
y sm
allh
olde
rs in
circ
umst
ance
s w
here
CC
may
adv
erse
ly im
pact
the
ir ef
fort
s to
ove
rcom
e po
vert
y an
d fo
od in
secu
rity.
In m
any
case
s, m
ost
coun
trie
s w
ill n
eed
to
deal
with
bot
h ad
apta
tion
and
miti
gatio
n. F
AO
sup
port
s na
tiona
l effo
rts
on C
SA w
hich
se
ek t
o en
hanc
e th
e ca
paci
ty o
f th
e ag
ricul
tura
l sec
tor
to s
usta
inab
ly s
uppo
rt fo
od
secu
rity,
live
lihoo
ds a
nd g
row
th u
nder
CC
, inc
orpo
ratin
g th
e ne
ed fo
r ad
apta
tion
and
the
pote
ntia
l for
miti
gatio
n in
to d
evel
opm
ent
stra
tegi
es. C
C m
itiga
tion
finan
cing
can
pl
ay a
rol
e, a
long
with
oth
er s
ourc
es o
f fin
anci
ng, i
n en
ablin
g C
SA.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
15/i2
485e
/i248
5e00
Iden
tifyi
ng o
ppor
tuni
ties
for
clim
ate-
smar
t ag
ricul
ture
inve
stm
ents
in A
fric
aB
ranc
a, G
., Te
nnig
keit,
T., M
ann,
W. &
Lip
per,
L.FA
O, 2
011
Prop
oses
a m
etho
dolo
gy t
o ex
amin
e th
e po
tent
ial o
f ex
istin
g N
atio
nal A
gric
ultu
re a
nd
Food
Sec
urity
Inve
stm
ent
Pla
ns (N
AFS
IPs,
pre
pare
d th
roug
h th
e C
ompr
ehen
sive
Afr
ica
Agr
icul
ture
Dev
elop
men
t Pr
ogra
mm
e –
CA
AD
P, u
nder
the
New
Par
tner
ship
for A
fric
a’s
Dev
elop
men
t - N
EPA
D) t
o ge
nera
te C
C b
enefi
ts. A
rap
id s
cree
ning
met
hodo
logy
is
pres
ente
d an
d ap
plie
d to
14
NA
FSIP
s, a
ll of
whi
ch in
clud
e ag
ricul
tura
l dev
elop
men
t pr
ogra
mm
es/ s
ubpr
ogra
mm
es t
hat
bene
fit: (
1) a
dapt
atio
n to
slo
w-o
nset
clim
atic
ch
ange
and
ext
rem
e ev
ents
; and
(2) C
C m
itiga
tion.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
15/a
n112
e/an
112e
00.
95
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Too
ls a
nd
info
rmat
ion
sys
tem
sD
escr
ipti
on
So
urc
es a
nd
lin
ks
Clim
ate-
Sm
art A
gric
ultu
re: A
Syn
thes
is o
f E
mpi
rical
Evi
denc
e of
Foo
d S
ecur
ity a
nd M
itiga
tion
Ben
efits
fro
m Im
prov
ed C
ropl
and
Man
agem
ent
Bra
nca,
G.,
McC
arth
y, N
., Li
pper
, L. &
Jol
ejol
e,
M.C
.M
ICC
A s
erie
s n.
3. F
AO
, 201
1
Synt
hesi
zes
the
resu
lts o
f a
liter
atur
e re
view
rep
ortin
g th
e ev
iden
ce b
ase
of d
iffer
ent
sust
aina
ble
land
man
agem
ent
(SLM
) pra
ctic
es a
imed
at
incr
easi
ng a
nd s
tabi
lizin
g cr
op
prod
uctiv
ity in
dev
elop
ing
coun
trie
s. It
is s
how
n th
at s
oil a
nd c
limat
e ch
arac
teris
tics
are
key
to in
terp
retin
g th
e im
pact
on
crop
yie
lds
and
miti
gatio
n of
diff
eren
t ag
ricul
tura
l pr
actic
es a
nd t
hat
tech
nolo
gy o
ptio
ns m
ost
prom
isin
g fo
r en
hanc
ing
food
sec
urity
at
the
smal
lhol
der
leve
l are
als
o ef
fect
ive
for
incr
easi
ng s
yste
m r
esili
ence
in d
ry a
reas
and
m
itiga
ting
CC
in h
umid
are
as.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
15/i2
574e
/i257
4e00
Clim
ate-
Sm
art A
gric
ultu
re: S
mal
lhol
der A
dopt
ion
and
Impl
icat
ions
for
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Ada
ptat
ion
and
Miti
gatio
nM
cCar
thy,
N.,
Lipp
er, L
. & B
ranc
a, G
.M
ICC
A s
erie
s n.
4. F
AO
, 201
1
Rev
iew
s th
e ad
apta
tion
and
miti
gatio
n be
nefit
s fr
om v
ario
us p
ract
ices
, foc
usin
g in
de
tail
on e
mpi
rical
evi
denc
e co
ncer
ning
cos
ts a
nd b
arrie
rs t
o ad
optio
n, b
oth
from
ho
useh
old
and
proj
ect-
leve
l dat
a. F
indi
ngs
indi
cate
tha
t up
-fro
nt in
vest
men
t co
sts
can
be a
sig
nific
ant
barr
ier
to a
dopt
ion
for
cert
ain
inve
stm
ents
and
pra
ctic
es, a
nd e
vide
nce
also
sup
port
s th
e hy
poth
eses
on
oppo
rtun
ity a
nd t
rans
actio
n co
sts
acro
ss a
wid
e ra
nge
of in
vest
men
ts a
nd p
ract
ices
. Add
ition
ally
, pot
entia
l syn
ergi
es a
mon
g fo
od s
ecur
ity,
adap
tatio
n an
d m
itiga
tion
oppo
rtun
ities
, as
wel
l as
cost
s, c
an d
iffer
sub
stan
tially
acr
oss
diffe
rent
agr
o-ec
olog
ical
zon
es, c
limat
e re
gim
es a
nd h
isto
rical
land
-use
pat
tern
s.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
15/i2
575e
/i257
5e00
Str
ateg
ic f
ram
ewor
k fo
r fo
rest
s an
d cl
imat
e ch
ange
Col
labo
rativ
e Pa
rtne
rshi
p on
For
ests
, FA
O R
ome,
20
09
Lays
the
gro
undw
ork
for
a co
ordi
nate
d re
spon
se f
rom
the
fore
st s
ecto
r to
CC
, not
ably
th
roug
h th
e ad
optio
n of
sus
tain
able
fore
st m
anag
emen
t an
d its
inte
grat
ion
into
bro
ader
de
velo
pmen
t st
rate
gies
.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
fore
stry
/166
39-0
64a7
166b
1dd0
2750
4bbf
bb76
3878
af99
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
for
Fore
st P
olic
y-M
aker
s-A
n ap
proa
ch fo
r in
tegr
atin
g cl
imat
e ch
ange
into
nat
iona
l for
est
prog
ram
mes
in s
uppo
rtof
sus
tain
able
fore
st m
anag
emen
tFA
O R
ome,
201
1
Prov
ides
a p
ract
ical
app
roac
h to
the
pro
cess
of
inte
grat
ing
CC
into
nat
iona
l for
est
prog
ram
mes
. Aim
s to
ass
ist
seni
or g
over
nmen
t of
ficia
ls a
nd t
he r
epre
sent
ativ
es o
f ot
her
stak
ehol
ders
, inc
ludi
ng c
ivil
soci
ety
orga
niza
tions
and
the
priv
ate
sect
or, t
o pr
epar
e th
e fo
rest
sec
tor
for
the
chal
leng
es a
nd o
ppor
tuni
ties
pose
d by
CC
.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
fore
stry
/294
98-
0c35
1737
80c2
7b13
d094
d92a
d8d5
99af
a.pd
f
Clim
ate
chan
ge im
plic
atio
ns fo
r fis
herie
s an
d aq
uacu
lture
- FA
O fi
sher
y an
d aq
uacu
lture
te
chni
cal p
aper
530
K. C
ochr
ane,
C. D
. You
ng, D
. Sot
o &
T. B
ahri
(eds
.)FA
O R
ome,
200
9
Con
tain
s th
ree
com
preh
ensi
ve t
echn
ical
pap
ers
that
form
ed t
he b
asis
for
the
tech
nica
l dis
cuss
ions
dur
ing
the
Exp
ert W
orks
hop
on C
C Im
plic
atio
ns fo
r Fi
sher
ies
and
Aqu
acul
ture
in A
pril
2008
at
FAO
hea
dqua
rter
s, w
hich
rev
iew
s cl
imat
e va
riabi
lity
and
chan
ge a
nd t
he p
hysi
cal a
nd e
colo
gica
l con
sequ
ence
s on
mar
ine
and
fres
hwat
er
envi
ronm
ents
; ana
lyse
s th
e co
nseq
uenc
es o
f C
C im
pact
s on
fish
ers
and
aqua
cultu
re;
and
disc
usse
s po
ssib
le a
dapt
atio
n an
d m
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s.
ftp:
//ftp
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/fa
o/01
2/i0
994e
/i099
4e.p
df
Str
ateg
y fo
r Fi
sher
ies,
Aqu
acul
ture
and
Clim
ate
Cha
nge.
Fra
mew
ork
and
Aim
s 20
11–2
016.
FA
O, 2
011
Prov
ides
the
med
ium
-ter
m (2
011–
2016
) fra
mew
ork
defin
ing
the
pers
pect
ives
and
ob
ject
ives
of
the
Fish
erie
s an
d A
quac
ultu
re D
epar
tmen
t w
ith r
espe
ct t
o C
C is
sues
and
de
velo
pmen
t re
spon
ses,
and
its
cohe
renc
e an
d op
erat
iona
l effe
ctiv
enes
s w
ith r
espe
ct
to m
ore
loca
lized
del
iver
y th
roug
h re
gion
al a
nd s
ubre
gion
al o
ffice
s.
ftp:
//ftp
.fao.
org/
fi/br
ochu
re/c
limat
e_ch
ange
/st
rage
gy_fi
_aq_
clim
ate/
2011
/clim
ate_
chan
ge_2
011.
Clim
ate
chan
ge a
nd fo
od s
ecur
ity in
Pac
ific
isla
nd
coun
trie
sFA
O R
ome,
200
8
Rev
iew
s th
e im
pact
s of
CC
on
food
sou
rces
and
wat
er in
the
Pac
ific
isla
nd c
ount
ries;
pr
ovid
es n
atio
nal a
sses
smen
ts in
sel
ecte
d co
untr
ies;
pro
pose
s re
com
men
datio
ns fo
r na
tiona
l str
ateg
ies
to m
itiga
te, a
dapt
and
res
pond
to
the
chal
leng
es; a
nd p
rese
nts
the
repo
rt o
f a
regi
onal
exp
ert
grou
p.
ftp:
//ftp
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/fa
o/01
1/i0
530e
/i053
0e.p
df
Cop
ing
with
a c
hang
ing
clim
ate:
con
side
ratio
ns fo
r ad
apta
tion
and
miti
gatio
n in
agr
icul
ture
Gla
ntz,
M. H
., G
omm
es, R
., &
Ram
asam
y, S
.FA
O, 2
009,
Rom
e
Ela
bora
tes
on is
sues
of
less
-tha
n-pe
rfec
t in
form
atio
n on
clim
ate
impa
cts
and
vuln
erab
ilitie
s, a
nd t
he n
eed
for
bett
er-in
form
ed d
ecis
ions
. Offe
rs n
ew p
ersp
ectiv
es fo
r po
licy-
mak
ers,
inst
itutio
ns, s
ocie
ties
and
indi
vidu
als
on im
prov
ed w
ays
of id
entif
ying
m
ost
at-r
isk
com
mun
ities
and
"bes
t pr
actic
es".
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
12/i1
315e
/i131
5e.p
df
96
Too
ls a
nd
info
rmat
ion
sys
tem
sD
escr
ipti
on
So
urc
es a
nd
lin
ks
Clim
ate
smar
t ag
ricul
ture
- po
licie
s, p
ract
ices
an
d fin
anci
ng fo
r fo
od s
ecur
ity, a
dapt
atio
n an
d m
itiga
tion
FAO
, 201
0, R
ome
Prov
ides
exa
mpl
es o
f cl
imat
e-sm
art
prod
uctio
n sy
stem
s; h
ighl
ight
s th
e kn
owle
dge
and
tech
nica
l gap
s; e
xam
ines
the
rol
e th
at in
stitu
tions
andp
olic
y m
ustp
layi
nthe
tran
sfor
mat
iont
oclim
ate-
smar
t pr
oduc
tion
syst
ems;
and
dis
cuss
es t
he fi
nanc
ial o
ppor
tuni
ties,
the
sh
ortf
alls
and
con
stra
ints
to
be r
esol
ved.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
13/i1
881e
/i188
1e00
.ht
m
Food
sec
urity
and
agr
icul
tura
l miti
gatio
n in
de
velo
ping
cou
ntrie
s: o
ptio
ns fo
r ca
ptur
ing
syne
rgie
s FA
O R
ome,
201
0
Exp
lore
s po
tent
ial s
yner
gies
am
ong
food
sec
urity
, ada
ptat
ion
and
CC
miti
gatio
n fr
om la
nd-b
ased
agr
icul
tura
l pra
ctic
es in
dev
elop
ing
coun
trie
s, w
hich
cou
ld h
elp
to
gene
rate
the
ben
efits
nee
ded
to a
ddre
ss t
he m
any
dem
ands
pla
ced
on a
gric
ultu
re.
Indi
cate
s pr
omis
ing
miti
gatio
n op
tions
with
syn
ergi
es, o
ptio
ns t
hat
invo
lve
trad
e-of
fs,
poss
ible
opt
ions
for
requ
ired
finan
cing
and
pos
sibl
e el
emen
ts in
des
igni
ng c
ount
ry
impl
emen
tatio
n pr
oces
ses.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
12/i1
318e
/i131
8e00
Har
vest
ing
agric
ultu
re’s
mul
tiple
ben
efits
: m
itiga
tion,
ada
ptat
ion,
dev
elop
men
t an
d fo
od
secu
rity
FAO
Rom
e, 2
010
As
an F
AO
pol
icy
brie
f, ad
voca
tes
the
esta
blis
hmen
t of
a w
ork
prog
ram
me
on
agric
ultu
re, w
ithin
the
CC
con
vent
ion
proc
ess,
and
an
inte
rlink
ed s
uite
of
coun
try-
owne
d an
d le
d pi
lot
proj
ects
to
deve
lop
read
ines
s to
impl
emen
t ag
ricul
tura
l miti
gatio
n op
tions
with
ada
ptat
ion,
food
sec
urity
and
dev
elop
men
t sy
nerg
ies.
ftp:
//ftp
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/fa
o/01
2/ak
914e
/ak9
14e0
0.pd
f
Clim
ate
chan
ge r
espo
nse
stra
tegi
es fo
r ag
ricul
ture
: cha
lleng
es a
nd o
ppor
tuni
ties
for
the
21st
cen
tury
Tubi
ello
, F.,
Sch
mid
hube
r, J.
, How
den,
M.,
Neo
fotis
, P.
G.,
Park
, S.,
Fern
ande
s, E
. & T
hapa
, D.
The
Wor
ld B
ank,
Was
hing
ton,
DC
, 200
8
Rev
iew
s C
C im
pact
s on
pla
nt f
unct
ion
and
farm
-leve
l pro
duct
ion
syst
ems;
ana
lyse
s th
e re
perc
ussi
ons
of t
hese
loca
l im
pact
s on
reg
iona
l and
glo
bal f
ood
prod
uctio
ns d
iscu
sses
ad
apta
tion
stra
tegi
es; i
dent
ifies
syn
ergi
es b
etw
een
adap
tatio
n st
rate
gies
and
miti
gatio
n op
tions
; and
rec
omm
ends
pra
ctic
al a
nd o
pera
tiona
l opt
ions
fro
m t
he p
ersp
ectiv
e of
sh
ort-
and
long
-ter
m s
usta
inab
le ru
ral d
evel
opm
ent
and
agric
ultu
ral p
lann
ing.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
filea
dmin
/tem
plat
es/e
m20
09/
docs
/Wor
ld_B
ank_
_200
8c_.
Bui
ldin
g cl
imat
e re
silie
nce
in t
he a
gric
ultu
re s
ecto
r of
Asi
a an
d th
e Pa
cific
Inte
rnat
iona
l Foo
d Po
licy
Res
earc
h In
stitu
te (I
FPR
), A
sian
Dev
elop
men
t B
ank,
200
9
Prov
ides
a c
ritic
al s
ynth
esis
of
the
evid
ence
and
fut
ure
scen
ario
s of
CC
in t
he r
egio
n;
anal
yses
the
impa
cts
of a
gric
ultu
re o
n C
C a
nd t
he im
pact
s of
CC
on
agric
ultu
re;
asse
sses
the
pol
icy
and
inve
stm
ent
optio
ns fo
r de
velo
pmen
t pr
actit
ione
rs a
nd
polic
y-m
aker
s; a
nd o
utlin
es a
con
cept
ual f
ram
ewor
k fo
r bu
ildin
g C
C r
esili
ence
in t
he
agric
ultu
re s
ecto
r in
the
reg
ion.
http
://be
ta.a
db.o
rg/p
ublic
atio
ns/b
uild
ing-
clim
ate-
resi
lienc
e-ag
ricul
ture
-sec
tor-a
sia-
and-
paci
fic
2.2.
Nat
ion
al p
olic
ies
and
pri
ori
ties
Nat
iona
l Com
mun
icat
ions
to
the
UN
FCC
C
(incl
udin
g th
ose
for
non-
Ann
ex I
Part
ies)
Rep
orts
nat
iona
l circ
umst
ance
s, s
uch
as g
eogr
aphy
and
clim
ate,
as
wel
l as
asse
ssm
ents
of
im
pact
and
vul
nera
bilit
y an
d ad
apta
tion
optio
ns,
GH
G i
nven
tory
and
miti
gatio
n m
easu
res.
http
://un
fccc
.int/
natio
nal_
repo
rts/
item
s/14
08.p
hpN
on-A
nnex
I Pa
rtie
s:h
ttp
://u
nfc
cc.i
nt/
nat
ion
al_r
ep
ort
s/n
on
-an
nex
_i_
natc
om/s
ubm
itted
_nat
com
/item
s/65
3.ph
p
Nat
iona
l Ada
ptat
ion
Prog
ram
mes
of A
ctio
n (N
APA
s)
UN
FCC
C, 2
010
Prov
ides
the
late
st li
st o
f N
APA
s su
bmitt
ed b
y pa
rtie
s an
d re
prod
uced
and
upl
oade
d by
th
e U
NFC
CC
Sec
reta
riat.
Pro
vide
s th
e da
te o
f su
bmis
sion
, w
hich
det
erm
ines
elig
ibili
ty
to a
pply
for
the
LD
C f
und
whi
ch i
s m
anag
ed b
y G
EF
for
impl
emen
tatio
n. T
he N
APA
s su
mm
ariz
e cl
imat
ic/e
nviro
nmen
tal
cond
ition
s an
d id
entif
y ke
y ad
apta
tion
need
s of
a
coun
try.
The
focu
s is
on
urge
nt a
nd im
med
iate
nee
ds ra
ther
than
a lo
ng-t
erm
per
spec
tive.
http
://un
fccc
.int/
natio
nal_
repo
rts/
napa
/item
s/27
19.
php
Com
pila
tion
of in
form
atio
n on
Nat
iona
lly
App
ropr
iate
Miti
gatio
n A
ctio
ns (N
AM
As)
to
be
impl
emen
ted
by P
artie
s no
t in
clud
ed in
Ann
ex I
to
the
Con
vent
ion
Ad
Hoc
Wor
king
Gro
up o
n Lo
ng-
term
Coo
pera
tive
Act
ion
unde
r th
e C
onve
ntio
n,
UN
FCC
C, 2
011
Pres
ents
the
info
rmat
ion
com
mun
icat
ed b
y th
ese
Part
ies
on t
he N
AM
As
that
the
y in
tend
to
impl
emen
t, a
s w
ell a
s th
e re
late
d co
ntex
t, c
ondi
tions
and
con
side
ratio
ns,
incl
udin
g w
ith r
egar
d to
the
sup
port
req
uire
d fo
r th
eir
prep
arat
ion
and
impl
emen
tatio
n.
http
://un
fccc
.int/
reso
urce
/doc
s/20
11/a
wgl
ca14
/eng
/in
f01.
97
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Too
ls a
nd
info
rmat
ion
sys
tem
sD
escr
ipti
on
So
urc
es a
nd
lin
ks
GE
F N
atio
nal P
ortf
olio
For
mul
atio
n E
xerc
ise
(NP
FE)
Pres
ents
prio
ritie
s fo
r fu
ndin
g C
C m
itiga
tion
and
adap
tatio
n pr
ojec
ts a
nd a
ctiv
ities
to
be
poss
ibly
sup
port
ed b
y th
e G
EF.
Iden
tified
prio
ritie
s sh
ould
be
avai
labl
e w
hen
an N
PFE
ex
ists
, alth
ough
it is
not
a m
anda
tory
exe
rcis
e. T
he c
ount
ry’s
GE
F O
pera
tiona
l Foc
al
Poin
t (F
P) c
oord
inat
es t
he fo
rmul
atio
n of
the
NP
FE.
Sea
rch
docu
men
t on
the
Web
site
of
the
Nat
iona
l G
EF
FP. T
o id
entif
y w
ho is
the
GE
F FP
, go
to:
http
://w
ww
.the
gef.o
rg/g
ef/N
atio
nal_
Port
folio
_Fo
rmul
atio
n_E
xerc
ises
3. To
ols
an
d in
form
atio
n s
yste
ms
for
adap
tati
on
an
d m
itig
atio
n
Han
dboo
k on
met
hods
for
clim
ate
chan
ge im
pact
as
sess
men
t an
d ad
apta
tion
stra
tegi
esFe
enst
ra, J
. F.,
Bur
ton,
I., S
mith
, J. B
. & To
l, R
.vr
ije U
nive
rsite
it A
mst
erda
m, I
nstit
ute
for
Env
ironm
enta
l Stu
dies
, UN
EP,
199
8
Intr
oduc
es a
wid
e ra
nge
of m
etho
ds t
hat
can
be u
sed
to d
esig
n as
sess
men
t st
udie
s of
CC
impa
cts
and
rela
ted
adap
tatio
n st
rate
gies
. It
does
not
ser
ve a
s a
"sta
nd-a
lone
," st
ep-b
y-st
ep, o
r "h
ow t
o do
it" d
ocum
ent.
It is
not
pre
scrip
tive
nor
does
it d
escr
ibe
only
a
sing
le m
etho
d by
sec
tor.
The
inte
nt o
f pr
ovid
ing
an o
verv
iew
of
met
hods
is t
o gi
ve
read
ers
enou
gh in
form
atio
n to
sel
ect
the
met
hod
mos
t ap
prop
riate
to
thei
r si
tuat
ion.
http
://re
sear
ch.fi
t.ed
u/se
alev
elris
elib
rary
/do
cum
ents
/doc
_mgr
/465
/Glo
bal_
Met
hods
_for
_CC
_A
sses
smen
t_A
dapt
atio
n_-_
UN
EP
_199
8.pd
f
A fr
amew
ork
to d
iagn
ose
barr
iers
to c
limat
e ch
ange
ad
apta
tion
Mos
er, S
. C. &
Eks
trom
, J. (
2010
). PN
AS,
107
(51)
: 22
026-
2203
1, d
oi:1
0.10
73/p
nas.
1007
8871
07.
Des
crib
es a
fra
mew
ork
to d
iagn
ose
barr
iers
to
CC
ada
ptat
ion.
Incl
udes
a u
sefu
l tab
le
with
dia
gnos
tic q
uest
ions
by
the
stag
e in
the
ada
ptat
ion
proc
ess
and
the
adap
tatio
n sy
stem
com
pone
nts.
http
://w
ww
.sus
anne
mos
er.c
om/d
ocum
ents
/Mos
er-
Eks
trom
_PN
AS
_201
0_ba
rrie
rsfr
amew
ork.
Org
anic
agr
icul
ture
and
car
bon
sequ
estr
atio
nM
ülle
r-Lin
denl
auf,
M.
FAO
Rom
e, 2
009
Des
crib
es t
he p
oten
tial o
f or
gani
c ag
ricul
ture
to
sequ
este
r ca
rbon
and
to
mee
t th
e re
quire
men
ts o
f ca
rbon
acc
ount
ing
syst
ems;
dis
cuss
es t
he s
uita
bilit
y of
mea
sure
men
t an
d ve
rifica
tion
met
hodo
logi
es t
o ag
ricul
ture
sys
tem
s, in
clud
ing
an a
naly
sis
of e
xist
ing
carb
on a
ccou
ntin
g in
stru
men
ts.
ftp:
//ftp
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/fa
o/01
2/ak
998e
/ak9
98e0
0.pd
f
Live
stoc
k’s
long
sha
dow
: env
ironm
enta
l iss
ues
and
optio
nsS
tein
feld
, H.,
Ger
ber,
P., W
asse
naar
, T.,
Cas
tel,
V.,
Ros
ale,
M. &
de
Haa
n, C
.FA
O R
ome,
200
6
Ass
esse
s th
e im
pact
of
the
wor
ld’s
live
stoc
k se
ctor
on
the
envi
ronm
ent,
and
the
co
ntrib
utio
n of
ani
mal
agr
icul
ture
to
CC
and
air
pollu
tion,
to
land
, soi
l and
wat
er
degr
adat
ion
and
to t
he r
educ
tion
of b
iodi
vers
ity, b
uild
ing
on t
he w
ork
of t
he L
ives
tock
, E
nviro
nmen
t an
d D
evel
opm
ent
(LE
AD
) Ini
tiativ
e.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
10/a
0701
e/a0
701e
00.
HTM
Gre
enho
use
gas
emis
sion
s fr
om t
heda
iry s
ecto
r - a
life
cyc
le a
sses
smen
tFA
O R
ome,
201
0
Pres
ents
a m
etho
dolo
gy b
ased
on
the
life
cycl
e as
sess
men
t (L
CA
) app
roac
h; a
nd
prov
ides
est
imat
es o
f G
HG
em
issi
ons
asso
ciat
ed w
ith m
ilk p
rodu
ctio
n an
d pr
oces
sing
fo
r m
ain
regi
ons
and
farm
ing
syst
ems
of t
he w
orld
, whi
ch w
ill h
elp
to in
form
the
pub
lic
deba
te o
n G
HG
em
issi
ons
and
will
sup
port
res
earc
h, d
evel
opm
ent
and
exte
nsio
n ef
fort
s to
impr
ove
the
sust
aina
bilit
y pe
rfor
man
ce o
f da
iry fa
rmin
g.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
12/k
7930
e/k7
930e
00.
Live
stoc
k an
d cl
imat
e ch
ange
-too
ls fo
r pr
ojec
t de
sign
Cal
vosa
, C.,
Chu
luun
baat
ar, D
. & F
ara,
K.
IFA
D R
ome,
200
8
Exa
min
es t
he e
ffect
s of
CC
on
lives
tock
and
fish
erie
s; p
rese
nts
adap
tatio
n an
d m
itiga
tion
stra
tegi
es in
the
live
stoc
k se
ctor
; ana
lyse
s liv
esto
ck a
nd s
oil c
arbo
n se
ques
trat
ion
and
rela
ted
gend
er is
sues
; and
pro
vide
s re
com
men
datio
ns fo
r pr
omot
ing
both
ada
ptat
ion
and
miti
gatio
n ac
tiviti
es in
dev
elop
men
t pr
ojec
ts.
http
://w
ww
.ifad
.org
/lrkm
/fact
shee
t/cc
Clim
ate
chan
ge im
plic
atio
ns fo
r fis
herie
s an
d aq
uacu
lture
- FA
O fi
sher
y an
d aq
uacu
lture
te
chni
cal p
aper
530
K. C
ochr
ane,
C. D
. You
ng, D
. Sot
o &
T. B
ahri
(eds
.)FA
O R
ome,
200
9
Con
tain
s th
ree
com
preh
ensi
ve t
echn
ical
pap
ers
that
form
ed t
he b
asis
for
the
tech
nica
l dis
cuss
ions
dur
ing
the
Exp
ert W
orks
hop
on C
C Im
plic
atio
ns fo
r Fi
sher
ies
and
Aqu
acul
ture
in A
pril
2008
at
FAO
hea
dqua
rter
s. R
evie
ws
clim
ate
varia
bilit
y an
d ch
ange
and
the
ir ph
ysic
al a
nd e
colo
gica
l con
sequ
ence
s on
mar
ine
and
fres
hwat
er
envi
ronm
ents
; ana
lyse
s th
e co
nseq
uenc
es o
f C
C im
pact
s on
fish
ers
and
aqua
cultu
re;
and
disc
usse
s po
ssib
le a
dapt
atio
n an
d m
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s.
ftp:
//ftp
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/fa
o/01
2/i0
994e
/i099
4e.p
df
98
Too
ls a
nd
info
rmat
ion
sys
tem
sD
escr
ipti
on
So
urc
es a
nd
lin
ks
Str
ateg
ic f
ram
ewor
k fo
r fo
rest
s an
d cl
imat
e ch
ange
Col
labo
rativ
e Pa
rtne
rshi
p on
For
ests
, FA
O R
ome,
20
09
Lays
the
gro
undw
ork
for
a co
ordi
nate
d re
spon
se f
rom
the
fore
st s
ecto
r to
CC
, not
ably
th
roug
h th
e ad
optio
n of
sus
tain
able
fore
st m
anag
emen
t an
d its
inte
grat
ion
into
bro
ader
de
velo
pmen
t st
rate
gies
.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
fore
stry
/166
39-0
64a7
166b
1dd0
2750
4bbf
bb76
3878
af99
Clim
ate
chan
ge, w
ater
and
food
sec
urity
-FA
O
wat
er r
epor
ts N
o. 3
6Tu
rral
, H.,
Bur
ke, J
. & F
aurè
s, J
.FA
O R
ome,
201
1
Sum
mar
izes
cur
rent
kno
wle
dge
of t
he a
ntic
ipat
ed im
pact
s of
CC
on
wat
er a
vaila
bilit
y fo
r ag
ricul
ture
; exa
min
es t
he im
plic
atio
ns fo
r lo
cal a
nd n
atio
nal f
ood
secu
rity;
dis
cuss
es
the
met
hods
and
app
roac
hes
to a
sses
s C
C im
pact
s on
wat
er a
nd a
gric
ultu
re;
emph
asiz
es t
he n
eed
for
a cl
oser
alig
nmen
t be
twee
n w
ater
and
agr
icul
tura
l pol
icie
s;
and
mak
es t
he c
ase
for
imm
edia
te im
plem
enta
tion
of "n
o-re
gret
s" s
trat
egie
s.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
14/i2
096e
/i209
6e00
.ht
m
Clim
ate
chan
ge a
dapt
atio
n st
rate
gies
: wat
er
reso
urce
s m
anag
emen
t op
tions
for
smal
lhol
der
farm
ing
syst
ems
in s
ub-S
ahar
an A
fric
aN
gigi
, S.N
. 200
9. T
he M
DG
Cen
tre
for
Eas
t an
d S
outh
ern
Afr
ica,
The
Ear
th In
stitu
te a
t C
olum
bia
Uni
vers
ity, N
ew Y
ork.
189
pp.
Rev
iew
s th
e tr
ends
and
exp
erie
nce
of w
ater
res
ourc
es m
anag
emen
t in
Afr
ica;
su
mm
ariz
es C
C a
dapt
atio
n st
rate
gies
and
pra
ctic
es fo
r sm
allh
olde
r fa
rmin
g in
su
b-S
ahar
an A
fric
a in
ter
ms
of p
ilot
proj
ects
, res
earc
h ag
enda
and
gov
erna
nce
inte
rven
tions
; ide
ntifi
es c
onst
rain
ts a
nd g
aps
and
prop
oses
opt
ions
for
furt
her
inte
rven
tions
. Thi
s is
a s
ynth
esis
rep
ort
of a
reg
iona
l stu
dy s
uppo
rted
by
the
Roc
kefe
ller
Foun
datio
n.
http
://w
ww
.roc
kefe
llerf
ound
atio
n.or
g/ne
ws/
publ
icat
ions
/clim
ate-
chan
ge-a
dapt
atio
n-st
rate
gies
Eco
nom
ic a
ppro
ache
s to
clim
ate
chan
ge
adap
tatio
n an
d th
eir
role
in p
roje
ct p
riorit
isat
ion
and
appr
aisa
lG
TZ, 2
007
Out
lines
the
vul
nera
bilit
y of
dev
elop
ing
coun
trie
s to
the
impa
cts
of C
C; d
iscu
sses
va
rious
ada
ptat
ion
optio
ns a
nd c
onst
rain
ts; a
naly
ses
cost
s an
d be
nefit
s of
ada
ptat
ion;
di
scus
ses
pote
ntia
l way
s to
prio
ritiz
e de
velo
pmen
t ac
tiviti
es w
ith a
vie
w t
o ad
vers
e ef
fect
s of
CC
; dea
ls w
ith t
he a
ppra
isal
and
ran
king
of
prop
osed
pro
ject
s; a
nd o
utlin
es
som
e lim
its o
f ex
istin
g m
etho
ds.
http
://w
ww
.ada
pcc.
org/
dow
nloa
d/E
cono
mic
-A
ppro
ache
s-to
-Clim
ate-
Cha
nge-
Ada
ptat
ion.
Gen
der:
the
mis
sing
com
pone
nt o
f the
resp
onse
to
clim
ate
chan
geLa
mbr
ou, Y
. & P
iana
, G.
FAO
Rom
e, 2
006
Ana
lyse
s th
e ge
nder
dim
ensi
on o
f C
C a
nd t
he p
olic
ies
enac
ted
to m
itiga
te a
nd a
dapt
to
its
impa
cts
with
the
aim
of
deve
lopi
ng g
ende
r-sen
sitiv
e ap
proa
ches
to
miti
gatio
n m
easu
res,
ada
ptat
ion
proj
ects
and
nat
iona
l reg
imes
.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
sd/d
im_p
e1/d
ocs/
pe1_
0510
01d1
_en.
Str
engt
heni
ng c
apac
ity fo
r cl
imat
e ch
ange
ad
apta
tion
in a
gric
ultu
re: e
xper
ienc
e an
d le
sson
s fr
om L
esot
hoD
ejen
e, A
., M
idgl
ey, S
., M
arak
e, M
.V.,
&
Ram
asam
y, S
.FA
O R
ome,
201
1
Prov
ides
an
over
view
of
CC
impa
cts
on s
ubsi
sten
ce a
nd s
mal
lhol
der
farm
ers
in
Leso
tho,
and
how
the
ada
ptat
ion
capa
city
in a
gric
ultu
re c
an b
e st
reng
then
ed,d
raw
ing
onex
perie
nces
and
less
ons
lear
ned
from
a p
ilot
proj
ect.
Mak
es r
ecom
men
datio
ns o
n ho
w c
omm
unity
-bas
ed r
espo
nses
cou
ld b
e sc
aled
up
to o
ther
par
ts o
f th
e co
untr
y an
d ot
her
coun
trie
s ac
ross
sou
ther
n A
fric
a.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
14/i2
228e
/i222
8e00
FAO
CR
OP
WAT
too
lTh
is F
AO
com
pute
r pr
ogra
m c
alcu
late
s cr
op w
ater
req
uire
men
ts a
nd ir
rigat
ion
requ
irem
ents
bas
ed o
n so
il, c
limat
e an
d cr
op d
ata.
It a
llow
s th
e de
velo
pmen
t of
irr
igat
ion
sche
dule
s fo
r di
ffere
nt m
anag
emen
t co
nditi
ons
and
the
calc
ulat
ion
of s
chem
e w
ater
sup
ply
for
vary
ing
crop
pat
tern
s.It
can
be
used
to
eval
uate
farm
ers’
irrig
atio
n pr
actic
es a
nd c
rop
perf
orm
ance
und
er r
ainf
ed a
nd ir
rigat
ed c
ondi
tions
.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
nr/w
ater
/info
res_
data
base
s_cr
opw
at.h
tml
FAO
AQ
UA
STAT
onl
ine
data
base
AQ
UA
STAT
is a
glo
bal i
nfor
mat
ion
syst
em o
n w
ater
and
agr
icul
ture
, de
velo
ped
by t
he
Land
and
Wat
er D
evel
opm
ent
Div
isio
n of
FA
O.
Col
lect
s, a
naly
ses
and
diss
emin
ates
in
form
atio
n on
wat
er r
esou
rces
, w
ater
use
s an
d ag
ricul
tura
l w
ater
man
agem
ent
with
an
em
phas
is o
n co
untr
ies
in A
fric
a, A
sia,
Lat
in A
mer
ica
and
the
Car
ibbe
an.
Prov
ides
co
mpr
ehen
sive
and
reg
ular
ly u
pdat
ed in
form
atio
n at
glo
bal,
regi
onal
and
nat
iona
l lev
els.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
nr/w
ater
/aqu
asta
t/m
ain/
inde
x.st
m
99
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Too
ls a
nd
info
rmat
ion
sys
tem
sD
escr
ipti
on
So
urc
es a
nd
lin
ks
Wea
ther
-bas
ed in
dice
s fo
r cr
op in
sura
nce
Hel
ps t
o de
rive
an e
ffect
ive
wea
ther
-bas
ed c
rop
yiel
d in
dex
for
crop
insu
ranc
e. T
he
appr
oach
pro
pose
s to
com
pute
a c
rop-
spec
ific
wat
er b
alan
ce t
o de
rive
valu
e-ad
ded
crop
-wea
ther
var
iabl
es t
hat
can
be c
ombi
ned
with
oth
er d
ata
(e.g
. rem
ote
sens
ing
inpu
ts, f
arm
inpu
ts s
uch
as fe
rtili
zer
use)
. The
met
hodo
logy
use
s gr
idde
d in
form
atio
n th
at is
not
too
sen
sitiv
e to
indi
vidu
al m
issi
ng s
tatio
ns, p
rovi
ded
suffi
cien
t da
ta p
oint
s ar
e av
aila
ble.
ww
w.fa
o.or
g/nr
/clim
pag/
aw_2
_en.
asp
Cro
p m
onito
ring
box
(CM
Box
)A
n au
tom
ated
sof
twar
e su
ite w
ith a
"vis
ual m
enu"
tha
t of
fers
eas
y ac
cess
to
a da
taba
se
that
hol
ds a
ll th
e da
ta n
eede
d to
ana
lyse
the
impa
ct o
f w
eath
er o
n cr
ops.
Use
ful f
or
risk
anal
ysis
and
mon
itorin
g an
d fo
reca
stin
g cr
op p
rodu
ctio
n, w
hich
is a
n es
sent
ial
inpu
t to
food
sec
urity
pla
nnin
g.
ww
w.fa
o.or
g/nr
/clim
pag/
aw_6
_en.
asp
or
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
nr/c
limpa
g/pu
b/cm
_box
_4.p
df
Clim
ate
chan
ge im
pact
ass
essm
ent
tool
box
Ass
esse
s C
C im
pact
s on
agr
icul
ture
, with
four
mai
n so
ftw
are
com
pone
nts:
a
dow
nsca
ling
met
hod
for
proc
essi
ng g
loba
l clim
ate
mod
el o
utpu
t da
ta, a
hyd
rolo
gica
l m
odel
for
estim
atin
g irr
igat
ion
wat
er r
esou
rces
, a c
rop
grow
th m
odel
to
estim
ate
crop
yi
elds
and
a C
ompu
tabl
e G
ener
al E
quili
briu
m (C
GE
) Mod
el t
o si
mul
ate
the
effe
ct o
f ch
angi
ng a
gric
ultu
ral y
ield
s on
nat
iona
l eco
nom
ies.
http
://w
ww
.food
sec.
org/
web
/too
ls/c
limat
e-ch
ange
/cl
imat
e-ch
ange
-impa
ct-a
sses
smen
t-to
ol/e
n/
Loca
l clim
ate
estim
ate
tool
This
FA
O s
oftw
are
prog
ram
and
dat
abas
e pr
ovid
es e
stim
ates
of
aver
age
clim
atic
co
nditi
ons
at a
ny lo
catio
n on
Ear
th, b
ased
on
the
FAO
CLI
M d
atab
ase.
Incl
udes
th
e cu
rren
t up
date
d ve
rsio
n of
the
FA
OC
LIM
dat
abas
e of
alm
ost
30 0
00 s
tatio
ns
wor
ldw
ide,
but
use
rs c
an a
lso
proc
ess
thei
r ow
n da
ta a
nd p
repa
re m
aps
at a
ny s
patia
l re
solu
tion.
ww
w.fa
o.or
g/nr
/clim
pag/
data
_5_e
n.as
p
Farm
ada
ptiv
e dy
nam
ic o
ptim
izat
ion
(FA
DO
)Th
is F
AO
met
hodo
logy
hel
ps t
o id
entif
y, a
naly
se a
nd p
riorit
ize
the
clim
ate-
rela
ted
vuln
erab
ilitie
s an
d ris
ks a
nd o
ptim
ize
the
adap
tatio
n pr
actic
es t
o ef
fect
ivel
y re
spon
d to
cl
imat
e va
riabi
lity
and
chan
ge, i
nclu
ding
com
pone
nts
on e
xplo
ring
know
ledg
e on
the
lo
cal s
ituat
ion
of fa
rmer
s’ d
ecis
ion
prob
lem
s; a
naly
sing
the
vul
nera
bilit
y an
d cl
imat
e ris
ks t
o op
timiz
e th
e m
anag
emen
t op
tions
; dec
idin
g ad
apta
tion
prac
tices
rel
evan
t to
lo
cal s
ituat
ions
; and
faci
litat
ing
loca
l act
ion
by c
omm
unic
atin
g cl
imat
e in
form
atio
n an
d su
itabl
e ad
apta
tion
prac
tices
to
farm
ers.
ww
w.fa
o.or
g/nr
/clim
pag/
aw_5
_en.
asp
FAO
rai
nfal
l est
imat
e ro
utin
e (F
AO
-RFE
)A
n in
depe
nden
t m
etho
d to
est
imat
e th
e ra
infa
ll am
ount
, par
ticul
arly
, for
reg
ions
whe
re
the
wea
ther
sta
tion
cove
rage
is s
carc
e. O
ffers
10-
day
and
mon
thly
rai
nfal
l tot
als
for
all
of A
fric
a an
d fo
ur r
egio
ns; c
an b
e im
plem
ente
d at
a n
atio
nal l
evel
to
impr
ove
rain
fall
estim
ates
pro
vide
d by
nat
iona
l met
eoro
logi
cal s
ervi
ces.
http
://ge
onet
wor
k3.fa
o.or
g/cl
impa
g/FA
O-R
FE.p
hp
Pla
nnin
g fo
r co
mm
unity
-bas
ed a
dapt
atio
n (C
BA
) to
clim
ate
chan
ge
An
FAO
e-le
arni
ng t
ool,
supp
ortin
g tr
aini
ng o
n co
mm
unity
-bas
ed C
C a
dapt
atio
n in
ag
ricul
ture
. Li
nks
rese
arch
-bas
ed
know
ledg
e on
C
C
impa
cts
with
ex
ampl
es
and
expe
rienc
es o
n C
BA
dra
wn
from
FA
O fi
eld
proj
ects
and
a r
ange
of
coun
try-
spec
ific
case
st
udie
s. A
ims
at a
ssis
ting
all t
hose
who
fac
e th
e ch
alle
nge
of in
itiat
ing
and
faci
litat
ing
adap
tatio
n pr
oces
ses
at t
he c
omm
unity
leve
l.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
clim
atec
hang
e/67
624/
en/
Vis
ual S
oil A
sses
smen
t, A
Fie
ld G
uide
(inc
lude
s en
viro
nmen
tal s
core
car
ds fo
r G
HG
em
issi
ons/
sequ
estr
atio
n po
tent
ial)
FAO
Rom
e, 2
008
Bas
ed o
n th
e vi
sual
ass
essm
ent
of k
ey s
oil "
stat
e" a
nd p
lant
per
form
ance
indi
cato
rs o
f so
il qu
ality
, pre
sent
ed o
n a
scor
ecar
d. O
f pa
rtic
ular
inte
rest
for
CC
are
the
sco
re c
ards
fo
r G
HG
em
issi
ons/
sequ
estr
atio
n po
tent
ial f
or p
astu
re a
nd fo
r m
aize
cro
ps.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
10/i0
007e
/i000
7e00
.ht
msc
ore
card
s fo
r pa
stur
e:
ftp:
//ftp
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/fa
o/01
0/i0
007e
/i000
7e07
scor
e ca
rds
for
mai
ze c
rop:
ftp:
//ftp
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/fa
o/01
0/i0
007e
/i000
7e09
100
Too
ls a
nd
info
rmat
ion
sys
tem
sD
escr
ipti
on
So
urc
es a
nd
lin
ks
Car
bon
finan
ce p
ossi
bilit
ies
for
agric
ultu
re, f
ores
try
and
othe
r la
nd-u
se p
roje
cts
in a
sm
allh
olde
r co
ntex
tFA
O, 2
010
A g
uide
for
exte
nsio
n se
rvic
es a
nd in
stitu
tions
wor
king
with
sm
allh
olde
rs t
o su
ppor
t th
em in
the
ir ad
viso
ry r
ole
on d
evel
opm
ent
of t
he c
arbo
n m
arke
ts a
nd fi
nanc
ial
mec
hani
sms.
Aim
s to
enh
ance
kno
wle
dge
on c
arbo
n fin
ance
and
faci
litat
e th
e in
tegr
atio
n of
sm
all-s
cale
farm
ers
into
agr
icul
ture
, for
estr
y an
d la
nd-u
se c
hang
e (A
FOLU
) miti
gatio
n ac
tiviti
es.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
12/i1
632e
/i163
2e.p
df
FAO
ex
ante
car
bon-
bala
nce
tool
(EX
-AC
T)A
land
-bas
ed a
ccou
ntin
g sy
stem
mea
surin
g ca
rbon
sto
cks
and
stoc
k ch
ange
s pe
r un
it of
land
. Can
hel
p pr
ojec
t de
sign
ers
sele
ct p
roje
ct a
ctiv
ities
with
hig
her
bene
fits
in
econ
omic
and
CC
miti
gatio
n te
rms.
Out
put
coul
d be
use
d in
fina
ncia
l and
eco
nom
ic
anal
ysis
of
the
proj
ects
. Wor
ks a
t th
e pr
ojec
t le
vel b
ut c
an e
asily
be
scal
ed u
p at
the
pr
ogra
mm
e/se
ctor
leve
l.
ww
w.fa
o.or
g/do
cs/u
p/ea
sypo
l/768
/ex-
act_
flyer
-no
v09.
Map
ping
sys
tem
and
ser
vice
for
cana
l ope
ratio
n te
chni
ques
(MA
SS
CO
TE) -
FA
O ir
rigat
ion
and
drai
nage
pap
er 6
3R
enau
lt, D
., Fa
con,
T. &
Wah
aj, R
.FA
O R
ome,
200
7
A s
tep-
wis
e pr
oced
ure
for
audi
ting
perf
orm
ance
of
irrig
atio
n m
anag
emen
t, a
naly
sing
an
d ev
alua
ting
the
diffe
rent
ele
men
ts o
f an
irrig
atio
n sy
stem
in o
rder
to
deve
lop
a m
oder
niza
tion
plan
. A m
oder
niza
tion
plan
con
sist
s of
phy
sica
l, in
stitu
tiona
l and
m
anag
eria
l inn
ovat
ions
to
impr
ove
wat
er d
eliv
ery
serv
ices
to
all u
sers
and
cos
t ef
fect
iven
ess
of o
pera
tion
and
man
agem
ent.
ww
w.fa
o.or
g/nr
/wat
er/t
opic
s_irr
ig_m
assc
ote.
htm
l
FAO
Aqu
aCro
p m
odel
FAO
Rom
e, 2
011
A c
rop
mod
el t
o si
mul
ate
yiel
d re
spon
se t
o w
ater
of
seve
ral h
erba
ceou
s cr
ops.
D
esig
ned
to b
alan
ce s
impl
icity
, acc
urac
y an
d ro
bust
ness
, it
is p
artic
ular
ly s
uite
d to
ad
dres
s co
nditi
ons
whe
re w
ater
is a
key
lim
iting
fact
or in
cro
p pr
oduc
tion.
It is
mai
nly
inte
nded
for
prac
titio
ners
in e
xten
sion
ser
vice
s, g
over
nmen
tal a
genc
ies,
NG
Os
and
farm
ers
asso
ciat
ions
. Als
o of
inte
rest
to
scie
ntis
ts a
nd a
s a
trai
ning
and
edu
catio
n to
ol.
ww
w.fa
o.or
g/nr
/wat
er/a
quac
rop.
htm
l
Ada
ptin
g to
coa
stal
clim
ate
chan
ge: a
gui
debo
ok
for
deve
lopm
ent
plan
ners
Coa
stal
Res
ourc
es C
ente
r, U
nive
rsity
of
Rho
de
isla
nd a
nd In
tern
atio
nal R
esou
rces
Gro
upU
SAID
, 200
9
A t
ool a
nd a
link
to
othe
r re
sour
ces
valu
able
for
asse
ssin
g vu
lner
abili
ty, d
evel
opin
g an
d im
plem
entin
g ad
apta
tion
optio
ns a
nd in
tegr
atin
g op
tions
into
pro
gram
mes
, pla
ns a
nd
proj
ects
at
the
natio
nal a
nd lo
cal l
evel
s.
http
://w
ww
.crc
.uri.
edu/
dow
nloa
d/C
oast
alA
dapt
atio
nGui
de.p
df
Wor
ld B
ank
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Port
al a
nd A
DA
PT
Prov
ides
qui
ck a
nd r
eadi
ly a
cces
sibl
e cl
imat
e da
ta t
o po
licy-
mak
ers
and
deve
lopm
ent
prac
titio
ners
, inc
ludi
ng a
map
ping
vis
ualiz
atio
n to
ol d
ispl
ayin
g ke
y cl
imat
e va
riabl
es
data
and
a c
ompu
ter-b
ased
pro
toty
pe s
cree
ning
too
l for
Ass
essm
ent
and
Des
ign
for
Ada
ptat
ion
to C
limat
e C
hang
e (A
DA
PT)
. Des
igne
d to
ass
ess
whe
ther
a p
roje
ct m
ight
be
sen
sitiv
e to
the
effe
cts
of C
C, a
nd t
hen
prov
ide
guid
ance
to
the
best
sou
rces
of
info
rmat
ion
to h
elp
take
the
se p
oten
tial e
ffect
s in
to a
ccou
nt in
the
pro
ject
des
ign.
http
://sd
web
x.w
orld
bank
.org
/clim
atep
orta
l/ind
ex.c
fm
The
resi
lienc
e to
ol, d
escr
ibed
on
the
Web
site
"F
ood
Sec
urity
Info
rmat
ion
for
Dec
isio
n-m
akin
g"
EC
-FA
O P
rogr
amm
e on
"Lin
king
Info
rmat
ion
and
Dec
isio
n M
akin
g to
Impr
ove
Food
Sec
urity
"
Prov
ides
a f
ram
ewor
k fo
r un
ders
tand
ing
the
mos
t ef
fect
ive
com
bina
tion
of s
hort
- and
lo
ng-t
erm
str
ateg
ies
for
liftin
g fa
mili
es o
ut o
f cy
cles
of
pove
rty
and
hung
er. L
ooks
at
the
root
cau
ses
of h
ouse
hold
vul
nera
bilit
y in
stea
d of
try
ing
to p
redi
ct h
ow w
ell h
ouse
hold
s w
ill c
ope
with
fut
ure
cris
es o
r di
sast
ers.
Als
o co
nsid
ers
how
hou
seho
ld fo
od s
ecur
ity
links
to
the
entir
e fo
od s
yste
m.
http
://w
ww
.food
sec.
org/
web
/too
ls/r
esili
ence
/re
silie
nce-
tool
/en/
101
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Too
ls a
nd
info
rmat
ion
sys
tem
sD
escr
ipti
on
So
urc
es a
nd
lin
ks
4. To
ols
an
d in
form
atio
n s
yste
ms
for
dis
aste
r ri
sk m
anag
emen
t
Prov
idin
g R
egio
nal C
limat
es fo
r Im
pact
s S
tudi
es
(PR
EC
IS)
Prov
ides
clim
ate
impa
ct a
sses
smen
ts in
dev
elop
ing
coun
try
cont
exts
whi
ch a
re f
reel
y av
aila
ble
to m
any
user
s. U
ses
the
glob
al c
limat
e m
odel
to
prov
ide
grid
-sca
le a
vera
ges
of s
patia
l-tem
pora
l hyd
rocl
imat
ic s
tate
var
iabl
es, s
oil h
ydro
logy
and
the
rmod
ynam
ics
and
som
e ve
geta
tion
dyna
mic
var
iabl
es. A
pplic
able
to
mul
tiple
sca
les,
sec
tors
and
le
vels
of
scre
enin
g, b
ut is
lim
ited
fine/
poin
t sc
ale
info
rmat
ion.
http
://w
ww
.met
offic
e.go
v.uk
/ser
vice
s/cl
imat
e-se
rvic
es/in
tern
atio
nal/p
reci
s
Sta
tistic
al d
owns
calin
g m
odel
(SD
SM
)A
use
r-frie
ndly
sof
twar
e pa
ckag
e de
sign
ed t
o im
plem
ent
stat
istic
al d
owns
calin
g m
etho
ds to
pro
duce
hig
h-re
solu
tion
mon
thly
clim
ate
info
rmat
ion
from
coa
rse-
reso
lutio
n cl
imat
e m
odel
(glo
bal c
limat
e m
odel
) sim
ulat
ions
. Thi
s op
en-s
ourc
e, c
ompu
ter-b
ased
in
form
atio
n to
ol is
aim
ed a
t do
nors
, gov
ernm
ents
and
impa
ct a
sses
sors
. Pro
vide
s da
ily, t
rans
ient
, clim
ate-
risk
info
rmat
ion
for
impa
ct a
sses
smen
t ov
er t
he 1
961–
2100
tim
e ho
rizon
and
has
bee
n pr
imar
ily u
sed
for
wat
er r
esou
rce
man
agem
ent,
tho
ugh
it is
ap
plic
able
to
mul
tiple
sec
tors
.
http
://un
fccc
.int/
adap
tatio
n/na
irobi
_wor
k_pr
ogra
mm
e/kn
owle
dge_
reso
urce
s_an
d_pu
blic
atio
ns/it
ems/
5487
.php
Dis
aste
r ris
k m
anag
emen
t sy
stem
s an
alys
is -
a gu
ide
book
Baa
s, S
., R
amas
amy,
S.,
DeP
ryck
, J.,
& B
attis
ta, F
.FA
O, 2
008,
Rom
e
Prov
ides
a s
et o
f to
ols
to a
sses
s ex
istin
g st
ruct
ures
and
cap
aciti
es o
f na
tiona
l, di
stric
t an
d lo
cal i
nstit
utio
ns w
ith r
espo
nsib
ilitie
s fo
r D
RM
in o
rder
to
impr
ove
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
DR
M s
yste
ms
and
the
inte
grat
ion
of D
RM
con
cern
s in
to d
evel
opm
ent
plan
ning
, with
par
ticul
ar r
efer
ence
to
disa
ster
-pro
ne a
reas
and
vul
nera
ble
sect
ors
and
popu
latio
n gr
oups
.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
11/i0
304e
/i030
4e00
.ht
m
Dis
aste
r re
spon
se a
nd r
isk
man
agem
ent
in t
he
fishe
ries
sect
or
Wes
tlund
, L.,
Poul
ain,
F.,
Båg
e, H
. & A
nroo
y, R
.FA
O R
ome,
200
7
Rev
iew
s di
ffere
nt t
ypes
of
disa
ster
s im
pact
ing
on t
he fi
sher
ies
sect
or; d
iscu
sses
fis
herie
s se
ctor
cha
ract
eris
tics
and
give
s an
ove
rvie
w o
f th
e vu
lner
abili
ty c
onte
xt
com
mon
to
man
y co
asta
l com
mun
ities
; and
pre
sent
s re
com
men
datio
ns fo
r di
sast
er
resp
onse
and
DR
M in
the
fish
erie
s se
ctor
, foc
usin
g on
sm
all-s
cale
fish
erie
s in
de
velo
ping
cou
ntrie
s.
ftp:
//ftp
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/fa
o/01
0/a1
217e
/a12
17e0
0.pd
f
Gui
delin
es fo
r cr
op a
nd fo
od s
uppl
y as
sess
men
t m
issi
ons
(CFS
AM
)
WFP
and
FA
O, 2
009
Prov
ides
bas
ic in
form
atio
n an
d pr
actic
al g
uida
nce
for
anyo
ne w
ho p
artic
ipat
es in
an
FAO
/WFP
CFS
AM
– w
heth
er a
s an
FA
O/W
FP c
ore
team
mem
ber,
a go
vern
men
t or
oth
er a
genc
y pa
rtic
ipan
t or
a d
onor
obs
erve
r. A
lso
usef
ul t
o or
gani
zatio
ns a
nd
indi
vidu
als
who
pro
vide
info
rmat
ion
for
such
a m
issi
on o
r ne
ed t
o us
e th
e fin
ding
s of
a
CFS
AM
rep
ort.
http
://ho
me.
wfp
.org
/ste
llent
/gro
ups/
publ
ic/
docu
men
ts/m
anua
l_gu
ide_
proc
ed/w
fp19
7289
Res
ourc
e gu
ide:
pro
tect
ing
and
prom
otin
g go
od
nutr
ition
in c
risis
and
rec
over
y
FAO
200
5
Out
lines
the
rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
nutr
ition
and
sus
tain
able
live
lihoo
ds; e
xam
ines
po
ssib
le a
ppro
ache
s to
pro
tect
ing
and
prom
otin
g go
od n
utrit
ion;
dis
cuss
es is
sues
re
late
d to
the
pla
nnin
g an
d se
lect
ion
of a
ctio
ns in
cris
is s
ituat
ions
. A s
ourc
e an
d re
fere
nce
for
a ra
nge
of e
xist
ing
tech
nica
l han
dboo
ks t
hat
cove
r su
ch t
opic
s as
as
sess
ing
mal
nutr
ition
, man
agin
g ge
nera
l and
sel
ectiv
e fe
edin
g pr
ogra
mm
es a
nd
desi
gnin
g sp
ecifi
c in
terv
entio
ns.
http
://w
ww
.uns
cn.o
rg/la
yout
/mod
ules
/res
ourc
es/
files
/Ref
man
_36_
FAO
_Pro
tect
ing_
and_
prom
otin
g_G
ood_
Nut
ritio
n_in
_Cri.
Fire
man
agem
ent
volu
ntar
y gu
idel
ines
:pr
inci
ples
and
str
ateg
ic a
ctio
nsW
orki
ng P
aper
FP
/17/
EFA
O R
ome,
200
6
Set
s ou
t a
fram
ewor
k of
lega
lly n
on-b
indi
ng p
rinci
ples
and
inte
rnat
iona
lly a
ccep
ted
stra
tegi
c ac
tions
. Add
ress
es t
he c
ultu
ral,
soci
al, e
nviro
nmen
tal a
nd e
cono
mic
di
men
sion
s of
fire
man
agem
ent
at a
ll le
vels
.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
09/j9
255e
/j925
5e00
.ht
m
102
Too
ls a
nd
info
rmat
ion
sys
tem
sD
escr
ipti
on
So
urc
es a
nd
lin
ks
Live
stoc
k E
mer
genc
y G
uide
lines
and
Sta
ndar
ds
(LE
GS
)
The
Sch
umac
her
Cen
tre
for T
echn
olog
y an
d D
evel
opm
ent,
UK
, 200
9
A s
et o
f gu
idel
ines
and
sta
ndar
ds fo
r th
e de
sign
, im
plem
enta
tion
and
asse
ssm
ent
of li
vest
ock
inte
rven
tions
to
assi
st p
eopl
e af
fect
ed b
y hu
man
itaria
n cr
isis
. Pro
vide
s gu
idan
ce o
n id
entif
ying
app
ropr
iate
live
stoc
k re
spon
ses
as w
ell a
s de
taile
d in
form
atio
n on
a n
umbe
r of
inte
rven
tions
, nam
ely:
des
tock
ing,
vet
erin
ary
serv
ices
, the
pro
visi
on o
f fe
ed, t
he p
rovi
sion
of
wat
er, l
ives
tock
she
lter
and
sett
lem
ent
and
rest
ocki
ng.
http
://w
ww
.live
stoc
k-em
erge
ncy.
net/
user
files
/file
/le
gs.p
df
Soc
io-e
cono
mic
and
gen
der
anal
ysis
(SE
GA
) for
em
erge
ncy
and
reha
bilit
atio
n
FAO
/WFP
, 200
4
A g
uide
on
soci
o-ec
onom
ic a
nd g
ende
r an
alys
is fo
r em
erge
ncy
and
reha
bilit
atio
n,ba
sed
on p
artic
ipat
ory
iden
tifica
tion
and
anal
ysis
of
the
soci
o-ec
onom
ic fa
ctor
s th
at d
eter
min
e w
omen
’s a
nd m
en’s
prio
ritie
s an
d po
tent
ials
. Its
mai
n ob
ject
ive
is t
o cl
ose
the
gaps
be
twee
n w
hat
peop
le n
eed
and
wha
t de
velo
pmen
t de
liver
s, t
o co
ntrib
ute
to e
ffect
ive
and
sust
aina
ble
deve
lopm
ent.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
sd/s
eaga
/dow
nloa
ds/E
N/
Em
erge
ncyG
uide
lines
En.
Tow
ards
effe
ctiv
e an
d su
stai
nabl
e se
ed r
elie
f ac
tiviti
es
L. S
perli
ng, T
. Osb
orn
& D
. Coo
per
(eds
.)FA
O R
ome,
200
4
Prov
ides
an
over
view
of
seed
sys
tem
s; d
iscu
sses
the
par
amet
ers
of s
eed
secu
rity;
de
scrib
es a
cute
and
chr
onic
em
erge
ncy
situ
atio
ns;
sum
mar
izes
les
sons
lea
rned
fro
m
expe
rienc
e in
the
fiel
d, p
artic
ular
ly i
n A
fric
a; d
iscu
sses
maj
or c
halle
nges
for
mov
ing
ahea
d, p
ossi
ble
inte
rven
tions
, av
aila
ble
tool
s an
d gu
idan
ce t
o as
sist
dec
isio
n-m
akin
g an
d im
plem
enta
tion
of s
eed
relie
f in
terv
entio
ns.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
07/y
5703
e/y5
703e
00.
htm
Rap
id A
gric
ultu
ral D
isas
ter A
sses
smen
t R
outin
e (R
AD
AR
)
Bor
gia,
A.,
Gom
mes
, R.,
Ber
nard
i, M
. & K
anam
aru,
H
.FA
O R
ome,
200
8
Des
crib
es t
he m
etho
ds fo
r m
odel
ana
lysi
s; in
trod
uces
the
pro
cedu
re a
nd s
teps
of
RA
DA
R b
y co
mbi
ning
mod
el a
naly
sis
base
d on
phy
sica
l sim
ulat
ion
of t
he d
isas
ter,
with
em
piric
al a
naly
sis,
usi
ng p
eopl
e’s
reco
rds
of t
he e
nviro
nmen
tal d
isru
ptio
n af
ter
the
even
t; a
nd d
iscu
sses
its
appl
icat
ion
in d
isas
ter
prep
ared
ness
and
min
imiz
atio
n of
po
tent
ial r
isks
thr
ough
ear
ly w
arni
ng s
trat
egie
s an
d pr
epar
atio
n of
dev
elop
men
t pl
ans.
ftp:
//ftp
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/fa
o/01
1/i0
183e
/i018
3e.p
df
Em
erge
ncy
prev
entio
n sy
stem
for
tran
sbou
ndar
y an
imal
and
pla
nt p
ests
and
dis
ease
s (E
MP
RE
S)
FAO
food
cha
in c
risis
man
agem
ent
fram
ewor
k ai
min
g at
pro
mot
ing
the
effe
ctiv
e co
ntai
nmen
t an
d co
ntro
l of
the
mos
t se
rious
epi
dem
ic p
ests
, dis
ease
s an
d fo
od
safe
ty t
hrea
ts t
hrou
gh in
tern
atio
nal c
oope
ratio
n in
volv
ing
early
war
ning
, ear
ly
reac
tion,
ena
blin
g re
sear
ch a
nd c
oord
inat
ion.
Invo
lves
thr
ee m
ajor
sys
tem
s: E
MP
RE
S
Ani
mal
Hea
lth fo
r an
imal
dis
ease
s, in
clud
ing
aqua
tic a
nim
al d
isea
ses;
EM
PR
ES
Pla
nt
Prot
ectio
n fo
r pl
ant
pest
s an
d di
seas
es, i
nclu
ding
des
ert
locu
st a
nd fo
rest
pla
nt p
ests
an
d di
seas
es; a
nd E
MP
RE
S F
ood
Saf
ety.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
ag/a
gain
fo/p
rogr
amm
es/e
n/em
pres
/hom
e.as
p
Com
mun
ity-b
ased
ada
ptat
ion
in a
ctio
n - a
cas
e st
udy
from
Ban
glad
esh
Baa
s, S
. & R
amas
amy,
S.
FAO
Rom
e, 2
008
Prov
ides
a s
umm
ary
of a
n ap
proa
ch t
o pr
omot
e co
mm
unity
-bas
ed a
dapt
atio
n w
ithin
ag
ricul
ture
, dev
elop
ed a
nd t
este
d th
roug
h a
field
pro
ject
in B
angl
ades
h. P
rese
nts
less
ons
lear
ned
from
the
impl
emen
tatio
n pr
oces
s as
wel
l as
the
deta
ils o
f go
od
prac
tice
optio
ns fo
r dr
ough
t ris
k m
anag
emen
t in
the
con
text
.
ftp:
//ftp
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/fa
o/01
0/i0
481e
/i048
1e.p
df
Mon
itorin
g an
d ev
alua
tion
in d
isas
ter
risk
man
agem
ent
Eas
t Asi
a an
d Pa
cific
Dis
aste
r R
isk
Man
agem
ent
Team
(EA
P D
RM
T), W
orld
Ban
k an
d G
loba
l Fac
ility
fo
r D
isas
ter
Red
uctio
n an
d R
ecov
ery
(GFD
RR
), 20
11
Add
ress
es t
he im
port
ance
of
qual
ity m
onito
ring
and
eval
uatio
n (M
&E
) in
the
disa
ster
co
ntex
t. P
rovi
des
an o
verv
iew
of
how
eac
h ca
n be
use
d di
ffere
ntly
in t
he e
x an
te
and
ex p
ost d
isas
ter
scen
ario
s. G
ives
gen
eral
gui
danc
e on
how
to
cons
truc
t a
logi
cal
fram
ewor
k fo
r ev
alua
ting
DR
M p
roje
cts
by p
rese
ntin
g be
st p
ract
ices
fro
m t
hree
rec
ent
proj
ects
.
http
://w
ww
.wor
ldba
nk.o
rg/e
ap
103
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Too
ls a
nd
info
rmat
ion
sys
tem
sD
escr
ipti
on
So
urc
es a
nd
lin
ks
5. G
uid
elin
es a
nd
to
ols
fo
r m
ain
stre
amin
g
Mai
nstr
eam
ing
adap
tatio
n to
clim
ate
chan
ge in
ag
ricul
ture
and
nat
ural
res
ourc
es m
anag
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Team
, Env
ironm
ent
Dep
artm
ent,
W
orld
Ban
k
Pres
ents
eig
ht g
uida
nce
note
s th
at p
rovi
de le
sson
s le
arne
d, b
est
prac
tices
, re
com
men
datio
ns a
nd u
sefu
l res
ourc
es fo
r in
tegr
atin
g cl
imat
e ris
k m
anag
emen
t an
d ad
apta
tion
to C
C in
dev
elop
men
t pr
ojec
ts, w
ith a
focu
s on
agr
icul
ture
and
nat
ural
re
sour
ces
man
agem
ent.
The
y ar
e or
gani
zed
arou
nd a
typ
ical
pro
ject
cyc
le, s
tart
ing
from
pro
ject
iden
tifica
tion,
follo
wed
by
proj
ect
prep
arat
ion,
impl
emen
tatio
n, a
nd M
&E
. E
ach
note
focu
ses
on s
peci
fic t
echn
ical
, ins
titut
iona
l, ec
onom
ic o
r so
cial
asp
ects
of
adap
tatio
n.
http
://w
ww
.wor
ldba
nk.o
rg/a
dapt
note
s
Mai
nstr
eam
ing
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Ada
ptat
ion
into
Dev
elop
men
t P
lann
ing:
A G
uide
for
Prac
titio
ners
UN
DP
and
UN
EP,
201
1
The
fram
ewor
k pr
opos
ed c
onsi
sts
of t
hree
com
pone
nts:
(i) fi
ndin
g th
e en
try
poin
ts a
nd
mak
ing
the
case
; (ii)
mai
nstr
eam
ing
adap
tatio
n in
to p
olic
y pr
oces
ses;
and
(iii)
mee
ting
the
impl
emen
tatio
n ch
alle
nge,
eac
h of
whi
ch in
volv
es a
set
of
activ
ities
or
mod
ules
for
whi
ch a
ran
ge o
f ta
ctic
s, m
etho
dolo
gies
and
too
ls c
an b
e us
ed.
http
://w
ww
.cak
ex.o
rg/s
ites/
defa
ult/
files
/Gui
de%
20M
ains
trea
min
g%20
Clim
ate%
20C
hang
e%20
Ada
ptat
ion%
2020
11.p
df
Inte
grat
ing
clim
ate
chan
ge c
onsi
dera
tions
in t
he
coun
try
anal
ysis
and
the
UN
DA
F- a
gui
danc
e no
te
for
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
cou
ntry
tea
ms
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
Dev
elop
men
t G
roup
(UN
DG
), 20
10
Incl
udes
a q
uick
gui
de t
o m
ains
trea
min
g C
C c
onsi
dera
tions
in t
he c
ount
ry a
naly
sis
(suc
h as
CC
A) a
nd t
he U
nite
d N
atio
ns D
evel
opm
ent A
ssis
tanc
e Fr
amew
ork
(UN
DA
F),
whi
ch is
org
aniz
ed a
roun
d th
e m
ain
step
s fo
r U
N c
omm
on c
ount
ry p
rogr
amm
ing.
O
utlin
es t
he e
ntry
poi
nts
and
rela
ted
actio
ns a
nd t
ools
.
http
://w
ww
.und
g.or
g/do
cs/1
1473
/UN
DG
-G
uida
nceN
ote_
Clim
ateC
hang
e-Ju
ly20
11.p
df
Qua
lity
stan
dard
s fo
r th
e in
tegr
atio
n of
ada
ptat
ion
to c
limat
e ch
ange
into
dev
elop
men
t pr
ogra
mm
ing
(CC
A Q
S)
UN
DP,
200
9
Prov
ides
a c
ompr
ehen
sive
yet
con
cise
and
str
uctu
red
fram
ewor
k fo
r th
e in
tegr
atio
n of
ada
ptat
ion
into
dev
elop
men
t pr
actic
es, b
ased
on
a sm
all n
umbe
r of
cle
arly
defi
ned
step
s.
http
://un
fccc
.int/
adap
tatio
n/na
irobi
_wor
k_pr
ogra
mm
e/kn
owle
dge_
reso
urce
s_an
d_pu
blic
atio
ns/it
ems/
5467
.php
Tool
s an
d G
uide
lines
to
Mai
nstr
eam
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Ada
ptat
ion
–A S
tock
taki
ng R
epor
t
UN
DP,
201
0
Exp
lore
s th
e ra
tiona
le fo
r m
ains
trea
min
g; o
utlin
es t
he m
ain
com
pone
nts
nece
ssar
y to
ope
ratio
naliz
e m
ains
trea
min
g; in
dica
tes
the
rele
vant
leve
ls a
nd a
ssoc
iate
d en
try
poin
ts t
o co
nsid
er in
the
mai
nstr
eam
ing
proc
ess;
dis
cuss
es a
nd il
lust
rate
s ho
w k
ey C
C
adap
tatio
n an
d m
ains
trea
min
g co
ncep
ts a
re d
efine
d an
d us
ed; a
nd p
rese
nts
clim
ate
risk
scre
enin
g m
etho
ds, t
ools
and
gui
danc
e.
http
://w
ww
.ada
ptat
ionl
earn
ing.
net/
site
s/de
faul
t/fil
es/U
ND
P%
20S
tock
taki
ng%
20R
epor
t%20
CC
%20
mai
nstr
eam
ing%
20to
ols.
Clim
ate
chan
ge fo
r fo
rest
pol
icy-
mak
ers.
An
appr
oach
for
inte
grat
ing
clim
ate
chan
ge
into
nat
iona
l for
est
prog
ram
mes
in s
uppo
rt o
f su
stai
nabl
e fo
rest
man
agem
ent
FAO
, Rom
e 20
11
Prov
ides
a p
ract
ical
app
roac
h to
inte
grat
ing
CC
into
nat
iona
l for
est
prog
ram
mes
or
nat
iona
l for
est
polic
y pr
oces
ses.
Aim
s to
ass
ist
seni
or o
ffici
als
in g
over
nmen
t ad
min
istr
atio
ns a
nd o
ther
sta
keho
lder
s in
ass
essi
ng t
he s
uita
bilit
y of
and
am
endi
ngfo
rest
pol
icie
s, le
gisl
atio
n an
d in
stitu
tions
, as
appr
opria
te, t
o cr
eate
an
enab
ling
envi
ronm
ent
(thr
ough
info
rmat
ion,
cap
acity
str
engt
heni
ng a
nd fi
nanc
ing)
for
CC
ada
ptat
ion
and
miti
gatio
n in
the
fore
st s
ecto
r.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
fore
stry
/clim
atec
hang
e/64
862/
en/
Gui
delin
es fo
r In
tegr
atin
g C
limat
e C
hang
e A
dapt
atio
n an
d M
itiga
tion
Opt
ions
for
Fish
erie
s an
d A
quac
ultu
re in
to P
roje
ct D
esig
n
Inte
rnat
iona
l Col
labo
ratin
g C
entr
e fo
r Aqu
acul
ture
an
d Fi
sher
ies
Sus
tain
abili
ty (I
CA
FIS
) and
IFA
D,
2011
Prov
ide
key
reco
mm
enda
tions
to
inte
grat
e of
clim
ate
chan
ge/ fi
sher
ies
and
aqua
cultu
re
into
new
pro
ject
s, a
nd p
rese
nts
case
stu
dies
.ht
tp://
ww
w.ic
afis.
org/
inde
x.ph
p/pr
ojec
ts/
com
plet
edpr
oj/9
2-in
tclim
chan
ge
Gui
delin
es o
n th
e in
tegr
atio
n of
env
ironm
ent
and
clim
ate
chan
ge in
dev
elop
men
t co
oper
atio
nE
urop
eAid
, 200
9
Defi
nes
a co
mpr
ehen
sive
ref
eren
ce f
ram
ewor
k fo
r in
tegr
atin
g th
e en
viro
nmen
t an
d C
C in
to t
he d
iffer
ent
stag
es o
f th
e op
erat
ions
cyc
le fo
r E
C d
evel
opm
ent
coop
erat
ion
cove
ring
the
thre
e ai
d de
liver
y ap
proa
ches
. Int
ende
d fo
r E
C s
taff
and
the
ir pa
rtne
rs.
http
://ec
.eur
opa.
eu/e
urop
eaid
/info
poin
t/pu
blic
atio
ns/
euro
peai
d/17
2a_e
n.ht
m
104
Too
ls a
nd
info
rmat
ion
sys
tem
sD
escr
ipti
on
So
urc
es a
nd
lin
ks
Mai
nstr
eam
ing
clim
ate
chan
ge a
dapt
atio
n: a
pr
actit
ione
r’s h
andb
ook
Hux
tabl
e, J
. & Y
en, N
.T.
CA
RE
Inte
rnat
iona
l in
Vie
t N
am, 2
009
Dire
cts
a pr
oces
s of
ana
lysi
s an
d di
alog
ue o
n C
C is
sues
, exa
min
ing
fact
ors
at
mul
tiple
leve
ls a
nd u
sing
a v
arie
ty o
f to
ols
to g
athe
r in
form
atio
n an
d in
form
dec
isio
n-m
akin
g. P
rimar
ily d
esig
ned
for
CA
RE
in V
iet
Nam
(pro
gram
me
man
ager
s, c
ompo
nent
m
anag
ers,
pro
ject
sta
ff a
nd p
rogr
amm
e of
ficer
s) a
nd p
roje
ct p
artn
ers
wor
king
at
the
dist
rict
and
com
mun
e le
vels
, but
may
pro
ve u
sefu
l to
othe
r de
velo
pmen
t N
GO
s.
http
://w
ww
.car
eclim
atec
hang
e.or
g/fil
es/a
dapt
atio
n/C
AR
E_V
N_M
ains
trea
min
g_H
andb
ook.
AD
B D
isas
ter
and
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Ris
ks
Scr
eeni
ng t
ool
The
Asi
an D
evel
opm
ent
Ban
k (A
DB
) hel
ps t
he r
egio
n’s
econ
omie
s en
hanc
e th
eir
resi
lienc
e to
adv
erse
CC
impa
cts
thro
ugh
mai
nstr
eam
ing
adap
tatio
n in
to n
atio
nal,
sect
oral
and
pro
ject
leve
l pla
ns a
nd a
ctio
ns. T
o m
itiga
te C
C, A
DB
add
ress
es t
he m
ain
caus
es o
f em
issi
ons
in t
he r
egio
n. T
he C
limat
e S
cree
ning
Che
cklis
t is
not
pub
licly
av
aila
ble.
http
://w
ww
.adb
.org
/Doc
umen
ts/R
RP
s/N
EP
/440
58/4
4058
-01-
nep-
oth-
03.p
df
Str
ateg
ic e
nviro
nmen
tal a
sses
smen
t an
d ad
apta
tion
to c
limat
e ch
ange
OE
CD
, 200
8
Illus
trat
es h
ow S
trat
egic
Env
ironm
enta
l Ass
essm
ent
(SE
A) m
ay p
rovi
de a
fra
mew
ork
for
inte
grat
ed c
onsi
dera
tions
of
CC
ris
ks a
nd o
ppor
tuni
ties
into
str
ateg
ic p
lann
ing.
G
uide
s pl
anne
rs, p
olic
y-m
aker
s an
d se
ctor
spe
cial
ists
wor
king
to
prep
are
polic
ies,
pl
ans
and
prog
ram
mes
(PP
Ps)
and
tho
se a
lread
y fa
mili
ar w
ith S
EA
in t
he in
clus
ion
of
CC
con
side
ratio
ns in
to P
PP
s.
http
://di
gita
l.lib
rary
.unt
.edu
/ark
:/675
31/
met
adc2
8513
/
Gui
delin
es a
nd s
ourc
e bo
ok fo
r pr
epar
atio
n an
d im
plem
enta
tion
of a
res
ults
-bas
ed c
ount
ry
stra
tegi
c op
port
uniti
es p
rogr
amm
e (R
B-C
OS
OP
)IF
AD
, 201
1
Incl
udes
a c
heck
list
for
prom
otin
g cl
imat
e-re
silie
nt d
evel
opm
ent,
whi
ch is
str
uctu
red
arou
nd k
ey e
ntry
poi
nts
for
inte
grat
ing
CC
into
the
RB
-CO
SO
P fo
rmul
atio
n,
impl
emen
tatio
n an
d re
view
pro
cess
.
http
://w
ww
.ifad
.org
/ope
ratio
ns/p
olic
y/co
sop/
guid
elin
es/s
ourc
eboo
k/co
sop.
BM
Z/G
TZ C
limat
e C
heck
Deu
tsch
e G
esel
lsch
aft
für
Inte
rnat
iona
le
Zusa
mm
enar
beit
(GIZ
) in
coop
erat
ion
with
Po
tsda
m In
stitu
te fo
r C
limat
e Im
pact
Res
earc
h (P
IK)
Tack
les
CC
issu
es f
rom
tw
o an
gles
: (1)
clim
ate
proo
fing
syst
emat
ical
ly a
naly
ses
the
risks
tha
t C
C p
oses
to
the
sust
aina
bilit
y of
dev
elop
men
t pr
ojec
ts a
nd id
entifi
es
adap
tatio
n st
rate
gies
for
adju
stin
g pr
ojec
ts; a
nd (2
) em
issi
on s
avin
g an
alys
es h
ow
proj
ects
can
con
trib
ute
to m
itiga
ting
CC
and
iden
tifies
alte
rnat
ive
optio
ns a
nd m
easu
res
to m
axim
ize
thes
e co
ntrib
utio
ns.
ww
w.g
tz.d
e/cl
imat
e-ch
eck
Trai
ning
Gui
de fo
r G
ende
r an
d C
limat
e C
hang
e R
esea
rch
in A
gric
ultu
re a
nd F
ood
Sec
urity
for
Rur
al
Dev
elop
men
t
FAO
and
the
CG
IAR
Res
earc
h Pr
ogra
m o
n C
limat
e C
hang
e, A
gric
ultu
re a
nd F
ood
Sec
urity
(CC
AFS
), 20
12
Prov
ides
res
ourc
es a
nd p
artic
ipat
ory
actio
n re
sear
ch t
ools
for
colle
ctin
g, a
naly
sing
and
sh
arin
g ge
nder
-sen
sitiv
e in
form
atio
n ab
out
agric
ultu
ral c
omm
uniti
es, h
ouse
hold
s an
d in
divi
dual
s w
ho a
re fa
cing
clim
ate
chan
ges.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
docr
ep/0
15/m
d280
e/m
d280
e.pd
f
105
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Too
ls a
nd
info
rmat
ion
sys
tem
sD
escr
ipti
on
So
urc
es a
nd
lin
ks
6. W
eb s
ites
UN
FCC
C W
eb s
iteTh
e of
ficia
l Web
site
of
the
UN
Fra
mew
ork
Con
vent
ion
on C
limat
e C
hang
e (U
NFC
CC
), an
inte
rnat
iona
l tre
aty
that
ack
now
ledg
es t
he p
ossi
bilit
y of
har
mfu
l CC
.ht
tp://
unfc
cc.in
t/28
60.p
hp
IPC
C W
eb s
iteTh
e of
ficia
l Web
site
of
the
IPC
C, a
sci
entifi
c in
terg
over
nmen
tal b
ody
task
ed w
ith
revi
ewin
g an
d as
sess
ing
the
mos
t re
cent
sci
entifi
c, t
echn
ical
and
soc
io-e
cono
mic
in
form
atio
n pr
oduc
ed w
orld
wid
e re
leva
nt t
o th
e un
ders
tand
ing
of C
C
http
://w
ww
.ipcc
.ch/
inde
x.ht
m
FAO
clim
ate
chan
ge W
eb s
iteFA
O o
ffici
al W
eb s
ite o
n C
C
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
clim
atec
hang
e/en
/
FAO
-EP
IC W
eb s
ite (E
cono
mic
s an
d po
licy
inno
vatio
ns fo
r cl
imat
e-sm
art
agric
ultu
re)
Hou
sed
in F
AO
’s A
gric
ultu
ral a
nd D
evel
opm
ent
Eco
nom
ics
Div
isio
n (E
SA),
EP
IC w
orks
w
ith n
atio
nal a
nd lo
cal p
artn
ers
in d
evel
opin
g co
untr
ies,
pro
vidi
ng e
cono
mic
and
pol
icy
anal
ysis
to
supp
ort
the
tran
sitio
n to
CSA
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
clim
atec
hang
e/73
769/
en/
Wor
ld B
ank
(WB
) clim
ate
chan
ge W
eb s
iteW
B o
ffici
al W
eb s
ite o
n C
Cht
tp://
clim
atec
hang
e.w
orld
bank
.org
/
IFA
D c
limat
e ch
ange
Web
site
IFA
D o
ffici
al W
eb s
ite o
n C
Cht
tp://
ww
w.if
ad.o
rg/c
limat
e/
AD
B c
limat
e ch
ange
Web
site
AD
B o
ffici
al W
eb s
ite o
n C
Cht
tp://
ww
w.a
db.o
rg/c
limat
e-ch
ange
/
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
Dev
elop
men
t Pr
ogra
mm
e (U
ND
P)
clim
ate
chan
ge W
eb s
iteU
ND
P o
ffici
al W
eb s
ite o
n C
Cht
tp://
ww
w.u
ndp.
org/
clim
atec
hang
e/
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
Env
ironm
ent
Prog
ram
me
clim
ate
chan
ge W
eb s
iteU
NE
P o
ffici
al W
eb s
ite o
n C
Cht
tp://
ww
w.u
nep.
org/
clim
atec
hang
e/
Afr
ican
Dev
elop
men
t B
ank
clim
ate
chan
ge W
eb
site
AfD
B o
ffici
al w
ebpa
ge o
n C
Cht
tp://
ww
w.a
fdb.
org/
en/t
opic
s-an
d-se
ctor
s/se
ctor
s/cl
imat
e-ch
ange
/
Inte
r-Am
eric
an D
evel
opm
ent
Ban
kID
B o
ffici
al w
ebpa
ge o
n C
Cht
tp://
ww
w.ia
db.o
rg/e
n/to
pics
/clim
ate-
chan
ge/
clim
ate-
chan
ge,1
448.
htm
l
Eur
opea
n C
omm
issi
on C
limat
e A
ctio
nE
urop
ean
Uni
on (E
U) o
ffici
al W
eb s
ite o
n C
Cht
tp://
ec.e
urop
a.eu
/dgs
/clim
a/m
issi
on/in
dex_
en.h
tm
Sto
ckta
king
of
pl
anne
d an
d ex
istin
g ad
apta
tion
activ
ities
cou
ntry
by
coun
try
Ada
ptat
ion
Part
ners
hip
(est
ablis
hed
in 2
010)
tha
t ta
kes
stoc
k of
pla
nned
and
exi
stin
g ad
apta
tion
activ
ities
cou
ntry
by
coun
try.
Incl
udes
info
rmat
ion
on p
roje
cts
(not
co
mpr
ehen
sive
tho
ugh)
and
key
ada
ptat
ion
prio
ritie
s; h
ighl
ight
s re
gion
al a
ctiv
ities
; as
sess
es f
undi
ng; a
nd id
entifi
es g
aps
and
oppo
rtun
ities
for
scal
ing
up.
http
://w
ww
.ada
ptat
ionp
artn
ersh
ip.o
rg/b
log/
activ
ities
UN
RE
DD
Pro
gram
me
Web
site
The
offic
ial W
eb s
ite o
f th
e U
nite
d N
atio
ns C
olla
bora
tive
Prog
ram
me
on R
educ
ing
Em
issi
ons
from
Def
ores
tatio
n an
d Fo
rest
Deg
rada
tion
(RE
DD
) in
Dev
elop
ing
Cou
ntrie
s,
whi
ch w
as la
unch
ed in
Sep
tem
ber
2008
to
assi
st d
evel
opin
g co
untr
ies
prep
are
and
impl
emen
t na
tiona
l Red
ucin
g E
mis
sion
s fr
om D
efor
esta
tion
and
Fore
st D
egra
datio
n (R
ED
D+
) str
ateg
ies.
Bui
lds
on t
he c
onve
ning
pow
er a
nd e
xper
tise
of F
AO
, UN
DP
and
U
NE
P.
http
://w
ww
.un-
redd
.org
/
GE
F cl
imat
e ch
ange
Web
site
Prov
ides
info
rmat
ion
on t
he L
east
Dev
elop
ed C
ount
ries
Fund
for
clim
ate
chan
ge (L
DC
F)
and
the
Spe
cial
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Fund
(S
CC
F),
whi
ch w
ere
esta
blis
hed
by t
he G
loba
l E
nviro
nmen
t Fa
cilit
y (G
EF)
in r
espo
nse
to g
uida
nce
from
the
Con
fere
nce
of t
he P
artie
s (C
OP
) to
the
UN
FCC
C.
http
://w
ww
.the
gef.o
rg/g
ef/c
limat
e_ch
ange
106
Too
ls a
nd
info
rmat
ion
sys
tem
sD
escr
ipti
on
So
urc
es a
nd
lin
ks
Inte
rnat
iona
l Ins
titut
e fo
r S
usta
inab
le D
evel
opm
ent
(IIS
D) C
limat
e C
hang
e Po
licy
& P
ract
ice
Web
site
A W
eb s
ite b
uilt
on a
kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
proj
ect
for
inte
rnat
iona
l neg
otia
tions
and
re
late
d ac
tiviti
es o
n C
C, w
hich
was
laun
ched
in 2
008
and
man
aged
by
the
IISD
.ht
tp://
clim
ate-
l.iis
d.or
g/
FAO
tec
hnol
ogie
s an
d pr
actic
es fo
r sm
all
agric
ultu
re p
rodu
cers
(TE
CA
) pla
tfor
mA
n FA
O-in
itiat
ed p
latf
orm
tha
t ai
ms
to im
prov
e ac
cess
to
info
rmat
ion
and
know
ledg
e sh
arin
g ab
out
prov
en t
echn
olog
ies
in o
rder
to
enha
nce
adop
tion
in a
gric
ultu
re,
lives
tock
, fish
erie
s an
d fo
rest
ry s
ubse
ctor
s. P
rovi
des
web
-bas
ed c
omm
unic
atio
n to
ols
to b
ette
r do
cum
ent
and
shar
e go
od p
ract
ices
and
cus
tom
ize
its u
se t
o ea
ch u
ser’s
ch
arac
teris
tics.
http
://te
ca.fa
o.or
g/ho
me
Clim
ate-
resi
lient
and
Env
ironm
enta
lly S
ound
A
gric
ultu
re o
r "C
limat
e-sm
art"
Agr
icul
ture
: a
Pack
age
for
Gov
ernm
ent A
utho
ritie
s
C-R
ESA
P o
nlin
e in
form
atio
n pa
ckag
e
FAO
and
Chi
nese
Aca
dem
y of
Agr
icul
ture
Sci
ence
(C
AA
S)
The
on-li
ne in
form
atio
n pa
ckag
e pr
oduc
ed b
y th
e pr
ojec
t of
Enh
ance
d S
trat
egie
s fo
r C
limat
e-R
esili
ent
and
Env
ironm
enta
lly S
ound
Agr
icul
tura
l Pro
duct
ion
(C-R
ESA
P) i
n th
e Ye
llow
Riv
er B
asin
of
Chi
na in
clud
es s
ix m
odul
es c
over
ing:
(1) c
urre
nt a
nd f
utur
e ch
alle
nges
; (2)
clim
ate
varia
bilit
y an
d C
C; (
3) im
pact
s of
CC
on
agro
-eco
syst
ems
and
food
pro
duct
ion;
(4) a
gric
ultu
re, e
nviro
nmen
t an
d he
alth
; (5)
CSA
: tec
hnic
al
cons
ider
atio
ns a
nd e
xam
ples
of
prod
uctio
n sy
stem
s; a
nd (6
) CSA
: sup
port
ing
tool
s an
d po
licie
s.
http
://w
ww
.cpe
sap.
net/
onlin
e-c-
resa
p-in
form
atio
n-pa
ckag
e
Glo
bal F
acili
ty fo
r D
isas
ter
Red
uctio
n an
d R
ecov
ery
(GFD
RR
)G
FDR
R’s
offi
cial
Web
site
, whi
ch w
as e
stab
lishe
d in
200
6 as
a p
artn
ersh
ip o
f 38
co
untr
ies
and
seve
n in
tern
atio
nal o
rgan
izat
ions
com
mitt
ed t
o he
lpin
g de
velo
ping
co
untr
ies
redu
ce t
heir
vuln
erab
ility
to
natu
ral h
azar
ds a
nd a
dapt
to
CC
.
http
://w
ww
.gfd
rr.or
g/gf
drr/
Clim
ate
Impa
ct o
n A
gric
ultu
re (C
LIM
PAG
)A
n FA
O w
eb p
orta
l brin
ging
tog
ethe
r th
e va
rious
asp
ects
and
inte
ract
ions
bet
wee
n w
eath
er, c
limat
e an
d ag
ricul
ture
in t
he c
onte
xt o
f fo
od s
ecur
ity. C
onta
ins
data
, map
s,
met
hodo
logi
es a
nd t
ools
for
bett
er u
nder
stan
ding
and
ana
lysi
s of
the
effe
ct o
f th
e va
riabi
lity
of w
eath
er a
nd c
limat
e on
agr
icul
ture
. Cov
ers
six
them
atic
are
as: a
dvic
e an
d w
arni
ngs,
clim
ate
chan
ge, c
limat
e in
dica
tors
, dat
a an
d m
aps,
hot
spot
s an
d na
tura
l di
sast
ers.
ww
w.fa
o.or
g/nr
/clim
pag/
FAO
Bes
t Pr
actic
es P
orta
lPr
ovid
es a
ser
ies
of s
umm
arie
s th
at in
trod
uce
best
pra
ctic
es in
FA
O’s
are
as o
f ex
pert
ise.
It a
lso
prov
ides
link
s to
fur
ther
res
ourc
es w
ith s
uppo
rtin
g te
chni
cal
info
rmat
ion.
The
pra
ctic
es h
ave
been
div
ided
by
them
e. T
hey
have
bee
n ad
opte
d su
cces
sful
ly in
mor
e th
an o
ne r
egio
n an
d ar
e in
terd
isci
plin
ary,
refl
ectin
g th
e co
mpl
ex
natu
re o
f th
e pr
oble
ms
addr
esse
d.
http
://w
ww
.fao.
org/
best
prac
tices
/inde
x_en
.htm
FAO
Web
site
on
clim
ate-
smar
t ag
ricul
ture
This
Web
site
is p
art
of t
he b
road
er F
AO
offi
cial
Web
site
on
CC
. ht
tp://
ww
w.fa
o.or
g/cl
imat
echa
nge/
clim
ates
mar
t/en
/
Wor
ld O
verv
iew
of
Con
serv
atio
n A
ppro
ache
s an
d Te
chno
logi
es (W
OC
AT) W
eb s
iteTh
e of
ficia
l Web
site
of W
OC
AT, w
hich
is a
n es
tabl
ishe
d gl
obal
net
wor
k of
Soi
l and
W
ater
Con
serv
atio
n (S
WC
) spe
cial
ists
, con
trib
utin
g to
sus
tain
able
land
man
agem
ent
(SLM
).
http
://w
ww
.woc
at.n
et/
107
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
In order to meet the challenges of food security and climate change, the agriculture sector will need to
implement a number of changes. Agricultural production systems must respond to climate change by
adapting to those changes and reducing net emissions of GHGs. Climate-smart practices are already
implemented at landscape levels which combine adaptation and mitigation activities and use an
ecosystem approach.
This annex outlines options and practices in agriculture and rural development to mitigate and adapt
to climate change. A transition to sustainable agriculture requires investment in three different, but
complementary alternatives: (1) reducing the negative environmental impacts of farming systems; (2)
enhancing existing agricultural systems that have been shown to be environmentally sustainable; and
(3) developing new agricultural systems which focus on providing ecosystem services (IAAASTD).
1. Climate change adaptation
Adaptation efforts require making anticipatory adjustments to prepare for climate change. Two
approaches can be identified: risk management and change management.
Risk management
Disaster risk management (DRM) focuses on preventing, mitigating, preparing for and responding to
shocks in the short and medium term. It serves to handle threats such as increased frequency and
intensity of extreme weather events and changing patterns of pests and diseases. DRM requires
improving local processes and practices for risk reduction and enhancing emergency response and
rehabilitation operations (FAO 2011). Important management systems include:
• Integrated Disaster Risk Management (IDRM), which is a process for comprehensively and credibly
estimating and managing risks from multiple synergistic sources; as such, IDRM presents a
challenge to science and policy communities (Amendola, 2007);
• early warning systems for natural disasters (e.g. tsunami, drought, flood and cyclone);
• community-based, national and transboundary actions for disaster risk reduction (DRR), including
measures such as risk assessment, early warning and sustainable, gender-sensitive practices to
enhance preparedness for climate-related hazards (e.g. floods and droughts) in agriculture, forestry
and fisheries;
• expanded and improved transition and linkages among emergency response, rehabilitation planning
and development;
• integration of “building back better” principles to foster risk mitigation, prevention, preparedness
and adaptation; and
• DRR strategies in agriculture, forestry and fisheries to: prevent food insecurity and reduce
impacts of climate-related hazards and shocks; and promote the integration of DRM into sectoral
development plans and programmes, including into water and land management.
Change management
Change management adds a strategic, long-term objective within policy, legal and research
frameworks. In the agricultural sectors, it consists of several elements, such as legislation, social and
ANNEX 4 Options, good practices and concepts for climate change adaptation and mitigation in agricultural sectors
108
institutional development; policies and planning through changing and diversifying agricultural practices;
and developing agriculture technologies and linking climate change adaptation and mitigation processes
(FAO 2008, 2011).
There are a variety of technologies, practices and processes related to agriculture, forestry, fisheries,
rural energy demands and rural income diversification which aim to increase the resilience of production
systems and livelihoods and adaptation to climate change. Some examples include improving seed
security; including crop relocation; adopting varieties that are drought-resistant, earlier maturing and
pest- and disease-resistant; diversifying crops; and strengthening seed systems. More practices are
listed in Table 4.1, and some are explained in more detail below.
2. Climate change mitigation
Mitigation of climate change involves taking actions to reduce the concentrations of GHGs. Three
mitigation categories can be distinguished:
• GHG emissions can be reduced at the source through adoption of better management practices
and more efficient management of carbon and nitrogen flows. For example, CH4 emissions from
livestock can be reduced by making more efficient use of feeds, and CO2 emissions can be reduced
through decreasing deforestation (including that caused by agriculture expansion) and forest
degradation.
• GHG emissions can be avoided or displaced, such as through improving the energy efficiency
of the agriculture sector or substituting forest products for fossil fuels and other non-renewable,
energy-intensive products.
• GHGs can be removed through sinks. For example, a variety of agricultural management practices
exist to improve the soil and biomass carbon sequestration, such as: (1) improved cropland and
grazing land management practices; (2) rehabilitation of degraded land; and (3) afforestation,
reforestation, forest restoration and agroforestry.
These categories are not mutually exclusive; agricultural practices usually overlap among them.
A variety of management options exist in the agriculture sector to reduce, remove and avoid emissions.
They are listed in Table 4.1 and some specific measures are explained in more detail below.
3. Climate-smart agriculture
Food security and climate change can be addressed together by transforming agriculture and adopting
practices that are “climate-smart”. Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) sustainably increases productivity
and resilience (adaptation), reduces/removes GHGs (mitigation) and enhances achievement of national
food security and development goals (FAO, 2010). A number of agricultural practices combine these
approaches and are already being used by farmers and food producers to reduce GHG emissions, adapt
to climate change and reduce vulnerability. However, knowledge gaps still exist regarding the suitability
and use of the production systems and practices across a wide variety of agro-ecological and socio-
economic contexts and scales. Many practices also have local and temporal benefits or impacts, thus
being very case-specific. Several practices are listed in Table 4.1 and more concrete examples are given
in section 4 below.
109
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Table 4.1. Matrix of good adaptation and mitigation practices in the agricultural sectors
Agricultural sector or subsector practices and concepts Adaptation Mitigation
Climate- smart
agriculture
Crops
Improving cropland management x x x
- Integrated nutrient/soil fertility management x x x
- Reduced/zero tillage x x x
- Residue management x x
- Adjusted planting dates and crop varieties x
- Crop relocations x
- Improved land management (erosion control & soil protection through tree planting)
x x x
- Improved rice cultivation x x x
Using perennials and agroforestry x x
Managing organic soils x x x
Restoring degraded land x x x
Improving varieties and strengthening seed systems x x x
Breeding adaptive varieties/developing new varieties x x x
Integrated pest management x x x
Energy crops x
Livestock
Improving pasture management x x x
Improving grazing management x x x
Practising manure management x x x
Addressing land conversion (land management) x x x
Improving feed use x
Controlling enteric fermentation x
Increasing productivity x
Breeding adaptive species x
Practising effective disease control x
Forestry
Agroforestry x x x
Afforestation, reforestation and forest restoration x x x
Sustainable forest management and use practices x x x
Integrated fire management x
Reduction of deforestation and forest degradation x
Managing forest biodiversity x x
Enhancing forest health and vitality to reduce vulnerability x x
Intensifying fire management systems x
Adaptive management practices x
110
Managing harvested wood product x
Improving tree species to increase biomass productivity and carbon sequestration x
Fisheries
Improving energy efficiency x
Decreasing use of fish meal and fish oil feeds x
Lowering post-harvest losses x
Increasing waste recycling x
Reducing excessive fishing capacity x
Increasing feeding efficiency x
Practising carbon capture and storage (sea beds, phytoplankton and blue carbon) x
Assessing renewable energy potential x
Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) x
Breeding adaptive species x
Diversifying species x
Better managing water quantity and quality x
Natural resource (i.e.land and water) management
Practising sustainable land management x x x
Rehabilitating degraded lands x x x
Conserving peat lands and wetlands for reducing emissions and increasing soil carbon sequestration
x x x
Integrated water resources management x x x
Improving water management for paddy fields for reducing CH4 emission x x x
Improving irrigation performance and water productivity x x x
Improving drainage and flood control x
Harvesting rainwater x
Using water storage and conservation techniques x
Practising water reuse x x x
Using desalination x
Cross subsector
Integrated crop-livestock management x x x
Fish-crop systems (e.g. fish and rice systems) x
Integrated food-energy systems x x x
Using early warning and information systems for tsunami, drought and food risks x
Developing monitor and control systems for animal and human disease risks x
Conducting DRM x
Advisory services/extension
Developing supporting technology x x x
Improving access to climate information x
Improving communication for extension x x
Developing participative research to respond to needs of producers in the context of climate change
x x
111
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Post-harvest
Building capacity of farmers, traders and other stakeholders in post-harvest handling practices
x x
Providing advice and training on the design and proper management of post-harvest-specific infrastructure
x x x
Developing effective waste/ by-product management strategies (e.g. composting, feed) x x
Using sustainable biomass residue for bioenergy generation x x
Using local and renewable raw material to build storage infrastructure x x
Supporting farmers in developing commercial strategies (e.g. avoid selling stocks at a low price and buying later at high prices)
x
Value chain development
Efficiently using resources (e.g. water and nutrients) (i.e. reuse, reduce, recycle) with closed loop systems, especially for processing/transformation
x x
Improving storage facilities for harvest x x x
Risk management through, for example, insurance x x
Improving energy efficiency x x
Valuing and using by-products originating during the processing (for energy/fertilizers use)
x x
Producing renewable packaging x x
4. Examples of good practice options and concepts
This section presents more information about different management practices in agriculture. Depending
on the specific circumstances, some can provide “win-win-win” solutions, i.e. increase productivity and
resilience and lower emissions.
Conservation agriculture
(Sources: FAO, 2011 (Save and Grow); TerrAfrica, 2011; FAO, 2010 Integrated Crop Management Vol.12-
2010 - Green manure/cover crops and crop rotation in conservation agriculture on small farms)
Definition: Conservation agriculture (CA) is a farming system that conserves, improves and makes
more efficient use of natural resources through integrated management of soil, water and biological
resources. It is a way to combine profitable agricultural production with environmental concerns
and sustainability. The three fundamental principles behind the CA concept are: (1) minimum soil
disturbance; (2) permanent soil cover; and (3) crop rotation. Each of the principles can serve as an entry
point to the technology; however, only the simultaneous application of all three results in full benefits.
CA covers a wide range of agricultural practices based on no-till (also known as zero tillage), including
within well-defined limitations high disturbance such as strip-till. These require direct drilling of crop
seeds into cover crops or mulch. Weeds are suppressed by mulch and / or cover crops and need to be
further controlled either through herbicide application or manual or mechanical (e.g. with a knife roller)
weeding.
Applicability: CA has been proven to work in a variety of agro-ecological zones and farming systems:
high or low rainfall areas; degraded soils; multiple cropping systems; and systems with labour
shortages or low external-input agriculture. CA has good potential for spread in dry environments
because of its water-saving ability, though the major challenge here is to grow sufficient vegetation to
provide soil cover.
112
Resilience to climate variability: CA increases tolerance to changes in temperature and rainfall
including incidences of drought and flooding.
Main benefits: CA is considered a major component of a “new green revolution” in sub-Saharan Africa
which will: help to make intensive farming sustainable through increased crop yields/yield reliability
and reduced labour requirements; cut fossil fuel needs through reduced use of machines; decrease
agrochemical contamination of the environment through reduced reliance on mineral fertilizers; and
reduce GHG emissions, minimize runoff and soil erosion and improve fresh water supplies. CA can thus
increase food security; reduce off-site damage; reduce foreign exchange required to purchase fuel and
agrochemicals; and create employment by producing CA equipment locally. The potential to mitigate
and to adapt to climate change is high.
For specific references on CA and climate change:
• Proceedings of the FAO/CTIC Conservation Agriculture Carbon Offset Consultation 28-30 October,
2008 http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/carbonconsult.html
• Soil organic carbon accumulation and greenhouse gas emission reductions from conservation
agriculture: a literature review (Corsi, S., Friedrich, T., Kassam, A., Pisante, M. & Moraes Sà, J.); FAO
Integrated Crop Management Series (AGP), 2012 (forthcoming)
• Carbon monitoring on-farm assessment in no-till fields and mapping scaling up, University of Ponta
Grossa/FAO (forthcoming)
• Soil C-sequestration in no-till cropping systems in subtropical and tropical agro-ecosystems in Brazil,
University Ponta Grossa/FAO, (forthcoming)
Agroforestry
(Sources: TerrAfrica, 2011; FAO, 2011 (Save and Grow), FAO, 2010 (Climate-Smart Agriculture))
Definition: Agroforestry systems deliberately integrate the cultivation of woody perennials with crop
or livestock production. It is increasingly practised on degraded lands, often with perennial legumes.
The integration can be either in a spatial mixture (e.g. crops with trees) or in a temporal sequence
(e.g. improved fallows, rotation). There is a huge variety of different systems and they range from very
simple to very complex, including: alley cropping, farming with trees on contours, boarder planting,
live fences, multi-storey cropping, shifting cultivation cropping, intercropping, multiple cropping, bush
and tree fallows, parkland systems and home gardens.Many of them are traditional land-use systems.
CA is often combined with agroforestry and with tree cropping systems, which are practised around
the world. Agroforestry is thus not a single technology but covers the broad concept of trees being
integrated into cropping and livestock systems in order to achieve multifunctionality.
Applicability:Agroforestry is practised around the world in various forms, their wide variety allowing for
use in different ecological zones and for different purposes.
Resilience to climate variability: An agroforestry system is as tolerant to climate variability as are the
components – tree, crop and/or livestock – of the system. In general, however, agroforestry systems
will be more resilient than simpler, non-integrated systems because the tree component can increase
the resilience of the agricultural system to ecologic and economic changes.
Main benefits: Agroforestry systems have great potential to diversify food and income sources, to
improve land productivity and to reduce, stop and reverse land degradation. Trees/forests in the farming
system can increase a family’s total income, reduce risk of crop/livestock failure and provide essential
products for home consumption. Their ecological functions (e.g. providing a favourable microclimate,
providing permanent cover, improving soil fertility and structure, increasing water infiltration, providing
protection against winds and providing shade for livestock) may contribute significantly to agricultural
production. Agroforestry systems offer mitigation benefits through sequestering and storing
atmospheric carbon and, in some cases, through substitution effects (e.g. fuelwood substituting for
fossil fuels). The adaptation and mitigation potential depends on the agroforestry system applied.
113
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Integrated crop-livestock management and integrated food energy systems
(Sources: TerrAfrica, 2011, FAO, 2011 (Save and Grow); FAO, 2010 (An international consultation on
integrated crop-livestock systems for development. The Way Forward for Sustainable Production
Intensification); FAO, 2010 (Making Integrated Food-Energy Systems Work for People and Climate- An
Overview)
Definition: In integrated crop-livestock management (ICLM), crops and livestock interact to create
synergies, making optimal use of resources. The waste products of one component serve as a resource
for the other: manure from livestock is used to enhance crop production (i.e. improve soil fertility), while
crop residues and by-products (e.g. grass weeds and processing waste) are supplementary feed for the
animals. Grass – and prunings from agroforestry trees – grown on contour conservation barriers, as well
as nitrogen-fixing legumes grown under CA systems, are further potential sources of fodder. Livestock
are integral to many cropping systems in Africa and Asia; they provide traction and transport, as well as
meat, milk and hides. Improvements to the livestock component of integrated systems include upgraded
intensive pastures through shifting night enclosures (kraals / bomas), fodder planting/hay making and
stall feeding (e.g. “cut-and-carry”and “zero grazing”) in the more humid areas. Various factors influence
the type and effectiveness of crop-livestock interactions, including socio-economic parameters (e.g.
access to land, labour and capital) and ecological conditions (e.g. temperature and rainfall).
Integrated food energy systems (IFES) combine the production of feedstock for food and for energy
on the same land, through multiple-cropping patterns or agroforestry systems and can be combined
with livestock and/or fish production. It can also adopt agro-industrial technology (such as gasification
or anaerobic digestion) that allows maximum utilization of all by-products and encourages recycling and
economic utilization of residues. Both ICLM and IFES can function at various scales and configurations,
from small-scale systems that operate at the village or household level mainly for the purpose of self-
sufficiency, to large-scale systems adjusted for industrial operations but involving and benefiting small-
scale farmers (FAO, 2010 IFES).
Applicability: ICLM systems and IFES are common in semi-arid and subhumid (and humid) areas
as well as in tropical/temperate highlands. Given the growing demand for livestock products, the
subhumid areas are predicted to have the best potential to provide most of this increase. ICLM can be
applied in many areas, but needs to be adapted and modified to prevailing conditions. IFES systems are
very variable and can be found in all climatic zones.
Resilience to climate variability: ICLM systems and IFES tend to be relatively well-adapted to climatic
variability because of their diversity and flexibility – especially when soil and water conservation/water
harvesting and agroforestry are integrated into the overall system.
Main benefits: Well-managed ICLM and IFES: (a) increase crop yields; (b) improve soil biological
activity and health; (c) build up fertility through nutrient recycling and planting leguminous crops and
trees; (d) reduce erosion; (e) intensify land use, improving profits and financial resilience; (f) increase
biodiversity; and (g) improve livestock productivity and health. Including animals in farm systems
increases sustainability and reduces reliance on external inputs. The risks of climate variability can
be minimized through the diversification of the farming systems. Carbon storage can be high: in one
case from West Africa, soil receiving manure for five years had 1.18 t/ha more carbon present than
soil treated with plant residues alone (Woodfine, 2009 and FAO, 2007). Nevertheless, the carbon
budget of such systems depends on livestock management, because of methane emissions. Improved
manure management can reduce methane emissions by capturing the gas in covered manure-storage
facilities (biogas collectors) which can offset the methane partially emitted by livestock. Furthermore,
IFES reduce pressure on land use through intercropping of food and energy feedstocks and/or use
of residues such as food, feed or fuel. Integrated systems thus reduce poverty and malnutrition and
strengthen environmental sustainability.
114
Rainwater harvesting
(Sources: TerrAfrica, 2011; FAO, 1991 (Water Harvesting); FAO 2002, Crops and Drops))
Definition: Rainwater harvesting (RWH) refers to all technologies where rainwater is collected to
make it available for agricultural production or domestic purposes. RWH aims to minimize effects of
seasonal variations in water availability because of droughts and dry periods and enhance the reliability
of agricultural production. An RWH system usually consists of three components: (1) a catchment/
collection area which produces runoff because the surface is impermeable or infiltration is low; (2) a
conveyance system through which the runoff is directed (e.g. by bunds, ditches or channels, although
this is not always necessary); and (3) a storage system (target area) where water is accumulated or
held for use – in the soil, pits, ponds, tanks or dams. When water is stored in the soil – and used for
plant production there – RWH often needs additional measures to increase infiltration in this zone and
to reduce evaporation loss, for example by mulching. Furthermore, soil fertility needs to be improved
by composting/manuring or micro-dosing with inorganic fertilizers. Commonly used RWH techniques
can be divided into microcatchments collecting water within the field and macro-catchments collecting
water from a larger catchment further away.
Applicability: RWH is applicable in semi-arid areas with common seasonal droughts. It is mainly used
for supplementary watering of cereals, vegetables, fodder crops and trees but also to provide water for
domestic and stock use, and sometimes for fish ponds. RWH can be applied on highly degraded soils.
Resilience to climate variability: RWH reduces risks of production failure because of water shortage
associated with rainfall variability in semi-arid regions. It also helps cope with more extreme events,
enhances aquifer recharge and enables crop growth (including trees) in areas where rainfall is normally
insufficient or unreliable.
Main benefits: RWH is beneficial because of increased water availability, reduced risk of production
failure, enhanced crop and livestock productivity, improved water-use efficiency, access to water (for
drinking and irrigation), reduced off-site damage (including flooding), reduced erosion and improved
surface and groundwater recharge. Improved rainwater management contributes to food security and
health through households having access to sufficient, safe supplies of water for domestic use.
Pastoralism and rangeland management
(Sources: TerrAfrica, 2011; FAO, 2009 (Review of evidence on drylands pastoral systems and climate
change)
Definition: Pastoralism and rangeland management refer to extensive production of livestock using
pastures and browse, and is mainly found in arid and semi-arid areas. In sub-Saharan Africa, the term
“pastoralism” is usually associated with the use of common property resources subject to some group
agreements rather than “open access”. “Ranching”, on the other hand, implies individual, privatized land
ownership. Pastoralism is based on open grazing lands (e.g. savannas, grasslands, prairies, steppes and
shrublands) managed through herding. Pastoralists adopt opportunistic land-use strategies; that is, they
follow resources of grazing/browsing and water and destock in times of drought (often de facto through
livestock mortality rather than stock sales), but have rapid-response post-drought restocking strategies
(commonly based first on the high reproduction rates among indigenous sheep and goats). There
are many types and degrees of pastoral mobility, which vary according to environmental conditions
or the given household situation. Mobility can be either seasonal, regular between two well-defined
pasture areas or following erratic rain. It is rarely the same from one year to another. Movement is
not necessarily undertaken only for resource-based reasons; it can be for trade or because of conflict.
Pastoral activities have conventionally been considered uneconomic and ecologically destructive.
Current thinking increasingly recognizes these strategies as economically viable, environmentally
sustainable and compatible with development. The challenge is to adapt traditional pastoralism to
today’s changing environmental conditions. Opportunities include: establishment of feed banks;
115
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
improvement of herd composition and health; a more dense distribution of wells, collection and storage
of surface water by, for example, “charco dams”; adaptive grazing; land-use plans; access to markets;
and empowerment.
Applicability: Grasslands – as the basis for livestock production – cover some 70 percent of the global
land area. It is a production system found in marginal, dry lands with relatively low inherent productivity
because of aridity, altitude, temperature and/or a combination of all factors. Pastoralism is becoming
increasingly constrained because of weakening of traditional governance over communal natural
resources, restricted mobility, sedentarization, boundaries and advancing agriculture.
Resilience to climate variability: By definition, pastoralism is based on continuous adaptation to
highly uncertain environments, especially climate. Traditional pastoralism has lost and continues to
lose flexibility and options for coping with drought (e.g. loss in mobility because of encroachment of
cropping and growing human populations), which leads to increased risk.
Main benefits: Mobile herding systems combine economic production in marginalized land and
environmental protection (biodiversity) of vulnerable ecosystems, which have been modified over time
by pastoralism itself, improved food security and livelihoods of marginalized and disadvantaged people.
The vast areas of degraded rangeland play a vital role in sequestering carbon. Dry soils are better longer
term sinks for C than soils in more humid environments.
Other examples
Livestock manure management:The efficient treatment of manure can reduce emissions and raise the sector’s productivity. For example,
the anaerobic digestion of manure stored as a liquid or slurry can lower methane emissions and
produce useful energy (e.g. biogas), while composting solid manures can lower emissions and produce
useful organic amendments for soils. The substitution of manure for inorganic fertilizers can also lower
emissions and improve soil condition and productivity. The reintegration of livestock with crop activities,
the strategic location of intensive livestock production units and enhanced processing techniques to
reduce production losses are also effective strategies for boosting productivity (FAO, 2010).
Rice production systems: A number of methods and practices for rice production can be adopted to address climate change
challenges. For example, production systems are adapted by altering cropping patterns, planting dates
and farm management techniques. Embankments have been built to protect rice farms from floods
and new drought- and submergence-tolerant varieties of rice are being produced and distributed
by government institutions and the private sector. In addition, many farmers are diversifying their
production systems, growing other cereals and vegetables and rearing fish and animals (such as pigs
and chickens). The residues and waste from each system are being composted and used on the land,
thereby reducing the need for external inputs. This diversification has increased incomes, improved
nutrition, built resilience to shocks and minimized financial risks. The development of advanced
modeling techniques, mapping the effect of climate change on rice-growing regions and providing crop
insurance are other examples of managing risks and reducing vulnerability.
Research on rice cultivation has identified that emissions mainly occur in the few months of the year
when the ground is fully waterlogged. A more integrated approach to rice paddy irrigation and fertilizer
application has therefore been found to substantially reduce emissions. The use of ammonium sulphate
supplements have also been used to promote soil microbial activity and reduce methanogens. In
addition, urea deep placement (UDP) technology has been developed where urea, in the form of super
granules or small briquettes, is placed under the soil near the plant roots and out of the floodwater
where it is susceptible to loss (FAO, 2011). Furthermore, integrated fish-rice farming is environmentally
and ecologically sound and can benefit farmers in terms of a higher income. Energy and nutrients are
116
recycled more efficiently through the food chain, creating a stable and highly productive system. Fish
feeding and swimming activities generally improve the fertility of the soil. The integration of different
systems can reduce the vulnerability to climate change, as mentioned under the ICLM and IFES
systems.
Agro-industry:Within the agro-industrial sector, the energy efficiency of the production chain can be targeted and
contributions can be made to reducing GHG emissions. In many cases, this involves modernizing
energy-efficient and centralized machinery and infrastructure. Furthermore, strengthening agro-industry
through sustainable ethanol production, electricity and thermal heat (i.e. through biomass production)
can provide potential sources of energy. An example is the Furatena Energy Efficiency World Bank
project in Colombia, which aims to contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions from the panela
(brown sugar) sector by developing a modern, energy-efficient and centralized manufacturing facility
that will replace small, artisan manufacture.
117
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
1. Climate change and disaster risks
The world has witnessed an alarming increase in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters. Each
year from 2000 to 2005, natural disasters, on average, affected 240 million people, claiming 80,000
lives and US$80 billion in property3 losses. About 98 percent of natural disasters were climate-related,
predominantly floods and windstorms, followed by droughts.4 The number of hydro-meteorological
disasters, such as droughts, floods, tropical storms and wild fires, increased from 195 per year during
1987–1998 to 365 per year during 2000–2006.5 A number of factors contributed to the increase in
disaster frequency, intensity and losses, including increased climate variations and extreme weather
events associated with climate change, population growth, unplanned urbanization, improper natural
resource management and environmental degradation.6
The IPCC 4th assessment report summarized impacts of climate change in the past decades,
including: increased number of drought-affected areas since the 1970s, particularly in the Sahel, the
Mediterranean, Southern Africa and parts of Southern Asia; more frequent heat waves over most
land areas; increased frequency of heavy precipitation events over most areas; increased incidence
of extremely high sea levels; and increased intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since
about 1970. Future major hydrometeorological disaster risks are also projected, including:
• widespread droughts, which will decrease the areas suitable for agriculture, the length of growing
seasons and yield potential (particularly along the margins of semi-arid and arid areas) and increase
water stress for about 75 to 250 million people by 2020;
• more frequent and intensified floods, which may exceed historical parameters and affect areas that
have not developed coping capacities;
• tropical cyclones, which will directly increase hazard exposure in existing cyclone hotspots and
create new hotspots; and
• sea level rise, which will severely affect low-lying coastal areas and heavily populated mega-deltas in
South, East and Southeast Asia.7
Agricultural sectors are vulnerable to natural disasters. About 40 percent of world food crises in 2007
were mainly due to natural causes.8 The projected impacts of climate change will further alter the
basic elements of agro-ecosystems, including temperature, rainfall, land and water availability and
biodiversity, and add additional risks to agricultural development, food security and rural livelihoods. At
the same time, maladaptation and inappropriate development interventions (e.g. over-exploitation of
water resources, increased farming in high-risk areas, large area mono-cropping and deforestation) also
may increase vulnerability to disaster risks. It is therefore necessary to integrate disaster risk reduction
(DRR) with climate change adaptation in agricultural and rural development to be better prepared to
manage more frequent and intense and less predictable disaster risks.
3 CRED, March 2007, the data source-EM-DAT.4 CRED Crunch, Issue No 12, April 2008.5 CRED, UCL, UNISDR, Annual Statistical Review: Numbers and Trends, 2006, Brussels 2007. 6 FAO, Climate change and disaster risk management, High-level conference on food security: the challenges of climate change and
bioenergy, 3-5 June 2008, Rome. 7 The IPCC 4th assessment report, 2007.8 FAO Approach to disaster risk management-preliminary baseline assessment, April 2009.
ANNEX 5 Framework and options for disaster risk reduction in agricultural sectors
118
2. The concept and approach of disaster risk reduction
The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) defines DRR as the concept
and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal
factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people
and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse
events.9 It refers to the conceptual framework of elements considered with the possibilities to minimize
vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout a society – to prevent or limit the adverse impacts of
hazards – within the broad context of sustainable development.10
Disaster risk is determined by the nature, intensity and frequency of hazards and the vulnerability to
hazard. Hazards can result from natural causes – geological (e.g. earthquake, tsunami, volcanic activity),
hydrometeorological (e.g. floods, tropical storm, drought) or biological (e.g. epidemic diseases) – or
from human causes, such as climate change, fires, mining of non-renewable resources, environmental
degradation and bad technologies. Vulnerability refers to the characteristics and circumstances of
a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard. The
recognition of vulnerability as a key element in the risk notation is accompanied by a growing interest
in understanding and enhancing the positive capacities of people to cope with the impact of hazards.
These coping capacities are closely linked to the concept of resilience, which is defined as the ability
of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover
from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and
restoration of its essential basic structures and functions. Box 5.1 illustrates some basic terminologies
defined by UNISDR.
Box 5.1: Basic definitions
Hazard: A dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage.
Disaster: A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its ownresources.
Vulnerability: The characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard.
Risk: The combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences.
Disaster risk: The potential disaster losses, in lives, health status, livelihoods, assets and services, which could occur to a particular community or a society over some specified future time period.
Disaster risk management: The systematic process of using administrative directives, organizations
and operational skills and capacities to implement strategies, policies and improved coping capacities in order to lessen the adverse impacts of hazards and the possibility of disaster.
Relief/response: Provision of emergency services and public assistance during or immediately after a disaster in order to save lives, reduce health impacts, ensure public safety and meet the basic subsistence needs of the people affected.
Disaster risk reduction: The concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment and improved preparedness for adverse events.
Resilience/resilient: The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions.
Source: UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, 2009.
A comprehensive approach to reducing disaster risks is set out in the United Nations-endorsed Hyogo
Framework for Action (HFA), adopted in 2005. The UNISDR system provides a vehicle for cooperation
9 UNISDR, Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, 200910 FAO, Disaster risk management systems analysis – a guide book, 2008
119
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
among governments, organizations and civil society actors to assist in the implementation of the HFA.
The HFA identified the following five priority areas for action:
1. Ensure that DRR is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for
implementation;
2. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning;
3. Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels;
4. Reduce the underlying risk factors; and
5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels.
Figure 5.1 illustrates the overall framework of disaster risk management (DRM), which shows a
continuum of an ongoing process of interrelated actions, including DRR before disasters, response
during and immediately after disasters and post-disaster rehabilitation. The major focus of DRR is
prevention, mitigation and preparedness. Elements of the framework are further elaborated in Box 5.2.
Figure 5.1: Disaster risk management framework (DRMF)
Prevention Mitigation Preparedness Response Rehabilitation Transition
DRR planning and monitoring
Multi-hazard risk and vulnerability assessment
Multi-hazard early warning system
Preparedness for response
Livelihood recovery and rehabilitation
Infrastructure rehabilitation
Mainstreaming DRM in development
Assessing damage/loss and planning recovery
Major hazard/disaster
Smaller hazard/disaster
DRR initiatives
Legal and institutional arrangements for DRM
Promotion of hazard proof technologies, land use planning,disaster management information system and awareness-raising on DRR,
risk transfer, scaling-up community-based DRR
Relief operations
DRR initiativesNormal economic/social growth pattern
Hazard impacts without DRR initiatives
Hazard impacts with DRR in place
Source: Disaster Risk Management Cycle (DRMC). Diagram (modified from TorqAid; http://www.torqaid.com/default.asp)
120
Box 5.2: Elements of DRM framework
Disaster risk reduction continuum:
• Ongoing development activities – Ongoing DRM aspects in development programmes
• Risk assessment – Diagnostic process to identify the risks that a community faces
• Prevention – Activities to avoid the adverse impact of hazards
• Mitigation – Structural/non-structural measures undertaken to limit the adverse impact
• Preparedness – Activities and measures taken in advance to ensure effective response
• Early warning – Provision of timely and effective information to avoid or reduce risk
Immediate disaster response:
• Evacuation – temporary mass departure of people and property from threatened locations
• Saving people and livelihoods – Protection of people and livelihoods during anemergency
• Immediate assistance – Provision of assistance during or immediately after a disaster
• Assessing damage and loss – Information about impact on assets and loss to production
Post-disaster continuum:
• Ongoing assistance – Continued assistance until a certain level of recovery
• Recovery – Actions taken after a disaster with a view to restoring infrastructure and services
• Reconstruction – Actions taken after a disaster to ensure resettlement/relocation
• Economic & social recovery – Measures taken to normalize the economy and societal living
• Ongoing development activities – Continued actions of development programmes
• Risk assessment – Diagnostic process to identify new risks that communities may face again
Source: FAO, Disaster risk management systems analysis – a guide book, 2008.
3. FAO Framework Programme for DRR
As illustrated in Figure 5.2, the FAO Framework Programme for Disaster Risk Reduction (FP DRR)
includes four integrated thematic pillars, which together address core themes in DRR for the
agricultural sectors. Each pillar makes a direct contribution to one of the priorities for action in the HFA:
• Pillar 1 – Enable the environment: Institutional strengthening and good governance for
DRR in agricultural sectors. This pillar supports the enabling environment of member states
with appropriate legislation, policies and institutional frameworks for DRR in agriculture, livestock,
fisheries/aquaculture, forestry and natural resource management, while strengthening the
institutional capacities to implement these.
• Pillar 2 – Watch to safeguard: Information and early warning systems on food and nutrition
security and transboundary threats. This pillar aims to strengthen and harmonize food and
nutrition security information and early warning systems to better monitor the multiple threats and
inform decision-making in preparedness, response, policy, advocacy and programming.
• Pillar 3 – Prepare to respond: Preparedness for effective response and recovery in agriculture,
livestock, fisheries and forestry. The aim is to strengthen capacities at all levels in preparedness to
improve response to, and recovery from, future threats to food and nutrition security, and to reduce
their potential negative impact on livelihoods.
• Pillar 4 – Build resilience: Prevention, mitigation and building resilience with technologies,
approaches and practices across all agricultural sectors. This pillar addresses the underlying
risks to food and nutrition security and builds the resilience of livelihoods through the application
of technologies, practices and approaches in farming, fisheries/aquaculture, forestry and natural
resource management.11
11 Resilient livelihoods: disaster risk reduction for food and nutrition security – an FAO framework programme, 2011.
121
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
The FP DRR includes four cross-cutting priorities:
• capacity development, through assistance in technical expertise, technology transfer, services,
practical tools, methodologies, extension, capacity-development training, policy advice, advocacy,
education and awareness-raising;
• knowledge management and communication, through stimulating the generation, documentation,
sharing and application of information and knowledge;
• strategic partnerships, through working through partnerships and alliances at local, national, regional
and global levels; and
• gender equity (i.e. taking into account the differences in women’s and men’s vulnerability to
disasters, as well as their differentiated roles in fostering a culture of resilience and in actively
contributing to building disaster resilience) to ensure that gender concerns, needs and capacities in
DRR are integrated.
Figure 5.2: The four pillars of the FAO Framework Programme on Disaster Risk Reduction
1/ ENABLE THE ENVIRONMENT: Institutional strengthening and good
governance for DRR in agricultural sectors.
Objective: to support the enabling environment of member states, with appropriate legislation, policies and institutional frameworks for disaster risk reduction in agriculture, livestock, fisheries, forestry and natural resource management, and to strengthen the institutional capacities to implement these.
2/ WATCH TO SAFEGUARD:Information and early warning systems on food
and nutrition security and transboundary threats
Objective: to strengthen and harmonize food and nutrition security information and early warning systems to better monitor the multiple threats and inform decision-making in preparedness and response, policy, advocacy and programming.
3/ PREPARE TO RESPOND:Preparedness for effective response and
recovery in agriculture, livestock, fisheries and forestry.
Objective: to strengthen capacities at all levels in preparedness to improve response to, and recovery from, future threats to food & nutrition security, and to reduce their potential negative impact on livelihoods.
4/ BUILD RESILIENCE:Prevention, mitigation and building resilience with technologies, approaches and practices
across all agricultural sectors.
Objective: to reduce the underlying risks to food and nutrition security and build the resilience of livelihoods through the application technologies, practices and approaches in farming, fisheries, forestry and natural resource management.
Four Integrated Thematic
Pillars
HFA P riority#1
HFA P riority#2
HFA Priority#3
HFA P riority#4
122
4. Options and good practices for disaster risk reduction
Agricultural and rural development need to address relevant DRR requirements at different levels,
especially at the local level. Some DRR options and good practices in agricultural sectors are
summarized below. Investment programmes/projects can incorporate and implement these based on
local needs and conditions.
Disaster risk profiling
Disaster risk profiling provides quality assessment and prioritization of hazards, risks and vulnerabilities,
which is the prerequisite of DRM planning and implementation. Disaster risk profiling can be realized
through the following practices:
• hazard assessment: identify the typology, frequency and potential severity of hazards;
• hazard mapping: describe the distribution of hazards across geographical areas and vulnerable groups;
• vulnerability assessment: identify the key factors of vulnerability and local coping and adaptive
strategies and capacities;
• institutional mapping: assess the role of agricultural sectors and institutions in DRM and their
linkages with other sectors and institutions;
• needs assessment: identify major gaps and requirements in DRM in agricultural sectors, including
gaps in national and local policies, legislation and institutional capacity.
Promoting prevention and mitigation
Options for disaster prevention and mitigation focus on reducing underlying risk factors. This normally
requires a medium- to long-term planning framework that can allow for the adjustment of institutional
mechanisms and the integration of appropriate measures in sectoral development policies and
planning. It includes structural and non-structural measures to avoid or limit the adverse impact of
potential natural hazards, including:
• Legislation and policies: National legislation on DRR is a basic requirement. It would normally
include a national act establishing and mandating a national authority for DRR and an interministerial
commission/committee for policy-making and coordination on DRR. It would specify responsibilities
and tasks of relevant public and private stakeholders in the DRR process, as well as a coordination
mechanism and procedures. Some examples of legislation and policy issues for the agricultural
sector are listed in Box 5.3.
Box 5.3: Legislation and policy issues for DRR in agricultural sectors
• Risk reduction standards for agricultural infrastructure and construction • Clear definitions about declaring emergency situations and phasing of emergencies • Sector development policies to define priorities and strategies for risk reduction• Land-use planning and zoning • Frameworks to control land degradation and combat desertification • Strategies and policies for natural resources management • Transboundary agreements for watershed management and control of animal and plant disease
FAO, Disaster Risk Management Systems Analysis, 2009
• Institutional capacities and coordination: This measure includes ensuring:
– proper representation of agricultural sectors in national and local DRR coordination mechanisms
and institutions;
– clear definition of the technical contributions and capacities of agriculture departments, research
institutes and extension services to DRR systems; and
– close linkages with other relevant line departments, such as water affairs, meteorological
services, environment and natural resources.
123
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
FAO published a guide book on DRM systems analysis in 2009, which provides a set of tools to assess
existing structures and capacities of national, district and local institutions with responsibilities for
DRM in order to improve the effectiveness of DRM systems and the integration of DRM concerns into
development planning, with particular reference to disaster-prone areas and vulnerable sectors and
population groups. A seven-step diagnostic study process is introduced in the publication (see Box 5.4).
Box 5.4: Seven-step diagnostic process for disaster risk management systems analysis
1. Conduct initial preparation and literature review2. Hold inception meeting and field work planning meetings 3. Prepare national-level institutional profile 4. Prepare provincial/regional/district institutional profile 5. Prepare profile of the community and local institutions6. Analyse data analysis and write draft report 7. Hold wrap-up meeting with in-country stakeholders and finalize report
Source: FAO, Disaster Risk Management Systems Analysis, 2009.
• Technical interventions: Technical options can be implemented through sectoral agencies in
partnership with national and local-level DRR (see Box 5.5).
Box 5.5: Technical interventions for DRR in the agricultural sectors
Agricultural measures • Appropriate crop selection and animal breeding• Improved cropping systems and cultivation methods• Post-harvest management• Pest control• Sustainable water management and water conservation techniques • Afforestation/reforestation and agroforestry
Infrastructural measures• Raised seeds beds, dams, wind breaks, fire breaks• Proofing of storage facilities and livestock shelters• Improved design, construction and maintenance of water infrastructure• Safe rescue places/platforms and strategic animal fodder reserves• Flood-safe seed and fodder stocking infrastructure
Early warning systems• Informing farmers about what they are facing and what they can do• Communicating in a way that is understandable by vulnerable people• Transmitting through media accessible to rural communities• Including medium- and long-range forecasts to allow for contingency cropping plans
Socio-economic measures• Risk sharing and transfer instruments (e.g. crop/livestock/fishery insurance, compensation and calamity funds,
microcredit and cash transfers)• Livelihood diversification (e.g. new agriculture activities and non-farm activities)
Training and awareness-raising• Awareness-raising and training for those who might be affected and those who will be providing support to the
affected communities• Dissemination and demonstration of good practices• Mock exercises to simulate disasters and individual responsibilities and tasks
Source: FAO’s Role in Disaster Risk Reduction, F. Battista, S. Bass and F. Rolle, 2009.
124
Preparedness
Preparedness measures are short-term, preparatory activities taken directly in advance of an
announced or expected hazard to prepare for and reduce its effects and potential impacts. Key
components of disaster preparedness are described below:
• Dissemination of hazard alerts and early warning messages at the local level: This involves
defining national and local responsibilities and creating the capacities to ensure immediate outreach
of the early warning messages to the most vulnerable households and people living in marginal or
remote areas. In this effort, local DRR groups or farmers’ cooperatives and associations have proven
to be suitable mechanisms to assist.
• Contingency planning: Effective response during an emergency relies on the existence of ready-
made and tested contingency plans, which should be available at national, provincial and local levels.
Contingency plans at different levels should be complementary and ensure that appropriate linkages
are established to coordinate and support action along lines of command. Contingency planning
measures are normally associated with life-saving measures (e.g. identification of evacuation
procedures and safety sites and search and rescue); however, they may also be a key instrument
for saving equipment, livestock, seeds and other agricultural inputs. Contingency planning in
agricultural sectors includes: contingency crop planning (e.g. changing cropping patterns to match
late/early rains, using seed and crop varieties tolerant to drought, flood and salinity and having
famine reserve crops); conservation of forage/fodder; moving of animals to safer grounds; plans for
vaccinating livestock exposed to flooding; creation of emergency seed procurement networks; and
development of safety-at-sea measures for fishermen.
• Household-level preparedness: Communities and households are the first line of response in any
emergency. Many disasters occur on a small/regular basis, unnoticed by national authorities and
the international community. Community-led initiatives play a major role in immediate response,
such as saving lives and moving people to safer ground, providing emergency food and shelter;
and engaging in recovery, such as mutual support in reconstruction work. Examples of community/
household preparedness measures include: cleaning drainage channels, pruning trees exposed to
hurricanes, bringing animals and seeds to secure places; preparing buffer capacities of food, fodder
and water for humans and animals; providing basic medical/veterinary packages; establishing stand-
by agreements for the use of equipment and machinery (e.g. water pumps and fishing boats) for
rescue operations; and emergency harvesting, if the season and time allows.
5. Issues deserving special attention
In mainstreaming DRR and climate change adaptation into development planning and investment,
some issues deserve special attention, such as:
• improving risk and vulnerability assessments by combining historical trends with climate change
scenario modelling;
• setting realistic disaster prevention standards according to local economic and technical capacities
and short-term and longer-term development needs;
• considering longer-term perspectives to address secondary impacts of disasters, such as wider
scale migrations and their implications for conflicts and security issues;
• investing in furthering preparedness so all levels (i.e. local communities, governments, regional and
international organizations) can respond more effectively to humanitarian consequences of climate
change;
• revising land-use planning schemes to include evolving hazard profiles and subsidized relocation
schemes in high-risk areas;
125
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
• strengthening sustainable natural resource management practices for water, land, fisheries and
forestry which constitute the baseline for all risk reduction and adaptation options;
• investing in management and dissemination of climate information tailored to different social groups
in different areas;
• ensuring that food security contingency plans consider global and local climate and market shocks
and diversified responses (e.g. production, trade, stockpiling, food and cash transfers);
• increasing investment in social protection and risk transfer, since the increase in frequency of
hazards may erode people’s abilities to recover and the increase in magnitude of hazards will result
in additional pressure on national social protection systems and humanitarian aid;
• formulating better communication and awareness-raising methodologies and strategies to ensure
that climate information reaches end users and that communities and policy-makers are mobilized at
all levels to initiate preventive action;
• building stronger coordination mechanisms to avoid overlap, increase efficiency and improve
targeting and quality of interventions; and
• designing and implementing DRR as an integral part of the continuum cycle of DRM, rather than as
a separate phase before disasters.
126
Challenges in identifying indicators
The project preparation step of developing a results framework – or M&E framework – and related
monitoring arrangements is an opportunity to review previous project design steps and verify whether the
proposed project strategy is comprehensive. The project’s results framework characterizes the fundamental
logic to achieve the project development objective, and is used to monitor performance throughout the
project. It defines the results chain – from activity to output, outcome and impact – as shown in Figure 6.1
(by OECD/GIZ). To measure project progress and achievement, it is necessary to identify suitable indicators
and clarify related baselines, targets and means of verification for each of the results at different levels;
this forms the core part of the project M&E framework. Indicators should, wherever possible, be SMART.12
Incorporating climate change considerations in the project framework adds complexity to identifying,
monitoring and evaluating project indicators because of the following reasons:
Challengesindistinguishingadaptationinterventionsfromdevelopmentactivities: Many
adaptive options are the same as those for normative development, but with longer-term perspectives
under changed climate boundary conditions. It is not easy to clearly distinguish these two types of
interventions, especially when adaptation is not designed and implemented as a stand-alone project
or component, but incorporated into various development activities. This is part of the reason why
developed countries are reluctant to fund adaptation activities in developing countries. The difference
between normative development activities and climate change interventions will mainly be distinguished
by indicators at outcome and impact levels. Therefore, indicators for adaptation interventions should
reflect achievements in addressing additional impacts induced by climate change, such as the capacity to
cope with increased scope, frequency and intensity of natural disasters in the longer term.
Uncertaintyofclimatechangeimpacts: When there are no local climate change impact projections
or when they are not certain, a project may adopt a general “non-regret” approach (providing that a
sound cost-benefit analysis is done). Under such circumstances, quantitative analysis and evaluation of
climate change-related interventions may be limited, and relevant qualitative indicators may be needed
to complement the limited quantitative ones.
Unavailabilitytoevaluatethelong-termimpacts:All investment projects/programmes have clearly
defined durations, normally of several years. However, climate change-related interventions mainly aim
at longer-term objectives that require decades – far beyond the project cycle. Thus, some expected
outcomes and impacts may not be evaluable at the time of project M&E.
Complexityofclimatechangeissues: Climate change objectives link together many issues
(e.g.health, social turmoil, conflicts, migration and cross-sector issues), some of which are not usually
considered in a typical agriculture development project. However, these can considerably affect the
project’s impact and need to be taken into account in M&E.
12 SMART indicators are one that are: Specific, i.e. they have a strong correlation with the results to be measured; Measurable, i.e. the needed data are accessible with sources of verification in the logframe; Accurate, i.e. they arecalculated on the basis of reasonably reliable data, obtained by means of adequate sampling approaches, avoiding excessive bias or statistical error; Realistic, i.e. it is possible to collect the data with available resources, based on the principle of "proportionate analysis"; and Timely, i.e. changes can be monitored according to the time-lag between the action and the expected change (European Commission, 2009).
ANNEX 6 Identifying climate change-related indicators
127
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
GapsinMRVofmitigationinterventions: Technical gaps still exist in monitoring, reporting and
verification (MRV) of climate change mitigation effects in the agriculture sector, especially in smallholder
farming systems. This is why mitigation in agriculture, especially soil carbon sequestration, currently is
left out by major climate change financing windows. Relevant M&E approaches and methods need to
be identified and arranged if specific mitigation indicators are adopted.
Figure 6.1 Results chain
Activity Output Outcome Impact
Intervention What results from an Intervention
The likely or achievedshort-term andmedium-term effectsof an intervention’soutputs
Long-term effectsproduced by adevelopmentintervention
Results chain
Source: GIZ, 201113
Impact and intermediary outcome indicators
Impact indicators (or “higher-level outcome indicators”, depending on the terminology adopted by
the donor) should be able to measure the long-term effects of project outcomes, as well as capture
the change in adaptive capacity and resilience to climate shocks of both natural systems and human
communities, based on a proper baseline. Because of the complexity in M&E of climate change-related
interventions, special methods and procedures for project impact evaluation may need to be proposed
and included in the project M&E framework. According to the definition of CSA, the overall objectives
of climate change adaptation and mitigation interventions in the agriculture sectors are increased
productivity, increased resilience to climate risks, reduced GHG emissions, increased GHG uptake and
enhanced achievement of national food security and development goals. Indicators for monitoring and
evaluating project impact should try to reflect these, such as in the examples listed below:
• agricultural productivities in the project area over a multi-year period;
• resilience to flood/drought disasters over a multi-year period;
• total amount of annual GHG emissions reduced from the project areas over a multi-year period; and
• food security rate in the project areas over a multi-year period.
Outcome indicators (or “intermediary outcome indicators”, depending on the terminology adopted by
the donor) are mainly process indicators. They measure the extent to which activities financed by the
project contribute to the mainstreaming of climate change considerations within national and local
policies and institutions. In order to be meaningful and measurable, it is recommended that outcome
indicators be limited to a minimum set of “aggregated” indicators, i.e. those based on a bigger set of
indicators closely linked to concrete adaptation and mitigation activities specified in the logframe. For
example, the outcome indicator “number of household or ha of farmland benefited from infrastructure
13 GIZ/OECD (2011). "Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Cooperation: A Practice-oriented Training Based on the OECD Policy Guidance. A Training Manual".
128
systems” can be better assessed and interpreted by establishing strong links to the output indicators
of each related activity (e.g. improvement of water infrastructure, agriculture infrastructure and rural
infrastructure). In view of most climate change interventions, there is often a need to develop and
establish outcome indicators to track, among other things:
• capacity development, including strategy and policy capacity, institutional capacity and technical
capacity at different levels;
• infrastructure improvement, including water infrastructure, agriculture infrastructure and rural
infrastructure; and
• technology dissemination, including technologies for climate change adaptation and mitigation in
each of the agricultural sectors.
Table 6.1 below shows an illustrative list of climate change-related indicators in agricultural investment
projects/programmes.Table 6.2 summarizes some indicators collected from project documents of FAO,
GEF, IFAD, WB and ADB.
As Benson et al. (2007)14 note, the implementation performance of CC-related measures in
development projects can also be measured indirectly via proxy indicators:
“Use of proxies and alternative indicators may also assist measurement. For instance,
in a project aimed at strengthening the drought-resilience of poor households,
fluctuations in livestock sales or school enrolment will be easier and cheaper to monitor
than movements in household income. Considerable care is required in thinking through
the implications of the achievement of possible indicators and ensuring that appropriate,
and collectively fully informative, indicators are selected. The consequences of reliance
on particular indicators also require careful thought. For instance, a rise in flood-plain
land prices may help capture the benefits of a flood control project. However, rising
land prices could also imply that poorer households are forced into other marginal
areas and thus a second indicator measuring population movements by income group
or occupation in and out of the project area might also be required. In cases where
it proves difficult to identify a relevant risk reduction indicator, it may be because the
related intermediate objective or output has been defined too broadly or ambitiously
and needs to be more closely defined. The magnitude of the hazard event itself may
need careful definition to support identification of appropriate indicators, e.g. protection
against a 1 in 25-year flood event rather than protection against flooding.”
Useful tools suggested by other agencies
There are other useful sources of information and guidance to identify indicators and incorporate climate
change in the project’s results framework, particularly for climate change adaptation. For example:
• Online guidance for M&E for community-based adaptation is available from the UNDP Web site
at: http://www.undp-alm.org/projects/spa-community-based-adaptation-project/monitoring-and-
evaluation
• A training manual on climate change adaptation published recently by GIZ (2011)15 – under its section
entitled “Develop a monitoring and evaluation framework” – provides a practical training exercise
for developing an M&E framework, suggesting the use of a helpful matrix which can be adapted to
incorporate both adaptation and mitigation to any type of agricultural investment project. For details,
consult the full GIZ training manual at:
http://www.oecd.org/document/40/0,3746,en_2649_34421_42580264_1_1_1_1,00.html
14 Benson, C., J. Twigg and T. Rossetto (2007), "Tools for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: Guidance Notes for Development Organisations", International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and ProVention Consortium Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland.15 GIZ/OECD (2011). "Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Cooperation: A Practice-oriented Training Based on the OECD Policy Guidance. A Training Manual".
129
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Table 6.1 Illustrative list of climate change-related indicators
Project results chainClimate change considerations/
interventionsIllustrative indicators
Impact Contribute to CSA development in the project areas
Agricultural productivities in the project area over a multi-year period
Resilience to flood/drought disasters over a multi-year period
Total amount of annual GHG emissions reduced from the project activities (areas) over a multi-year period
Food security rate in the project areas over a multi-year period
Outcome Capacity development Number of institutions or people benefited from capacity development on CC
Infrastructure improvement Number of households or area of farmland benefited from improved infrastructure systems
Technology dissemination Area of farmland that adopted CSA technologies
Outputs 1.Capacity development
Policy advice 1.1 Strategy, policy and regulation formulated for responding to CC in agricultural sectors
Institutional support 1.2 Number of institutions established and empowered for mainstreaming CC response
Technical training 1.3 Number of people trained in CC adaptation and mitigation
2. Infrastructure improvement
Water infrastructure 2.1 Number of water infrastructure systems improved and area covered
Agriculture infrastructure 2.2 Number of agriculture infrastructure systems improved and households benefited
Rural infrastructure 2.3 Number of rural infrastructure systems improved and households benefited
3. Technology dissemination
Crop production 3.1 Area of farmland that adopted CS cropping technologies
Livestock production 3.2 Area of grazing land or number of herder households that adopted CS livestock technologies
Forestry 3.3 Forest area or number of forestry dwellers in which CS forestry technologies were adopted
Fishery and aquaculture 3.4 Number of fishery systems or fishermen that adopted CS fishery technologies
Natural resources management 3.5 Number of ha and households that adopted CS natural resources management technologies
Post-harvest and value chains 3.6 Number of households that adopted CS post-harvest and value chain technologies
Activities 1.1 Policy advice Formulation of CC strategy in agriculture 1.1.1 Number of strategies on CC in agricultural sectors formulated/adopted
Policy innovations on CC in agriculture 1.1.2 Number of policy innovations on CC in agriculture formulated and implemented
Technical regulations and codes 1.1.3 Number of technical regulations and codes incorporating CC formulated/adopted
1.2 Institutional support
Establishment of proper mechanisms 1.2.1 Number of procedure/mechanisms established for CC mainstreamingin agriculture
Establishment of institutions 1.2.2 Number of institutions established for CC adaptation and mitigation in agriculture
130
Project results chainClimate change considerations/
interventionsIllustrative indicators
Empowerment of institutions 1.2.3 Number of institutions empowered and functioningin CC adaptation and mitigation
1.3 Technical training
Training for government staff 1.3.1 Number of government staff trained on CC adaptation and mitigation
Training for professionals 1.3.2 Number of professional staff trained on CC adaptation and mitigation
Training for farmers 1.3.3 Number of farmers trained on CC adaptation and mitigation
2.1 Water infrastructure
Irrigation systems 2.1.1 Number of systems that raised drought prevention standards and area of farmland area covered
Drainage systems 2.1.2 Number of systems that raised water-logging control capacity and area of farmland area covered
Flood control systems 2.1.3 Number of systems that raised flood prevention standardsand people benefited
2.2 Agriculture infrastructure
Farm access roads 2.2.1 Km of access road developed
Community storages 2.2.2 Number and capacity of community storages developed
Agriculture machinery 2.2.3 Number of agriculture machines procured and distributed
2.3 Rural infrastructure
Energy supply systems 2.3.1 Number of households that benefited from rural energy rehabilitation activity
Water supply systems 2.3.2 Number of water supply systems developed and households benefited
Bio-gas development 2.3.3 Number of bio-gas systems developed and households benefited
3.1 Crop production
Dissemination of CA 3.1.1 Area of cropping land that adopted CA technology
Dissemination of system of rice intensification (SRI)
3.1.2 Area of paddy rice areas that adopted SRI technologies
Dissemination of integrated pest management (IPM)
3.1.3 Area of cropping land that adopted IPM technologies
3.2 Livestock production
Grazing land management 3.2.1 Area of grazing land area improved
Animal waste management 3.2.2 Number and capacity of animal waste management systems
Adoption of adaptive varieties 3.2.3 Number of adaptive varieties adopted
3.3 Forestry Establishment of forest and tree cover for protective purposes
3.3.1 Increase in area of forest or number of trees planted/re-established (e.g. in wind-breaks, riparian strips, mangroves and coastal forest, erosion-prone drylands or sloping lands)
Afforestation and reforestation 3.3.2 Area of land afforested (i.e. non-forest land converted to forest) and reforested (i.e. forest restored on forest land that had been cleared)
Forest restoration 3.3.3. Area of degraded forest land on which ecological functions of the land have been restored
Agroforestry development 3.3.4 Area of land on which agroforestry practices were adopted and number of households benefited
131
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Project results chainClimate change considerations/
interventionsIllustrative indicators
3.3a. Forest management
Forest management (SFM) 3.3.5. Forest area in interventions consistent with sustainable management (including for production, protection and/or conservation purposes) were implemented successfully
Forest harvesting 3.3.6. Area of timber production forest area in which reduced impact logging (RIL) techniques (especially felling and hauling) are practised.
Forest use 3.3.6. Extraction of timber and non-timber forest products do not exceed sustainable levels and the access and benefits from these are equitably shared among stakeholders, recognizing traditional and statutory use rights
Forest products transport /infrastructure 3.3.7. Timber industries and forest product consumers are close to the forest area minimizing/optimizing transport of logs and other forest products/services and maximizing value addition in the country.
Reduction of excess fishing capacity 3.3.9 Tonnes of excess fishing capacity reduced
Water quality and quantity management 3.4.0 Number and area of fish ponds with improved water management
3.5 Natural resources management
Integrated land planning 3.5.1 Number of plans conducted and land area covered
Integrated soil and nutrition management 3.5.2 Number of ha that adopted integrated soil and nutrition management technology
Biodiversity conservation zone 3.5.3 Number and area of biodiversity conservation zones established and functioning
3.6 Post-harvest and value chain
Post-harvest management 3.6.1 Number of households covered by post-harvest management extension activities
Improving food processing 3.6.2. Number of food processing facilities procured and distributed
Marketing 3.6.3 Number of marketing information systems established and farmers benefited
4.1 Project M&E Establishment of M&E system 4.1.1 Number of monitoring points/stations established
Establishment of baseline data 4.1.2 Number of project sites and beneficiaries covered by baseline survey
Data collection, verification and reporting 4.1.3 Number of data monitored and reports formulated
.
132
Tab
le 6
.2
Ind
icat
ors
co
llect
ed f
rom
pro
ject
do
cum
ents
of
dev
elo
pm
ent
par
tner
s
Ag
ricu
ltu
ral
sect
ors
an
d
them
es
Inte
rven
tio
ns
Ad
apta
tio
n
(A)
and/
or
Mit
igat
ion
(M
)R
esu
lts
chai
nIll
ust
rati
ve e
xam
ple
of
ind
icat
ors
So
urc
e o
f in
form
atio
n
Wat
er r
esou
rces
m
anag
emen
t an
d w
ater
shed
m
anag
emen
t
Floo
d pr
otec
tion
AO
utco
me
(impa
ct)
•A
nnua
lized
flo
od d
amag
e an
d di
sast
er-r
elie
f co
sts
redu
ced
in p
artic
ipat
ing
com
mun
ities
as
a re
sult
of
incr
ease
d st
anda
rds
for
flood
pro
tect
ion
wor
ks a
nd
impr
oved
flo
od e
mer
genc
y pr
epar
edne
ss
•D
irect
eco
nom
ic lo
sses
fro
m f
lood
s an
d w
ater
logg
ing
redu
ced
com
pare
d w
ith c
urre
nt a
vera
ge lo
sses
•N
umbe
r of
the
peo
ple
with
impr
oved
flo
od p
rote
ctio
n in
crea
sed
•E
cono
mic
loss
es f
rom
flo
odin
g m
itiga
ted
(RM
B m
illio
n)
•G
roun
dwat
er o
verd
raft
red
uced
in p
roje
ct ir
rigat
ion
area
s an
d th
e ba
sin
•W
ater
pro
duct
ivity
in ir
rigat
ed a
gric
ultu
re, m
easu
red
in
term
s of
eva
potr
ansp
iratio
n (E
T), i
ncre
ased
in p
roje
ct
irrig
atio
n ar
ea
Asi
an D
evel
opm
ent
Ban
k (A
DB
). C
hina
: Hun
an F
lood
Man
agem
ent
Sec
tor
Proj
ect
Wor
ld B
ank
(WB
). C
hina
Xin
jiang
Turp
an W
ater
C
onve
rsat
ion
Proj
ect
Non
-str
uctu
ral fl
ood
man
agem
ent
syst
ems
AIn
term
edia
te
outc
ome
•In
crea
sed
war
ning
tim
e ag
ains
t po
tent
ial f
lood
s in
pr
ojec
t ar
ea
•Fo
reca
stin
g an
d w
arni
ng d
ata
mor
e fr
eque
ntly
acc
urat
e
AD
B. C
hina
: Hun
an F
lood
Man
agem
ent
Sec
tor
Proj
ect
Floo
d m
anag
emen
t se
ctor
pla
nnin
gA
Inte
rmed
iate
ou
tcom
e•
Bas
in-w
ide
flood
war
ning
sys
tem
dev
elop
men
t ne
eds
asse
ssed
; flo
od in
sura
nce
appr
aise
d w
ith s
uppo
rt f
rom
ad
viso
ry t
echn
ical
ass
ista
nce;
nex
t ac
tions
for
incl
usio
n in
fut
ure
flood
man
agem
ent
plan
agr
eed
upon
by
key
gove
rnm
ent
auth
oriti
es
AD
B. C
hina
: Hun
an F
lood
Man
agem
ent
Sec
tor
Proj
ect
Wat
ersh
ed p
rote
ctio
n16A
Out
com
e•
Evi
denc
e of
incr
ease
d ar
eas
of w
ater
shed
pro
tect
ion
and
rech
arge
enh
ance
men
t in
the
pro
ject
are
as
Irrig
atio
n an
d w
ater
shed
de
velo
pmen
tA
and
MO
utco
me
•In
crea
se in
land
are
a un
der
sust
aina
ble
man
agem
ent
in
targ
eted
pro
ject
inte
rven
tion
area
s, a
s a
perc
enta
ge o
f ba
selin
e, t
o be
che
cked
by
sate
llite
imag
e.
•In
crea
se in
veg
etat
ive
cove
r (a
s a
perc
enta
ge o
f ba
selin
e) in
tar
gete
d pr
ojec
t in
terv
entio
n ar
eas,
to
be
chec
ked
by s
atel
lite
imag
e an
d fie
ld v
erifi
catio
n.
WB
and
GE
F, M
adag
asca
r.Irr
igat
ion
and
Wat
ersh
ed D
evel
opm
ent
Proj
ect
Wat
er m
obili
zatio
nA
Inte
rmed
iate
ou
tcom
e•
Num
ber
of p
eopl
e tr
aine
d in
: (i)
wat
er r
esou
rce
man
agem
ent,
(ii)
part
icip
ator
y pl
anni
ng a
nd
deve
lopm
ent,
and
(iii)
inco
me-
gene
ratin
g ac
tiviti
es
WB
-Djib
outi:
Rur
al c
omm
unity
dev
elop
men
t -
Wat
er M
obili
zatio
n pr
ojec
t
Cro
p pr
oduc
tion
Impr
ovin
g pr
oduc
tivity
AO
utco
me
•A
mou
nt o
f ev
apot
rans
pira
tion
redu
ctio
n in
pro
ject
irr
igat
ion
area
s an
d th
e ba
sin
WB
. CH
INA
Xin
jiang
Turp
an W
ater
Con
vers
atio
n Pr
ojec
t
133
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Ag
ricu
ltu
ral
sect
ors
an
d
them
es
Inte
rven
tio
ns
Ad
apta
tio
n
(A)
and/
or
Mit
igat
ion
(M
)R
esu
lts
chai
nIll
ust
rati
ve e
xam
ple
of
ind
icat
ors
So
urc
e o
f in
form
atio
n
Mai
nstr
eam
ing
CC
ad
apta
tion
in a
gric
ultu
reA
Inte
rmed
iate
ou
tcom
e•
Ana
lysi
s of
the
bas
elin
e, p
roje
cted
sce
nario
s, a
nd
poss
ible
long
-ter
m im
pact
s of
CC
for
the
proj
ect
area
th
roug
h an
alys
es o
f re
leva
nt h
ydra
ulic
and
agr
icul
tura
l pr
oduc
tion
mod
els
and
of t
he r
esul
ts o
f ec
onom
ic
rese
arch
and
sur
veys
•N
umbe
r of
hec
tare
s w
here
rel
evan
t ad
apta
tion
mea
sure
s ha
ve b
een
impl
emen
ted
in s
elec
ted
dem
onst
ratio
n ar
eas
and
num
ber
of fa
rmer
s tr
aine
d to
en
hanc
e C
C a
dapt
atio
n in
agr
icul
tura
l pra
ctic
es
GE
F-C
hina
: Mai
nstr
eam
ing
clim
ate
chan
ge
adap
tatio
n in
irrig
ated
agr
icul
ture
pro
ject
Prod
uctiv
ityA
Inte
rmed
iate
ou
tcom
e•
Num
ber
of c
limat
e-re
silie
nt p
rodu
ctio
n sy
stem
s im
plem
ente
d w
ith p
roje
ct s
uppo
rtB
RA
ZIL
San
ta C
atar
ina
Rur
al
Com
petit
iven
essP
roje
ct (W
B lo
an)
Prod
uctiv
ityA
and
MIn
term
edia
te
outc
ome
•N
umbe
r of
CA
sys
tem
s in
trod
uced
, ada
pted
and
use
d by
farm
ers
FAO
Fac
t S
heet
: Lan
d D
egra
datio
n M
itiga
tion
and
Prev
entio
n in
clud
ing
Loca
l and
Glo
bal
Env
ironm
ent
Ben
efits
Res
ilien
ceA
Inte
rmed
iate
ou
tcom
e•
Intr
oduc
tion
of n
ew d
roug
ht-r
esis
tant
cro
p va
rietie
sW
B-In
dia.
The
Wor
ld B
ank
proj
ect A
ndhr
a Pr
ades
h D
roug
ht A
dapt
atio
n In
itiat
ive
(AP-
DA
I)17
Prod
uctiv
ity a
nd
vuln
erab
ility
AO
utco
me
•N
umbe
r of
mal
e an
d fe
mal
e sm
all-s
cale
pro
duce
rs w
ho
have
ado
pted
impr
oved
agr
icul
tura
l tec
hnol
ogie
s th
at
redu
ce v
ulne
rabi
lity
to c
limat
ic v
aria
tions
IFA
D a
nd G
EF.
Zam
bia
Sm
allh
olde
r Pr
oduc
tivity
Pro
mot
ion
Prog
ram
me
(und
er p
repa
ratio
n)
Agr
opro
cess
ing
A a
nd M
Inte
rmed
iate
ou
tcom
e•
Num
ber
(or
%) o
f ne
w a
nd e
xist
ing
agro
-indu
strie
s ta
king
into
con
side
ratio
n C
C a
dapt
atio
n an
d m
itiga
tion
WB
. BR
AZI
L S
anta
Cat
arin
a R
ural
C
ompe
titiv
enes
sPro
ject
Dis
aste
r ris
k m
anag
emen
t C
limat
e in
form
atio
n ge
nera
tion
AO
utco
me
•G
ener
atio
n of
ear
ly w
arni
ng s
yste
ms
of f
lood
s, d
roug
hts
and
stor
ms
•In
crea
sed
capa
city
of
natio
nal-l
evel
inst
itutio
ns t
o be
tter
as
sess
and
res
pond
to
curr
ent
and
futu
re c
limat
e ris
ks, a
nd t
o pr
omot
e in
stitu
tiona
l coo
rdin
atio
n am
ong
curr
ently
fra
gmen
ted
agen
cies
man
agin
g di
sast
er a
nd
clim
ate
risk
WB
web
-bas
ed t
ool o
n M
ains
trea
min
g ad
apta
tion
to c
limat
e ch
ange
in a
gric
ultu
re a
nd
natu
ral r
esou
rces
man
agem
ent
proj
ects
Web
link
: htt
p://s
itere
sour
ces.
wor
ldba
nk.o
rg/E
XTT
OO
LKIT
3/R
esou
rces
/364
6250
-125
0715
3271
43/G
N6.
Clim
ate
info
rmat
ion
gene
ratio
nA
Inte
rmed
iate
ou
tcom
e•
Incr
ease
of
vuln
erab
ility
ass
essm
ents
tha
t in
tegr
ate
clim
ate
info
rmat
ion
with
ava
ilabl
e na
tura
l res
ourc
e an
d so
cioe
cono
mic
info
rmat
ion
•D
owns
cale
d cl
imat
e pr
ojec
tions
, bas
ed o
n pa
st a
nd
curr
ent
clim
ate
obse
rvat
ions
and
glo
bal a
nd r
egio
nal
clim
ate
mod
els
•C
limat
e ris
k sc
reen
ing
of c
omm
unity
-driv
en
deve
lopm
ent
(CD
D) m
icro
proj
ects
and
in a
rid la
nds
WB
- Ken
ya:A
dapt
atio
n to
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
in
Arid
and
Sem
i-Arid
Lan
ds (K
AC
CA
L) f
rom
WB
w
eb-b
ased
too
l on
Mai
nstr
eam
ing
adap
tatio
n to
clim
ate
chan
ge in
agr
icul
ture
and
nat
ural
re
sour
ces
man
agem
ent
proj
ects
Web
link
: htt
p://s
itere
sour
ces.
wor
ldba
nk.o
rg/E
XTT
OO
LKIT
3/R
esou
rces
/364
6250
-125
0715
3271
43/G
N6.
134
Ag
ricu
ltu
ral
sect
ors
an
d
them
es
Inte
rven
tio
ns
Ad
apta
tio
n
(A)
and/
or
Mit
igat
ion
(M
)R
esu
lts
chai
nIll
ust
rati
ve e
xam
ple
of
ind
icat
ors
So
urc
e o
f in
form
atio
n
Land
use
, lan
d de
grad
atio
n an
d fo
rest
ry
Terr
itoria
l pla
nnin
g A
and
MIn
term
edia
te
outc
ome
•D
ecre
ase
of r
eset
tlem
ent
of p
opul
atio
n as
a
cons
eque
nce
of g
ood
terr
itoria
l pla
nnin
g
•D
ecre
ase
of in
vest
men
ts w
ith h
igh
irrev
ersi
bilit
y (e
.g.
larg
e in
fras
truc
ture
pro
ject
s su
ch a
s la
rge
rese
rvoi
rs)
WB
web
-bas
ed t
ool o
n M
ains
trea
min
g ad
apta
tion
to c
limat
e ch
ange
in a
gric
ultu
re a
nd
natu
ral r
esou
rces
man
agem
ent
proj
ects
Web
link
: htt
p://s
itere
sour
ces.
wor
ldba
nk.o
rg/E
XTT
OO
LKIT
3/R
esou
rces
/364
6250
-125
0715
3271
43/G
N6.
Part
icip
ator
y an
dlo
cally
-man
aged
sys
tem
fo
rco
nser
vatio
n,
man
agem
ent,
and
sust
aina
ble
use
of
fore
stre
sour
ces
and
asso
ciat
edbi
odiv
ersi
ty
A a
nd M
Out
com
e•
Proj
ect
gene
rate
s 13
.3 m
illio
n m
3 of
timbe
r an
d 2.
73
billi
on k
g of
bam
boo
by 3
1 D
ecem
ber
2025
; RM
B 1
.1
billi
on n
et in
com
e fr
om t
ree
crop
pro
duct
ion
by 3
1 D
ecem
ber
2022
•P
lant
atio
ns t
o re
lieve
pre
ssur
e on
nat
ural
fore
sts
esta
blis
hed
in s
elec
ted
area
s an
d op
erat
ed s
usta
inab
ly
•C
apac
ity o
f go
vern
men
t im
plem
entin
g ag
enci
es a
nd
peop
le in
crea
sed,
incl
udin
g vo
catio
nal t
rain
ing
of fo
rest
ry
wor
kers
: six
cou
nty
trai
ning
pla
ns a
ppro
ved
by d
ate
XX
X;
3 50
0 pe
rson
nel t
rain
ed b
y da
te X
XX
GE
F- S
econ
d B
eijin
g E
nviro
nmen
t Pr
ojec
t
Fost
er im
prov
ed
cons
erva
tion
and
sust
aina
ble
man
agem
ent
of r
emai
ning
nat
ural
fo
rest
M a
nd A
Out
com
e•
Ove
r 1
mill
ion
hect
ares
of
natu
ral f
ores
ts a
nd p
rote
cted
ar
eas
brou
ght
unde
r ac
tive
man
agem
ent
•R
educ
tion
of c
omm
unity
rel
ianc
e on
fore
st r
esou
rces
in
side
bio
dive
rsity
impo
rtan
t zo
nes
•In
crea
se in
loca
l gov
ernm
ent’s
cap
acity
to
supe
rvis
e,
mon
itor
and
impl
emen
t co
nser
vatio
n an
d su
stai
nabl
e re
sour
ce u
se a
ctiv
ities
GE
F- S
econ
d B
eijin
g E
nviro
nmen
t Pr
ojec
t
Mul
ti-fu
nctio
ning
fore
sts
A a
nd M
•A
reas
of
mul
tifun
ctio
n fo
rest
s es
tabl
ishe
d: (a
) win
d br
eaks
(x h
a)
•(b
) soi
l & w
ater
con
serv
atio
n fo
rest
s (x
ha)
; (c)
farm
land
sh
elte
r be
lt (x
ha)
WB
CH
INA
. Int
egra
ted
Fore
stry
Dev
elop
men
t Pr
ojec
t
Trai
ning
A a
nd M
Out
com
e•
Hou
seho
lds
and
fore
st s
taff
tra
ined
and
impr
oved
te
chno
logi
es in
trod
uced
WB
CH
INA
. Int
egra
ted
Fore
stry
Dev
elop
men
t Pr
ojec
t
Fore
st t
enur
e-sh
ip a
nd
RE
DD
+M
Out
com
e•
Are
a fo
r w
hich
fore
stla
nd u
se r
ight
cer
tific
ates
are
gr
ante
d (in
crea
sed
com
mitm
ent
to a
void
def
ores
tatio
n)W
B C
HIN
A. I
nteg
rate
d Fo
rest
ry D
evel
opm
ent
Proj
ect
135
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Ag
ricu
ltu
ral
sect
ors
an
d
them
es
Inte
rven
tio
ns
Ad
apta
tio
n
(A)
and/
or
Mit
igat
ion
(M
)R
esu
lts
chai
nIll
ust
rati
ve e
xam
ple
of
ind
icat
ors
So
urc
e o
f in
form
atio
n
Prot
ecte
d ar
eas
M•
Cre
atio
n of
new
pro
tect
ed a
reas
, som
etim
es b
y co
nver
ting
suita
ble
area
s in
to n
atio
nal p
arks
and
re
serv
es a
nd e
ncou
ragi
ng t
heir
use
for
tour
ism
and
le
isur
e. S
ome
coun
trie
s ar
e co
oper
atin
g in
com
mon
st
ruct
ures
or
with
inte
rsta
te a
gree
men
ts fo
r th
e co
nser
vatio
n an
d m
anag
emen
t of
tra
nsbo
unda
ry
reso
urce
s (e
.g. t
he A
ral S
ea a
gree
men
ts, t
he
Alp
s-A
dria
tic a
nd t
he D
anub
e R
egio
n C
omm
unity
Pr
ogra
mm
e, N
ile a
nd M
ekon
g R
iver
Bas
in A
gree
men
ts
and
prog
ram
mes
)
FAO
Fac
t S
heet
: Lan
d D
egra
datio
n M
itiga
tion
and
Prev
entio
n in
clud
ing
Loca
l and
Glo
bal
Env
ironm
ent
Ben
efits
Polic
y fr
amew
ork
and
inst
itutio
nal
capa
city
to
redu
ceG
HG
em
issi
ons
from
the
ag
ricul
tura
l sec
tor
Inst
itutio
ns a
nd p
olic
ies
A a
nd M
Inte
rmed
iate
ou
tcom
e•
A u
nit
with
in t
he M
inis
try
of A
gric
ultu
re is
est
ablis
hed
to s
uppo
rt a
nd/o
r fo
rmul
ate,
impl
emen
t an
d m
onito
r C
C
miti
gatio
n an
d ad
apta
tion
polic
ies
and
prog
ram
mes
in
the
agric
ultu
re s
ecto
r
•N
umbe
r of
wor
ksho
ps (i
nclu
ding
inte
rmin
iste
rial)
prom
otin
g co
llabo
ratio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
shar
ing
on C
C
activ
ities
rel
ated
to
the
proj
ect
carr
ied
out
•Po
licy
and
regu
lato
ry f
ram
ewor
k fo
r gr
id-c
onne
cted
re
new
able
s in
pla
ce
WB
/GE
F M
EX
ICO
.Mex
ico
Rur
al D
evel
opm
ent
Rur
al
elec
trifi
catio
n &
ren
ewab
le
ener
gy
Polic
y, p
lann
ing
and
on-
the-
grou
nd in
vest
men
ts
MO
utco
me
•Po
licy
and
regu
lato
ry f
ram
ewor
k fo
r gr
id-c
onne
cted
re
new
able
s in
pla
ce
•Ta
rget
s/gu
idel
ines
for
off-
grid
rura
l ele
ctrif
icat
ion
esta
blis
hed
•A
10-
year
act
ion
plan
for
rene
wab
le e
nerg
y de
velo
pmen
t co
mpl
eted
•W
ind
map
ping
bas
ed o
n sa
telli
te d
ata
and
grou
nd-le
vel
mon
itorin
g st
atio
ns c
ompl
eted
•M
arke
t st
udy
on S
olar
Hom
e Sy
stem
(SH
S) p
oten
tial
com
plet
ed
•N
umbe
r of
con
sum
ers
with
SH
S
•W
ind
pilo
t pr
ojec
ts c
ompl
eted
•C
ompl
etio
n of
tra
inin
g ac
tiviti
es
•To
nnes
of
GH
G e
mis
sion
red
uctio
ns
GE
F. R
epub
lic o
f Yem
en:R
ural
Ele
ctrifi
catio
n an
d R
enew
able
Ene
rgy
Dev
elop
men
t Pr
ojec
t
Sus
tain
able
ag
ricul
tura
l te
chno
logy
and
su
ppor
t se
rvic
es
GH
G e
mis
sion
-red
uctio
n te
chno
logi
esM
Out
com
e (im
pact
)•
Tonn
es o
f C
0 2 equ
ival
ent
avoi
ded
•M
inis
try
of A
gric
ultu
re is
suc
cess
fully
form
ulat
ing
CC
m
itiga
tion
and
adap
tatio
n po
licie
s an
d pr
ogra
mm
es
in t
he a
gric
ultu
ral s
ecto
r an
d m
onito
ring
thei
r im
plem
enta
tion
WB
/GE
F M
EX
ICO
.Mex
ico
Rur
al D
evel
opm
ent
136
Ag
ricu
ltu
ral
sect
ors
an
d
them
es
Inte
rven
tio
ns
Ad
apta
tio
n
(A)
and/
or
Mit
igat
ion
(M
)R
esu
lts
chai
nIll
ust
rati
ve e
xam
ple
of
ind
icat
ors
So
urc
e o
f in
form
atio
n
MIn
term
edia
te
outc
ome
•N
umbe
r of
KW
h of
ene
rgy
save
d fr
om a
dopt
ion
of
ener
gy-e
ffic
ient
tec
hnol
ogie
s (a
nd c
orre
spon
ding
ton
nes
of a
void
edC
O2e
em
issi
ons)
•N
umbe
r of
agr
ibus
ines
ses
havi
ng a
dopt
ed lo
w c
arbo
n-in
tens
ity t
echn
olog
ies
•N
umbe
r of
ene
rgy
effic
ient
and
/or
rene
wab
le e
nerg
y su
bpro
ject
s pr
epar
ed a
nd im
plem
ente
d
•N
umbe
r of
ene
rgy
effic
ienc
y an
d /o
r re
new
able
ene
rgy
subp
roje
cts
that
rec
eive
d te
chni
cal a
ssis
tanc
e fo
r th
e pr
epar
atio
n of
bus
ines
s pl
ans
on e
nerg
y ef
ficie
ncy
and/
or r
enew
able
ene
rgy
tech
nolo
gies
•D
ata
gath
erin
g an
d in
vent
ory
of G
HG
em
issi
ons
from
:
–al
l ene
rgy
sour
ces
–in
dust
rial p
roce
sses
–ag
ricul
tura
l pro
cess
es –
land
-use
cha
nge
and
fore
stry
WB
/GE
F M
EX
ICO
.Mex
ico
Rur
al D
evel
opm
ent
16
Wat
ersh
ed p
rote
ctio
n th
roug
h in
crea
sing
sur
face
and
gro
undw
ater
ava
ilabi
lity
thro
ugh
reha
bilit
atio
n of
sm
all-
to m
ediu
m-s
pate
irrig
atio
n sc
hem
es, t
erra
ce r
ehab
ilita
tion,
ban
k pr
otec
tion
wor
ks a
nd o
ther
wat
er a
nd s
oil c
onse
rvat
ion
activ
ities
.17
S
ourc
e: A
nnex
20
of W
B w
eb-b
ased
too
l on
Mai
nstr
eam
ing
adap
tatio
n to
clim
ate
chan
ge in
agr
icul
ture
and
nat
ural
res
ourc
es m
anag
emen
t pr
ojec
ts..
137
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
ANNEX 7 Finance options for climate change activities
138
AN
NE
X 7
Fina
nce
optio
ns fo
r cl
imat
e ch
ange
act
iviti
es
Nam
eD
escr
ipti
on
of
fun
dPr
oje
ct t
ype
Targ
et g
rou
pG
eog
rap
hic
al
focu
sW
eblin
k
Ada
ptat
ion
Fund
The
Ada
ptat
ion
Fund
is a
fina
ncia
l in
stru
men
t un
der
the
UN
FCC
C a
nd
its K
yoto
Pro
toco
l. It
was
est
ablis
hed
to fi
nanc
e co
ncre
te a
dapt
atio
n pr
ojec
ts a
nd p
rogr
amm
es in
de
velo
ping
cou
ntrie
s th
at a
re P
artie
s to
the
Kyo
to P
roto
col i
n an
effo
rt t
o re
duce
the
adv
erse
effe
cts
of c
limat
e ch
ange
faci
ng c
omm
uniti
es, c
ount
ries
and
sect
ors.
•W
ater
res
ourc
es m
anag
emen
t, la
nd
man
agem
ent,
agr
icul
ture
, hea
lth,
infr
astr
uctu
re d
evel
opm
ent,
fra
gile
ec
osys
tem
s
•M
onito
ring
of d
isea
ses
and
vect
ors
affe
cted
by
clim
ate
chan
ge, a
nd r
elat
ed
fore
cast
ing
and
early
-war
ning
sys
tem
s
•S
uppo
rtin
g ca
paci
ty b
uild
ing,
incl
udin
g in
stitu
tiona
l cap
acity
, for
pre
vent
ive
mea
sure
s, p
lann
ing,
pre
pare
dnes
s an
d m
anag
emen
t of
dis
aste
rs r
elat
ing
to
clim
ate
chan
ge
•S
tren
gthe
ning
exi
stin
g an
d es
tabl
ishi
ng
natio
nal a
nd r
egio
nal c
entr
es a
nd
info
rmat
ion
netw
orks
for
rapi
d re
spon
se
to e
xtre
me
wea
ther
eve
nts
Dev
elop
ing
coun
try
Part
ies
to t
he K
yoto
Pro
toco
l tha
t ar
e pa
rtic
ular
ly v
ulne
rabl
e to
the
adv
erse
effe
cts
of
clim
ate
chan
ge
Dev
elop
ing
coun
try
Part
ies
to t
he K
yoto
Pr
otoc
ol t
hat
are
part
icul
arly
vu
lner
able
to
the
adve
rse
effe
cts
of
clim
ate
chan
ge
http
://ad
apta
tion-
fund
.org
/
Afr
ica-
Eur
opea
n U
nion
(EU
) E
nerg
y Pa
rtne
rshi
p (A
EE
P):
Ren
ewab
le
Ene
rgy
Coo
pera
tion
Prog
ram
me
(RE
CP
)
The
RE
CP
obj
ectiv
es a
re t
o br
ing
bene
fits
of e
cono
mic
gro
wth
, em
ploy
men
t, e
nerg
y se
curit
y an
dim
prov
ed e
nerg
y ac
cess
and
to
pave
the
way
for
a fu
ture
low
-car
bon
ener
gy s
yste
m in
Afr
ica.
At
the
sam
e tim
e, t
he R
EC
P w
ill h
elp
build
a
sign
ifica
nt n
ew a
rea
for
indu
stria
l tr
ade
and
busi
ness
coo
pera
tion
betw
een
Afr
ica
and
Eur
ope.
It is
stil
l in
its
star
t-up
pha
se t
o id
entif
y pr
iorit
y ac
tiviti
es.
Spe
cific
initi
ativ
es w
ill fo
cus
on fi
ve p
riorit
y ar
eas: –en
ergy
acc
ess;
–en
ergy
sec
urity
; –
rene
wab
le e
nerg
y an
d en
ergy
ef
ficie
ncy;
–in
stitu
tiona
l cap
acity
bui
ldin
g; a
nd –
scal
ing-
up in
vest
men
t.
Ope
nA
fric
aht
tp://
ww
w.a
eep-
conf
eren
ce.o
rg/
docu
men
ts/a
eep_
recp
139
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Nam
eD
escr
ipti
on
of
fun
dPr
oje
ct t
ype
Targ
et g
rou
pG
eog
rap
hic
al
focu
sW
eblin
k
Am
azon
Fun
dTh
e A
maz
on F
und
was
cre
ated
to
hel
p fo
ster
the
pre
serv
atio
n of
fo
rest
s. T
he f
und
is a
imed
at
rais
ing
dona
tions
for
inve
stm
ents
in e
ffort
s to
pre
vent
, mon
itor
and
com
bat
defo
rest
atio
n, a
s w
ell a
s to
pro
mot
e th
e pr
eser
vatio
n an
d su
stai
nabl
e us
e of
fore
sts
in t
he A
maz
on B
iom
e. It
is
man
aged
by
the
BN
DE
S, t
he B
razi
lian
Dev
elop
men
t B
ank.
•M
anag
emen
t of
pub
lic fo
rest
s &
pr
otec
ted
area
s
•E
nviro
nmen
tal c
ontr
ol, m
onito
ring
&
insp
ectio
n
•S
usta
inab
le fo
rest
man
agem
ent
•E
cono
mic
act
iviti
es c
reat
ed w
ith
sust
aina
ble
use
of fo
rest
s
•E
colo
gica
l and
eco
nom
ic z
onin
g,
terr
itoria
l arr
ange
men
t an
d ag
ricul
tura
l re
gula
tion
•Pr
eser
vatio
n an
d su
stai
nabl
e us
e of
bi
odiv
ersi
ty
•R
ecov
ery
of d
efor
este
d ar
eas
Publ
ic in
stitu
tions
, sta
te-
owne
d co
mpa
nies
and
no
ngov
ernm
enta
lor
gani
zatio
ns
Am
azon
For
est
http
://w
ww
.am
azon
fund
.gov
.br/
Asi
an
Dev
elop
men
t B
ank
(AD
B) -
C
lean
Ene
rgy
Fina
ncin
g Pa
rtne
rshi
p Fa
cilit
y (C
EFP
F)
CE
FPF
reso
urce
s ar
e in
tend
ed
to fi
nanc
e po
licy,
reg
ulat
ory
and
inst
itutio
nal r
efor
ms
that
enc
oura
ge
clea
n en
ergy
dev
elop
men
t.
•D
eplo
ymen
t of
new
cle
an e
nerg
y te
chno
logy
•Pr
ojec
ts t
hat
low
er t
he b
arrie
rs t
o ad
optin
g cl
ean
ener
gy t
echn
olog
ies
•Pr
ojec
ts t
hat
incr
ease
acc
ess
to m
oder
n fo
rms
of c
lean
and
ene
rgy-
effic
ient
en
ergy
for
the
poor
•Te
chni
cal c
apac
ity p
rogr
amm
es fo
r cl
ean
ener
gy
Ope
nA
DB
’s
deve
lopi
ng
mem
ber
coun
trie
s
http
://w
ww
.adb
.org
/sec
tors
/ene
rgy/
cont
acts
Asi
an
Dev
elop
men
t B
ank
(AD
B) -
E
nerg
y fo
r All
Part
ners
hip
AD
B la
unch
ed t
he E
nerg
y fo
r A
ll Pa
rtne
rshi
p af
ter
exte
nsiv
e co
nsul
tatio
n w
ith s
take
hold
ers
on h
ow t
o ra
pidl
y sc
ale
up a
cces
s to
ene
rgy.
The
Par
tner
ship
aim
s to
pro
vide
acc
ess
to s
afe,
cle
an,
affo
rdab
le m
oder
n en
ergy
to
an
addi
tiona
l 100
mill
ion
peop
le in
the
re
gion
by
2015
.
•S
calin
g up
acc
ess
to e
nerg
y th
roug
h en
terp
rise
deve
lopm
ent
and
finan
cing
AD
B’s
de
velo
ping
m
embe
r co
untr
ies
http
://be
ta.a
db.o
rg/s
ecto
rs/e
nerg
y/pr
ogra
ms/
ener
gy-fo
r-all-
initi
ativ
e
Bio
Car
bon
Fund
(B
ioC
F) o
f th
e W
orld
Ban
k
The
Bio
CF
is b
ased
on
a pu
blic
/pr
ivat
e pa
rtne
rshi
p m
odel
whi
ch a
ims
to d
eliv
er c
ost-
effe
ctiv
e em
issi
on
redu
ctio
n an
d su
ppor
t bi
odiv
ersi
ty
cons
erva
tion
and
pove
rty
alle
viat
ion.
•A
FOLU
pro
ject
s: a
ffore
stat
ion,
re
fore
stat
ion,
RE
DD
, agr
icul
ture
Ope
nO
pen
http
://w
bcar
bonfi
nanc
e.or
g/R
oute
r.cfm
?Pa
ge=
Bio
CF&
Item
ID=
9708
&FI
D=
9708
140
Nam
eD
escr
ipti
on
of
fun
dPr
oje
ct t
ype
Targ
et g
rou
pG
eog
rap
hic
al
focu
sW
eblin
k
Clim
ate
Inve
stm
ent
Fund
s (C
IF)
The
CIF
hel
p de
velo
ping
cou
ntrie
s pi
lot
low
-em
issi
ons
and
clim
ate-
resi
lient
dev
elop
men
t.Th
e C
IF
are
chan
nelle
d th
roug
h th
e A
fric
an D
evel
opm
ent
Ban
k, A
sian
D
evel
opm
ent
Ban
k, E
urop
ean
Ban
k fo
r R
econ
stru
ctio
n an
d D
evel
opm
ent,
In
ter-A
mer
ican
Dev
elop
men
t B
ank
and
Wor
ld B
ank
Gro
up. I
t in
clud
es
two
fund
s: T
he S
trat
egic
Clim
ate
Fund
(SC
F) a
nd t
he C
lean
Tech
nolo
gy
Fund
(CTF
). Th
e S
CF
com
pris
es
thre
e ta
rget
ed p
rogr
amm
es:
(1) P
ilot
Prog
ram
me
for
Clim
ate
Res
ilien
ce (P
PC
R) t
o m
ains
trea
m
clim
ate
resi
lienc
e in
sec
tor
plan
s an
d pr
ojec
ts in
nin
e co
untr
ies
and
two
regi
onal
pilo
ts w
orld
wid
e; (2
) Fo
rest
Inve
stm
ent
Prog
ram
me
(FIP
) to
pro
mot
e su
stai
nabl
e fo
rest
ry
man
agem
ent
in e
ight
pilo
t co
untr
ies
wor
ldw
ide;
and
(3)S
calin
g U
p R
enew
able
Ene
rgy
Prog
ram
me
in
Low
-inco
me
Cou
ntrie
s (S
RE
P) t
o ch
ampi
on r
enew
able
ene
rgy
whe
re
it ca
n m
atte
r m
ost.
The
re a
re s
ix p
ilot
coun
trie
s w
orld
wid
e.
•W
ith C
IF s
uppo
rt, 4
5 de
velo
ping
co
untr
ies
are
pilo
ting
tran
sfor
mat
ions
in
cle
an t
echn
olog
y, s
usta
inab
le
man
agem
ent
of fo
rest
s, in
crea
sed
ener
gy a
cces
s th
roug
h re
new
able
en
ergy
and
clim
ate-
resi
lient
de
velo
pmen
t.
Dev
elop
ing
coun
trie
s O
pen
http
://w
ww
.clim
atei
nves
tmen
tfun
ds.
org/
cif/
Com
mun
ity
Dev
elop
men
t C
arbo
n Fu
nd
(CD
CF)
Wor
ld
Ban
k
The
CD
CF
spre
ads
bene
fits
of c
arbo
n fin
ance
to
the
poor
est
coun
trie
s an
d po
or c
omm
uniti
es in
all
deve
lopi
ng
coun
trie
s w
hich
wou
ld o
ther
wis
e fin
d it
diffi
cult
to a
ttra
ct c
arbo
n fin
ance
be
caus
e of
cou
ntry
and
fina
ncia
l ris
k. It
is a
mul
ti-do
nor
trus
t fu
nd –
a
publ
ic/p
rivat
e pa
rtne
rshi
p.
•A
ll C
DM
pro
ject
s, in
clud
ing
AFO
LU, a
re
elig
ible
Leas
t de
velo
ping
cou
ntrie
s –
com
mun
ity b
enefi
ts a
re a
re
quire
men
t
Ope
nht
tp://
wbc
arbo
nfina
nce.
org/
Rou
ter.c
fm?
Page
=C
DC
F&It
emID
=97
09&
FID
=97
09
Con
go B
asin
Fo
rest
Fun
d (C
BFF
)
The
over
all g
oal o
f th
e C
BFF
is t
o al
levi
ate
pove
rty
and
addr
ess
clim
ate
chan
ge t
hrou
gh r
educ
ing
the
rate
of
defo
rest
atio
n. It
is a
dmin
iste
red
by
the
Afr
ican
Dev
elop
men
t B
ank.
Prov
ides
gra
nts
to e
ligib
le e
ntiti
es fo
r ac
tiviti
es t
hat:
–sl
ow a
nd e
vent
ually
rev
erse
the
rat
e of
def
ores
tatio
n in
the
Con
go B
asin
; –
prov
ide
supp
ort
mec
hani
sms
whi
ch
cons
erve
the
fore
sts;
–m
aint
ain
bene
fits
to lo
cal
com
mun
ities
; and
–
mob
ilize
add
ition
al f
inan
cial
res
ourc
es
to s
uppo
rt r
equi
red
actio
ns.
Cen
tral
Afr
ican
For
ests
C
omm
issi
on (C
OM
IFA
C)
mem
ber
coun
trie
s (B
urun
di, C
amer
oon,
C
entr
al A
fric
an
Rep
ublic
, Cha
d C
ongo
, D
emoc
ratic
Rep
ublic
of
Con
go,E
quat
oria
l Gui
nea,
G
abon
, Rw
anda
and
Sao
To
me
& P
rinci
pe)
Con
go b
asin
http
://w
ww
.cbf
-fun
d.or
g/
141
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Nam
eD
escr
ipti
on
of
fun
dPr
oje
ct t
ype
Targ
et g
rou
pG
eog
rap
hic
al
focu
sW
eblin
k
Ene
rgy+
(N
OR
AD
)Th
e in
itiat
ive
will
est
ablis
h a
part
ners
hip
amon
g de
velo
ping
and
de
velo
ped
coun
trie
s to
ser
ve a
s a
plat
form
for
deve
lopi
ng c
ount
ries
to s
cale
up
ener
gy s
ecto
r ac
tions
an
d fin
ance
, and
to
that
end
to
take
im
med
iate
act
ion,
incl
udin
g im
prov
ing
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s, e
ffici
ency
, tr
ansp
aren
cy a
nd c
oord
inat
ion
of e
nerg
y in
itiat
ives
and
fina
ncia
l in
stru
men
ts, t
o fa
cilit
ate
amon
g ot
her
thin
gs k
now
ledg
e tr
ansf
er, c
apac
ity
enha
ncem
ent,
miti
gatio
n ac
tions
and
te
chno
logy
dev
elop
men
t an
d tr
ansf
er.
This
is u
nder
dev
elop
men
t.
Ope
nD
evel
opin
g co
untr
ies
EU
-Ene
rgy
Faci
lity
Pool
ing
Mec
hani
sm /
AC
P-E
U E
nerg
y Fa
cilit
y
The
Ene
rgy
Faci
lity
is a
co-
finan
cing
in
stru
men
t w
hich
was
est
ablis
hed
in 2
005
in o
rder
to
supp
ort
proj
ects
on
incr
easi
ng a
cces
s to
sus
tain
able
an
d af
ford
able
ene
rgy
serv
ices
for
the
poor
livi
ng in
rura
l and
per
i-urb
an
area
s in
Afr
ican
, Car
ibbe
an a
nd P
acifi
c (A
CP
) cou
ntrie
s. T
he E
nerg
y Fa
cilit
y Po
olin
g M
echa
nism
was
cre
ated
to
blen
d gr
ants
fro
m t
he 1
0th
Eur
opea
n D
evel
opm
ent
Fund
Ene
rgy
Faci
lity
with
loan
s fr
om t
he E
U m
ultil
ater
al
and
bila
tera
l fina
nce
inst
itutio
ns
•In
vest
men
t pr
ojec
ts fo
r ac
cess
to
ener
gy s
ervi
ces
(incl
udin
g re
late
d ca
paci
ty-b
uild
ing
activ
ities
)
•A
dvan
ced
prep
arat
ory
stud
ies
(tec
hnic
al
assi
stan
ce o
nly)
Ope
nA
fric
an,
Car
ibbe
an a
nd
Paci
fic (A
CP
) co
untr
ies
havi
ng r
atifi
ed
the
revi
sed
Cot
onou
A
gree
men
t,
i.e. a
ll A
CP
co
untr
ies
exce
pt S
udan
, E
quat
oria
l G
uine
a an
d S
outh
Afr
ica
http
://ec
.eur
opa.
eu/e
urop
eaid
/whe
re/
acp/
regi
onal
-coo
pera
tion/
ener
gy/
inde
x_en
.htm
Fore
st C
arbo
n Pa
rtne
rshi
p Fa
cilit
y (F
CP
F) –
W
orld
Ban
k
The
FCP
F as
sist
s de
velo
ping
co
untr
ies
in t
heir
effo
rts
to r
educ
e em
issi
ons
from
def
ores
tatio
n an
d la
nd d
egra
datio
n (R
ED
D)
•B
uild
cap
acity
for
RE
DD
in d
evel
opin
g co
untr
ies
•Te
st a
pro
gram
me
of p
erfo
rman
ce-
base
d in
cent
ive
paym
ents
in s
ome
pilo
t co
untr
ies
All
borr
owin
g m
embe
r co
untr
ies
of t
he
Inte
rnat
iona
l Ban
k fo
r R
econ
stru
ctio
n an
d D
evel
opm
ent
(IBR
D) o
r th
e In
tern
atio
nal D
evel
opm
ent
Ass
ocia
tion
(IDA
) tha
t ar
e lo
cate
d in
sub
trop
ical
or
trop
ical
are
as
Sub
trop
ical
or
trop
ical
are
asht
tp://
ww
w.fo
rest
carb
onpa
rtne
rshi
p.or
g/fc
p/ (n
ot y
et o
pera
tiona
l)
142
Nam
eD
escr
ipti
on
of
fun
dPr
oje
ct t
ype
Targ
et g
rou
pG
eog
rap
hic
al
focu
sW
eblin
k
GE
F S
mal
l G
rant
s Pr
ogra
mm
e:
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
The
mai
n fo
cal a
reas
of
the
prog
ram
me
are
clim
ate
chan
ge
abat
emen
t an
d ad
apta
tion,
co
nser
vatio
n of
bio
dive
rsity
, pr
otec
tion
of in
tern
atio
nal w
ater
s,
redu
ctio
n of
the
impa
ct o
f pe
rsis
tent
or
gani
c po
lluta
nts
and
prev
entio
n of
la
nd d
egra
datio
n.
•R
emov
al o
f ba
rrie
rs t
o en
ergy
eff
icie
ncy
and
ener
gy c
onse
rvat
ion
•Pr
omot
ing
the
adop
tion
of r
enew
able
en
ergy
by
rem
ovin
g ba
rrie
rs a
nd
redu
cing
impl
emen
tatio
n co
sts
•C
onse
rvat
ion
and
rest
orat
ion
of a
rid a
nd
sem
i-arid
are
as
•E
ffic
ient
sto
ves
and
biog
as t
o re
duce
fo
rest
loss
•In
tegr
ated
wat
ersh
ed m
anag
emen
t
•S
oil c
onse
rvat
ion
•A
ffore
stat
ion
•Pr
even
tion
of fo
rest
fire
s
•O
rgan
ic fa
rmin
g
NG
Os
and
com
mun
ity-
base
d or
gani
zatio
ns (C
BO
)O
pen
http
://sg
p.un
dp.o
rg/in
dex.
php?
optio
n=co
m_c
onte
nt&
view
=ar
ticle
&id
=27
5&It
emid
=17
1#.U
Uss
Mxd
OS
5I
GE
F Tr
ust
Fund
- C
limat
e C
hang
e fo
cal a
rea
The
obje
ctiv
e of
thi
s fu
nd is
to
help
dev
elop
ing
coun
trie
s an
d ec
onom
ies
in t
rans
ition
to
cont
ribut
e to
the
ove
rall
obje
ctiv
e of
the
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
Fra
mew
ork
Con
vent
ion
on
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
(UN
FCC
C).
The
proj
ects
sup
port
mea
sure
s th
at
min
imiz
e cl
imat
e ch
ange
dam
age
by r
educ
ing
the
risk
or t
he a
dver
se
effe
cts
of c
limat
e ch
ange
.
•D
emon
stra
tion,
dep
loym
ent,
and
tr
ansf
er o
f in
nova
tive,
low
-car
bon
tech
nolo
gies
•M
arke
t tr
ansf
orm
atio
n fo
r en
ergy
ef
ficie
ncy
in t
he in
dust
rial a
nd b
uild
ings
se
ctor
s
•In
vest
men
t in
ren
ewab
le e
nerg
y te
chno
logi
es
•E
nerg
y-ef
ficie
nt, l
ow-c
arbo
n tr
ansp
ort
and
urba
n sy
stem
s
•C
onse
rvat
ion
and
enha
ncem
ent
of
carb
on s
tock
thr
ough
sus
tain
able
m
anag
emen
t of
land
use
, lan
d-us
e ch
ange
and
fore
stry
•S
uppo
rt e
nabl
ing
activ
ities
and
cap
acity
bu
ildin
g
Dev
elop
ing
coun
trie
s an
d co
untr
ies
with
eco
nom
ies
in t
rans
ition
Ope
nht
tp://
ww
w.t
hege
f.org
/gef
/arc
hive
d/co
untr
y_su
ppor
t_pr
ogra
m/1
66
Ger
man
In
tern
atio
nal
Clim
ate
Initi
ativ
e
The
Ger
man
Inte
rnat
iona
l Clim
ate
Initi
ativ
e ha
s be
en w
orki
ng s
ince
20
08 w
ith a
nnua
l fun
ds o
f 12
0 m
illio
n E
uros
. All
proj
ects
run
from
one
to
five
year
s.
•Pr
omot
ing
a cl
imat
e-fr
iend
ly e
cono
my
•Pr
omot
ing
mea
sure
s fo
r ad
apta
tion
to
the
impa
cts
of c
limat
e ch
ange
•Pr
omot
ing
mea
sure
s fo
r pr
eser
vatio
n an
d su
stai
nabl
e us
e of
car
bon
rese
rvoi
rs/ R
ED
D+
Fede
ral i
mpl
emen
ting
agen
cies
, gov
ernm
ent
orga
niza
tions
, NG
Os,
bu
sine
ss e
nter
pris
es,
univ
ersi
ties
and
rese
arch
in
stitu
tes,
inte
rnat
iona
l and
m
ultin
atio
nal o
rgan
izat
ions
an
d in
stitu
tes
Dev
elop
ing,
ne
wly
in
dust
rializ
ing
and
tran
sitio
n co
untr
ies
http
://w
ww
.bm
u-kl
imas
chut
zini
tiativ
e.de
/en/
new
s
143
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Nam
eD
escr
ipti
on
of
fun
dPr
oje
ct t
ype
Targ
et g
rou
pG
eog
rap
hic
al
focu
sW
eblin
k
Japa
n’s
Fast
S
tart
Fin
ance
This
initi
ativ
e co
vers
all
of J
apan
’s
activ
ities
rel
atin
g to
clim
ate
chan
ge.
•M
itiga
tion:
Ass
istin
g de
velo
ping
co
untr
ies
in t
heir
effo
rts
to r
educ
e em
issi
ons
in s
uch
area
s as
clim
ate
chan
ge p
olic
y fo
rmul
atio
n an
d pr
omot
ion
of r
enew
able
ene
rgy
• R
educ
ing
Em
issi
ons
from
Def
ores
tatio
n an
d Fo
rest
Deg
rada
tion
(RE
DD
+):
Ass
istin
g de
velo
ping
cou
ntrie
s to
su
rvey
fore
st r
esou
rces
and
form
ulat
e fo
rest
man
agem
ent
plan
s to
pro
mot
e su
stai
nabl
e us
age
and
pres
erve
fore
sts
•A
dapt
atio
n: S
tren
gthe
ning
dev
elop
ing
coun
trie
s’ c
apab
ility
to
cope
with
nat
ural
di
sast
ers
caus
ed b
y cl
imat
e ch
ange
Dis
burs
emen
t of
fun
ds
is d
epen
dent
on
bila
tera
l po
licy
cons
ulta
tions
with
Ja
pan
Ope
nht
tp://
ww
w.fa
stst
artfi
nanc
e.or
g/co
ntrib
utin
g_co
untr
y/ja
pan
Inte
llige
nt
Ene
rgy
- Eur
ope
II Pr
ogra
mm
e
The
Inte
llige
nt E
nerg
y –
Eur
ope
(IEE
) pr
ogra
mm
e is
giv
ing
a bo
ost
to c
lean
an
d su
stai
nabl
e so
lutio
ns. I
t su
ppor
ts
thei
r us
e an
d di
ssem
inat
ion
and
the
Eur
ope-
wid
e ex
chan
ge o
f re
late
d kn
owle
dge
and
know
-how
.
•Fo
ster
ene
rgy
effic
ienc
y an
d th
e ra
tiona
l us
e of
ene
rgy
reso
urce
s
•Pr
omot
e ne
w a
nd r
enew
able
en
ergy
sou
rces
and
sup
port
ene
rgy
dive
rsifi
catio
n
•Pr
omot
e en
ergy
eff
icie
ncy
and
the
use
of n
ew a
nd r
enew
able
ene
rgy
sour
ces
in t
rans
port
EU
(ple
ase
note
th
at it
mig
ht
be p
ossi
ble
to
rece
ive
fund
ing
for
proj
ects
th
at p
rodu
ce
ener
gy fo
r th
e E
U o
utsi
de o
f th
e E
U)
http
://ec
.eur
opa.
eu/e
nerg
y/in
telli
gent
/
Inte
rnat
iona
l C
limat
e Fu
nd
(ICF)
The
ICF
is a
UK
initi
ativ
e lin
ked
to
the
Dep
artm
ent
for
Inte
rnat
iona
l D
evel
opm
ent
(DFI
D),
the
Dep
artm
ent
for
Ene
rgy
and
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
(DE
CC
), th
e D
epar
tmen
t fo
r E
nviro
nmen
t, F
ood
and
Rur
al A
ffairs
(D
EFR
A),
Her
Maj
esty
’s Tr
easu
ry
(HM
T), a
nd in
con
sulta
tion
with
the
Fo
reig
n an
d C
omm
onw
ealth
Offi
ce
(FC
O).
•S
uppo
rts
inte
rnat
iona
l pov
erty
red
uctio
n by
hel
ping
dev
elop
ing
coun
trie
s ad
apt
to c
limat
e ch
ange
, tak
e up
low
car
bon
grow
th a
nd t
ackl
e de
fore
stat
ion
Spe
cific
crit
eria
for
elig
ibili
tyO
pen
http
://w
ww
.dec
c.go
v.uk
/en/
cont
ent/
cms/
tack
ling/
inte
rnat
iona
l/icf
/icf.a
spx
Inte
rnat
iona
l Fo
rest
Car
bon
Initi
ativ
e (IF
CI)
This
initi
ativ
e su
ppor
ts in
tern
atio
nal
effo
rts
on R
ED
D t
hrou
gh U
NFC
CC
. It
is jo
intly
adm
inis
tere
d by
the
A
ustr
alia
n D
epar
tmen
t of
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
and
the
Aus
tral
ian
Age
ncy
for
Inte
rnat
iona
l Dev
elop
men
t (A
usA
ID).
•U
nder
taki
ng p
ract
ical
dem
onst
ratio
n ac
tiviti
es t
o sh
ow h
ow R
ED
D+
can
be
incl
uded
in a
pos
t-20
12 g
loba
l clim
ate
chan
ge a
gree
men
t
•In
crea
sing
inte
rnat
iona
l for
est
carb
on
mon
itorin
g an
d ac
coun
ting
capa
city
•S
uppo
rtin
g in
tern
atio
nal e
ffort
s to
de
velo
p m
arke
t-ba
sed
appr
oach
es t
o R
ED
D+
No
inte
ntio
n to
set
up
a ne
w f
und
or g
over
nanc
e st
ruct
ure
thro
ugh
IFC
I, bu
t w
ill w
ork
thro
ugh
esta
blis
hed
chan
nels
of
bila
tera
l dia
logu
e an
d co
oper
atio
n at
the
in
tern
atio
nal l
evel
Fund
ing
will
su
ppor
t pro
ject
s in
sel
ecte
d de
velo
ping
co
untr
ies
(par
ticul
arly
, but
no
t ex
clus
ivel
y,
in In
done
sia
and
Papu
a N
ew
Gui
nea)
http
://w
ww
.clim
atec
hang
e.go
v.au
/go
vern
men
t/in
itiat
ives
/inte
rnat
iona
l-fo
rest
-car
bon-
initi
ativ
e.as
px
144
Nam
eD
escr
ipti
on
of
fun
dPr
oje
ct t
ype
Targ
et g
rou
pG
eog
rap
hic
al
focu
sW
eblin
k
Leas
t D
evel
oped
C
ount
ries
Fund
(L
DC
F)
The
LDC
F su
ppor
ts t
he p
repa
ratio
n an
d im
plem
enta
tion
of t
he N
APA
s,
coun
try-
driv
en s
trat
egie
s w
hich
id
entif
y ur
gent
and
imm
edia
te n
eeds
of
leas
t de
velo
ped
coun
trie
s (L
DC
s)
to a
dapt
to
clim
ate
chan
ge. D
oes
not
requ
ire t
he g
ener
atio
n of
glo
bal
bene
fits.
It is
man
aged
by
the
GE
F S
ecre
taria
t.
•Pr
epar
atio
n an
d im
plem
enta
tion
of t
he
Nat
iona
l Ada
ptat
ion
Prog
ram
mes
of
Act
ion
(NA
PAs)
.
Ope
nA
ll LD
Cs
http
://w
ww
.the
gef.o
rg/g
ef/L
DC
F
Spe
cial
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Fund
(S
CC
F)
The
SC
CF
supp
orts
the
pre
para
tion
and
impl
emen
tatio
n of
pro
ject
s in
volv
ing
tech
nolo
gy t
rans
fer
and
adap
tatio
n (a
dapt
atio
n as
a t
op
prio
rity)
. Doe
s no
t re
quire
the
ge
nera
tion
of g
loba
l ben
efits
. It
is
man
aged
by
the
GE
F S
ecre
taria
t.
•S
uppo
rts
both
long
-ter
m a
nd s
hort
-te
rm a
dapt
atio
n ac
tiviti
es in
wat
er
reso
urce
s m
anag
emen
t, la
nd
man
agem
ent,
agr
icul
ture
, hea
lth,
infr
astr
uctu
re d
evel
opm
ent,
fra
gile
ec
osys
tem
s (in
clud
ing
mou
ntai
nous
ec
osys
tem
s) a
nd in
tegr
ated
coa
stal
zo
ne m
anag
emen
t (IC
ZM)
All
deve
lopi
ng c
ount
ry
part
ies
to t
he U
NFC
CC
all
deve
lopi
ng c
ount
ry p
artie
s to
the
UN
FCC
C
http
://w
ww
.the
gef.o
rg/g
ef/S
CC
F
The
Ene
rgy
and
Env
ironm
ent
Part
ners
hip
Prog
ram
me
with
the
M
ekon
g R
egio
n (E
EP
Mek
ong)
A k
ey o
bjec
tive
will
be
to fa
cilit
ate
actio
ns o
n th
e gr
ound
and
de
mon
stra
ting
from
the
bot
tom
up
tha
t an
ince
ntiv
e-ba
sed
NA
MA
ap
proa
ch in
the
ene
rgy
sect
or is
fe
asib
le. F
urth
erm
ore,
the
par
tner
ship
w
ill b
e fo
cuse
d on
ince
ntiv
izin
g pr
ivat
e-se
ctor
inve
stm
ents
to
sign
ifica
ntly
incr
ease
inve
stm
ents
in
ene
rgy
effic
ienc
y an
d re
new
able
en
ergy
in d
evel
opin
g co
untr
ies’
en
ergy
sup
ply.
•R
enew
able
ene
rgy
•E
nerg
y-ef
ficie
nt t
echn
olog
y de
velo
pmen
t an
d us
e
•M
oder
n en
ergy
and
cle
an t
echn
olog
y
•W
aste
-to-
ener
gy
•E
lect
ricity
fro
m r
enew
able
ene
rgy
sour
ces
Cam
bodi
a, L
ao
PD
R, V
iet
Nam
an
d Th
aila
nd
ww
w.e
epm
ekon
g.or
g/m
ain_
navi
gatio
n/co
ntac
t_us
.php
?rel
oad
ww
w.e
epm
ekon
g.or
g/in
dex.
php?
relo
ad
UN
EP
’s
Rur
al E
nerg
y E
nter
pris
e D
evel
opm
ent
(RE
ED
) Pr
ogra
mm
e
This
initi
ativ
e of
fers
ent
erpr
ise
deve
lopm
ent
serv
ices
and
sta
rt-u
p fin
anci
ng t
o cl
ean
ener
gy e
nter
pris
es.
Sin
ce b
egin
ning
in 2
000,
RE
ED
has
fin
ance
d 44
ent
erpr
ises
tha
t ar
e no
w r
etur
ning
cap
ital e
ach
year
to
an in
vest
men
t fu
nd t
hat
is t
hen
re-
inve
sted
in n
ew e
nter
pris
es.
•E
nerg
yO
pen
Five
Afr
ican
co
untr
ies
(AR
EE
D),
Bra
zil
(B-R
EE
D) a
nd
Chi
na (C
-RE
ED
)
http
://w
ww
.une
p.fr
/ene
rgy/
activ
ities
/re
ed/a
reed
.htm
145
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmes
Nam
eD
escr
ipti
on
of
fun
dPr
oje
ct t
ype
Targ
et g
rou
pG
eog
rap
hic
al
focu
sW
eblin
k
The
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
C
olla
bora
tive
Prog
ram
me
on R
ED
D in
D
evel
opin
g C
ount
ries
(UN
-RE
DD
) Pr
ogra
mm
e
This
mul
ti-do
nor
trus
t fu
nd a
llow
s do
nors
to
pool
res
ourc
es a
nd p
rovi
de
fund
ing
with
the
aim
of
sign
ifica
ntly
re
duci
ng g
loba
l em
issi
ons
from
de
fore
stat
ion
and
fore
st d
egra
datio
n in
dev
elop
ing
coun
trie
s.
•M
onito
ring,
rep
ortin
g an
d ve
rific
atio
n
•N
atio
nal R
ED
D+
gov
erna
nce
•E
ngag
emen
t of
indi
geno
us p
eopl
es,
loca
l com
mun
ities
and
oth
er r
elev
ant
stak
ehol
ders
•E
nsur
ing
mul
tiple
ben
efits
of
fore
sts
and
RE
DD
+
•Tr
ansp
aren
t, e
quita
ble
and
acco
unta
ble
man
agem
ent
of R
ED
D+
pay
men
ts
•R
ED
D+
as
a ca
taly
st fo
r tr
ansf
orm
atio
ns
to a
gre
en e
cono
my
Ope
nS
ever
al
sele
ctio
n cr
iteria
for
coun
trie
s ex
ist
http
://w
ww
.un-
redd
.org
/
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Age
ncy
for
Inte
rnat
iona
l D
evel
opm
ent
(USA
ID)
Dev
elop
men
t G
rant
s Pr
ogra
mm
e (D
GP
)
The
DG
P is
clo
sely
alig
ned
with
ag
ency
initi
ativ
es a
ddre
ssin
g to
day’
s pr
essi
ng p
robl
ems
of h
unge
r an
d fo
od s
ecur
ity, h
ealth
impa
cts
of in
suffi
cien
t w
ater
res
ourc
es,
chal
leng
es t
hat
acco
mpa
ny g
loba
l cl
imat
e ch
ange
, loc
al c
apac
ity
deve
lopm
ent,
wom
en a
nd p
eace
-bu
ildin
g an
d po
st-c
onfli
ct r
esol
utio
n.
•C
limat
e ch
ange
ada
ptat
ion
The
DG
P o
ffers
USA
ID
a un
ique
opp
ortu
nity
to
fost
er p
artn
ersh
ips
with
org
aniz
atio
ns a
nd
com
mun
ities
tha
t ha
ve
not
been
dire
ct U
S
Gov
ernm
ent
deve
lopm
ent
part
ners
and
to
colla
bora
te
with
gra
nt r
ecip
ient
s to
m
ake
cont
ribut
ions
to
coun
try
deve
lopm
ent
obje
ctiv
es, a
nd t
he U
.S.
Gov
ernm
ent
prio
ritie
s an
d in
itiat
ives
.
Elig
ible
co
untr
ies
will
be
spe
cifie
d in
th
e FY
201
2
http
://id
ea.u
said
.gov
/ls/d
gp
Clim
ate
Fund
s U
pdat
e is
an
inde
pend
ent W
eb s
ite t
hat
prov
ides
info
rmat
ion
on t
he g
row
ing
num
ber
of in
tern
atio
nal c
limat
e fin
ance
initi
ativ
es d
esig
ned
to h
elp
deve
lopi
ng c
ount
ries
addr
ess
the
chal
leng
es o
f cl
imat
e ch
ange
. ht
tp://
ww
w.c
limat
efun
dsup
date
.org
/
best practices in investment design
FAO INVESTMENT CENTRE
Incorporating climate change considerations into agricultural investment programmesA guidance document
Please address comments and inquires to:
Investment Centre Division
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla – 00153 Rome, Italy
www.fao.org/investment
Report No. 4 - May 2012
Inco
rpo
rating
climate ch
ange co
nsid
eration
s into
agricu
ltural investm
ent p
rog
ramm
es R
epo
rt No. 4
Top Related