全球变化知识资源中心

Urgent action from public, private and civil society stakeholders at the international to local levels is required in four areas: (1) building evidence and assessment tools; (2) strengthening national and local institutions; (3) developing coordinated and evidence-based policies; and (4) increasing financing and its effectiveness.

The current evidence base is inadequate to support effective decision-making, and largely inaccessible to decision-makers at the national and local levels. The spatial and temporal scales of much work addressing climate change impacts on agriculture are not appropriate for national and local-level planning. This is because of uncertainties associated with the outputs of climate models; technical issues associated with the downscaling of models to scales that are more appropriate for decision support; and the limited information on future changes in climate variability at such scales and their impacts on agriculture²¹, which may be much more important for local communities than long-term trends in climate variables²². The development and application of problem-oriented approaches to adaptation planning have considerable potential in identifying robust actions in the face of uncertainty²³. Synergies among global, regional and local studies can also be exploited²⁴. Tools are needed for evaluating the adaptation and mitigation potential of different policies and technologies from local to global scales, covering the impacts of both extreme events and slow-onset changes on agriculture and food security, assessing means of increasing resilience in agriculture and food systems, and identifying options for, and costs of reducing emission growth. Landscape approaches²⁵ and analysis of the options in existing foresight and scenario initiatives^{26, 27} can greatly increase the effectiveness of research efforts at the local and international levels.

Another major gap in the evidence base is identifying barriers to the adoption of agricultural practices that respond to climate change, and means of overcoming these barriers, focusing on the most vulnerable, including smallholder producers, women, the poor and marginalized groups. Although farmers are adapting to changing climate conditions, the adoption of potentially beneficial practices is often low^{28, 29}. There is particular need for robust studies that improve understanding of what works where and why in different agro-ecologies and farming systems, facilitating identification of what constitutes 'climate smartness' in different biophysical and socio-economic contexts.

CSA's second priority action area is strengthening national and local institutions to support adaptive capacity through enhancing people's access to assets, including information. Institutional development has long been a major thrust of agricultural development strategies, although inadequate design or financing has resulted in mixed success³⁰. Empirical evidence suggests that four main areas need public support to complement private efforts: (1) extension and information dissemination, particularly on using evidence to adapt practices to local conditions; (2) coordinated efforts where practices generate positive spillover benefits, for instance by reducing flood risks or pest outbreaks, or preserving biodiversity; (3) comprehensive risk-management strategies for managing extreme weather events that affect many farmers simultaneously; and (4) reliable, timely and equitable access to inputs to support resource-use efficiency²⁸.

National public, private and civil society stakeholders have key roles in reducing information costs and barriers. In addition to strengthening the capacities of extension systems to disseminate site-specific information, tools such as radio programmes and information and communications technologies (ICTs) can be used. Real-time weather information via ICTs is already being deployed by public and private sector actors in agricultural value chains in many countries, and could be greatly extended to include information relevant to CSA practices.

Climate change gives rise to new and increased demands for collective action. Often, to achieve the scale necessary to significantly reduce risks associated with extreme weather events, coordinated efforts are required by many farmers, those involved in managing communal resources and those managing public lands. Multi-stakeholder dialogues to support improved governance of tenure systems for land and water that take into account the interests of women, poor and marginalized groups are a promising direction, in addition to more traditional efforts to increase tenure security over privately held and managed land. Comprehensive risk-management strategies require a better understanding of the robustness of different risk-management instruments under climate uncertainty³¹, and coordination of actions by public, private and civil society actors from the international to local levels³². National governments could provide mechanisms for proactive and integrated risk management, such as a national board that coordinates risk-management strategies and institutions for risk monitoring, prevention and response. The private sector can play a key role in risk management, but effective engagement must be enabled by transparent, efficient and enforceable regulations and innovative public–private partnerships. Social protection programmes that guarantee minimum incomes or food access also affect risk exposure, with potential impacts on production choices, and there has been considerable expansion globally of such programmes in recent years.

CSA practices may require that farmers have access to specific inputs, such as tree seedlings, seeds or fertilizers. Lack of such inputs constrains widespread adoption. Timely access to fertilizer is a key determinant of productivity and efficient resource use, but is often lacking³³. Innovative means of input delivery, including those that rely on ICTs, can address these issues.

The third priority action area for CSA is building enabling policy and regulatory frameworks through increased coordination of agricultural, climate change/environmental and food system policies. An enabling policy environment requires alignment across policy domains, facilitated by dialogue across relevant ministries to address trade-offs, gaps and overlaps. Coordination is particularly important among national agricultural policies, strategies and investment plans and climate change instruments, including national adaptation programmes (NAPs), nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) and climate change investment plans. Of the 44 countries planning NAMAs, 18 have identified agricultural activities as a priority (http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_15/copenhagen_accord/items/5265.php). Participatory scenario development involving structured dialogue between agriculture, food security and climate change stakeholders can guide strategic thinking where complexity, multiple players and future uncertainty are involved.

International support for national efforts must be built on coordinated approaches to climate change, agricultural and food security policy areas, to ensure that capacity strengthening, technology development/transfer and financing enable national CSA actions. This requires greater coherence across multilateral policy processes, including those of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), development of the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals, and work on agricultural and food security policy by the Committee on World Food Security and Nutrition (CFS). The conclusions recently agreed by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) at the UNFCCC Climate Talks (Bonn, June 2014), earlier discussion of food security and climate change at the CFS, and discussion in the UNFCCC on integrated approaches to land may all help to align global policy³⁴.

The fourth priority action area is increasing and improving the targeting of financing to support the transition to CSA. Linking climate finance to traditional sources of agricultural finance is an important part of these efforts. Adapting agricultural systems will require increased upfront investment, and identifying and crediting mitigation co-benefits generated through the adaptation process is an important means of augmenting financial resources (see Box 1).

Corrected online 13 March 2015

In the version of this Perspective originally published, the list of authors and affiliations should have read as below. These errors have been corrected in the online versions of the Perspective.

Leslie Lipper^1*, Philip Thornton^2,3, Bruce M. Campbell^3,4, Tobias Baedeker⁵, Ademola Braimoh⁵, Martin Bwalya⁶, Patrick Caron⁷, Andrea Cattaneo¹, Dennis Garrity⁸, Kevin Henry⁹, Ryan Hottle¹⁰, Louise Jackson¹¹, Andrew Jarvis^3,4, Fred Kossam¹², Wendy Mann¹, Nancy McCarthy¹³, Alexandre Meybeck¹, Henry Neufeldt⁸, Tom Remington¹⁴, Pham Thi Sen¹⁵, Reuben Sessa¹, Reynolds Shula¹⁶, Austin Tibu¹⁷ and Emmanuel F. Torquebiau<sup>7

1</sup>Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.
²International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), PO Box 30709, Nairobi 00100, Kenya.
³Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS), University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Science, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Rolighedsvej 21, DK-1958, Frederiksberg C, Copenhagen, Denmark.
⁴International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Km 17, Recta Cali-Palmira, Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cali, Colombia.
⁵World Bank, Agriculture Global Practice, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433, USA.
⁶New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), International Business Gateway New Road and 6th Road, Midridge Office Park c/o Challenger and Columbia Avenue, Block B Midrand Johannesburg 1685, South Africa.
⁷French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD), TA 179/04, Avenue Agropolis, 34398 Montpellier Cedex 5, France.
⁸World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), United Nations Avenue, Gigiri, PO Box 30677-00100 Nairobi, Kenya.
⁹Colorado State University, School of Global Environmental Sustainability, 108 Johnson Hall, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, USA.
¹⁰Ohio State University (OSU) International Programs in Agriculture and School of Environment and Natural Resources Office of International Programs in Agriculture, 113 Agricultural Administration Building, The Ohio State University, 2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
¹¹University of California, Davis, Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, 3144 PES Building, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616, USA.
¹²Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Management, Malawi, Department of Climate Change and Met Services, PO Box 1808 Blantyre, Malawi.
¹³Law, Economics and Agriculture for Development (LEAD) Analytics, 5136 Nebraska Avenue NW, Washington DC, USA.
¹⁴International Potato Center (CIP), PO Box 31600, Lilongwe 3, Malawi. ¹⁵Northern Mountainous Agriculture and Forestry Science Institute, Viet Nam (NOMAFSI), Phu Ho Commun, Phu Tho District, Phu Tho Province, Viet Nam.
¹⁶Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, Zambia, Department of Agriculture, Mulungushi House, PO Box 50291, Lusaka, Zambia.
¹⁷Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Malawi, Land Resources Conservation Department, PO Box 30291, Lilongwe, Malawi.

*e-mail: leslie.lipper@fao.org