![Linkages between adaptation and mitigation
Improved carbon
sink management
[M] Minimized
deforestation and
forest degradation
[M]
Improved adaptive
capacity of the society
[A]
Diminished release
of GHG to the
Atmosphere [M]
Improved
livelihood [A]
Sustainable
forest
management [M]
Reduced loss of
soil carbon stock
[M]
Enhances carbon
sinks [M]
Afforestation and
reforestation [M]
Biodiversity
conservation [A]
Agroforestry
[M] [A]
Soil and water
conservation [A]
Better landscape
management [M] [A]
Improved
agricultural
productivity [A]
Enhanced ecosystem
services and goods
availability [A]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/atisimonsicraf-130423133710-phpapp01/85/The-Challenges-of-a-Decision-Oriented-Multi-Sectoral-Index-50-320.jpg)
The Challenges of a Decision-Oriented, Multi-Sectoral Index
- 1. The Challenges of a Decision-Oriented, Multi-Sectoral Index Tony Simons, Keith Shepherd, Tor Vagen, Ravi Prabhu, Anja Gassner and Mike Norton-Griffiths World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Kenya
- 2. 1. Why is ATI needed? 2. Current State of Play 3. Evidence and Understanding 4. Agriculture - alone or with what? 5. Food for thought on ATI next steps Decision-Oriented, Multi-sectoral Index
- 8. What is our collective dream for sustainable agriculture? and in how many generations?
- 9. 1. Why is ATI needed? The justification: • Agriculture is largest employer in the world • Largest single landuse in the world • Largest threat to natural ecosystems/natural capital • Human enterprise most vulnerable to climate change • Since 1980, when sustainability term emerged, it has been aspirational but not very operational (why/what are okay - but how/where are not okay) • Theory of Change for sustainability is vague, fluffy • Largely self-defined and self-monitored • Institutionalised by certifying bodies (which developing country has?) • Poor alignment of differentiated and unsustained boutique projects
- 10. Total World GDP = $72 trillion p.a. Agriculture GDP = $4.2 trillion p.a. Economic costs of GHG emissions, loss of natural resources, loss of nature-based services such as carbon storage by forests, climate change $4.7 trillion top 100 externalities Latest TEEB Study released 15 April 2013
- 11. Nutrient loss (%)Nutrient loss (%)Nutrient loss (%) Shifting agriculture (slash-and-burn)
- 12. Overall Rank Sector Region Cost to Natural Capital US$ billion Revenue US$ billion Impact Ratio 2 Cattle Ranching South America 312.1 16.6 18.7 4 Wheat Farming Southern Asia 214.4 31.8 6.7 13 Rice Farming North Africa 82.3 1.2 68.0 Top 100 Externalities of Business
- 13. 1. Why is ATI needed? (cont.) The competition: • International Institute for Sustainable Development recorded 894 indicator initiatives for the monitoring of sustainable development (IISD, 2010) • Unilever have been incorporating it in their supply chains since 1998 • Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (Nestle, DANONE, Unilever) in 2002 • Scientific Journal exists - Ecological Indicators (Elselvier) • World Business Council on Sustainable Development (2000)
- 14. Unilever (since 1998) 1. Unilever Sustainable Agriculture Code (2010) (based on version 1 2006) - self-assessment tool for producers and suppliers - about good agricultural practices by producers 10 sustainability indicators developed through stakeholder consultation: - soil fertility and health, soil loss, nutrients, pest management, biodiversity, product value, energy, water, social capital and local economy Good in theory but they largely failed in Unilever’s own managers eyes as: Not responsive to change (can’t see the difference) Overly complex Too many correlated indicators Hard to compare across different contexts Hard to communicate with consumers But have helped drive changes in supplier behaviour (even more if incentives) 2. Upcoming Sustainable Supply Chain Guidelines - sustainable agriculture metrics in their supply chains
- 15. Alcohol Chicken Ice-cream Pet Food Baby Food Chocolate Jams Roots and Tubers Baked Goods Dairy Products Juices Shellfish Beef Eggs Lamb Soda Canned Soup Fish Margarines, oils Sugar Cereal Goods Fruit Nuts Vegetables Walmart Sustainable Supply Initiative ($380 billion p.a.)
- 16. The ‘Sustainable Agriculture’ indicator evaluates developed and developing countries support for sustainable agriculture. It captures a snapshot view of three dimensions required to ensure populations do not go hungry: (1) Sufficiency of financial commitment to agriculture (budgets, aid). (2) Appropriateness of policies to support low input, climate-resilient sustainable agriculture. (3) women’s access to land. ActionAid (2010) http://www.actionaid.org.uk/doc_lib/scorecard.pdf GUESS THE TOP 3 COUNTRIES
- 18. Review of the Evidence on Indicators, Metrics and Monitoring Systems Commissioned by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) Conducted by the CGIAR Program on Water, Land & Ecosystems Coordinated by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Authors: Keith D Shepherd1 , Andrew Farrow2 , Claudia Ringler3 , Anja Gassner1 , Devra Jarvis4 1 World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) 2 Consultant for World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) 3 International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 4 Bioversity International 2. Current State of Play
- 19. 103 monitoring initiatives reviewed on sustainable intensification of agriculture (ICRAF/DFID) Common Weaknesses: • Lack of conceptual framework • Absence of clearly defined objectives of monitoring • Undefined target geography or demography • Inadequate scale hierarchy • Poor sampling theory • Low ability to disaggregate (gender) • Lack integration of biophysical and socio-economic • Poor sample strata • Lack of consistency in measurement protocols • Low attribution of interventions to outcomes (means to end Framework) • Little consideration of uncertainty • No trade-off analyses • Data sharing agreements wanting • No cost-effectiveness analysis of monitoring • Few initiatives sustained over time (institutional sustainability)
- 20. Purpose of Measurement Then we studied selected group of 24 initiatives None had explicit purpose to take decisions
- 21. Unit of Analysis
- 23. most were Quick and Dirty a few were Slow and Clean none were Quick and Clean Acknowledgement must avoid Slow and Dirty but little distinction between “Need to know” and “Nice to know”
- 24. 3. Evidence and Understanding • Focus on populations not individuals • Interventions designed on prevalence & incidence of problems/risks • Use standardised protocols • Operational surveillance systems assume status and risk are continuous processes Allow investment choices to be prioritised between issues such as: Lung cancer HIV/AIDS Malnourishment Road safety Public Health
- 25. Public Health Systems Cardiovascular disease Utilise research that shows three risk factors account 75% of heart disease Smoking High blood pressure Cholesterol focus on these for interventions and monitoring
- 27. Basic problem There is a lack of coherent and rigorous sampling and assessment frameworks that enable comparison of data (i.e. meta-studies) across a wide range of environmental conditions ... and scales Quantification and systematic monitoring are essential to understand and manage trade-offs among productivity and ecosystem services, and know where are the tipping points
- 28. Surveillance science Land health metrics Consistent field protocol Soil spectroscopy Coupling with remote sensingPrevalence, Risk factors, Digital mapping Sentinel sites Randomized sampling schemes
- 29. Soil maps generally static Coarse resolution Don’t reflect functional properties of the soil Ethiopia soil map GeoScience
- 30. But what does it mean? and how can we use it? 10km
- 31. Soil Carbon (30m x 30m) Can guide better decisions
- 34. Co-locate and integrate demographic and socio-economic data Health Sector leads (Indepth Network)
- 36. Adjudicated under the Land Adjudication Act CAP 284 1968, intensive smallholder cultivation with clear freehold title Tenure effects on land productivity and investment Un-adjudicated land: no firm legal title Norton-Griffith, in preparation
- 38. 38 Overall, the economic and environmental gains from secure tenure are substantial ….. Impact Unadj Freehold Tenure Effect Net Returns to Land ($ ha-1 y-1) $198 $397 2.0 Tree Crops (ha km2) 2.3 12.9 5.6 Plantations and Woodlots (ha km2) 3.1 12.7 4.1 Hedgerows (km km-2) 5.2 23.6 4.5
- 41. Agricultural Intensity 1983 2013
- 42. The development trajectory of unadjudicated is 40 years behind that of adjudicated land
- 43. Natural Forest 4.1 billion ha Crop Land 1.5 billion ha Tree Plantations 0.3 billion ha Pasture & Rangelands 3.4 billion ha Wetlands 1.3 billion ha Deserts 1.9 billion ha Natural Forest 4.1 billion ha Crop Land 1.5 billion ha Pasture & Rangelands 3.4 billion ha Wetlands 1.3 billion ha Deserts 1.9 billion ha 4. Agriculture – alone or with what? Urban Areas
- 44. Natural Forest 4.1 billion ha Crop Land 1.5 billion ha Pasture & Rangelands 3.4 billion ha Wetlands 1.3 billion ha Deserts 1.9 billion ha Global Land Area - proportional
- 45. Agriculture Forestry Environment What is best way to optimise goals? • Productivity/Income • Sequestration/Mitigation • Reduced emissions • Resilience/Adaptation • Environmental Goods/Services CSA REDD+ PES What scale?
- 46. ISSUE Small-holder Farmer Local Level Sub-national District National Level Scale field/farm/forest plot village/watershed County/District Country Area 0.1 - 50 ha 1000's ha 10,000's ha 100,000's ha Landscape Actors Small-holders Communities District Officials Govt Policymakers Jurisdiction/tenure Often weak Mixed Strong Total Actor Interest Productivity High Moderate Moderate High Carbon stocks Little Little Little Moderate WB/WUE Moderate Moderate Little Little Diversity Moderate Little Little Little Strength Instit. Moderate High Moderate Little Needs Technologies Practices Inputs Access to Credit Materials Buyers Advice Land Tenure Access Rights Organised Farmers Functioning Markets Low Conflict Demonstrations Suppliers Byelaws Manag. Rights Landuse Control Tax Revenues District Legislation Central Govt Support Tax Revenues Policies Analyses Evidence Baselines Monitoring Int. collaboration Aspirations survival, self determination, more power/influence, better infrastructure, greater HDI
- 47. The Landscape Approach to Development
- 49. Participatory Assessment of Current and Potential Climate Smart Practices Awareness Raising, Capacity Development and Demonstrations Introduction or testing of Climate Smart Practices Baseline Measurement and Monitoring of Land Health Greenhouse Gases Using and Improving Predictive Tools for Potential Impact Increasing Productivity Reducing Environmental Footprint FAO MICCA Project
- 50. Linkages between adaptation and mitigation Improved carbon sink management [M] Minimized deforestation and forest degradation [M] Improved adaptive capacity of the society [A] Diminished release of GHG to the Atmosphere [M] Improved livelihood [A] Sustainable forest management [M] Reduced loss of soil carbon stock [M] Enhances carbon sinks [M] Afforestation and reforestation [M] Biodiversity conservation [A] Agroforestry [M] [A] Soil and water conservation [A] Better landscape management [M] [A] Improved agricultural productivity [A] Enhanced ecosystem services and goods availability [A]
- 51. Sentinel Landscapes 2013 • Data & Research Method sharing platform to catalyze the emergence of a more coordinated and collaborative research approach across landscapes • Stimulus for new research ideas forming the basis for new CRP6 operational plans • Awareness of benefits of “high- value data sets”
- 52. Open access data archive: http://dvn.iq.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/crp6/ Data Management & Sharing documents developed • RESEARCH DATA ARCHIVAL GUIDELINES, • CS PRO MANUAL • DATAVERSE CATALOGING INFORMATION FORM • DATAVERSE MANUAL FOR CREATING AND UPLOADING STUDIES • RESEARCH DATA MANAGEMENT TRAINING MANUAL • DATA MANAGMENTFQ • GUIDELINES FOR SHARING DATA IN SENTINEL LANDSCAPES • RESEARCH DATA MANAGEMENT POLICY DEVELOPED BOTH FOR ICRAF AND CIFOR 17 databases submitted and shared
- 53. Profitable agriculture Subsistence agriculture + safety nets Pre-commercial agriculture Subsistence agriculture Sustainable (small-holder) agriculture Use of Interventions: Use of Interventions: 5. Food for thought on ATI next steps
- 54. Crop rotation Growing legume crops Growing cover crops Fallowing in some cases Using animal manure (??) Proper use of pesticides Proper use of inorganic fertilisers Low tillage systems Not burning the residues Soil erosion control measures Good use irrigation and water Lots of good things we know we should be doing
- 55. Forecast Rank (and spank) Identify Test Target Design Evaluate Monitor interventions Description of systems, situational analysis Prioritise investments (Value for money metrics for measuring agriculture, ecosystem and poverty and nutritional outcomes) Utility of ATI
- 56. SAI Benchmarking Report (2009)
- 57. Power of the Single Number
- 60. Required Features of ATI 1. Sound conceptual framework, clarity of goals 2. Broad ownership, agreed terminology, universal indicator set 3. Actionable (Decisions, Practices) 4. Rigorous data collection and analyses (uncertainty) 5. Credible, reliable and accurate 6. Accessible, customisable, allow tradeoffs scenarios, subjectivity 7. Easy to interpret 8. Free from manipulation, independently verifiable 9. Enduring and financially supported 10.Evolve with new evidence
- 61. PURPOSES SCALE Global National Sub-national Local 1. Awareness, advocacy and transparency *** *** ** * 2. Alignment Goals, Standards, Methods ** *** * * 3. Identify and mitigate risks, constraints *** *** ** ** 4. Benchmarking and ranking *** *** ** 5. Formulation and reform policies * *** ** ** 6. Prioritise allocations, investment, actions ** *** *** ** 7. Target and monitor interventions ** *** *** ** 8. Report outcomes and impacts (VFM) *** ** **
- 62. PURPOSES ACTOR Donors Govts Private Sector NGOs CBOs Farmers Public/ Consumr 1 Awareness,advocacy and transparency *** ** *** ** * 2 Alignment Goals, Standards, Methods ** *** * * * * 3 Identify and mitigate risks, constraints ** *** *** ** ** 4 Benchmarking and ranking *** *** ** * 5 Formulation and reform policies * *** ** ** ** * 6 Prioritise allocations, investment, actions ** *** *** * ** 7 Target and monitor interventions ** *** ** ** 8 Report outcomes and impacts (VFM) *** ** ** * *
- 63. ATI Sub-indicies 1. Agribusiness/Policy (BBA) 2. Productivity and Nutrivity 3. Profitability, ROI 4. Agroecosystem Health (soil, water, biodiversity, carbon, pollution) 5. Social inclusion (gender, youth, poor)/Capacity
- 64. Indicators 1. Existing and new 2. Predictive and responsive 3. Quantitative, qualitative (relative/filter) 4. Direct and proxy measures 5. Will evolve over time 6. May we weighted differently by some groups
- 66. ATI – the most promising initiative
- 67. ATI – the most promising initiative
- 69. Theory of Change Change of Theory QUICK and CLEAN
- 70. Private Sector Dialogue - Metrics of Sustainable Agriculture 17-18 September 2013, ICRAF, Kenya MARS, DANONE, Nestle, Unilever, Louis Dreyfus IFAD, CTA