CGIAR Climate Blog

How the CCAFS legacy lives on

Amy — Thu, 16 Dec 2021 07:32:21 +0100

Ambitious CGIAR reforms put climate action at the heart of its new strategy and initiatives

Our global food 'system'—that is, the production, processing, transportation, consumption and (too often) the waste and loss of all food—accounts for a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions.

These emissions are second only to heavy industry in terms of their contribution to climate change. It's absolutely vital that agriculture and the food systems they support take centre stage in our collective action to deal with the climate crisis.

At the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow, farming and agriculture was high on the agenda as never before.

It shouldn’t be taken for granted that these sectors should figure so prominently in climate debates.

Their newfound moment in the limelight reflects the perseverance of so many colleagues, partners, friends and allies who put the concept of ‘climate-smart agriculture’ on the map.

This is the legacy that the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) has been honoured to have contributed to over the last decade and more.

What we have learned over the past decade—including from our own failures—has informed a multitude of new CGIAR projects and initiatives that are emerging as part of the ‘OneCGIAR’ reforms.

Our hope is to pass on to a new generation of researchers and climate activists a few qualities: The demands for rigorous science applied in policy; The passion for creative innovation that’s rapidly scaled, and; A sense of urgency in collective action and destiny.

Above all, we want to pass on a sense of optimism that we can transform our food systems for a climate-smart future. Youth-led social movements have done more to galvanise climate action than any science paper ever could. We have to hope that such action leads to change.

CCAFS: The Origin Story

The CGIAR is the world’s largest research partnership for greater food security and sustainable agriculture worldwide. It focuses its science and partnerships on helping farmers and their communities become more resilient in the face of countless challenges and threats – not least climate change.

The CGIAR celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2021 and can look back on decades of ground-breaking innovation.

The CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) was established in 2009 as a ‘Challenge Program’ (later renamed a ‘Research Program’) to work in a collaborative way across the organisation.

It brought together and synthesised research from across CGIAR’s dedicated agriculture, food and ecology research programmes, that are commonly focused on specific food groups in different regions of the world.

The CCAFS team were early evangelists for the concept of ‘climate-smart agriculture’, or ‘CSA’ for short. The term first appeared in the final text of a UN declaration in 2011, becoming part of the official mainstream of climate policy and negotiations.

Since then, the CSA concept has grown from strength to strength.

The key thing about CSA is not about the gadgets and gizmos that can be deployed on farms – though it does often involve them!

Instead, it’s about hard-wiring the science of climate adaptation and climate mitigation into agriculture in a way that’s informed by science, and always with an eye on how ‘climate-smart’ ways of working boost incomes and provide more secure livelihoods from farming in an inclusive and sustainable way.

CCAFS: We did it our way

No one institution can tackle the gargantuan challenges we face alone. By most estimates, we need to reach around half a billion smallholder farmers with CSA tools, technologies, policies and methods of working by 2030.

Only by reaching so many farmers can food and agriculture play their part in reaching the goals set out in successive international climate agreements.

That’s why partnerships and collaboration have been at the heart of the CCAFS formula from day one.

This culminated with the launch of 'Actions to T ransform Food Systems Under a Changing Climate'.

The fruits of a collaboration between more than a hundred partners led by CCAFS, the #NewEra4Food report and its supporting initiatives were launched amidst the convulsion of the early days of the (sadly ongoing) global Covid-19 pandemic.

It set out 11 tangible action points to radically transform food systems and was developed and delivered with a sense of urgency in managing the twin climate and food crises we face with greater frequency.

Launched with a round-the-world virtual relay event, it was the most popular CGIAR publication of 2020 with 60,000 downloads.

The finale: A ClimateShot for nature

The backsliding on progress in the fight against hunger and malnutrition was a frequent talking point at COP26 in Glasgow. Climate change and the COVID-19 shock have laid bare the fragility of our global food system.

It is a reminder that climate action has to be not only dramatic, but viable too, protecting communities and livelihoods as well as the planet, especially considering the world's population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050.

This is where campaigns like ClimateShot come in. Led by CCAFS and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, it took the NewEra4Food message on innovation as its starting point.

The ClimateShot campaign reached 5 million people around the world, and brought together 200 diverse allies, including 20 countries and over 20 impact investment organisations who are collectively committed to mobilising more than US$5bn in financing for people, nature and climate.

They threw their support behind a four-point plan to deliver a 'moonshot' moment in agricultural innovation, launched on COP26 Nature Day by the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs George Eustice MP with IFAD Goodwill Ambassadors Idris and Sabrina Elba.

This plan – known as the Global Action Agenda on Innovation in Agriculture - is based on CGIAR research that shows how accelerating innovation in farming and agriculture can feed a growing world while limiting emissions and the damage that farming can too often inflict on nature.

There’s rarely a make-or-break moment at COP; it’s about constantly ratcheting up the ambition, working through the technical details year after year.

That’s why – even after the end of CCAFS - the climate champions in our team will return to COPs year after year to put farming at the heart of the climate debate.

The ClimateShot team already have their sights set on COP27 in Egypt in 2022.

Opening new chapters after CCAFS

Tackling the climate crisis is a major focus of the CGIAR's ambitious 2030 strategy:

To deliver science and innovations that advance the transformation of food, land, and water systems in a climate crisis.

Under the new 'OneCGIAR' reforms, all CGIAR research will report progress in delivering climate action, with six new major CGIAR Initiatives that will focus specifically on climate adaptation and mitigation.

But several new CGIAR ventures are particularly inspired by CCAFS' legacy, and build on the foundations of its science, policy and partnership successes of the last decade.

Accelerating the Impact of CGIAR Climate Research for Africa (AICCRA) is a new project that enhances access to climate information services and validated climate-smart agriculture technologies in Africa.

Through the support of AICCRA, farmers will get better access to climate advisory services that are linked to information about effective response measures. These services help them and their communities better safeguard livelihoods and the environment.

AICCRA is supported by a grant from the International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank, with the aim of enhancing research and capacity-building activities by CGIAR and its partners.

Meanwhile, Building Systemic Resilience Against Climate Variability and Extremes (also known as ‘ClimBeR’) is a new initiative that will build more climate resilience systems for the benefit of 20 million farmers by 2024.

‘ClimBeR’ will produce research and knowledge on ‘climate security’, a paramount area of action for broader climate resilience in fragile countries. It will infuse this new knowledge across influential institutions and practically deploy it with new innovations on the ground.

We warmly invite you to find out more about all of CGIAR’s new initiatives and connect with other exciting new initiatives from our partners – such as new ‘think-and-do-tank’ Clim-Eat – across a now vibrant community of champions for climate-smart agriculture.

The CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) closes on 31 December 2021.

Explore the CCAFS Legacy

AgLEDx: A new CCAFS resource for understanding low-emissions development in agriculture

Sadie — Wed, 15 Dec 2021 00:41:33 +0100

So what is low-emissions development? And what does it have to do with agriculture? New AgLED Resource Platform has the answers

Global food systems contribute about one-third of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and agriculture accounts for over half of these emissions and is expected to nearly double by 2050. Research has shown emissions reductions in other sectors alone will be insufficient to meet the policy targets of the Paris Agreement, making mitigating agricultural emissions and sequestering carbon critical to achieving the 1.5 ˚C target.

Source: CDP 2015

Agricultural low-emissions development (LED) is an approach to mitigation that integrates the need to achieve food security and other development aims in low- and middle-income countries but in ways that also minimize GHG emissions. There is no silver bullet to mitigating agricultural emissions, and each farming system, country, town and farmer will need a different approach.

Understanding the intricacies of climate change mitigation in the agriculture sector can be tedious and it can be hard to find relevant information. Open access guidance to technical information and introductory materials are lacking, especially guidance relevant to developing nations. A new resource platform can fill this gap.

One for all

The AgLEDx Resource Platform was designed as a go-to resource for low-emissions agriculture development for a wide range of users, from basic explainers for those completely unfamiliar with mitigation to technical references for those seeking to expand their knowledge in a particular subsector.

The guidance focuses on agricultural emissions and their mitigation, and cases and resources for emissions and mitigation options related to agricultural activities. AgLEDx is also a synthesis of the current knowledge on agricultural climate change mitigation, giving experts a quick reference guide. It also functions as a signpost for policymakers and practitioners for integrating mitigation into agriculture, GHG accounting, finance and climate policy.

Explore the AgLED platform

AgLEDx can be used to guide and inform the technical choices of nations preparing their nationally determined contributions (NDCs, see the AgLED glossary) or climate change mitigation plans, especially for developing countries.

It can help boost the understanding of low-emissions development in agriculture of students and the general public with fact sheet-style information on the basics of agriculture mitigation practices and technologies or why low-emissions development is a critical approach to combating climate change and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and Paris Agreement targets.

This new guide addresses a need for introductory and in-depth information on agricultural low-emissions development and climate change mitigation.

Test your knowledge

Loading…

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.

Nigeria to industrialize frugal tech innovation

Jackie — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 17:24:16 +0100

Variability in climate makes agriculture risky. In the tropics, this mostly relates to variability in rainfall. To address this, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) recommends a minimum of 1 precipitation recording station per 5,750 km². Nigeria, which is home to 220 million people, meets this recommendation with 176 functioning weather stations. Yet, with interest rates on smallholder loans as high as 23 percent and the default rate reaching up to 98 percent, it seems this current data infrastructure doesn’t help de-risk smallholder agriculture. Why is this?

First, there has been a lack of seeing the forest for the trees. Nigeria’s population is expected to almost double by 2050, with most of that growth occurring in cities. Ensuring there is enough food requires a significant increase in the use of agricultural inputs – especially nitrogen (N) fertiliser. Today, the country only uses an estimated 20kgN per hectare, compared to 100kg in Asia.

In order to increase nitrogen use, the very first input needed is credit. Reducing the role of observation networks to last-mile agro-advisory support should not hide their bigger systemic potential for de-risking investment and making credit affordable.

Helping farmers better manage climate risk with their (existing) limited resources is relatively less important and valuable than helping them access more affordable resources.

Farmers already manage climate risk pretty well and they know better than most how to optimize the management of their existing resource.

What producers need is more external resources. A more transformational change is required, to help farmers secure access to more and cheaper credit and other inputs to make the required doubling of yields possible.

Second, there is too often far too much focus on the technologies and innovations (e.g. measurement instrument and farm-level advisory) over the processes needed to realise their potential (e.g. industrialization of a frugal technology triggering a systemic reduction in the cost of credit).

Technology is usually not the limiting factor in food production – so why do companies interested in selling tech and digital information services spend so much time developing sophisticated technology which cannot scale, and so little time listening to the users?

Acknowledging the limitations of data that comes from global observation systems and climate models—specifically as a source of information for farm-level decision making— does not imply condoning the use of any kind of in-situ technology.

Too many fancy tractors have been abandoned in remote villages due to lack of spare parts or the means to purchase them. Likewise, too many automatic weather stations have been sitting unused in the countryside, victims of unmanageable maintenance costs and acts of vandalism.

It is high time that frugal tech and sophisticated engagement (via a public-private-engagement between African SMEs and public research institutes) should replace sophisticated tech and frugal engagement.

Finally, there is lingering mistrust between the public and private sectors. Let’s not forget that the establishment of one of Africa’s most lauded agro-meteorological success stories, Mali’s GTPAs (Groupes de Travail Pluridisciplinaires d’Appui au Monde Rural) was triggered almost 40 years ago by an innovative public-private partnership. That was when Mali’s National Hydrological and Meteorological Service and SIMPLAST S.A., a local plastic bucket company teamed up to produce the now widely disseminated, US$5 “farmer’s rain gauge” (pluviomètre paysan, or sanji sumanan in Bamanankan), which is the foundation upon which GTPAs operate, with spillover benefits in several countries.

Several countries in West Africa—including Nigeria and Senegal—have been using the SIMPLAST manual rain gauges. Several have also implemented the GTPA model, including Burkina Faso, Niger, Senegal and Chad.

Fortunately, with the Geneva Declaration of 2019, a profound cultural and behavioural change is ongoing at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) with public-private engagement now a core ideology.

It is important that such an approach to public-private engagement trickles down to local practice, as no single partner can claim to meet the diversity of user needs alone.

These recent changes at WMO present an opportunity to promote similar mindset changes at regional, national and local levels. It is in that context that on December 2^nd, the Nigerian Meteorological Agency (NiMET), the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), and Manobi Africa met to review initial outputs from the 2021 deployment of twenty agCelerant IoT rain gauges in the states of Bauchi, Kano, and Niger.

Results were judged to be promising, with 95-99% agreement between IoT rain gauges and co-located reference instruments, and with IoT rain gauges successfully capturing and streaming both the number of rainy days and daily rainfall amounts in various locations. The partners agreed to strengthen and formalize their collaboration through a larger 2022 pilot, including assembling several hundred such devices on site at NiMET headquarters at Abuja Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport ahead of the 2022 agricultural season.

The partners also agreed to deploy a larger number of devices across the NiMET network, and to support the effort with refined start-of-season instrument commissioning and end-of-season decommissioning protocols, as well as monitoring and validation procedures that include the performance of energy supply (stock LR20 batteries with proven autonomy of over 8 months) and network signal.

Review meeting of the performance of agCelerant IoT rain gauges deployed in-country during 2021 cropping season (photo: NiMet/ICRISAT/Manobi Africa © December 2021)

agCelerant IoT rain gauges are designed for frugal operations without grid and solar power and can withstand ambient temperatures of up to 50°C and the photochemical oxidation that comes with high UV radiation. Their affordable cost should allow users (in this case national hydrological and meteorological services) to increase ground observation network density up to 50-fold, and Manobi Africa, NiMET and ICRISAT plan to produce 1,000 such devices in 2022.

These devices should reduce basis risk in weather index insurance which, in turn, should reduce insurance premiums. As insurance is usually bundled with credit, this could also result in a reduction in interest rates on loans. As credit becomes more affordable farmers can increase their use of agricultural inputs and produce more food. Additionally, the upfront cost of the IoT rain gauge is embedded in credit.

This holistic engagement process exploits the power of phygital value chain coordination platforms like agCelerant.

This approach also supports the concept of “one farmer, one loan, one rain gauge” by delivering hyper-local value to producers and financial service providers.

For more details: p.s.traore@cgiar.org / pierre.sibiry.traore@manobi.com

The development and production of IoT rain gauges prototypes reported here has been funded by the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 776309 (Nurturing Africa’s Digital Revolution for Agriculture – NADiRA) and supported by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) project on Capacitating African Stakeholders with Climate Advisories and Insurance Development (CASCAID). The innovations and partnerships highlighted in this blog were delivered under the ‘Building Livelihoods and Resilience to Climate Change in East and West Africa’ project. The project is kindly supported with a grant from the European Union, delivered via the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), under grant number 2000002575, implemented by Alliance Bioversity-CIAT with AR4D support from the European Commission for the year 2019. IoT rain gauges and other IoT sensors are deployed as integral components of agCelerant value chain orchestrators and data ecosystems.

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.

Looking forward to strengthen the science-policy dialogue in climate change

Lili — Mon, 06 Dec 2021 10:23:20 +0100

An overview of CCAFS work around science and policy in Latin America from the last two years.

The CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) actively pushes efforts to bring science and policy together to create solutions for climate change impacts in agriculture and food security. These efforts focus on research that looks to strengthen the science-policy dialogue and develop strategies that open opportunities for science to help shape policies that yield better results. However, this is not an easy task. The complex relationship between climate change and rural development includes controversies among different stakeholders, which result in challenging decision-making processes that influence the entire policy cycle. For this reason, the scope of science-policy interaction strategies needs to reach scientists, policymakers, and other decision-makers at different levels.

Considering this context, part of CCAFS’ efforts in 2020 and 2021 focused on research about science-policy interactions in Latin America. Climate change impacts in the region include vulnerable rural communities and risks to food security. Thus, it is necessary to strengthen the role of science to consolidate policies that address three major challenges for agriculture and food systems in the region: (1) guarantee food security, while adapting to climate change (2) and contributing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (3).

The results

As a result of these efforts, the program issued a research report, an Info Note and organized an online seminar to open the discussion about science-policy interactions with researchers and practitioners from different countries in the region. All of these activities and products served the purpose of collecting information and different contributions to building a toolbox with the goal of providing scientists, policymakers and practitioners with the tools to promote and strengthen the science-policy dialogue.

The research report “Interacción Ciencia-Política en el Ámbito de las Políticas de Mitigación y Adaptación al Cambio Climático Experiencias y Lecciones de América Latina” presents a literature review of the different conceptual frameworks and models that look to explain science-policy interactions and their different variables. It also presents the results of the systematization of different science-policy interaction experiences within the region. The results of the study show that, in the political and institutional contexts of Latin America, science-policy interactions develop through collaborative arrangements between different stakeholders. However, these arrangements are most effective when participatory and capacity-building processes are implemented and articulated, by science-policy interfaces and communication strategies that translate and adapt information, in order to mobilize different kinds of knowledge into decision-making processes.On the other hand, the results of the study also show that in the context of each case studied, these interactions are not sustainable. Institutional and governing structures affect efforts to establish collaboration arrangements that can address the dynamics of climate change. All of the study results are summarized and presented in the Info Note “Science-Policy Interactions in Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change: Lessons from Latin America”.

With this understanding of science-policy interactions in Latin America, CCAFS and the Network on Public Policies and Rural Development in Latin America (PP-AL) organized the online seminar “Interacción Ciencia-Política Pública frente a los Desafíos del Cambio Climático: Experiencias y Lecciones Aprendidas para Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles en América Latina” [Science-Policy Interactions and Climate Change: Experiences and Lessons Learned for Sustainable Food Systems in Latin America]. This event brought together climate change experts from Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Colombia, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay to discuss challenges and opportunities for science-policy interactions. As a result of this discussion, challenges raised major concerns among experts. These include the limited technical abilities of different stakeholders to use scientific knowledge; the inadequate institutional capacity and lack of political will; and knowledge not being relevant or adequate for decision-making. However, during the seminar, it was suggested that these challenges can be overcome by approaching science-policy interactions through participatory methods that strive to involve strategic stakeholders in climate policy and ensure the relevance, legitimacy, and credibility of knowledge to develop climate actions.

By bringing together the inputs of both the study and the online seminar, CCFAS created the toolbox “Mitigación y Adaptación al Cambio Climático en América Latina: Herramientas para desarrollar interacciones ciencia-política frente a los desafíos climáticos en el ámbito de los Sistemas Alimentarios” [Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change in Latin America: Tools for Science – Policy Interactions Facing Climate Challenges for Sustainable Food Systems]. The main goal of this toolbox is to offer science and policy actors the tools to foster better science-policy collaborations in the battle against climate change. With this purpose the toolbox is made up of 4 sections that offer 1) context analysis methodologies that help identify science-policy collaboration pathways; 2) methods and instruments to establish communications and coordinate relations among stakeholders in these collaborations; 3) tools to develop strategies that foster sustainable science-policy interactions; and 4) an approach to evaluation methods that assess two important aspects: i) the contribution of science-policy interactions in improving the role of science in policy and ii) the impact of science in policy results.

The way forward

Looking ahead, evaluation and impact assessments of science-policy interactions present the major challenge in this field. The difficulty to establish causal relations between these interactions and science uptake in policy decisions is persistent and cripples efforts to fund and sustain these collaborations. Thus, new research initiatives are needed to improve evaluation methods in the field. On its part, this toolbox is only a starting point to discovering ways to promote and strengthen science-policy interactions. Looking and establishing new partnerships to improve this document can be the next move for CGIAR to advance science-policy collaborations.

Paola Andrea Daza Aragón and Jean-Francois Le Coq work for the CCAFS Latin America regional program.

Developing Kenya's Position on Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA) to COP26 in Glasgow

Brook — Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:01:50 +0100

Kenya is a major player in global climate change negotiations through the Group of 77+ China and the African Group of Negotiators (AGN).

At a recent webinar, scientists and senior government officers facilitated dialogue to develop Kenya's position on Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA) under the auspices of Kenya's Climate-Smart Agriculture Multi-Stakeholder Platform (CSA MSP) with AGNES Africa Experts and AGN negotiators for the forthcoming CoP26 negotiations. Kenya CSA MSP is a network of organizations whose work is inclined towards climate-smart agriculture practices.

The Making of Global Climate Change Policy

Mr. Michael Okumu made the first presentation for the webinar. The opening presentation on what participants need to know about how the COP system works and the role of Parties and Observers. Mr. Okumu observed that Kenya had demonstrated a very favorable leadership position in global Climate Action and the UNFCCC COP negotiations process under the AGN/G77&China, including the submissions and updating of the NDC documents under the Paris Climate Agreement.

The Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA) at COP26 in Glasgow

The second presentation was made by Mrs. Veronica Ndetu (CCU-MoALF&C) on Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA). Veronica took the participants through the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA) and the latest developments in Kenya. In her presentation, Veronica explained the meaning, purpose, objectives, and process of KJWA, including the KJWA roadmap from 2018 to 2021. Veronica said that KJWA was adopted by the COP23 in Bonn in 2017 through decision 4/CP.23. The topics that were provided in the decision 4/CP.23 for KJWA are provided below:

Topics for the KJWA as per decision 4/CP.23

Under paragraph 2 of the KJWA, COP23 invited Parties and observers to submit, by 31 March 2018, their views on elements to be included in the work referred to in paragraph 1 of KJWA for consideration at the forty-eighth session of the subsidiary bodies (April–May 2018), starting with but not limited to the following:

a) Modalities for implementation of the outcomes of the five in-session workshops on issues related to agriculture and other future topics that may arise from this work

b) Methods and approaches for assessing adaptation, adaptation co-benefits, and resilience

c) Improved soil carbon, soil health, and soil fertility under grassland and cropland as well as integrated systems, including water management

d) Improved nutrient use and manure management towards sustainable and resilient agricultural systems

e) Improved livestock management systems

f) Socioeconomic and food security dimensions of climate change in the agricultural sector

Country position and recommendation for COP26

Participants were to deliberate on the proposed options Kenya should take, based on the following three COP26 scenarios:

Only formalize earlier online discussions and reports and postpone reporting to a next COP
Reporting progress and outcomes of the KJWA
Options for the future of KJWA

Developing Kenya's country position on Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA)

The third presentation was made by Mr. Joab Osumba (CGIAR-CCAFS) on developing the Kenya country position on KJWA. Joab presented Kenya's proposed position on the remaining issues around KJWA, which was to be pitched at COP26 for decision. In developing the country's position, stakeholders reviewed the reports produced and isolated possible activities/actionable areas, core implementation areas, gaps, and recommendations.

Around each of the six KJWA workstreams, Parties were to consider the following:

Activities / actionable areas related to improved nutrient use and manure management
Key elements and potential modalities for implementation
Gaps/ Challenges Identified by the report
Future topics for consideration under KJWA
Report to COP26 on outcomes of the work

KJWA workstreams 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c) of decision 4/CP.23 had been discussed earlier, so the country position discussed in this session is for workstreams 2(d), 2(e), and 2(f) of decision 4/CP.23.

Based on the considerations made above, Kenya, therefore, is of the view that to enhance the progress of the KJWA work, beyond the road map, a COP decision is required either to:

establish resources dedicated to agriculture within the financial mechanisms of the convention that countries can access through calls for proposals, or
establish an agriculture-specific implementation institution/programme based on the KJWA workshop outcomes and any other topics to be discussed.

Closing Remarks and Future Outlook

The closing remarks, made by Veronica, observed that the presentations were beneficial. She underscored that the dialogue needed to continue for participants to finetune Kenya's position on the progress Kenya would want KJWA to take after COP26 and the proposed future topics for KJWA if the KJWA continues with KJWA under UNFCCC.

The detailed analysis needs to be encoded to ensure that what is proposed as future topics are not just different versions of what is already covered in the six (or the eight) topics covered in the 2018-2021 roadmap. They need to be new, uncharted areas and need to be well thought-through, as we also consider the scenario (or the option) Kenya would want KJWA to take.

Participants agreed to continue sharing their views on the MSP secretariat's various positions, consolidating and synthesizing the additional input for a more comprehensive positive country position paper before COP26. The secretariat created smaller groups to help consolidate and synthesize clear positions on each aspect of the draft position paper, to form a final country position before COP26.

Creating a hospitable environment for accessible and resilient food systems in East Africa through the Climate Resilient Agribusiness for Tomorrow (CRAFT) project

Brook — Mon, 06 Dec 2021 08:35:53 +0100

Climate risk management, capacity building, co-developing, and scaling business cases are helping to a hospitable environment for accessible and resilient food systems.

Climate change and related climate variability present a challenge for agricultural production systems and food security in East Africa.

The increased frequency and intensity of floods and droughts, combined with a rising population, further jeopardize the livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers in the region. Agricultural stakeholders require integrating climate-smart solutions and innovations that can be adopted and scaled for inclusive regional agribusiness development. Multistakeholder engagement from research, development, and private partners could facilitate best practices and technologies and catalyze positive change in East Africa's agribusiness landscape.

Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda have successfully integrated adaptation, resilience, and mitigation into national agricultural policies. However, the potential for adopting resilience-building practices and climate change adaptation and mitigation is hampered by various gaps and barriers. These include low yield and productivity, inadequate institutional environments, limited knowledge and skills, and unaffordable and inaccessible climate-resilient inputs.

THE CRAFT PROJECT

The Climate Resilient Agribusiness for Tomorrow (CRAFT) project was designed to address climate change related challenges affecting the agriculture sector in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. Launched in 2018, the five-year CRAFT project obtains funding from the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It is implemented by a consortium that includes SNV Netherlands Development Organisation in partnership with Wageningen University and Research, CGIAR's Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Agriterra, and Rabo Partnerships.

Critical success factors for enhancing adaptation and resilience with mitigation co-benefits include knowledge, information, services, appropriate technologies, capacity building, a blend of financial instruments, and enabling policy environments and institutions. In this respect, CRAFT provides performance-based grants to the private sector through its Climate Innovation and Investment Facility (CIIF). The key beneficiaries include SMEs, cooperatives, and their contracted farmers. By the end of 2020, 36 business cases with 237,250 farmers targeted outreach received a commitment of over €33.7 million, of which €5.6 million is provided by CRAFT.

The role of this new, innovative partnership offers a solid platform to manage and coordinate robust climate-smart agriculture (CSA) projects and to provide targeted technical assistance, business facilitation, and research and knowledge management support. CRAFT's intervention is embedded in inclusive and climate-responsive investments – in other words, supporting smallholder farmers throughout the value chain, including climate-smart practices in production, harvesting, post-harvest handling, and marketing access. In order to strengthen business performances of agribusiness and cooperatives, seven value chains in the three countries have been a focus of the project that includes green grams, potato, beans, sesame, sunflower, soybean, and sorghum.

A Unique Approach to Agriculture

CRAFT also fosters a unique approach, enabling small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to champion climate-resilient agriculture in East Africa. The contract farming between businesses and smallholder farmers will revitalize and facilitate access to input and output markets for agricultural services and products, thereby providing multiple benefits to all actors along the agriculture value chain. This model is a positive institutional innovation in marketing, filling gaps that would otherwise cause market failure and incentivizing the adoption of climate services.

The synergy of climate resilience and Farmer Field School (FFS) methodologies, known as CR-FFS, is integral to CRAFT's inclusive and innovative business model. Given this, building the capacity of critical resources to integrate these two concepts has been crucial. Key stakeholders have included farmers, small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) employees, and public extension agents.

Using the FFS approach and validated CSA practices, farmers are better equipped to manage the climate-related stresses while enhancing their yields and income at the same time. Close to 81,000 farmers are currently registered, while 41,290 (47% female) were trained in CSA practices and technologies.

Climate-Risk Assessments

In CRAFT implementation countries, climate risk assessment methodology explores what climate risks different actors, resources, and processes along a value chain face and identifies suitable adaptation strategies that can help lower these risks. The role of CCAFS is mainly in identifying the climatic risk for each value chain. Wageningen Environmental Research assesses the impact of those risks in agriculture. Together with SNV, all partners have identified the adaptation mechanisms to those risks.

Climate variables such as rainfall and maximum, minimum, and mean temperatures were analyzed for each value chain. During climate risk assessment workshops across the three countries, farmers identified the need for timely information and knowledge to help adjust their farming practices – including information about accessing quality certified seeds, soil testing before selecting fertilizers, or finances and markets. For the agri-businesses (processors, input, and service providers), the farmers' challenges reflected the need to invest in climate-smart solutions to climate-proof their supply chains. The participating financial institutions realized a need to develop customized products for farmers, including making agricultural insurance accessible and affordable to farmers.

In identifying significant institutional and socio-economic barriers, a range of relevant actors, including national and regional government agencies, extension services, researchers, meteorological services, and financial service providers, were engaged. Although CRAFT was meant to have its implementation year in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic affected project activities and partners' engagement in the business operation. Through a COVID-19 response facility, the project supported the businesses in responding to issues related to the pandemic, which assisted smallholder farmers, cooperatives, and agribusinesses cope with the impact of the pandemic. The support consisted of adding digital services to reach the farmers in business plans, integrating adequate sanitation and protective gear within the roll-out, and adjusting investment plans to the changing business environment.

Ghana set to generate extensive in-season yield forecasts in 2022

Jackie — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 22:56:14 +0100

From October 25-29, the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), the University of Ghana, and the University of Florida organized Ghana’s first training event on the CCAFS Regional Agricultural Forecasting Tool (CRAFT) in Accra, Ghana. Bringing together 25 participants from Georgia, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Senegal, South Africa, the USA and Zimbabwe, the workshop aimed to strengthen national capacity for within season yield forecasting, to facilitate assessment of impacts of climate fluctuations on crop production and projected impacts of future climate change.

The workshop aimed to: provide the basic concepts of gridded crop simulations; describe algorithms used for regional yield forecasting; describe the CRAFT toolbox architecture and its main components; and conduct hands-on exercises for risk assessment and generate in-season yield forecasts.

A network of tools

CRAFT is a framework for running multi-crop model ensembles in gridded simulations for yield forecasting, agricultural risk analysis and climate impact studies. An initiative of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS), CRAFT is currently being developed and maintained by the University of Florida. A key feature of CRAFT is its ability to seamlessly integrate leading crop models such as Decision Support System for Agro-technology Transfer (DSSAT), Agricultural Production Systems SIMulator (APSIM), and Système d'Analyse Régionale des Risques Agroclimatologiques Version H (SarraH) with seasonal climate forecasts statistically downscaled with the Climate Predictability Tool (CPT).

Another feature is its ability to run spatial simulations down to the district level, which is essential for predicting production shortfalls or gluts at adequate levels of detail for government intervention and market regulation. This functionality will be important to accompany the transformation of food systems and the urgent need for food sovereignty in the post-COVID era, with more efficient and competitive national value chains, more circular agricultural production systems, and lower dependence on food imports.

Participants in the CRAFT Ghana training workshop represented eight countries and gathered at the Best Western Premier Accra Beach Hotel in Nungua, Accra, Ghana. Photo credit: PCS Traore/ICRISAT

Next Steps

One emergent implementer of CRAFT is the Ghana Meteorological Agency (GMet) in its capacity and mandate to provide weather and climate services for socioeconomic development int he country. As part of the CASCAID project, GMet was the first national meteorological agency in West Africa to successfully implement the Enhancing National Climate Services (ENACTS) initiative, which provides blended, gridded station-satellite data directly exploitable by CRAFT.

During a visit to the workshop, GMet's Director General Eric Asuman expressed the agency's strong interest in CRAFT and its commitment to preparing the first operational 2022 maize yield forecast for the West African Climate Outlook Forum using the framework. With GMet, the group also discussed the industrialization of frugal, recyclable agCelerant IoT rain gauges, a CASCAID-supported innovation by project partner Manobi Africa.

In addition to the University of Ghana and GMet, other key participating institutions in the workshop included the Ghana Space Science and Technology Institute (GSSTI), Innovations in Development, Education and the Mathematical Sciences in Ghana (IDEMS-Ghana), and the African Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS) represented by seven alumni.

The deployment of the CCAFS Regional Agricultural Forecasting Tool (CRAFT) reported here is funded by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) project on Capacitating African Stakeholders with Climate Advisories and Insurance Development (CASCAID) and by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) under grant number 2000002575, implemented by Alliance Bioversity-CIAT with AR4D support from the European Commission for the year 2019.

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.

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