PROCEEDINGS_78_EN_Climate_Change

Climate Change and Food Security: HLPE consultation on the V0 draft of the Report Collection of contributions received Discussion No 78 from 20 March to 10 April 2012 (extended until 16 April 2012) Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction to the topic Contributions received Kien Nguyen Van from Vietnam Bhubaneswor Dhakal from Nepal Daniel Bretscher, Federal Departement of Economic Affairs, Switzerland .9 Teresa Da Silva Rosa, University Vila Velha/UVV and Center for Urban and SocioEnvironmental Studies (NEUS/UVV), Brazil 10 Ileana Grandelis, FAO, Italy 13 Bertrand Vincent, Convention to Combat Desertification, Germany 15 Darshan Sharma, Department of Agriculture and Food, Australia 17 Kaisa Karttunen, Finland 18 Mary Oyunga, Kenya Agriculture Research Institute, Kenya .19 10 Brian Thomson, FAO, Italy 20 11 Cassandra De Young, FAO, Italy 20 12 CIDSE - International alliance of Catholic development agencies , Belgium 21 13 Stephen Adejoro, Zartech limited, Nigeria 28 14 Carol Thiessen, Canadian Foodgrains Bank, Canada 29 15 Mahesh Pandya, Paryavaran Mitra, India 31 16 Peter Carter, Climate Emergency Institute, Canada 32 17 Chencho Norbu, Department of Agriculture, Bhutan 42 18 Lizzy Igbine, Nigerian Women Farmer Association, Nigeria 43 19 Kamal Karunagoda, Department of Agriculture, Sri Lanka .43 20 Luca Colombo, FIRAB, Italy 44 21 Omar B Allahham, Ministry Of Agriculture, Jordan 46 22 Third World Network, Malaysia 46 23 Vanya Walker-Leigh, Nature Trust, Malta 49 24 Geoff Tansey, UK 52 25 People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS), Kenya .54 26 Gerhard Flachowsky, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Germany .55 27 Germany, through the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection 56 28 Christine Negra, CCAFS Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, USA 58 29 International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), Germany 59 30 Damiano Luchetti, FAO, Italy 61 31 ActionAid 62 32 Rasmus Heltberg, World Bank, USA 64 Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 33 Vittorio Fattori, FAO, Italy 64 34 Robynne Anderson, World Farmers Organisation, Canada .66 35 Oxfam Novib, the Netherlands 67 36 Helena Paul, EcoNexus, UK 70 37 Compassion in World Farming, UK 75 38 Tearfund, UK 77 39 Angel Leyva Galan, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Agrícolas (INCA), Cuba 83 40 Joachim Bénébamba Tamalgho, Burkina Faso 84 41 Dang Kim Son, Institute of Policy and Strategy for Agricultural and Rural Development – IPSARD, Viet Nam 84 42 Philippe Quirion, CIRED, France 86 43 Peter Holmgren, Director Climate, Energy and Tenure Division (NRC), Chair of the Inter Departmental Working Group on Climate Change, FAO, Italy 87 44 Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), USA .90 45 Switzerland, through the Permanent Representation of Switzerland to FAO, IFAD and WFP 104 46 Rudolph C Ryser, Center for World Indigenous Studies, USA 106 47 Margaret Kneller, John Cabot University, Italy 110 48 Marta G Rivera Ferre, Center for Agro-food Economy and Development-CREDA-UPC-IRTA, Spain 112 49 Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Denmark 113 50 Frederic Lapeyrie, Ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, France 114 51 Rachel Smolker, Biofuelwatch, USA 115 52 Leslie Lipper, FAO, Italy 115 53 France, through the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs 117 54 CARE International, United Kingdom 122 55 Igodt Brecht, PinguinLutosa Food Group, Belgium 126 56 Christian Aid, UK 126 57 Tichaona Seremani, Christoph Lindinger and Stefano Benedikter, Alternative Investments Africa Private Limited (ALTVEST), UK 128 58 Suman K A., CPPCIF, India 129 59 The Gaia Foundation, UK 130 60 Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance, Switzerland 131 61 CropLife, USA 134 62 Douglas Brown, World Vision International, Canada 136 63 World Food Programme, Italy 141 64 World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Belgium 144 65 Argentina 145 66 Technical Cooperation Department, FAO, Italy 149 Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 67 Sara J Scherr, EcoAgriculture Partners, USA 155 68 Roelf Voortman and Michiel Keyzer, Centre for World Food Studies (SOW-VU), VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands 161 Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn Introduction to the topic In October 2010 the newly reformed UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) requested its High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) to conduct a study on climate change, and in particular, to assess: “review existing assessments and initiatives on the effects of climate change on food security and nutrition, with a focus on the most affected and vulnerable regions and populations and the interface between climate change and agricultural productivity, including the challenges and opportunities of adaptation and mitigation policies and actions for food security and nutrition ” Final findings are to be presented at the CFS Plenary session in October 2012 The High Level Panel of Experts for Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) now seeks input on the following V0 draft of its report to address this mandate This e-consultation will be used by the HLPE Project Team to further elaborate the report, which will then be submitted to external expert review, before finalization by the Project Team under Steering Committee guidance and oversight The challenges of climate change to food security are multidimensional Assessing them also requires some assessment of challenges to food security generally The Committee’s charge includes two focus areas: • the most affected vulnerable regions and populations • the interface between climate change and agricultural productivity In a report of about 40 pages (plus annexes), it is not possible to be exhaustive in coverage Hence the current draft represents an assessment by the HLPE Project Team members, with guidance from the HLPE Steering Committee, of priority topics and presentation We propose opening a dialogue on the following topics and questions: An important audience for this report is national policy makers concerned with agriculture and food security and their staff Does the report include sufficient information to support the policy messages and is it written in a way that captures the complexity of the challenges to food security from climate change while not being too technical? It is not possible to provide detailed policy recommendations for specific countries, regions, or groups Instead we propose a series of policy messages that are intended to provide guidance for developing nationally-relevant policies and programs and that can also assist international efforts Have we chosen the best set of topics? How could our policy messages be improved? Have important messages been omitted? The chapter on adaptation is incomplete We would especially value input on whether the concepts presented in annotated outline form cover appropriate material or whether additional topics need to be covered, and some current items eliminated These inputs will be used to guide the drafting of the final version of this chapter The report proposes three high level policy messages with detailed recommendations under each We introduce the three high level messages here and ask the reader to refer to the fifth chapter for the current complete text Are these the most important messages for national and international policy makers? How can the text be improved to convey these (or other) messages? Climate change responses should be complementary to, not independent of, activities that are needed for sustainable food security Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn Climate change adaptation and mitigation require national activities and global coordination Public-public and public-private partnerships are essential We thank in advance all the contributors for being kind enough to spend time in reading and commenting on this early version of our report Supplementary information and references are very much welcomed We look forward to a rich and fruitful consultation The HLPE Project Team Gerald Nelson (Team Leader), Zucong Cai, Charles Godfray, Rashid Hassan, Maureen Santos, Hema Swaminathan Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn Contributions received Kien Nguyen Van from Vietnam I National/ regional/international levels to coordinate and develop strategies; to increase forecasts as well as assess impacts; to designate scenarios; to rise funds II community levels to raise awareness; to create adaptive by indigenous knowledge and local nature resources; to make/ try to new models in conditions of climate changes Bhubaneswor Dhakal from Nepal Dear FSN members Based on my knowledge and experience I found both strengths and weaknesses on the report I would like to list some of the points of both sides Strengthens a The panel has done very nice review of literatures related the climate change It has included many statistical figures where possible and made convincible for many readers about the threat of the climate change on food and nutrition security b It has clearly categorised main pillars of food and nutrition security These are availability, access, use and stability Decision makers very often cannot separate and understand the value of the individual pillars Consequently they cannot make appropriate policy and management decisions c The panel has discussed the climate change impacts now and future, and mitigation and adaptation options including policy recommendations in separate sections d The panel has given special importance to women who account more than 50 percent of the world population, and play important role on food and nutrition security e Despite involvement of many people and time the report is concise in size Weaknesses a The purpose of the working panel is to “review existing assessments and initiatives on the effects of climate change on food security and nutrition, with a focus on the most affected and vulnerable regions and populations and the interface between climate change and agricultural productivity, including the challenges and opportunities of adaptation and mitigation policies and actions for food security and nutrition.” However, the panel has given substantially higher effort for describing state of the climate change than analysing its impacts on different societies The state of climate change has been Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn well reviewed in IPCC reports The analysis on main issues is not adequate level A competent panel would constructively analyse understudied issues and unclear and misleading information reported on literatures and media b The report has used quantitative figures from research literatures to convince readers but it has poorly captured true reality of vulnerable societies The report is not enough appealing to the readers who have experienced and seen the true reality Probably it can be an unavoidable biases associated to members of the panel who have distance experience on the reality c The panel has given little attention on the vulnerable people in developed countries d The panel has spent considerable space to describe the threats of climate change more on women and their potential role on adaptation From my understanding the panel looked on surface level problems and limited recommendation at same depth The vulnerability of women in developing countries is routed on mega institutions which are difficult to be changed at desired level by policy change Therefore it requires other measures to address the vulnerability problem The report is silence on this aspect e The indigenous people may be the one of the most vulnerable groups due to their socioeconomic institutions Except the point of wild harvested food, the report has given little attention on the problem of indigenous people The vulnerability of the group has been increased many times higher by the policies and practices introduced for climate change mitigation than the climate change itself For example national and international agencies are influencing the indigenous communities and introducing management practices for local forests against their wellbeing From my understanding and experience the point of wild harvest gives misleading information There are many evidences that the indigenous people have been cheated by such misleading information Ignoring problems and providing misleading information of the indigenous people is common practices of most of international organizations The report of the panel is not devoid of it f Climate change mitigation action can have more negative impacts on the vulnerable groups than benefit For example the food price rise in 2008 is partly associated to the biofuel production –one activity for climate change mitigation The report has hardly touch on this important issue g In general the report gives a sense that the negative impacts of climate change would increase faster than socioeconomic changes unless special policy efforts are placed The information can convince many people including policy decision makers Probably due to limited knowledge I not believe on it From my understanding the panel has over exaggerated the impacts It is either by professional bias or for hidden interest h The people or communities who are identified vulnerable in this report have been suffering from climate change from many years Women of Ghana (in the example of the report) are not new victims of current climate change The communities and people are in need of support to get relief from the impacts The development support for climate change adaptation is old wine in new bottle for the vulnerable communities Additional climate change makes them little difference on their lives and livelihoods Again I not belief that new climate change makes dramatic change as often reported by environmental media or deep environmentalists Moreover these communities are also making their self effort to adapt to the negative climatic impacts based on experience, information and opportunities Then it will be difficult to separate the impact of new climate change and old Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn i The panel stressed need of both free trade of food and price stability The report is silent on possible tradeoffs consequences of free trade on price stability j Addressing social problems are more critical than the need of improve technologies for enhancing food production in the area vulnerable to climate change It requires addressing both problems together which is not adequately pointed in the report k The report stressed on helping small scale farmers It is a difficult issue to distinguish who are small scale farmers In developing societies the small farmers are getting pressure to give up the farming life to adapt to socioeconomic changes Agricultural production has been decreased I am sceptical that the reduction is caused by climate change as you advocated If climate change occurs as the panel described the situation can be worse In the regions there is need of reforming of land use policy and fostering agriculture food production The report is silent on this aspect l From the prospective of the vulnerable communities and people effectiveness of public resources for climate change adaptation would be more productive to place existing information and technologies than investing on further research and development In conclusion the team has given considerable efforts to prepare the report There is shortfall analysis on critical areas The report would be more meaningful, convincing and useful if the panel analyse and provide information rigorously, constructively, and fairly Many thanks to the FSN moderators and HLPE members for providing me an opportunity to read and comment the Food Security and Climate Change report prepared by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition Thanks FSN members for spending your valuable time to read my ideas Bhubaneswor Dhakal Daniel Bretscher, Federal Departement of Economic Affairs, Switzerland Dear FSN members, First I want to congratulate you for the comprehensive manuscript on Food Security and Climate Change I appreciate it very much to have the chance to express my opinion on the text and to make some – hopefully constructive – comments I could not read the manuscript in detail but had a quick overview and concentrated on the chapters and Both chapters contain a lot of information on adaptation and mitigation covering the most relevant issues However, compilation of this kind have been made in the past already and therefore it is not clear what is the extra gain of this report Furthermore, care should be taken not to stay with the enumeration of options (as most other reports due) but clearly to take up a position on which options should be preferred towards others Setting clear priorities in the text would be extremely helpful for policy maker in taking decisions and would prevent that they chose arbitrarily and/or opportunistically from a large set of possible measures Personally I think that a good guidance in this respect is to categorize the measures according to the following scheme: Priority: Food system approaches (including diet, consumption, trade, food waste, processing etc…) Priority: Farm system approaches (sustainable farm management, choice of the farm portfolio (animal species, crop cultures), crop – livestock integration, polycultures, crop rotation, agroforestry….) Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn Priority: Crop / Animal management system (soil management, crop management, animal management, manure management….) Both for adaptation (food security) as well as mitigation measures on the first level (i.e food system) are likely to bring the greatest benefits and (as I think) also at the lowest cost for the society as a whole The text contains a lot of very good aspects in this direction but they are not highlighted appropriately I think Ulrich Hoffmann from the UNCTAD discussed these issues very god in his recent discussion paper: “The current structures in global agricultural input and output markets not ease, but rather complicate the required fundamental transformation of agricultural production methods and consumption patterns Huge price distortions, considerable externalities, market and policy failures, as well as powerful commercial interests create a “minefield” for constructive action being (unilaterally) undertaken at national level Without a reform of international trade and investment policies that are really supportive of ecological agriculture national-level action may remain ineffective There is generally too much emphasis on and simplistic overestimation of the potential of technological development for agricultural transformation This will only give false hope and excuses for doing nothing really fundamental In fact, as the above analysis shows, only few problems in agriculture are mainly caused by a lack of technology, many are related to social, economic and cultural issues that require structural changes, not techno-fixes (Paul et al., 2009: 9) It is therefore critical to first of all define what problems are best solved by changing legal frameworks, trade policies, incentive structures or human behaviour and, second, what contribution technology could make within this very context.” (Hoffmann, U 2011: Assuring food security in developing countries under the challenges of climate change: Key trade and development issues of a fundamental transformation of agriculture United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Discussion Papers No 201) One might not like particularly the direct (and sometimes very critical) language of this text but personally I think we need this kind of spirit in order to make a substantial contribution in facing the challenges related to climate change I thank you very much for your appreciation and wish you all the best for the finalization of the report Sincerely yours, Daniel Bretscher Research Associate Federal Department of Economic Affairs DEA Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART Natural Resources and Agriculture Teresa Da Silva Rosa, University Vila Velha/UVV and Center for Urban and SocioEnvironmental Studies (NEUS/UVV), Brazil Comments concerning the chapter “Adaptation: response options for Food Security Challenges from Climate Change” of the draft report on Food Security and Climate Change It is missing a definition of adaptation in its introduction Even if adaptation is considered as a more recent issue of interest on the scenario of climate change (CC) than mitigation (both Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 10 currently under negotiation in this field, such as cooperative sectorial approaches and specific sectorial actions, including -among others- discussions on the agricultural sector In this context, the negative evaluation of the contribution of the agricultural sector to climate change is worrying, as it would be more constructive to analyse this topic on the basis of the sector's relationship with food security In this sense, it is worth noting that Article of the UNFCCC states that the Convention’s objective of stabilizing the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should be achieved in such a way that food production is not threatened In addition, the HLPE could consider how the substantial reduction of livestock agriculture subsidies distorting trade or production applied by developed countries would be important for designing sustainable production schemes and reducing the sector emissions In this regard, Argentina considers that these subsidies not only distort international agricultural trade, but are inefficient from an environmental perspective, as they provide funds that lead to an overexploitation of the natural resources used in agricultural production In that sense, the HLPE should avoid explicitly mentioning the "multifunctionality" (p of the draft), as it has been historically used by developed countries to justify protectionist farm subsidies Accordingly, through the compliance of the agriculture negotiating mandate agreed during the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization, a significant progress will be achieved with the goal of implementing a fair and market-oriented international trade system, for example, through the substantial reduction of the internal assistance distorting trade or production, taking into account the needs of developing countries The fulfilment of the Doha mandate is essential for designing production schemes that help to address the challenges faced by the sector Finally, it shall be noted that these general comments complement the specific modification proposals for the zero draft that Argentina submits separately 66 Technical Cooperation Department, FAO, Italy 1.Global comment: to reposition in a wider framework Climate change threatens the livelihoods and food security of billions of the planet’s poor and vulnerable, as it poses a serious threat to agricultural production Agriculture, in the dominant conventional and industrial models practiced today, is also a major contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions At the same time, as they pose a huge climate threat, industrial agricultural systems are highly vulnerable to climate change The industrial model and the crop varieties designed to work well within it depend on energy- and water-intensive irrigation as well as other fossil fuel-intensive inputs such as mechanized harvesting, fertilizers and pesticides Highly vulnerable to reductions in the availability of fuel and water, and in the long-term economically unsound, the model will not survive (Vandermeer 54 et al., 2009) Nothing less than a system change is needed in the face of the climate change threat Despite the clear logic and economic rationale for moving toward greener Climate resilient agriculture, it is neither going to be easy nor automatic It will require a supportive policy environment and a set of enabling conditions that can help to level the playing field between heavily subsidized agricultural today practices and more beneficial green agricultural practices 54 Vandermeer, J., G Smith, I Perfecto and E Quintero, E (2009) Effects of industrial agriculture on global warming and the potential of small-scale agroecological techniques to reverse those effects The New World Agriculture and Ecology Group, Ann Arbor, 2009 Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 148 Government policies both in developing and developed countries have been a major driver for food production and food pattern consumption and, in most cases, have increased GHG emission In some cases, people own actions inquest of increasing food production, farming on marginal land, deforestation, etc , have contributed to further increase GHG emissions and various other negative impacts on the environment Retargeting of subsidies towards energy-saving and green practices At a general level, the key challenge is removing subsidies that serve to maintain the agricultural status quo while reallocating such subsidy resources to programmes that create a system of helpful incentives that enable the accelerated implementation of green agriculture practices In particular, subsidization of farmers’ initial ecological agriculture transition costs would help finance needed investments in locally sourced organic fertilizer and other inputs; the use of “NoTill” cultivation equipment; and defray some of the risks involved in changing farming practices A principal enabling condition needed at local level is the strengthening of rural capacities for improved self-reliance in green agriculture inputs Rethinking the policy framework Recognizing the fact that there are no unique/uniform policy/action that can be adopted by all countries, however policy/actions are urgently needed in order to develop pathways for sustainable agricultural development without causing any environmental damage These actions should be compatible with GHG emission reduction strategies which contribute to increase agricultural productivity and maintain existing biodiversity rather than losing it and paying to recreate it in the future Policy issues currently debated are crucial to move towards climate resiliency (Ching55 et al, 2011) while meeting the demand for food focus regarding the following questions: (1) How to increase investment in ecological/CSA agriculture? (2) How to better manage climate risks and increase smallholders resilience? (3) How to stop climate-destructive agriculture and dismantle perverse incentives and subsidies? (4) How to strengthen research and knowledge-sharing agenda towards ecological agriculture Platforms? (5) How to support the sustainable labelling and the reduction of GHG emission along with food value chains? How to support the sustainable labelling and the reduction of GHG emission along with food value chains? Supporting the development of fair trade and certified organic agriculture offers an alternative trading standard to mainstream commodity markets There are options to be appraised on the way to manage such support: (i) How far public financial support should be used to promote the reduction of GHG emission along with food value chain? (ii) Should food value chain be incorporated in the cap and trade schemes? (iii) What best practices technologies should be promoted to reduce GHG emission and who will pay for it (Public or private partnership)?; and (iv) Should public expenditure be used for research and extension? Specific comments and answers to questions 55 Ching L, Stabinsky D, Ecological agriculture is climate resilient, The third world TWN Network, Briefing Paper, 2011 http://media.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/twn_briefingpaper01_durban.pdf Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 149 Question 1: An important audience for this report is national policy makers concerned with agriculture and food security and their staff Does the report include sufficient information to support the policy messages and is it written in a way that captures the complexity of the challenges to food security from climate change while not being too technical? As specified, we target policy makers concerned with agriculture and food security Therefore, the report is too descriptive and it takes too long to arrive to policy recommendations Most of policy makers are aware of all what is written from page to 26 I would recommend to focus on chapters to and to define entry points which are familiar for policy makers (elements which are already part of agriculture policies) They are called strategic options Specific country case studies are needed to illustrate the recommendations, it could be presented as boxes (see example below) Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 150 China: Investment, fund reallocation and subsidy policies to promote agricultural adaptation and mitigation In China, recent advances in agricultural productivity and poverty reduction have been built on a significant domestic agricultural research and development base With roughly ten percent annual increases since 2001, agricultural R&D spending equal USD 1.8 billion in 2007 and shifted an estimated seven people out of poverty for every USD 500 of investment National policies and pilot programmes also catalyze on agricultural adaptation and mitigation The Plan for the Construction of Protective Cultivation Projects will cover 2.7 million hectares in 2009-2015 In addition to enhancing soil resilience to drought, 1.7-2.5 billion cubic meters of irrigation water have been saved Strategies to improve rice yields while reducing greenhouse gas emissions have been promoted These include encouraging farmers to grow low emission and high-yield rice breeds, use intermittent irrigation methods and convert straw to a biomass feedstock for the production of fuel, products and power Subsidies for water-saving irrigation technologies, machinery and equipment, as well as for improving crop varieties and industrial systems, have been established Under the Special Climate Change Fund, pilot projects to develop alternative water sources, adopt water-saving technology and adaptively manage irrigation and drainage have been launched in the Yellow, Huaihe and Haihe river basins, as well as in the Ningxia Hui Region Successful strategies will be integrated into future national plans National climate change targets for 2010, such as 15 percent non-fossil fuel sources for Chinese energy consumption and forest coverage of 40 million hectares, have been encouraged by subsidies, label and tax incentives Source: CSACC, Achieving food security in the face of climate change - Summary for policy makers from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, 2011 Question 2: It is not possible to provide detailed policy recommendations for specific countries, regions, or groups Instead, we would like to propose a series of policy messages that are intended to provide guidance for developing nationally-relevant policies and programmes and that can also assist international efforts Have we chosen the best set of topics? How could our policy messages be improved? Have important messages been omitted? We could also propose a range of possible policies explaining that every country policy team is in charge of selecting options in line which fit both with Government implementing capacities, funding limits and future visions Here below is an example of visualization of policy options Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 151 Question 3: The chapter on adaptation is incomplete We would especially value input on whether the concepts presented in annotated outline form cover appropriate material or whether additional topics need to be covered, and some current items eliminated These inputs will be used to guide the drafting of the final version of this chapter I would focus once more the adaptation chapter on resilience building emphasizing the link with vulnerability reduction One main aspect of Agriculture sector regards to CC is the synergy between adaption and mitigation It drives to be careful when the two subjects are treated separately Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 152 Question 4: The report proposes three high level policy messages with detailed recommendations under each of them We will introduce the three high level messages and ask the reader to refer to the fifth chapter for the current complete text Are these the most important messages for national and international policy makers? How can the text be improved to convey these (or other) messages? Climate change responses should be complementary to, not independent of, activities that are needed for sustainable food security It drives to multifunction approach on agriculture, food security, mitigation and adaptation to be illustrated and explained in the document Climate change adaptation and mitigation require national activities and global coordination It could turn as: Integrate food security and Climate change into global and national policies  Establish a work programme on mitigation and adaptation in agriculture in accordance with the principles and provisions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), based on Article 2, as a first step of agriculture inclusion in the mainstream of international climate change policy  Make sustainable climate-friendly agriculture central to Green Growth and the Rio+20 Earth Summit  Finance ‘early action’ to drive change in agricultural production systems towards increasing resilience to weather variability and shocks, while contributing significantly to mitigating Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 153 climate change This includes supporting national climate risk assessments, developing mitigation and adaptation strategies, and programme implementation  Develop common platforms at global, regional and national levels for a coherent dialogue and policy action related to climate change, agriculture, crisis response and food security, at global, regional and national levels These include fostering country-level coalitions for food security and building resilience, particularly in countries most vulnerable to climate shocks In this consideration, the current work on CSA sourcebook and on RIO+20 would be appropriate inputs which could be used in the drafting of your paper on food security and climate change Public-public and public-private partnerships are essential Ok 67 Sara J Scherr, EcoAgriculture Partners, USA Comments from Sara J Scherr, President, EcoAgriculture Partners (April 20, 2012) This Report provides a critically important input to the work of the Committee on World Food Security, both analytically broadening and deepening the diagnosis and strategy of food insecurity, and making evidence the broad stakeholder coalition that will be required to address food insecurity in the 21st century The Zero Draft is an excellent start and can be strengthened through additional analysis and recommendations A few key elements are missing; these are explained in greater detail below 1) The potential contributions of multi-sectoral approaches (the current is overly sectoral) 2) An assessment of the impacts already being experienced by farmers from climate change Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 154 3) The need for actions at multiple scales: household, community, landscape (particularly missing) and national; issues of scale would ideally be addressed in each of the chapters 4) Refinement of recommendations to be more operational -more on processes, mechanisms to achieve the objectives; how to build multi-sector strategies; 5) The impacts of climate change on the ecological underpinnings of food/feed production, access and resilience, and responses to climate change that would mitigate and reverse these Chapter 1: Impacts today 1.4.2: Material on role of women can be better integrated into the rest of the analysis and focused specifically on the recent literature/experience of climate change (rest of literature doesn’t need to be covered in detail) 1.4.7: Should also consider CC impacts on the ecological underpinnings for sustainable agriculture 1.4.1: Add more of the evidence on how climate change has already led to land and water degradation, increased fires, etc Figure 1: Add a simple figure showing sources of GHG from agriculture Figure 2: Difficult for most readers to interpret – simplify Figure 6: Not needed; perhaps something on rural-urban migration? Chapter 2: Impacts tomorrow 2.4: Add impact on infrastructure (coastal roads, bridges, etc) Figure 11: Describe the key findings in words; add dates Chapter 3: Adaptation 3.2: Add lessons from recent experience with climate adaptation and overall resilience The section can draw lessons from the experience of ‘marginal lands’ in recent decades, that can be applied to ‘breadbasket’ areas that are now experiencing high risks due to climate There is also a lot of literature on how to build local institutional capacity to support farmer and community innovation on an ongoing basis 3.3: Anticipatory strategies a Note how rarely people anticipatory planning—therefore need to focus interventions on challenges they are already facing b Add Landscape resilience, agriculture-forest interface; climate-smart landscapes —manage land uses throughout the landscape, especially for adaptation c Incorporate more material from the World Bank and FAO published guidelines, CSA Sourcebook notes prepared at the FAO meeting last year; TerrAfrica reports on climate-smart SLM d The section can draw more on recent publications of OECD and UK on best practices and climate-proofing, and can extrapolate principles drawn from other sectors to agriculture Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 155 e IDRC has funded work in various parts of the world on local farmer/community climate adaptation 3.3.1 Availability a More attention should be given to the role of agrobiodiversity in managing risks and protecting nutrition (check studies by Bioversity Int’l funded by Christensen Fund) b The IADB’s climate program is undertaking a number of project and planning exercises in Latin America for adaptation, e.g for shifting coffee production areas c Risk management strategies include household and community in situ reserves of food, feed, fodder d Organized planting and protecting of ‘hungry season’ food sources and diverse resilient local crop varieties and breeds 3.3.2 Access a Management of community reserves of food, feed, water b Household and community gardens with year-round food supplies (see, e.g ICRAF work on multiple fruit species that provide nutrients at different times of the year) c Urban foodshed management; note examples from ICLEI and others of cities that are linking food production and supply chains to green infrastructure for climate adaptation 3.3.3 Use a Protection of water quality (to control diarrhea) b Water, fuel for cooking (incl boiling water) 3.3.4 Stability a Including diversification of production and food supplies at household, community and regional levels 3.3.5 ADD A NEW SUB-SECTION: Ecosystem resilience - Manage and improve resource base to contribute to availability, access, use and stability in an integrated fashion a Investments in ecosystem management/watershed management/flood control b.Landscape management for resilience c Water harvesting at multiple scales (improve water-holding capacity, infiltration, etc) d Restoration of degraded cropland, rangeland, watershed e Conservation Int’l has developed a lot of materials on climate adaptation related to forest and biodiversity , management f Refer to examples of efforts being made in the Netherlands and U.S (good examples are presented in Mark Hertsgaard’ book Hot, where references can be found) 3.4 Sectoral strategies a Add Investment in farmer organization (IFAD is working on this) b Add involvement of environment sector actors to explicitly support food systems c The government section is now too generic; much more is needed on action by districtlevel governmets d Research: add more on landscape process and adaptation e ADD a news sub-section for civil society? 3.5 ADD NEW SECTION: Inter-Sectoral Approaches a Note advantages of multisectoral approach, interactive b Invest in “virtuous” cycles that provide feedback loops between social/livelihoods and ecological dimensions of landscape/environment [give some examples] Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 156 c Integrated landscape management – by involving multiple sectors, fofers more opportunities to kick-start action; more points of contact d For example, i Investing in rainfwater harvesting to plant trees in degraded areas—beyond productivity and soil erosion—produces a sense of hope, cultural dimensions— ocial achievement; Can then use that social energy to other things ii Rehabilitate a gully, which reduces erosion, develops a reserve for animal fodder iii Fruit trees on homesteadsy hifts to conservation agriculture iv Protecting land assets – drylands are all about pasture for animals; rotational graing, holistic management, community level; landscape-scale transhumance v Water resource management e Extension people involve private, governments, efficiency of coordination – multiple sources of innovation, especially requires good leadership f Role of landscapes in reserves – especially as in pastoralist/fodder/energy/food sources/community gardens g Supplemental irrigation for crops – capturing rainwater- move to community level can increase resilience dramatically, e.g., checkdams, tree-planting for soil moisture) h When beyond community – watershed coordinating, sorting out multiple rights within a watershed; look at multiple users, so can’t be single objective [example of Naivasha – all users to coordinate] Need to go i Landscape is beyond just watersheds—needs to address full range of needed resources, including biodiveresity j Climate change – presents unpredictability, constant shocks, farmers/communities need to address unfamiliar conditions; need more diversity in the system at all scales k Link adaptation explicitly with mitigation l Incorporate women’s issues here, linking sectoral components Chapter 4: Mitigation 4.2 Ag’l Contribution to GHG emissions a Footnote #24 – This is an important part of the analysis and would seem to belong in the text and warrant response, particularly regarding implications for adaptation b Add much more on livestock? c Again, footnote #25 belongs in the text; many ways to switch manure management from emissions source, to emission reduction and GHG sink 4.3: Under land use options, also include: a Re-considering the role of perennial fallows in farming systems (especially if managed for economic outputs) b More on production under tree canopy and in agroforestry mixtures (evergreen ag, et al) 4.4 Mitigation options in agriculture a Are there no numbers more recent than IPCC 2007? b Emphasize value of evaluating and acting to achieve mitigation at landscape scales, and sequestration opportunities in and around agricultural lands c Add more on irrigation-related emissions and how to reduce these d More on links with perennial bio-energy and fuel production in landscapes f Cover much more of the literature on agriculture and REDD (CCAFS, FAO, Terrestrial Carbon group) Chapter 5: Recommendations Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 157 5.2: Complementarity of climate and food security [strengthen language—climate change interventions should be incorporated into and coordinated with programs and policies for food security] a Address links the broader role of agriculture in a green economy b Highlight the needs of most vulnerable communities, which need not only more support for household-level actions of food security, but are much more dependent on community and district level planning (see, e.g., handbook produced by CARE on adaptation) c Note point from EcoAgriculture-RRI paper on Agriculture and REDD (Shames et al 2011) d Note recommendations on integrated financing from Shames & Scherr 2011 Ecoagriculture Policy Brief – lessons for use of Adaptation Fund, UNDP, WFP, et al 5.3 Climate change adaptation and mitigation require coordinated local, landscape and national activities [change language] a Can leave out ‘global’ from recommendation, but in the recommendation note importance of structuring global programs, finance, etc to support this national activity [many will be wary of ‘global coordination’] b National governments need to :  Coordinate among donor communities, all investors with common integrated principle to achieve resilient systems  Understand social and ecological dimension of farming systems  Coordinate among government ministries around same vision  Invest in District Governments—those actors know the areas, potential partners, etc response in value; build capacity locally 5.4 Partnerships a This doesn’t come across strongly enough Partnerships are just the mechanism —clarify what you are trying to achieve with them 5.5 ADD sub-section: Promote and support local action to address climate change adaptation and mitigation for food security a Calls for local knowledge networks and government support for these b Incorporate into District Development Planning c Need to build vulnerabilities and resilience at local levels d Improve seed systems for farmers (just buying drought-tolerant seeds will be unaffordable, given risk of purchased inputs for the poor – refer to Leslie Lipper’s book on this topic GLOSSARY, Add:  ‘Landscape’  Climate-smart agriculture  Climate-smart agricultural landscape Some literature noted: Beddington, J, M Asaduzzaman, A Fernandez, M Clark, M Guillou, M Jahn, L Erda, T Mamo, N Van Bo, C.A Nobre, R Scholes, R Sharma and J Wakhungu 2011 Achieving food security in the face of climate change: Summary for policy makers from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change Copenhagen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) Branca, G., N McCarthy, L Lipper, M.C Jolejole 2011 Climate-smart agriculture: a synthesis of empirical evidence of food security and mitigation benefits from improved cropland management Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture Series no.3 Rome: Food and Agriculture Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 158 Organization of the United Nations (FAO) FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2010a “Climate-Smart” agriculture: policies, practices and financing for food security, adaptation and mitigation Rome: FAO Milder, J.C., T Majanen and S.J Scherr 2011 Performance and potential of conservation agriculture for climate change adaptation and mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa Ecoagriculture Discussion Paper no.6 Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners Nkonya, E., F Place, J Pender, M Mwanjololo, A Okhimamhe, E Kato, S Crespo, J Ndjeunga and S Traore 2011 Climate risk management through sustainable land management in Sub-Saharan Africa IFPRI Discussion Paper no.01126 Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Scherr, S.J and S Sthapit 2009 Mitigating climate change through food and land use Worldwatch Report no 179 Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute Scherr, S.J and J.A McNeely 2008 Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences 363: 477-494 Shames, S and S.J Scherr 2011 Integrating agriculture and climate finance Policy Brief # EcoAgriculture Partners: Washington, DC http://www.ecoagriculture.org/documents/files/doc_395.pdf Shames, S., S.J Scherr, C Wallace and J Hatcher 2011 Integrating agendas for forests, agriculture and climate change mitigation: rationale and recommendations for landscape strategies, national policy and international climate action Ecoagriculture Discussion Paper no.7 Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners http://www.ecoagriculture.org/documents/files/doc_383.pdf Smith, P., D Martino, Z Cal, D Gwary, H Janzen, P Kumar, B McCarl, S Ogle, F O’Mara, C Rice, B Scholes, O Sirotenko, M Howden, T McAllister, G Pan, V Romanenkov, U Schneider, S Towprayoon, Turral, H., J Burke and J.M Faurès 2011 Climate change, water and food security FAO Water Reports no.36 Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) WFP [World Food Programme] 2011 Enhancing resilience of communities to the adverse effects of climate change on food security, in Pichincha Province and the Jubones River basin Climate Change Adaptation Proposal to Adaptation Fund Washington, DC: Adaptation Fund World Bank 2011a Climate-smart agriculture: a call to action Washington, DC World Bank World Bank 2011b Climate-smart agriculture: increased productivity and food security, enhanced resilience and reduced carbon emissions for sustainable development – opportunities and challenges for a converging agenda: country examples Washington, DC: World Bank van Oosterzee, P., N Preece and A Dale 2012 An Australian landscape-based approach: AFOLU mitigation for smallholders In: Wollenberg, E., A Nihart, M Tapio-Biström and M Grieg-Gran, eds Climate Change Mitigation and Agriculture New York: Earthscan from Routelage Vermuelen, S.J., P.K Aggarwal, A Ainslie, C Angelone, B.M Campbell, A.J Challinor, J Hansen, J.S.I Ingram, A Jarvis, P Kristjanson, C Lau, P.K Thornton and E Wollenberg 2010 Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change: outlook for knowledge, tools and action CCAFS Report no.3 Copenhagen: CGIAR-ESSP Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 159 68 Roelf Voortman and Michiel Keyzer, Centre for World Food Studies (SOW-VU), VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands Energy transition As the report basically follows the lines of the IPCC Fourth Assessment of 2007, it currently misses several developments since then, particularly with respect to energy transition We would suggest including an update on the latest developments in power generation and storage of renewable energy (heat, biogas,…) that have the potential of significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions Moreover, many of these technologies will dramatically change the relation between rural and urban areas under agricultural modernization since they can reduce the countryside’s dependence on purchased fossil fuel, and more importantly, significantly reduce the cost of rural electrification Furthermore, most renewables require space, and some of them feed on biomass At the same time the potential impact of shale gas, which might raise emissions should be addressed, particularly on water resources Similarly new insights about methane emissions could be taken on board, as they significantly exonerate ruminants relative to other sources A discussion of geo-engineering is currently missing as well Fertilizer Fertilizer applications may be more important than the climate change effect If fertilizer use is low, as in Sub-Sahara Africa, the yield effect of climate change is dwarfed by the potential of using fertilizer, provided that knowledge is gathered on which fertilizer technology to use (nutrient mix and dose) on which soil type Vulnerability scenarios should account for this, since agriculture needs to be prepared for climate change, also when it uses more inputs Spatial resolution The global outlook on climate, as presented nowadays by the IPCC is rather consistent across the global circulation models currently in use For the local impact on climate, however, the severity of changes in rainfall differs significantly across models, even to the extent of opposite sign in large parts of the world When applying crop models on such outcomes, the results in terms of crop yield and local land productivity may be ambiguous as well We would suggest that the final draft of the report addresses this spatial diversity, especially when discussing vulnerability and mitigation and adaption strategies, by referring to studies that match current climatic conditions to postulated changes of climatic conditions , e.g the FAO Agro-Ecological Zones methodology (Fischer and Van Velthuizen, 1996; Voortman et al., 1999) Comment on broader framework In our comments on the zero draft of the social protection report, we concluded that this report covers a broad range of issues, resulting in a broad range of not very specific recommendations Similar remarks apply for the topic of climate change and food security as well We refer to our comment on the social protection report for further discussion (goto http://km.fao.org/fsn/discussions/social_protection_II and click on “contributions received”) References Fischer, G and van Velthuizen, H.T 1996 Climate change and global agricultural potential project; A case study of Kenya IIASA Working Paper 96-71, IIASA, Laxenburg Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 160 Voortman, R.L., Sonneveld, B.G.J.S., Langeveld, J.W.A., Fischer, G and van Velthuizen, H.T 1999 Climate change and global agricultural potential; A case study of Nigeria SOW-VU Staff Working Paper 99-06, SOW-VU, Amsterdam Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition http://km.fao.org/fsn 161