A short history of the evolution of CSA and its links to climate change and sustainable agriculture debates Leslie Lipper Executive Director ISPC ICABR Conference May 31, 2017 Berkeley CA

Key features of CSA An approach (narrative?) for agricultural planning that integrates food security, adaptation & mitigation Explicitly recognized potential trade-offs between objectives Explicitly recognizes need to identify/overcome barriers to potential solutions Explicitly considers financing – and potential for innovative sourcing

Think back to 2007-2009 AG World: 2007-2008: World food price spikes – attention drawn to agriculture 2009: Establishment of GAFSP after G20 decision on agriculture 2009: CSD18 links climate change and agriculture ******************************** CC World: 2007: Publication of the IPCC fourth assessment report Major focus on agricultural mitigation 2008: UNFCCC COP14 Poznan Establishment of adaptation fund Negotiation text for Copenhagen COP15 focus on mitigation 2009 COP 15 Copenhagen

Why CSA? Need for transformative actions to mobilize agriculture for poverty reduction/food security (G20/GAFSP) Separation of adaptation and mitigation in UNFCCC Lack of understanding of the role of agriculture in food security in UNFCCC Seemingly tremendous potential to capture synergies between mitigation & food security (IPCC) Need to link adaptation work to greater body of agricultural development for food security

Milestones in CSA 2009: FAO report on Options for capturing synergies prepared for COP15 2010: FAO paper on CSA for Hague Conference (support to CSD 18) 2011: FAO-EC CSA partnership program launched First Global CSA Science Conf (Wageningen) 2012: CSA Sourcebook CSA global policy Conf. 2013: Global CSA Alliance launched 2015: Third global CSA science Conf (Montpelier)

Zambia: change in onset of the rainy season 1983-2012 Based on NOAA Africa rainfall climatology, temperature european medium range weather forecast.

How various options impact crop yields under different climate effects Higher Yields Lower/Same Yields Reduced probability of yields<LR Average Average climatic conditions Legume intercrop Inorganic fertilizer Improved seed Crop rotation Timely fertilizer access Delayed onset of rainfall Crop Rotation Increased seasonal temperature Timely fertilizer

Barriers to & Enablers of Adoption: Zambia & Malawi Minimum soil disturbance Low income Extension information Collective action Legume intercropping Distance to district center Land Tenure Crop Rotation Agro-Forestry Labor cost Tenure security Drought proneness Improved seed Uninsured risk Inorganic fertilizer Lack of land tenure Need to expand these to include more recent analysis and also results from risk analysis

Assessing tradeoffs: using MACC

CSA controversies/questions What relation to sustainable agriculture? What’s the focus? A new production system? Opens the door to industrial agriculture Prioritizes mitigation over food security

Prioritizing mitigation over food security?

IPCC 2007 indicated huge synergies between mitigation & SLM Ag Mitigation Potential @ 0-20USD/tCO2 Large Potential in Non-Annex I countries- possibly high co-benefits What are opportunities? Activities that mitigate carbon are relatively low cost, associated with ag. Development and located much more in developing countries than industrialized countries 16

Institutional/political issues a key barrier to capturing synergies Carbon markets: huge financial flows but: Institutional weaknesses in developing countries leads to high transactions costs/vulnerabilities Political implication of poor people bearing burden for rich polluters Limited knowledge of mitigation from ag. - heterogeneity across systems/practices - high measurement costs

CSA and sustainable ag. In practice, built upon country ag. development priorities Strong emphasis on SLM/resource use efficiency/ecosystem services Neither excludes/emphasizes GMOs, inorganic fertilizer

To summarize Key features of CSA framework and approach Getting a grip on effectively dealing with multiple objectives Paying attention to why progress was not being made (e.g. barriers and tradeoffs) Moving away from blue print solutions Explicitly considering financing sources and instruments

Lessons learned (and still learning) People and policy makers like blue-prints Usually not in people’s interest to consider multiple policy objectives Limited attention to tool development hampered progress CSA created a new narrative – but was launched without understanding full implications of what that would entail

For further info: http://www.fao.org/climatechange/epic/home/en/

Reflection on lessons learned