In this chapter, we have attempted to lay out a conceptual framework to underpin the CSA concept rooted in agricultural development economic theories and concepts.
We began by highlighting the key features of climate change that require a shift in emphasis in research, and for innovations in technologies, institutions, and govern- ment policies and programs. These changes include: (1) increased frequency and intensity of climate extreme events, with potentially disastrous impacts on already vulnerable smallholders dependent on rainfed agriculture, (2) permanent changes in weather patterns making certain areas unsuitable for agricultural production under existing conditions, and (3) the need to reduce emissions from the agricultural sec- tor as a whole, while ensuring growth in the sector. These changes strongly high- light the need to consider the heterogeneity of impacts and to understand the implications of decision-making under uncertainty. They also point to the increased value of an expanded set of technological and institutional options to deal with both
heterogeneity and uncertainty, and particularly to the increased value of flexibility broadly understood.
To set the framework, we began by viewing CSA as a welfare optimization prob- lem. The problem has multiple objectives, namely the four pillars of food security, food availability, accessibility, utilization, and stability, as well as reducing emissions growth in the sector as a whole. The problem is also characterized by current con- straints that bound the feasible outcomes, including bio-physical, behavioral, politi- cal, institutional and distributional constraints. Achieving better outcomes can occur by directly increasing food security, for instance by introducing technologies that increase yields and reduce yield losses in extreme years. Or, better outcomes can be achieved by relaxing key constraints. We also stress that the nature of the optimiza- tion, and thus adaptation strategies, are context specific.
Adaptation to climate change may take several forms: innovation and adoption of new technologies, adoption of existing technologies, temporary or permanent migration, changes of agricultural activities and trade patterns, and increased range of attractive and viable insurance products. Adaptation in most cases will also include addressing institutional failures and constraints such as reducing tenure insecurity, increasing access to relevant information, and improving the ability to coordinate actions across a watershed or ecosystem. And, some adaptation strate- gies will imply a discrete system-level change realized through broad-based struc- tural transformation. While the solution cannot provide the exact changes in technologies or institutions that would result in the best outcomes, it can help to define the characteristics, or principles, associated with improved technologies or highly effective institutional structures and mechanisms.
Finally, we highlight that the solution to the social planner’s problem for climate change must balance adaptation and responsiveness to uncertain climate change with the needed growth and food security objectives of the agricultural sector.
Weighting the multiple objectives is essentially a political process.
References
Adger, W.N., J.M. Pulhin, J. Barnett, G.D. Dabelko, G.K. Hovelsrud, M. Levy, Ú. Oswald Spring, and C.H. Vogel. 2014. Human security. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 755–791.
Alix-Garcia, J.M., Shapiro, E.N. and Sims, K.R., 2012. Forest conservation and slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s national payments for ecosystem services program. Land Economics, 88(4), pp.613–638.
Antle, J.M. and S.M. Capalbo. 2010. Adaptation of agricultural and food systems to climate change: an economic and policy perspective. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, doi:
10.1093/aepp/ppq015.
Antle, J.M. and B. Diagana. 2003. Creating incentives for the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in developing countries: the role of soil carbon sequestration. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(5): 1178–1184.
Antle, J.M. and C.C. Crissman. 1990. Risk, efficiency, and the adoption of modern crop varieties:
Evidence from the Philippines. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 38(3):517–537.
Arslan, A., McCarthy, N., Lipper, L., Asfaw, S., Cattaneo, A. and Kokwe, M. (2015): Climate Smart Agriculture: Assessing the Productivity and Adaptation Implications in Zambia. Journal of Agriculture Economics, 66(3): 753–780.
Barbier, E.B. 2010. Poverty, development, and environment. Environment and Development Economics, 15(06): 635–660.
Barrett, C.B., F. Place, and A. Aboud. 2002. The challenges of stimulating adoption of improved natural resource management practices in African agriculture. In: C. Barrett, F. Place, and A. Aboud (eds), Natural Resources Management in African Agriculture. Nairobi, Kenya:
ICRAF and CABI.
Bassist, A., B. Blankespoor, A. Dinar, and S. Dinar. 2017. Assessing Technical, Economic and Policy Aspects of Water Scarcity Using Surface Wetness with Application to the Zambezi, Mekong and Red River Basins. In: L. Lipper, N. McCarthy, D. Zilberman, S. Asfaw, and G. Branca: Climate Smart Agriculture - Building Resilience to Climate Change. New York:
Springer.
Buchanan, J.M., and R.D. Tollison. 1984. The Theory of public choice--II. University of Michigan Press.
Burney, J.A., S.J. Davis, and D.B. Lobell. 2010. Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensi- fication. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 107(26): 12052–12057.
Cacho, O.J., Marshall, G.R. and Milne, M. 2005. Transaction and abatement costs of carbon-sink projects in developing countries. Environment and Development Economics, 10(05): 597–614.
Davis, B., S. Di Giuseppe, and A. Zezza. 2014. Income Diversification Patterns in Rural Sub- Saharan Africa: Reassessing the Evidence. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.
7108. Available at SSRN.: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2524162
Dercon, S., and L. Christiaensen. 2011. Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps:
Evidence from Ethiopia. Journal of development economics, 96(2): 159–173.
Dixit, A.K., and R.S. Pindyck. 2001. The options approach to capital investment. Real options and investment under uncertainty: Classical readings and recent contributions, pp. 61–78.
FAO. 2009. Food Security in Agricultural Mitigation in Developing Countries: Options for Capturing Synergies. October, 2009. Rome: FAO.
FAO. 2010. Climate-Smart Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation. Rome, FAO.
Fischer, E. M., and R. Knutti. 2015. Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy- precipitation and high-temperature extremes. Nature Climate Change 5: 560–564, doi:10.1038/
nclimate.
Foster, A.D. and M. R. Rosenzweig. Microeconomics of technology adoption. Annual Review of Economics 2: 2010, doi: 10.1146/annurev.economics.102308.124433.
Gollin, D., Parente, S. and Rogerson, R. 2002. The role of agriculture in development. The American Economic Review, 92(2): 160–164.
Haggblade, S., Hazell, P.B. and Reardon, T. eds. 2007. Transforming the rural nonfarm economy:
Opportunities and threats in the developing world. Washington, DC: IFPRI.
Hayami, Y., and V.W. Ruttan. 1971. Agricultural development: an international perspective.
Agricultural development: an international perspective. Baltimore, MD/London: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Hitz S., and J. Smith. 2004. Estimating global impacts from climate change. Global Environmental Change (Part A) 14(3): 201–218.
Holden, S.T., K. Deininger, and H. Ghebru. 2009. Impacts of low-cost land certification on invest- ment and productivity. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(2): 359–373.
IPCC. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.).
Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lal, R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security.
Science 204: 1623–1627.
Lipper, L., P. Thornton, B.M. Campbell, T. Baedeker, A. Braimoh, M. Bwalya, P. Caron, A. Cattaneo, D. Garrity, K. Henry, R. Hottle, L. Jackson, A. Jarvis, F. Kossam, W. Mann, N. McCarthy, A. Meybeck, H. Neufeldt, T. Remington, P. Thi Sen, R. Sessa, R. Shula, A. Tibu, and E. Torquebiau. 2014. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nature Climate Change, 4(12): 1068–1072.
Lockie, S. 2013. Market instruments, ecosystem services, and property rights: assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits. Land Use Policy, 31: 90–98.
McCarthy, N., L. Lipper, and G. Branca. 2012. Climate-smart agriculture: smallholder adoption and implications for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture Working Paper 3.
Meinzen-Dick, R., M. DiGregorio, and N. McCarthy. 2004. Methods for studying collective action in rural development. Agricultural systems 82(3): 197–214.
Mendelsohn, R., and A. Dinar. 1999. Climate change, agriculture, and developing countries: does adaptation matter? The World Bank Research Observer 14(2): 277–293
Nelson D.R., W.N. Adger and K. Brown. 2007. Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework. Annual Review Environment and. Resources, 32:395–419.
Norse, D. 2012. Low Carbon Agriculture: Objectives and Policy Pathways. Environmental Development, 1(1): 25–39.
Nkonya, E., J. Pender, P. Jagger, D. Sserunkuuma, C. Kaizzi, and H. Ssali. 2004. Strategies for sustainable land management and poverty reduction in Uganda. Research Report 133.
Washington, DC: IFPRI.
Paustian, L., B. Babcock, J.L. Hatfield, R. Lal, B.A. McCarl, S. McLaughlin, A. Mosier, C. Rice, G.P. Roberton, N. Rosenberg, and C. Rosenzweig. 2004. Agricultural mitigation of greenhouse gases: science and policy options. In: 2001 Conference Proceedings, First National Conference on Carbon Sequestration. Washington, DC: Conference on Carbon Sequestration.
Pender, John, Frank Place, and Simeon Ehui, eds. 2006. Strategies for sustainable land manage- ment in the East African highlands. Washington, DC: IFPRI.
Rausser, G.C., J. Swinnen, and P. Zusman. 2011. Political power and economic policy: theory, anal- ysis, and empirical applications. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Reardon, T. and C.P. Timmer. Transformation of markets for agricultural output in develop- ing countries since 1950: How has thinking changed? Handbook of agricultural economics, 3(2007): 2807–2855.
Scott, Z., Wooster, K., R. Few, A. Thomson, and M. Tarazona. 2016. Monitoring and evaluating disaster risk management capacity. Disaster Prevention and Management 25 (3): 412–422.
Seeberg-Elverfeldt, C., S. Schwarze, and M. Zeller. 2009. Payments for environmental services–
Carbon finance options for smallholders’ agroforestry in Indonesia. International Journal of the Commons, 3(1).
Shepsle, K.A. 1992. Congress is a “they,” not an “it”: Legislative intent as oxymoron. International Review of Law and Economics 12(2): 239–256.
Taylor, J.E. and P.L. Martin. 2001. Human capital: Migration and rural population change.
Handbook of agricultural economics, 1(2001): 457–511.
Thornton, P.K., P.G. Jones, P.J. Ericksen, and A.J. Challinor. 2011. Agriculture and food systems in sub-Saharan Africa in a 4°C+ world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A:
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369(1934):117–136.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial- ShareAlike 3.0 IGO license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
igo/), which permits any noncommercial use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. If you remix, transform, or build upon this book or a part thereof, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. Any dispute related to the use of the works of the FAO that cannot be settled amicably shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the UNCITRAL rules. The use of the FAO’s name for any purpose other than for attribution, and the use of the FAO’s logo, shall be subject to a separate written license agreement between the FAO and the user and is not authorized as part of this CC-IGO license. Note that the link provided above includes additional terms and conditions of the license.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Zilberman, D., Jinhua Zhao, and Heiman, A. 2012. Adoption versus adaptation, with emphasis on climate change. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 4(1): 27–53.
Zilberman, D. 2014. The economics of sustainable development. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 96 (2): 385–396.
49
© FAO 2018
David Zilberman, Leslie Lipper, Nancy McCarthy, and Ben Gordon
Abstract Climate change impacts on agriculture are varied over space and time.
The effects are heterogeneous and highly uncertain. Innovation in agriculture is clearly an important response for effective and equitable adaptation and mitiga- tion – and we need to rethink how to promote innovation to address the heterogene- ity and uncertainty of climate change impacts. In moving towards climate smart agricultural (CSA) systems in developing and developed countries, innovation will be key. For CSA we will need greater resilience in agricultural systems and also greater efficiency of resource use for both adaptation and mitigation. Technological innovation will need to play a key role – but its not enough. Managerial and institu- tional innovations are likely to be even more important in dealing with the hetero- geneous and uncertain impacts of climate change. Innovation can complement other forms of adaptation to climate change to form CSA practices. In particular innova- tion can enhance technology adoption, may prevent or facilitate migration of pro- duction/population, enhance trade & aid, and increase efficiency of insurance &
feasibility of inventories. We discuss their main features and the nature of innova- tion needed to align these actions with a CSA strategy.
1 Introduction
The evolution of agriculture in the future will be shaped by its response to climate change. Farmers need to adapt their practices to accommodate climatic conditions, and agricultural activities will need to be modified to reduce greenhouse-gas (GHG)
D. Zilberman (*) • B. Gordon
Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] L. Lipper
ISPC-CGIAR, Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected] N. McCarthy
Lead Analytics Inc., Washington, DC, USA e-mail: [email protected]
emissions. But climate change is only one of the major forces that will change the future of agriculture. Others include population growth and increases in income as well as changes in human capital, knowledge, and infrastructure. Much of the change in agriculture will stem from new innovations, both in terms of technologies and institutions.
This paper aims to provide the background and analyze some of the challenges associated with the development and introduction of new innovations in agriculture and food systems in response to climate change. The analysis will emphasize the role of innovations in CSA. The first section will provide an overview of the impact of climate change and possible mechanisms in response to it. The next section will identify the major categories of innovation associated with CSA. We distinguish between technological, managerial, and institutional innovations and between micro (farm level) vs. macro (farm-system) innovations. This will be followed by a discus- sion of the barriers to introduction faced by these innovations, and a conclusion.