CCAFS Research highlights

Evaluating bean crop management through the Olopa TeSAC

Arely — Mon, 13 Dec 2021 02:24:08 +0100

A participatory research experience with farmers in the dry corridor of Guatemala

Guatemala is one of the most susceptible countries in Central America to climate variation. Seven of its twenty-two departments are located in Central America’s dry corridor, where heat waves have behaved irregularly in recent years; either going on for longer than usual or changing its onset dates as a result of a decline in precipitation during the rainy season.

One of the main crops that farmers develop in the dry corridor is beans, an important crop for food security. This means that the negative impacts of climate variation in the dry corridor can have a profound impact on the food security of families. For this reason, effective agro-climatic risk management has become crucial in Guatemala, as it can lead to more effective agronomic management and decision-making based on the best available climate information.

In order to enable better agro-climatic risk management in the dry corridor, the Climate-Adapted Sustainable Territory (TeSAC) located in Olopa (Chiquimula), conducted a study in collaboration with local farmers, CGIAR's Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS, for its acronym in English) and the Ch'orti 'Regional Peasant Association (ASORECH).

Implementing the dual bean-planting method trials in Olopa, Guatemala

This study looked to determine the effect of two bean planting systems in monoculture: one done in the traditional way that farmers in that region have used for generations, and another in the technically recommended way.

The trial was carried out during the second season, as a strategy to improve production in the rainy season and to be able to store more grain for family food or the sale of surpluses. For the experiment, two lots located in the plots of Mariana Díaz and Miriam Agustín were selected. In each lot, the farmers used both the traditional and the technically recommended planting methods so the results of each in the same lot could be compared, and were farmers who have been part of the TeSAC for more than two years and have been empowered in the use of agroclimatic information and the implementation of CSA practices.

Improving the production of farmers in the region

Throughout the trial, daily records of precipitation and temperature were taken in the lots where the sowing took place, monitoring the environmental conditions in the different phenological states of each crop.

Lot 1: Mariana Díaz

During the first 35 days, Lot 1 experienced a 24-day heat wave (between July 5 and 28), which forced the farmer to carry out three irrigations of 5 mm. In the post-flowering phase, the crop had a surplus of rainfall, registering more than 270 mm of excesses that, due to the texture of the soil and the slope of the field, did not cause any type of damage. The total precipitation was 709 mm.

Gray: Actual precipitation present in the batch
Orange: Crop requirements

Lot 2: Miriam Agustín

In Lot 2 there was also a heatwave – this time for 23-days, between between July 7 and 30. So, three irrigations of 5 mm were also carried out.. The total rainfall was 605 mm, however, the rain was better distributed. Between the flowering and grain-filling phase, the crop had a rainfall surplus of 149 mm.

Gray: Actual precipitation present in the batch
Orange: Crop requirements

The harvest was made in the two central furrows for both batches and the yield was measured through the weight of 100 seeds, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod and number of harvested plants; as well as the weight of the plot and the yields were compared with the farmer's plot.

The results of yields expressed in qq / mz are observed below:

The difference between winning and losing

The yields in Lot 1 with traditional management were very low since the farmer only weeded the crop on day 30 and did not carry out the cultivation work of tilling, or taking steps to protect it against diseases. In addition, the sowing density was significantly lower than that carried out according to the technical recommendations at the time of sowing, which translated into a strong difference in yields.

When comparing between the lots, the average yields obtained show a strong difference between a farmer who adopts some minimal cultural practices (Miriam Agustín) and another who does not adopt any (Mariana Díaz). It is important to emphasize the fact that implementing some cultural practices such as weeding and disease control is reflected in a significant increase in yields.

Harvesting and measuring the beans

The average of both tests under technical management was much higher than that obtained by farmers who sowed in a traditional way, despite not having had the desired density due to waterlogging problems, so it is estimated that these yields could have been even higher.

Based on the above, together with the farmers, it was concluded that it is important to keep the cultivation clean of weeds, adequately control pests and diseases, and increase the planting density - practices that are not commonly carried out in the region.

It was also possible to conclude that there are varieties that perform better than others in the area, under the current climatic conditions, such as ICTA Ligero. The Creole variety "Vaina Morada" also shows to behave well; However, it is evident that the potential of the variety is not used due to the shortcomings mentioned in the management of the crop.

Reducing crop losses through knowledge exchange

Based on the results obtained in Olopa, a training session was conducted with farmers from the TeSAC of Santa Rita in Honduras, focusing on the agronomic management of beans and their main diseases. The water requirements and phenological stages of beans were also discussed together with the farmers, and the results of the research work carried out in Olopa were socialized, emphasizing:

The improved varieties generally outperformed the local variety.
The conditions of the La Prensa community are suitable for growing beans and have the potential to generate very good yields by adopting cultural practices and following agroclimatic forecasts.
It is highly recommended to encourage more small-scale planting of beans in subsistence and infra subsistence farmers.
The Traditional 2 trial tripled the Traditional 1 yields just by implementing cultural practices.

Knowledge exchange in Honduras

This work was carried out within the framework of a collaboration between the Agroclimas Phase 2 and TeSAC projects of CCAFS, which sought to generate evidence of the implementation of the Participatory Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture (PICSA) methodology, on management of sowing dates or other cultivation practices.

Evaluating the transparency, accuracy, completeness, comparability and consistency of GHG inventories in national communications to the UNFCCC

Sadie — Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:17:52 +0100

A review of countries’ most recent official agricultural greenhouse gas inventories shows large data gaps for developing countries and inconsistency in methodology amongst countries. Access the data on each countries’ agriculture and land-use emissions and removals below.

Download the database here

Countries party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) currently provide a national inventory of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and discuss mitigation actions in their national communications (NC) reports. However, official country data for agriculture has been lacking, predominantly from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), making it difficult to compare countries and identify mitigation priorities.

The CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) Low Emissions Development (LED) Flagship reviewed and compiled official UNFCCC country reported GHG data and inventory methodology within the most recent NC reports with a focus on what they provide in terms of global GHG accounting:

Where are net agricultural emissions the greatest?
Where are agricultural emissions per capita the greatest?
What methodological assumptions underly inconsistencies in the reporting and their significance?
How do inventory results differ based on global warming potential (GWP) selection?

The database reflects national GHG inventory submissions based on data from 1994 through 2019 for 194 countries.

What are the country reporting requirements set by the unfccc?

Most LMICs are considered Non-Annex I countries, and are required to submit their first NC within three years of joining the Convention, and every four years thereafter (17/CP.8), provided that funding for the preparation of reports is available. Non-Annex I countries also submit their biennial update reports every two years beginning in 2014. Non-Annex I countries should use the Revised 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines) for estimating and reporting their carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions at a minimum, and should use the global warming potential (GWP) determined in the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) (CH₄ = 21; N₂O = 310) based on a 100-year time scale if aggregating emissions in CO₂ equivalence (CO₂e). For Non-Annex I countries, CCAFS LED collected this data from countries’ GHG inventory tables in countries most recent NC or biennial update report.

High-income countries (Annex I countries) are required to submit their NC to the secretariat every four years (decision 2/CP.17), but the requirements are much higher. They must:

submit annual inventories in common reporting format tables and national inventory reports with 1990 as the base year for the estimation and reporting of inventories (decision 24/CP.19);
cover emissions and removals of direct GHGs (CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, perfluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride) from five sectors (energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture; land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF); and waste);
use the methodologies provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines); and
use GWP from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (CH₄ = 25; N₂O = 298) prescribed in decision 24/CP.19.

All Annex I GHG data was extracted from common reporting format tables as they contained the most recent inventory.

In the LULUCF sector, key differences exist between reporting with Revised 1996 or 2006 Guidelines. The 1996 IPCC Guidelines for GHG accounting separates agriculture and LULUCF. The 2006 IPCC guidelines (required to be used after 2015 by Annex I countries) linked agriculture and LULUCF in one category known as Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). However, in terms of reporting with common reporting format tables, Annex I national inventories will continue to have two separate chapters for Agriculture and LULUCF beyond 2015 (decision 24/CP.19). The difference between agriculture and LULUCF is mainly that emissions or removals and carbon storage are possible in LULUCF, whereas there are only emissions in agriculture. Hence, soil carbon is not considered within the agriculture sector but under Cropland and Grassland in LULUCF.

UNFCCC agricultural emissions and agricultural emissions per capita results

China, U.S.A. and Brazil reported the highest total agricultural non-CO₂ emissions among all countries, respectively, accounting for 33% of total global agricultural emissions. The top ten emitting countries accounted for 53% of global emissions (Table 1, Fig. 1). Of the top ten agricultural emitters, two were Annex I countries (U.S.A., Russia) and the remaining eight were Non-Annex I countries. Seven countries, six of which were Non-Annex I, did not report any agricultural emissions.

Table 1. Ranking of top 10 from highest to lowest agricultural emitters from the UNFCCC inventory by (i) total emissions, (ii) percentage of total gross emissions, and (iii) emissions per capita based in 2018 using GWPs from AR5. U.S.A. = United States of America. U.R. = United Republic.

Agricultural emissions (megatons per year)		Agricultural emissions as percentage of national emissions		Emissions per capita (metric ton)
Country	CO₂e	Country	%	Country	CO₂e
China	932.9	Vanuatu	87.4	New Zealand	8.7
U.S.A.	611.2	Chad	83.3	Uruguay	8.1
Brazil	506.9	Rwanda	82.7	Mongolia	6.3
India	493.7	Burkina Faso	81.9	Paraguay	4.6
Pakistan	173.5	Guinea	80.6	Ireland	4.4
Tanzania	172.5	Uruguay	74.9	Guinea	3.4
Indonesia	122.3	Cameroon	73.6	Namibia	3.4
Argentina	116.1	Bhutan	66.2	U.R. of Tanzania	3.1
Russia	111.1	Mauritania	65.9	Mali	3.0
Mexico	101.6	Sudan	64.8	Australia	2.9

Figure 1. Annual national agricultural emissions converted to CO₂e using GWPs from IPCC AR5. Grey countries = no NC or data.

On average, agriculture contributed 19% of countries’ gross national GHG emissions. The contribution ranged from 0 to 87% among countries (Table 1, Fig. 2). The average for Non-Annex I countries was 21%, and 12% for Annex I countries. Seventeen countries, all Non-Annex I, reported more than 50% of their national emissions from agriculture.

Figure 2. Annual national agricultural emissions as a percentage of national emissions converted to CO2e using GWPs from IPCC AR5. Grey countries = no NC or data.

The top 10 agricultural emissions per capita consisted of three Annex I countries (New Zealand, Ireland and Australia) using GWPs from AR5 (Table 1, Fig. 3) and AR4. Two Annex I countries were in the top 10 agricultural emissions per capita using AR2 GWPs. Populations in Non-Annex I countries, which already struggle with food security, are rapidly increasing and intensifying agriculture, leading to higher emissions (Smith et al. 2007).

Figure 3. Annual national agricultural emissions per capita converted to CO₂e using GWPs from IPCC AR5. Grey countries = no NC or data.

UNFCCC Inventory methodology results

More than half of the countries used the IPCC 2006 guidelines (Table 2), including 72 non-Annex I countries and 41 Annex I countries (two Annex I countries did not report what IPCC Guidance was used). Fifty-five Non-Annex I countries used the Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines. Twenty-two Non-Annex I countries used a combination of 2006 and Revised 1996 guidelines. Three Non-Annex I and two Annex I countries did not specify the guidelines used. Most Non-Annex I countries used the GWP recommended in AR2 (82 of 154). Twenty-four Non-Annex I countries used GWP from AR4 and 13 Non-Annex I countries used GWP from AR5. All Annex I countries used AR4 GWPs, though two countries did not specify the GWPs used.

Table 2. Count of Non-Annex I and Annex I countries’ IPCC National GHG Guidance Report and Assessment Reports used to compile their respective GHG inventories.

IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance Report	IPCC Assessment Report
IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance Report	AR2	AR4	AR5	NS	NA	Total
Non-Annex I Countries
2006 IPCC Guidelines	39	15	8	10	0	72
Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines	27	7	1	20	0	55
Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines; 2006 IPCC Guidelines	14	2	3	3	0	22
Not Specified (NS)	2	0	1	0	0	3
Not Applicable (NA; NC does not exist)	0	0	0	0	2	2
Total	82	24	13	33	2	154
Annex I Countries
2006 IPCC Guidelines	0	41	0	2	0	43
Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines	0	0	0	0	0	0
Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines; 2006 IPCC Guidelines	0	0	0	0	0	0
Not Specified (NS)	0	2	0	0	0	0
Not Applicable (NA; NC does not exist)	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	0	43	0	0	0	43

With respect to land-use GHG reporting, 57 Non-Annex I countries reported emissions using AFOLU formatting and 115 countries separated Agriculture and LULUCF. Although 2006 IPCC Guidelines suggest the use of AFOLU reporting, all Annex I countries reported using LULUCF, consistent with Decision 24/CP.19. For agricultural per capita emissions using SAR GWPs, the top 10 emitters consisted of eight Non-Annex I and two Annex I countries. However, using AR4 GWPs for agricultural per capita emissions, the top 10 emitters consisted of three Annex I countries and seven Non-Annex I countries. Although per capita emissions did not significantly differ based on the GWP used relative to AR5 GWPs (p = 0.39 for AR5 v. AR2 GWPs; p = 0.85 for AR5 v. AR4 GWPs), these results highlight the importance of a uniform methodology to accurately rank and prioritize GHG hotspots and mitigation measures.

Promoting digital cooperation and agroecological traceability with Agroecomakers

Arely — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 03:29:34 +0100

The Latin American region contains five of the ten most biologically rich countries on the planet and provides the broadest set of ecosystem services in the world (World Bank, 2020). However, agricultural intensification and extensification processes have pushed their natural resources beyond their thresholds.

Changes in land use, practices that degrade soils and the phenomenon of climate change, put its biodiversity in check. In this challenging context, Latin America’s food systems are sustained by family farming, which reaches approximately 15 million families with farms that, in most cases, do not exceed 10 hectares (FAO, 2015-2017). These ecologically and culturally heterogeneous family farms produce around 50% of the food that supplies the region (Truitt Nakata, G. and Zeigler, M., 2014).

Today it is recognized that hundreds of thousands of family farmers use agroecological practices that apply ecological principles such as biological diversity and structural complexity, which contribute to adaptation, mitigation to climate change, and low carbon footprints. These practices are anchored in local indigenous knowledge, which has played a fundamental role in the management and conservation of natural resources over time. However, the services they provide are undervalued in the market due to lack of traceability (Karippacheril et al, 2017).

The COVID-19 pandemic has stretched small farmers and their associations, not only in terms of maintaining the food supply "from farm to table", but also by requiring them to transition to the use of digital applications and e-commerce platforms.

Technology and digital culture for agroecology

A factor that hinders this transition is poor connectivity in the Latin American countryside. According to criteria such as internet use, presence of devices, access to data, and adequate speed, connectivities of 21%, 30% and 37% are estimated in rural areas of Peru, Ecuador and Colombia, respectively, with a gap of 20 % between rural and urban areas (Ziegler et al, 2020).

Small farmer also face agroecological challenges in the form of the complexity and diversity of production systems. As a social and political movement, agroecology seeks the autonomy of information technologies that depend on and are owned by multinational companies related to the agro-industrial sector. Participatory guarantee systems that rely on local processes, on the other hand, offer the perspectives of a direct relationship and bonds of trust between actors (Marchetti et al, 2020).

Agroecomakers

In response to these challenges, the Agroecomakers application has been developed with the financial support of the Research Institute for Development (IRD, France) in the BIOINCA international laboratory, which is made up of the Universidad de los Andes (Colombia) and the Pontificia Universidad Católica (Ecuador).

In its first version, Agroecomakers seeks to adapt a traceability system to the diversity and complexity of agroecological systems, relying on participatory research and citizen science to assess the knowledge of farmers in scientific production. As a result, the application has an interactive and inclusive system where the user can collect information from icons without needing to know how to read or write.

View of the mobile version of the Agroecomakers application. © Claudia Nieto

The application has been developed within the framework of the project “Agroecology for climate action in Latin America: Strengthening the evidence for low-carbon, climate-resilient small-scale agriculture“ pilot project in Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru; developed by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), in association with the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, the Andean Initiative of the International Potato Center (CIP), IRD and the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD).

Its objective is to generate evidence on the contributions of agroecology to climate resilience and low carbon emissions from family farming, envisioning sustainable food systems. With the collaboration of local partners EkoRural (Ecuador), CEAR (Peru), and REDMAC (Colombia).

Agroecomakers has a web version and a mobile version, for the contexts of local partners: plots, farms and landscapes that are anchored in agroecological principles. One of the most crucial innovations of the application is that it will allow farmers to collect information without internet connections on their farms.

Agroecomakers differs from other digital systems that are focused on specific crops, since it also focuses on the synergies between a diverse range of agricultural and livestock activities, and the transformation and production of inputs, rather than just production per se. It also considers services such as carbon capture, biodiversity conservation, soil fertilization, plant association, and presence of pollinators.

Associated vegetables model

The documentation of these services with a participatory research approach will allow evaluating the efficiency of the farm to reorient and improve its agroecological functioning (synergies between components) through statistical studies and machine learning.

These agroecological services may be valued both in the food production markets and in those for carbon capture, protection of biodiversity, and preservation of cultures.

Application of home experiments to document ecological indicators.

Development and next steps

The application is in a training phase that seeks to familiarize a total of 120 small-scale farmers that produce in agroecological ecosystems in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru with its innovative features. The training is carried out through interviews that record not only quantitative and qualitative information about agroecosystems, but also the voices and accents of their users.

This unprecedented experience is a first pilot for ecological traceability, production logistics, and cooperation in participatory research. In the future, Agroecomakers will be able to function as a participatory agroecological certification platform, linking farmers, consumers, and transporters at the level of food production, distribution and quality assurance systems.

Although the Agroecology project will, end in the coming months, the mobile and web application Agroecomakers will continue to validate and develop through its own dynamics of 'self-training' and adjustments in real time through other ecosystems, organizations, and user communities in Colombia. Ecuador and Peru.

For further information:

Alejandra Arce is an Associate Scientist, Andean Agrobiodiversity, CIP and Stéphane Dupas is a Research Scientist at IRD

Transforming food systems relies on strong partnerships and cycles of innovation

Leanne — Wed, 24 Nov 2021 17:25:06 +0100

A decade of partnership between the University of Leeds and CCAFS have shown how the next phase of CGIAR research and partnerships can drive innovation in climate-smart food systems.

Ten years of partnership between the University of Leeds and CCAFS have shown how the next phase of CGIAR research and partnerships can drive innovation in climate-smart food systems. This innovation is underpinned by setting and contributing to research agendas, and two-way dialogue with policymakers and practitioners from across the food system. This dialogue is the engine of innovation, and the fuel is the knowledge that comes with detailed and carefully executed research.

From a natural science perspective, research begins with theory and models, supported by data, to identify the risks associated with our changing climates. From a systems perspective, research gives an understanding of the resilience of food systems to those risks. Understanding both the climate risks and the societal resilience to those risks leads to identification of adaptation options. Systems perspectives also tell us the way in which food systems contribute to climate risk (e.g. greenhouse gases). As part of this process, new questions are uncovered that can then then trigger the next cycle of innovation.

The CCAFS-Leeds partnership has fostered a number of innovation cycles, which affords me that opportunity to use the collaboration as way of illustrating how research and dialogue can generate practical knowledge. Crop-climate modelling early in the partnership found that fractional uncertainty due to temperature-driven processes in our crop model was on average larger than climate model uncertainty. This in turn led to a greater emphasis on capturing crop model uncertainty by using meta-analysis, which, along with other results from the partnership fed into research and policy agendas via the IPCC.

Early work from the partnership also identified that crop development was a dominant source of uncertainty from crop models, which led to further work to reduce that uncertainty. It also led to new methods of analyzing climate model output alongside seed system data in order to assess whether or not breeding is keeping pace with climate change. These methods reframed uncertainty from a potentially unhelpful range of possibilities at a given time into an assessment of the likely timing of important changes. Wider application of these methods led to an analysis of the timing of important rainfall changes globally, and this was presented at the 50th session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA50).

The results of the breeding study were stark: the process of breeding, delivery and adoption of new maize varieties in Africa, which can take up to 30 years, is lagging Africa’s changing climates. The breeding pipelines produce seed that is, in a sense, out of date by the time they reach farmers’ fields. Whilst the impact was a few percent reduction in yield, the results made it clear that both adaptation and mitigation are needed now if these impacts are to be avoided, and the study concluded with specific actions that could be taken in response to the issue.

Advising on the specific needs for adaptation and transformation towards climate-smart food systems is a sensible first step in putting research to good use. Nevertheless, knowing what to aim for is only useful if there is at least an indication of how to get there. The partnership has also worked on pathways of transformation by, for example, identifying some of the transformations that different types of farmers would need in order to radically shift agriculture away from business as usual trajectories, as well as the necessary levers to stimulate and support adaptation and change.

One ongoing theme of the work in the partnership has been the ability to combine grounded (or ‘bottom up’) analyses such as these with the top-down approaches of modelling, thus allowing us to navigate the uncertainty inherent in climate prediction, whilst planning and enabling transformation. A more recent, and very welcome, recognition amongst the research community is the importance of ensuring that these transformations are accompanied by critical analysis of its justice implications.

The agenda-setting role of the partnership will ensure that many of the current areas of work continue well beyond the lifetime of CCAFS. For example:

Understanding and measuring climate-smartness. A series of studies (see here and here) is developing indices of climate smartness – quantifying the extent to which adaptation, mitigation and increased productivity can be achieved simultaneously in agricultural practice. These indices enable the inherent trade-offs involved in agricultural planning to be articulated. The work is now being combined with crop-climate modelling in order to map out climate-smart futures.

Supporting policymakers in making climate-smart choices. Understanding and measuring climate-smartness is a first step in fostering it. There is a need to navigate the many trade-offs involved, and take advantage of the synergies. This goes well beyond CSA – it is about climate-smart food systems. For example, how can trade and domestic agricultural policies support sustainable nutrition security? The ongoing GCRF-AFRICAP project is combining systems thinking with crop-climate and emissions modelling in order to develop transformative co-produced policy pathways to climate-smart nutrition-sensitive futures. The work is grounded in a novel integrated assessment methodology that combines model projections with disciplinary expert judgment from across the natural and social sciences.
Building systemic resilience across scales. The question of how to upscale climate smart agriculture has been an important topic since the concept first evolved. Modelling and systems thinking tends to favor coarser spatial scales, and place-based studies, e.g. on the value of disruption in transformation, are hard to generalize to regional and country levels. As climate-smartness becomes both measurable and entrained into policy, integrating the evidence- and action- base across a range of scales is a clear next step. This is one of the goals of ClimBeR.

Andrew Challinor is a Professor of Climate Impacts at the University of Leeds.

Why Ghana’s climate-smart agriculture profile is focused on gender

Dansira — Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:17:45 +0200

In West African rural areas there are significant gender inequalities in terms of access to opportunities and resources. This in turn inevitably results in greater gender-based vulnerability and coping difficulties.

This is why agricultural research in Ghana is focusing some of its programs on trying to understand how deep the gender gap in climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practice really is.

The CGIAR research program on Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) has developed an initial profile for climate-smart agriculture uptake in Ghana with regard to gender. The study provides an overview of gender-sensitive CSA practices, their level of adoption and role they play in gender empowerment in the country.

Gender Profile of Climate-Smart Agriculture in Ghana

This aims to inform decisions about integrating gender-responsive actions into agriculture and CSA development plans at various scales. It provides a baseline that can be used as a springboard for establishing vulnerability indexes based on agroecological zones in Ghana. It also can be used to inform policy decisions related to CSA investments.

Reducing the agricultural sector gender gap will increase yields and reduce hunger

Agriculture is one of the key factors in Ghana’s economic growth and development process. A 2019 study by the International Labour Organization (ILO) says that 33.5% of Ghana’s labour force is engaged in the rural sector.

But agricultural work has a pronounced gender gap in favour of men. The population of Ghana is 49% female, of whom only 22.8% are engaged in the rural sector. Although the economic status of Ghanaian women working in the rural sector is better than it is in other West African countries, it remains still quite unattractive by global standards.

Recent studies have also shown that female-headed households in semi-arid Ghana are more vulnerable compared to male-headed ones when it comes to adaptive capacities.

In 2019, the World Bank stated that a large part of Ghana’s rural female population had limited access to productive resources such as land, livestock and necessary agricultural services. It said that women tend to operate smaller farms, are less likely to own property or livestock, have less access to credit, and tend not to benefit from training or extension services.

At the same time, a report by UNDP estimates that if women farmers had the same access to productive resources as men, this would likely increase yields by up to 30%. This could raise total national agricultural output by 4%, and result in a 17% reduction of hunger.

Source: Gender Profile of Climate-Smart Agriculture in Ghana report 2021

Five Takeaways from the Gender CSA Profile

The gender CSA profile gives an overview of agriculture and climate change in Ghana, with special attention gender aspects related to land ownership or rights, crop and livestock productions, forestry, value chains, food security and climate change. Here are five takeaways from it.

Women have limited access to land

Source: Gender Profile of Climate-Smart Agriculture in Ghana report 2021

Ghana is in many ways a patriarchal society, where women are excluded from important investment decisions. Only 30% of women own land, and the land that women do own is significantly less valuable (around 3 times less valuable). In most situations, a married woman can only access land through her husband. Access to ownership and control of lands therefore constitutes one of the most important constraints facing women farmers in Ghana.

Crop production is highly gendered

In Ghana, most crop farmers are women, but the majority of their output is destined for household consumption. As a result, women’s agricultural production is able to meet the food needs of their families, but it does not generate much income for them.

This is partly because crop production is gendered. For instance, women tend to primarily produce cereals such as maize, rise, millet and sorghum and vegetables.

Women’s involvement in livestock production remains limited

Ghana’s livestock sector has the potential to transform the livelihoods of men, women and youth. But where men are involved in large-scale sheep and goat production, women tend to be engaged in the production of poultry, pigs and small ruminants.

The Ministry of Agriculture has tried to increase women’s and young people’s participation in livestock production, particularly in guinea fowl production and small ruminants, by means of a training series aimed at those groups. Unfortunately, women's involvement in this series has been limited due to a lack of finances. This highlights women's poor access to productive resources, and constitutes a significant barrier for women in many development interventions.

Women operate as aggregators in Ghana’s value chain

Ghanaian women dominate Ghana’s small-scale agricultural basic production, except when the product has a higher value-added, or is traditionally ‘male-cultivated” crop.

Women primarily operate as aggregators in the agricultural value chain. This means they buy food from producers and resell them in bulk to mostly male wholesalers. While aggregators are a vital part of Ghana’s relatively small-scale agricultural sector, it tends not to be very profitable work – aside from one or two notable exceptions in the form of “market queens” who control all transactions pertaining to a particular commodity in a market (WFP, 2017).

Because they operate on a small-scale, and often lack capital and storage facilities, most aggregators are not able to purchase large quantities of products, get good prices for storage, or store products that are not sold, thereby decreasing their capacity for generating higher profit margins.

Women are highly climate-vulnerable

Climate change affects men and women differently. Women and women-led households are more vulnerable to climatic events and have less ability to respond to the effects of climate change on their livelihood. This is partly because women face numerous obstacles to accessing productive inputs, assets and services. This not only heightens their vulnerability to food insecurity, but also considerably reduces their contribution to overall agricultural production.

Responding and adapting to climatic stresses is more difficult for women due to their lack of access to land, financial services, social capital and technology. Thus, vulnerability to climate change is worsened by gender disparity.

How the gender CSA Profile can help

As we have seen, the Gender profile for climate-smart agriculture uptake in Ghana identifies gender-related challenges for the agricultural sector in the country.

This profile can be used to establish vulnerability indexes for each agroecological zone in Ghana. These in turn are vital for informing policy decisions, and increasing support for CSA investments in Ghana.

This study was supported by the International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank to the Accelerating Impact of CGIAR Climate Research for Africa (AICCRA) project. We would like to thank the Ghana CCAFS Platform for the data collection exercises. We are also grateful to staff of CSIR-Oil Palm Research Institute and University of Ghana Agricultural Research Station of Kade for their inputs

Launch of the second version of the manual for Local Technical Agroclimatic Committees (MTA)

Arely — Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:12:22 +0200

The scaling and sustainability of the Local Technical Agroclimatic Committees (MTA) in Latin America has meant the democratization of agroclimatic information as a model vehicle to support timely, accessible, and useful climate services for decision-making in the agricultural sector. Thanks to inter-institutional alliances in each country, the MTA creates an enabling environment that supports climate services to be based on the local context as a mechanism to reduce the risks associated with expected climate variability by implementing integrated and inclusive measures.

With more than 50 MTAs established in 11 countries (Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay and Chile), about 500 thousand farmers receive agroclimatic information, which has been possible thanks to the commitment of more than 350 institutions throughout the region. In this scenario, together with the Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies (IDEAM - Colombia), through this BlogPost, we launched the second version of the Manual of Agroclimatic Technical Tables (MTA): Implementation Guide to support the process of co-production, translation, communication and use of agroclimatic information for countries interested in implementing this successful approach.

Find the second version of the MTA manual here: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/114605

What's new in this second edition: all the steps of establishment and development of the MTAs have been reviewed and updated, considerations related to monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are included to assess the scope of the implementation of the MTAs in the territories and a new module related to mitigation practices to assess the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction potential of different agricultural practices and systems.

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the transformations generated by the MTA

In this second version of the manual for Local Technical Agroclimatic Committees (MTA): Implementation Guide, an eighth step called “Monitoring and Evaluation - M&E” is integrated with some instruments used to monitor and identify the transformations that MTAs have generated in the different countries. In addition, the M&E results allow showing the MTA's achievements to donors and stakeholders, ensuring more funding and collaboration.

For example, the monitoring instrument was designed with the purpose of improving both the participation scenario and its scope, and was developed in such a way that it was replicable in all the MTA in Latin America, focusing on 5 fundamental aspects: 1) characterization of the participants; 2) characterization of the local environment; 3) perception of the quality of the information; 4) scope of agroclimatic information; and 5) suggestions. This instrument is being applied in the MTA of Guatemala (working document related here) and recently in Colombia.

* The Monitoring instrument was developed within the framework of the Agroclimas Phase II project, part of the portfolio of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) and “Adapting agriculture to the climate today, for tomorrow” ( AcToday), led by Columbia University.

New mitigation module

A new component included in the second version of the manual is the identification of mitigation practices to assess the potential for GHG reduction / elimination. These practices are in accordance with the agroclimatic information generated in the MTA and the productive systems prioritized in each context. Using tools such as the Cool Farm Tool, farmers and agricultural technicians can identify “activities within farms that may have an opportunity for mitigation or potential for carbon sequestration” in order to know which production systems or agricultural practices generate the greatest quantity of GHG emissions, and in that sense determine the mitigation potential and identify systems with the potential to store carbon.

New and ongoing initiatives related to climate services

This new version of the manual for Local Technical Agroclimatic Committees (MTA) joins a series of efforts being made by CCAFS and the International Bioversity Alliance and CIAT, to bring climate services to the agricultural sector of Latin America, through :

• The project "Generation of knowledge through participatory processes to address a Just Transition path in Boyacá - Colombia", funded by Porticus, which is helping farmers in the municipalities of Boyacá and members of the MTA in the department's, understand the mitigation potential of their food production and the market opportunities to increase their income by selling low-carbon emissions products. Within the framework of this project, the second version of the MTA manual described here has been generated.

• The project “Agroecology for Climate Action: Strengthening the Evidence for Low-Carbon, Climate-Resilient Small-Scale Agriculture in Latin America” focused on Colombia, Ecuador and Peru

• The project “Implementation of participatory climate services in communities of Zacapa, El Progreso and Chiquimula” of the Pro-Resilience initiative of the World Food Program (financed by the European Union) focused on eastern Guatemala, for the implementation of Integrated Services Participative Climate for Agriculture (PICSA), an approach that allows to efficiently connect and land the agroclimatic information of the MTAs, supporting the planning and decision-making of the producer.

• The model of the Academy of Climate Services proposed by IRI, which is being implemented in Guatemala and Colombia, is part of the second version of the MTA Manual. It is supported by 3 pillars: (1) Development of a transversal space to identify initiatives, challenges and opportunities related to climate services in each country, (2) Development of certifications or short courses for students and professionals, to train and support them in the needs that they have in their environments on climate services and the (3) Development of a university curriculum to train the new generation of experts in climate services in the countries.

For now, the Local Technical Agroclimatic Committees (MTA) will continue to contribute to building climate resilience and reducing climate risk, with the active participation of farmers, scientists, field technicians, representatives of the public and private sectors, to achieve agricultural development in Latin America.

Find the second version of the MTA manual here.

In some places outside livestock production may not be viable in the future due to extreme heat stress, says new paper

Lili — Mon, 20 Sep 2021 08:35:30 +0200

Without massive mitigation and adaptation, outdoor livestock production in many parts of the tropics may not be possible later this century due to heat stress.

A new paper* presents new information on projected increases in extreme heat stress in five of the major domesticated animal species (cattle, sheep, goats, poultry, and pigs) during the present century.

Current domesticated livestock niches will become hotter and wetter, and extreme heat stress will become more pervasive. By the 2050s, some locations will become too hot and humid for animals to thrive without considerable adaptation. In such areas, extensive animal production may no longer be possible.

Authors assembled projected climate data for current and future time slices (years 2000, 2050 and 2090) in response to a lower and a higher greenhouse gas emission scenario to simulate feasible future climatic conditions.

Some 8% of the global cattle herd is currently located in areas with 8 days per year of extreme heat stress in 2000. The number of days per year of extreme heat stress increases to 19 and 24 in 2050 under the two scenarios (SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5), respectively. By 2090, the percentage of cattle affected has declined slightly under one of the scenarios (SSP1-2.6). This is because this scenario envisages that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will peak in 2060. Under the other scenario (SSP5-8.5), by 2090, more than 60% of the global cattle herd is projected to experience nearly 70 days per year of extreme heat stress. This is because this scenario represents a very high GHG-emission future. Acclimation and adaptation can occur within and between generations, but unabated extreme heat stress may severely affect the animal's reproductive cycle, reduce feed intake and production, and eventually lead to death.

Figure 1. Change in the number of days per year above “extreme stress” values from 2000 to the 2090s for SSP5-8.5, estimated using the temperature humidity index (THI). Data mapped for each species’ current global distribution (Gilbert et al., 2018). Gray areas show no change from zero. Regional boundaries shown are for the IPCC subregions (Iturbide et al., 2020). (a) cattle, (b) goats, (c) sheep, (d) pigs, (e) poultry

Although our results are quite worrying, adaptation options exist that can help reduce the impacts of heat stress in smallholder systems. Some lower cost strategies include providing simple sheds and installing fans in sheds, animal baths and roof soaking.”

Philip Thornton, CCAFS Priorities and Policies for CSA Flagship Leader

In addition, exploiting existing variation in heat tolerance among different breeds and species may be a key adaptation strategy. Such shifts have been occurring already: from large ruminants to more heat-resilient goats for dairy production in Mediterranean systems, and from cattle to camels in pastoral systems in East Africa, for instance.

Higher input livestock production systems may need increasing investments in farm infrastructure if they are to adapt to increasing heat stress risk. There is a wide range of different ventilation systems, cooling systems, and building designs for confined and seasonally confined intensive livestock systems (pigs, poultry, beef, dairy) in temperate regions.

There is still a lot we don’t know about how increased heat stress will impact domesticated livestock populations and how it will affect production and productivity, especially for species other than cattle. We need to be able to provide context-specific, concrete recommendations to livestock keepers and policymakers that can help them adapt."

Philip Thornton, CCAFS Priorities and Policies for CSA Flagship Leader

* The paper was authored by Philip Thornton (CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)), Gerald Nelson (University of Illinois), Dianne Mayberry (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)), Mario Herrero (CSIRO, Cornell University).

Philip Thornton is the CCAFS Priorities and Policies for CSA Flagship Leader. Lili Szilagyi is the Communications Consultant for the CCAFS Priorities and Policies for CSA Flagship.

Impact of COVID-19 on Guatemala's Agriculture Sector

Lauren — Tue, 24 Aug 2021 15:05:15 +0200

Click here to read the full publication (Only available in Spanish)

CCAFS explored the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on Guatemala's food production systems.

The closures and safety measures adopted worldwide in response to the coronavirus outbreak continue to have profound consequences on the agricultural sector around the world.

In Guatemala, the restrictions on mobility and suspension of farming activities affected the early and late crop cycles, thus impacting much of the food production generated throughout 2020. These impacts affected several production systems and different types of producers, which in normal years are usually affected by reductions in yields due to climate variability.

To better understand and estimate how much these farmers could be affected in the medium term if they suffer climate impact on their production systems, the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) and the Climate Change Unit of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food of Guatemala (MAGA), conducted 213 surveys to find out more about farmers perception of the impacts of preventive isolation on the agricultural sector of Guatemala.

Insight into the variability of GHG emissions from smallholder dairy farms

Sadie — Wed, 28 Jul 2021 00:49:26 +0200

Seasons play a larger role in mitigation than most agriculture emissions data suggest. Especially when farmers use different management practices across seasons, like smallholder dairy farmers in Indonesia.

Data is always the bottleneck of assessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in smallholder dairy farms. More data is needed to understand variation in farming practices adopted by smallholder dairy farmers due to seasonality. With more accurate and precise data of when farmers use which practices, policymakers and practitioners can refine interventions with the greatest potential to reduce GHG emissions on smallholder dairy farms according to key localities and seasonal practices.

However, collecting this data is time-consuming and labor-intensive. Often, GHG emission assessment applies a cross-sectional approach, or data collection at one moment in time. These approaches cannot capture the variation of farming practices throughout the year. Therefore, researchers from the Animal Production Systems group at Wageningen University (WUR), supported by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, conducted a study to assess seasonal differences in GHG emissions from Indonesian dairy farms, and evaluate the implications of the number of visits per farm on the variation of the estimated GHG emissions.

A smallholder dairy farm in Indonesia

Seasonal GHG emission variability

The tropical climate in Indonesia has two distinctive seasons: rainy and dry. To evaluate the impact of farming practices on GHG emission assessments, we compared GHG emissions between the two seasons. We found that the GHG emission per unit of milk was significantly higher in the rainy season than in the dry season. The contributions of GHG emissions from different farming processes determined the GHG emission estimates in both seasons. The processes were categorized into four groups:

Enteric fermentation
Manure management
Forage cultivation
Purchased feeds

Among all processes, enteric fermentation was the largest contributor to GHG emissions per unit of milk from Indonesian smallholder dairy farms. Enteric fermentation is a digestive process in cattle and other ruminants by which carbohydrates are broken down by microorganisms, releasing methane through burps. Feed plays a major role in enteric fermentation. Highly digestible feeds can reduce methane emissions from enteric fermentation.

Our study revealed that Indonesian smallholder dairy farmers increase the amount of concentrate and rice straw in the dry season to compensate for the low availability of elephant grass. This strategy improves feed digestibility, hence reducing enteric fermentation. Although feeding concentrate is favorable to digestibility, this practice should be applied cautiously to avoid feed-food competition when the ingredients of concentrate are edible for humans. However, this is not the case in Indonesian smallholder dairy farms because the concentrate for dairy cattle is mostly made from wheat pollard and rice bran, by-products of the milling industry.

Manure management was the second-largest contributor to GHG emissions in this study. It includes methane and nitrous oxide emissions from manure collection for biogas production and application on the land. The GHG emission from manure management in the rainy season was higher than in the dry season. We also observed that the farmers collected less manure in the dry season. Consequently, manure from the farms ends up in water bodies. In this case, GHG emissions from manure in water is very low, but this practice leads to other environmental burdens such as leaching.

Another difference in manure management across seasons is higher manure collection for biogas production in the rainy season than in the dry season. This practice leads to higher methane emissions related to biogas losses. We also observed more manure application to grow elephant grass in the rainy season. Simultaneously, the farmers also apply inorganic fertilizer in the rainy season as an attempt to maximize yield during the high rainfall. Therefore, over-fertilization increases GHG emissions in the rainy season (Figure 1).

Figure 1. GHG emissions per unit of milk (kg CO2-eq kg-1 FPCM) produced by Indonesian smallholder dairy farms in the rainy and the dry season (adopted from Table 3 Apdini et al. 2021).

How we're transforming food systems under a changing climate

Rhys — Thu, 24 Jun 2021 15:20:06 +0200

With over 100 partner organizations, CCAFS launched a new manifesto for transforming food systems under climate changes in a virtual round-the-world relay event on 25 June 2020.

A year on, the initiative is delivering on the actions it set out for a climate-smart future.

‘The Actions to Transform Food Systems Under Climate Change’ report (the ‘transformation report’ hereafter) proposed 11 transformative actions across four action areas: reroute, de-risk, reduce, and realign.

Looking back since the launch, there is clear evidence of progress made globally on each of the actions proposed by the transformation report.

To supplement a CCAFS blog I co-authored with Lisa Rebert on how the transformation report is igniting action in a mega year for climate diplomacy, this research highlight explores many of the activities under each of the four action areas.

Read the blog

These actions have been led by CCAFS and its partners over the last year, and show great promise for major transformation on a global scale.

Remember, this is just the beginning. If you have ideas on how to act, get in touch.

Reroute farming and rural livelihoods to new trajectories

FACT Dialogue

Joining forces to protect the world’s forests through responsible and sustainable trade, 24 countries launched the Forest, Agriculture and Commodity Trade (FACT) Dialogue for the UN COP26 climate summit.

It has taken significant steps to foster concrete and robust government commitments on zero-deforestation and sustainable agriculture, promoting sustainable trade and supply chains of agricultural commodities.

Through multi-stakeholder consultations, the FACT Dialogue aims to agree on principles for collaborative action, a shared roadmap on sustainable land use and international trade, and take action that protects forests, all the while promoting development and trade.

The countries brought together under FACT are major players in the production and consumption of commodities as beef, soy and palm oil. The agreement helps them trade more sustainably through joint statements of principles for collaboration.

Actively involved in the Research and Innovation FACT Working Group, CCAFS provides technical support to the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and by extension the government of Brazil.

100 Million Farmers

The World Economic Forum (WEF) launched the 100 Million Farmers initiative to support local solutions that empower farmers and consumers to put climate, nature and resilience at the core of the global food economy.

It incentivizes 100 million farmers to adopt regenerative and climate smart practices to create multiple benefits such as economic end environment resilience, improved livelihoods, soil health, enhanced biodiversity and improved water quality.

As part of the 100 Million Farmers initiative, several organizations and stakeholders representing different components of the food value chain have joined forces to decarbonize the European food system.

CRAFT

CCAFS engaged in the Climate Resilient Agribusiness for Tomorrow (CRAFT) project in East Africa, which catalyzes 34 million euros of sustainable finance co-investments with the private sector.

CRAFT targets over 235,000 smallholder farmers in seven priority value-chains across Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. It revitalizes and facilitates access to input and output markets for agricultural services and products.

CRAFT invests in interventions that accelerate the adoption of CSA technologies and practices, making it attractive for co-investments from the partnering private sector.

Africa Improved Foods

Africa Improved Foods (AIF) announced an expansion from Rwanda to 10 additional African countries by 2030. It provides climate‐resilient and financially rewarding value chains to more than two million smallholder farmers, which enhances the nutrition for more than 100 million consumers and catalyzes more than a $1 billion of private-sector investment. Studies by CCAFS shaped the AIF expansion strategy into Kenya and Ethiopia, and this initiative promises to be a huge global stimulus to increase the prosperity of millions of farmers and marginalized people.

There are compelling small scale examples of what such investments can deliver. CCAFS engaged with West African initiatives that direct investment into rural infrastructure, where collaboration with national governments and policy platforms led to bankable proposals being developed.

Tangible results have been realized in Mali, where CCAFS financed the acquisition of an agrometeorological station in one of its Climate Smart Villages (CSVs). This investment supports the adaptive capacity of the local communities and steers the agricultural production system towards greater automation.

De-Risk livelihoods, farms and value chains

R4 Rural Resilience Initiative

The CCAFS-affiliated International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI) at Columbia University worked with the R4 Rural Resilience Initiative in Ethiopia to build tools for the participatory design of agricultural index insurance.

These tools enable local partners to make data-driven decisions about index insurance contracts on a scale that is both deeper (customized for each village) and wider than ever before, reaching 60,000 households in 230 villages throughout 2021.

This investment directly enabled the World Food Programme (WFP) to reach its 2022 target of providing a million smallholder farmers in Ethiopia with affordable insurance against droughts and other climate risks.

Because of the success of this approach in Ethiopia, R4 has launched similar insurance scale-up efforts in Senegal and Zambia.

Investment Blueprint for Digital Climate Advisory Services

Scaling advisories is crucial if we are to reach millions of farmers, and to do this you have to go digital.

IRI worked collaborated with the Global Commission on Adaptation, World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) on an Investment Blueprint on Digital Climate Advisory Services (DCAS) to improve climate resilience for 300 million smallholder producers.

The blueprint will be launched in Summer 2021, and is focused on digital services range from mobile apps, radio and online platforms to digitally-enabled printed bulletins with climate models, extension services, which are still too often fragmented for smallholder farmers.

In Senegal, previous collaborations with the Senegalese National Meteorological Agency resulted in a nationwide transmission of seasonal forecasts via rural community radio stations and SMS, which potentially reached 7.4 million rural people across Senegal.

In 2020, another 500,000 farmers accessed weather and climate information services through mobile phones and the radio. These cases provide tangible examples of how advisories can be taken to scale to reach millions of farmers.

Reduce emissions from diets and value chains

Alternative meats

Together with Impossible Foods, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and Limestone Analytics, CCAFS is investigating alternative meat investment options in low- and middle-income countries, and their potential impacts on food security, land use, climate and biodiversity - including the business cases for producing plant-based meat in specific countries.

This work is expected to be completed by August 2021, with results shared at the UN Food Systems Summit.

Food loss and waste

Food and agri-business company Olam used science developed by CCAFS and Wageningen Food & Biobased Research in Nigeria to identify threshing and harvesting as hotspots for food losses in rice farming communities. Using the Agro-Chain Greenhouse Gas Emissions (ACE) Calculator – developed by CCAFS - they identified interventions with significant reductions in food loss, and the scaling of this project could reach 700,000 Nigerian farmers.

Realign policies, finance, support to social movements, and innovation

Scenario planning

The CCAFS Scenarios Project investigates ways participatory scenario planning can guide better policymaking for food and agriculture sectors in the face of climate change. It works in 30 countries, with several examples of positive influence on the viability and impact of policy.

Sustainable finance

Unlocking finance is essential for establishing a global transformation. Just as important, however, is to make sure that available funds are aligned with pathways that foster sustainable transformation.

CCAFS' development of the Climate Smart Food Systems Fund forms the basis of the Green Climate Fund’s agricultural strategy, directing future flows of billions of dollars in investment.

Furthermore, the CGIAR partnered with responsAbility Investments AG through a USD 200 million impact investment fund to provide capital to SMEs developing countries to meet key food system challenges. The fund's strategy is informed by key recommendations from the 'transformation report'.

Youth action

Engaging youth action is crucial in transforming food systems under climate change. Future generations are vulnerable to current and future impacts of climate change, but also offer ways forward as important agents of change in their households, schools, business ventures, communities, countries and regions.

The transformation report wants to reach 10 million young people with science-based social movements by 2025. To this end, CCAFS supports the Act4Food Act4Change campaign led by the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) which aims to mobilize millions of young people for change.

CCAFS is organizing an event - Driving Global Youth Action for Climate Adaptation in Food Systems - at the ‘Pre-COP’ summit in Italy in September 2021, to encourage young people to engage in the campaign, raise awareness about the need for climate adaptation in food systems, and bring these outcomes to COP26 in ways that inspire policymakers.

CCAFS hosted a workshop that connected young people from all around the world with cutting edge science on climate change, agriculture and food security at the Youth for Climate Adaptation conference.

Our team also participated in the International Conference for Youth in Agriculture (ICYA) conference, which proved to be excellent opportunities to engage with youth and empower younger generations to get actively involved in food system challenges.

Scaling impact

The final action of the 'transformation report' focuses on delivering impact on a large scale. To achieve this, CCAFS created strong links with high-level conferences that take place throughout 2021.

First, CCAFS established a strong presence within the UN Food Systems Summit and its various action tracks and innovation ‘levers’.

As part of the Nature campaign for COP26, CCAFS and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) launched a new global campaign - Transforming Agricultural Innovation for People, Nature and Climate.

Such high-level engagement mobilizes and aligns investments into agricultural research and more climate-resilient food systems.

CCAFS has commissioned studies this campaign on the evidence available to us on transforming agricultural innovation systems under climate change, covering (among other things) transformative end-to-end innovation.

Explore 'Actions to transform food systems under climate change'

Download a table summarizing our year 1 progress