Institutional Change, Stakeholders and Adaptation

How to account for socioeconomic change? Scenarios: socioeconomic change represented by GDP, Population, assumptions of technological efficiency Problems? –Decisions made in relation to shorter-term variability and “events” –Experience of socioeconomic variability not easily modeled –Intersector linkages not easily expressed or understood

Why Worry about Institutional Change? Decisions are rarely made in relation to climate risk alone Institutional change matters –Can overwhelm signal of climatic variability and change –Can be highly variable and unpredictable –Can represent “shocks” to system, similar to climate –Limits and/or facilitates adaptation today and in the future

Assumptions about Agricultural Adaptation Farmers will perceive and respond efficiently to climate signal Decisions on crop choice, management, inputs and labor are flexible, responsive to market prices Households will act to optimize profits and/or yields Adaptation options are within agricultural sector (Hanemann, 2000, Climatic Change)

Plan de Ayala Los Torres Nazareno Puebla Tlaxcala Case study in Mexico

Farm Household Agriculture Rural industry Urban labor markets Institutional Change Climatic Hazards ? ? ? ? ? ENSO Neoliberalism, Privatization

Stakeholders Small-scale rainfed maize farmers Small-scale commercial vegetable farmers Agricultural extension and research National University of Mexico (forecasts) National Water Commission Agricultural ministry (SAGARPA)

Neoliberalism in Mexican Agriculture “Commercially viable” farmers new beneficiaries of credit, insurance, extension, technology transfer Stagnant or declining producer prices Increased competition and obstacles to commercialization New opportunities in rural industries and maquilas

Consultations with Farmers Community timelines: Important events, key changes in livelihoods Key decisions re: sensitive activity(ies) Surveys –Perceptions of tendencies of socio economic change (points of vulnerability/opportunity) –Non-climatic vs. climatic factors influencing decisions Content, trends and implications of structuring factors

Perceptions of Institutional Change Subsistence community: Change has been positive: New availability of welfare support Semi-commercial: Change has been mixed: New programs, but we are excluded. Input costs have risen, producer prices stagnated. Small-scale commercial: Change has been mixed. Prices more variable, no insurance. New crops available, new market opportunities.

Crop Diversification Shorter-cycle crops are better adapted Constraints: –No subsistence incentive –No economic incentive –Lack of insurance & credit

Obstacles to crop choice Land availability and tenure Food insecurity and cultural preference Market prices for “alternative” crops Market access: lack of insurance, cost of production Profitability and opportunity in livestock market