FONTAGRO
DOCUMENTO 9
FORMULARIO DE PREPARACIÓN DE PROPUESTAS FINALES
INFORMACIÓN BÁSICA DEL CONSORCIO PARTICIPANTE
I. Título de la propuesta
Innovation platform for improving farmers’ adoption of Climate Smart Agriculture technologies: piloting in Honduras and Colombia
Organismo ejecutor líder: Nombre completo, siglas e información de contacto de la organización responsable de la ejecución del Proyecto con quien se firmaría el Convenio. Indicar el nombre de la persona que firmaría el Convenio.
|Nombre: Ruben Echeverria |
|Cargo: Director General |
|Organización: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) |
|Dirección: Km 17, Recta Cali-Palmira Cali, Colombia |
|País: Colombia |
|Tel.: +57 2 4450027 |
|Fax: +57 2 4450073 |
|Email: ruben.echeverria@ |
| |
Investigador líder: Nombre e información de contacto del investigador líder del Proyecto (y de su asistente) al que se dirigirían las comunicaciones oficiales sobre la ejecución del Proyecto.
|Investigador líder | |
|Nombre: Nadine Andrieu | |
|Cargo: Research Scientist | |
|Organización: CIAT | |
|Dirección: Km 17, Recta Cali-Palmira Cali, Colombia | |
|País: Colombia | |
|Tel. directo: | |
|Fax: +57 2 4450073 | |
|Email: n.v.andrieu@ | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
Administrador del Proyecto: Nombre e información de contacto de la persona que se encargaría de la administración financiera del Proyecto.
|Nombre: Luis Fernando Osorio |
|Organización: CIAT |
|Dirección: km 17 recta Cali - Palmira |
|País: Colombia |
|Tel.: +57 2 4450000 |
|Fax: +57 2 4450073 |
|Email: l.f.osorio@ |
Integrantes del Consorcio (Organismos co-ejecutores y asociados): Nombre (es) completo (s) e información de contacto de la (s) organización (es) o entidad (es) colaboradoras y asociadas en la ejecución del Proyecto y nombres de los investigadores principales involucrados en el proyecto.
|Persona de contacto: Nelson Enrique Lozano Castro |
|Organización: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MADR) - Colombia |
|Posición o título: Coordinator of the Sustainable Environment and Climate Change Unit |
|Dirección: Bogotá, Colombia |
|País: Colombia |
|Tel.: +571 2543300 |
|Fax: |
|Email: nelson.lozano@.co |
| |
|Persona de contacto: Ivette Velásquez |
|Organización: Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería (SAG) |
|Posición o título: Asesora-Cooperación Externa-Cambio Climático |
|Dirección: Tegucigalpa |
|País: Honduras |
|Tel.: +504 22325029 |
|Fax: |
|Email: velasquezcrespoivette@ |
II. RESUMEN EJECUTIVO (2 pages)
The impacts of changes in climate and climate variability on agricultural production will have substantial effects on agriculture and the livelihoods of smallholder farmers with few assets and limited access to markets in many parts of Latin America and Caribbean. In Colombia and Honduras, staple crops (maize, beans, yam, plantain) and important cash crops (coffee, cacao) will be highly impacted by climate change.
New adaptations strategies will be needed for farmers to address the short and long term challenges of climate change and particularly unprecedented climatic events.
Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) has emerged as a new framework that links climate change and agriculture development initiatives and aims to establish agriculture systems that simultaneously increase productivity, enhance resilience, and reduce emissions. Innovating around the CSA concept has the potential to generate new models for climate change planning and new investment pathways for agriculture from the local to global levels in the face climate change and climate variability.
Innovation is a process allowing the adoption of new practices or ideas resulting from the alignment of technical, social, institutional, and organizational dimensions. Fostering a process of innovation around CSA practices implies taking into account the collective nature of innovation, understanding bottlenecks and identifying opportunities for enhancing the innovation capacity of agricultural systems. Multi-actor innovation platforms can be defined as networks intended to strengthen interactions between actors in order to facilitate change that enables innovation.
This project aims to strengthen the adaptive capacities of family famers to climate change and climate variability through the development of innovation platforms at the local level that provide solutions for mainstreaming priority CSA options. Three main purposes will be addressed: (1) to identify the most efficient, effective, and equitable structure for innovation platforms dedicated to mainstreaming CSA in Honduras and Colombia, (2) to strengthen or initiate a process of adoption of CSA options at the local level through a participatory process that includes collectively designing innovative practices taking into account local practices and knowledge, and (3) To conduct ex-ante and ex-post assessments of CSA options, and identify changes needed to local institutions to support adoption. This project is organized in five components. Component 1 (Project Coordination) aims to coordinate project activities and establish inter-linkages and communication between project partners and local stakeholders involved in the innovation platforms. Component 2 (Innovation Support) is transversal to all the components of the research and aims to involve farmers, extension agents, researchers, and other local actors in co-innovation platforms that promote training, definition, experimentation, and appropriation of CSA technologies by local communities. Component 3 (Feasibility and Trade-offs Evaluation) aims to inform stakeholders about the outcomes that can be expected from implementing the practices and will be based on the use of a whole farm model. Component 4 (Testing CSA Options and Alternatives to Scale Out Adoption) aims to evaluate the applicability of collectively selected CSA practices through participatory on farm experiments, and assess the local institutional and organizational changes needed to support and incentivize the process of adoption. Component 5 (Assessment of CSA Prioritization) aims to evaluate the link between local priorities that will be identified from this FONTAGRO project and national priorities or prioritization processes currently conducted under the CGIAR Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS) research program in Honduras and Colombia.
The main expected results are (1) lessons on how co-innovation platforms for CSA adaptation can be constituted and supported to optimize functionality, (2) prospective evaluation of the role of different CSA alternatives in adapting and mitigating climatic impacts and improving productivity, (3) local practices used to cope with climate variability and risks strengthened, (4) local students trained, and (5) modifications suggested for national level prioritization processes to link with local social, environmental, and economic realities. A large range of activities will be conducted. The main activities will be: (1) the participatory design of innovation platforms dedicated to mainstreaming CSA with local stakeholders interested in participating in CSA activities in the target region, (2) participatory model-based evaluation of trade-offs under climatic and economic scenarios and CSA practices, (3) participatory experimentation with farmers of collectively selected CSA options, (4) collective testing of organizational changes intended to support an adoption process of CSA option, and (5) assessing of the prioritization processes. The duration of the project will be of 24 months. The estimated funding of the project is of USD 400,285 US with the amount requested to FONTAGRO being of USD 200,000.
III. ANTECEDENTES Y JUSTIFICACIÓN
The impacts of changes in climate and climate variability on agricultural production will have substantial effects on agriculture and the livelihoods of smallholder farmers with few assets and limited access to markets in many parts of Latin America and Caribbean. Besides specific trends by region in terms of temperature or rainfall patterns, rising frequency and severity of extreme events are expected. Climate change will result in greater fluctuations in crop yields and food supplies and higher risks of food insecurity (IPCC, 2014).In Colombia, staple crops (maize, beans, yam, plantain) and important cash crops (coffee, cacao) will be highly impacted by climate change particularly in the Andean region (CIAT, 2013). In Honduras, the predicted production losses could amount to about 120,000 tons of maize annually (Eitzinger et al., 2012). Laderach et al. (2010) quoted that changes in temperature and rainfall will decrease the area suitable for coffee by 20% to 40%. With the level of poverty at 30%, declining income from these crops will significantly affect rural people. Indigenous knowledge and practices have allowed farmers to cope with current climate variability: conservation of traditional seeds, selection of drought tolerant varieties, adjustment of amounts of inputs and of the schedule of activities, and diversification of cropping systems, livelihoods, or landscape use. While many of these practices may help farmers adapt to future climate change, new adaptations strategies will also be needed for farmers to address short and long term challenges of climate change and particularly to cope with unprecedented climatic events. Vermeulen et al. (2013) identified the need for incremental, systemic, and transformational changes at the farm level given the intensity of expected climate change impacts.
Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) has emerged as a new framework that links climate change and agriculture development initiatives and aims to establish agriculture systems that simultaneously increase productivity, enhance resilience, and reduce emissions (FAO, 2010). The CSA concept explicitly addresses the tradeoffs between these three goals, aiming to achieve food security objectives equitably and sustainably. Innovating around the CSA concept has the potential to generate new models for climate change planning and new investment pathways for agriculture from the local to global levels in the face climate change and climate variability.
In the framework of the work carried out under the CGIAR Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS) research program, Climate Smart Agriculture practices and investment portfolios are currently under prioritization by policy makers and national stakeholders. The first prioritization exercises conducted at the national level, allowed national stakeholders to select practices adapted to the diversity of agroecological contexts and for farms to invest in new practices such as seed banks, conservation agriculture, and water conservation practices chosen from an initial set of practices found in the literature or proposed by stakeholders. Strategically selecting practices to invest in is only one step in achieving their adoption or in other terms to foster innovation and especially farmers’ capacities to innovate. The introduction of these practices at the farm level implies specific reframing of current production systems and activities (Rodriguez et al., 2014). Furthermore innovation is generally enabled or constrained by the social, economic, and institutional environment. A major challenge will be identifying barriers and pathways to overcome and to scale out adoption (Douthwaite et al., 2003) of CSA practices as well as ensuring integration with local production systems and knowledge to ensure they address local contexts and needs.
Innovation is a co-evolutionary process, resulting from alignment of technical, social, institutional, and organizational dimensions. The agricultural innovation systems approach emphasizes the collective nature of innovation, and has gained currency as a framework for understanding bottlenecks and identifying opportunities for enhancing the innovation capacity of agricultural systems. Multi-actor innovation platforms are derived from this approach and can be defined as networks intended to strengthen interactions between actors in order to facilitate change that enables innovation (Kilelu et al., 2013).
There is diversity in the possible goals and structures of agriculture innovations platforms. They can be research oriented, development oriented, or both (Nederlof et al., 2011). They can be implemented at the national level, for example with consortia of market chain actors and development organizations, to address macro-level problems. They can also be implemented at the local level to facilitate interactions between farmers, local authorities, and service providers in order to involve them in the design, implementation and assessment of solutions and consequently empower the innovation capacity of small farmers. In these platforms, research can shift from conventional to participatory action research playing an active role not only in documenting the outcomes of the innovation platforms, but also by proposing new ideas, practices, tools, or boundary objects to improve interactions between actors (Cash et al., 2003; Trompette & Vinck, 2009). Modeling tools at the farm level can be such boundary objects (Andrieu et al., 2012) used to create a shared vision and understanding of the problem and to facilitate the ex-ante analysis of potential solutions that can be tested using on-farm experiments. In this case modelling tools and on-farm experiments operate as a “cognitive” mediator (Trompette & Vinck, 2009).
Most previous research with innovation platforms has been limited to addressing value chain challenges (Devaux et al., 2009, van der Kamp, 2012). A study currently conducted in West Africa, involving scientists of the consortium analyzes how to extend this concept to address sustainable development issues at the local level. In this case study, innovation platforms are used to analyze how to modify collective rules of access to land in order to enable the adoption of conservation agriculture in West Africa (photo 1, Dabire et al., 2014).
[pic]
Photo 1: Members of an innovation platform implemented in West Africa and analyzing how to improve access to land
The aim of research for development is also to extend the application of this concept to climate change challenges. This specifically means a reflection on the structure and function of such innovation platforms, the relevant stakeholders to be part of them, the identification of a relevant local facilitator able to support a sustainable dynamic taking into account power relationships between stakeholders, and the facilitation tools to be used. This also means a reflection on the relevant technical changes able to address short term objectives of income generation to medium to long term climate challenges combining ex-ante whole farm modelling with ex-post on-farm experiments. This project would apply a multi-actor local innovation platform approach to identify local solutions to increase adaptation capacity of family farmers of Colombia and Honduras, specifically aimed at increasing adoption and optimizing the triple win outcomes of CSA practices across local landscapes.
References
Andrieu, N., Dugue, P., Le Gal, P. Y., Rueff, M., Schaller, N.,Sempore, A., 2012. Validating a whole farm modelling with stakeholders: Evidence from a West African case. Journal of Agricultural. Science., 4: 159-173.
Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J., Mitchell, R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academic Sciences 100, 8086-8091.
CIAT (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical). 2013. Evaluación de la vulnerabilidad al cambio climático de la agricultura en la región Andina de Colombia. CIAT Políticas en Síntesis No. 13. CIAT, Cali, Colombia. 6 p.
Coudel, E., Devautour, H., Soulard, C.T., Faure, G., Hubert, B., 2013. Renewing Innovation Systems in Agriculture and Food: How to go towards more sustainability? Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Dabire, D., Andrieu, N., Diallo, M., Coulibally, K., Posthumus, H., Djamen, P., Triomphe, B., 2014. Conception et mise en oeuvre des plateformes d’innovation multi-acteurs autour de l’Agriculture de Conservation au Burkina. African Congress on Conservation Agriculture 18th-21st Marsh, Lusaka, Zambia.
Devaux, A., Horton, D., Velasco, C., Thiele, G., López, G., Bernet, T., Reinoso, I., Ordinola, M., 2009. Collective action for market chain innovation in the Andes. Food Policy 34: 31–38.
Douthwaite, B., Kuby, T., van de Fliert, E., Schulz, S., 2003. Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agricultural Systems 78: 243-265.
Eitzinger, A., Läderach, P., Sonder, K., Schmidt, A., Sain, G., Beebe, S., Rodríguez, B., Fisher, M., Hicks, P., Navarrete-Frías, C., Nowak, A., 2012. Tortillas on the Roaster: Central America’s Maize–Bean Systems and the Changing Climate. CIAT Policy Brief No. 6. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia. 6 p.
Kilelu, C. W., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2013. Unravelling the role of innovation platforms in supporting co-evolution of innovation: Contributions and tensions in a smallholder dairy development programme Agricultural Systems 118: 65–77.
Läderach, P., Haggar, J., Lau, C., Eitzinger, A., Ovalle, O., Baca, M., Jarvis, A., Lundy, M., 2010. Mesoamerican coffee: Building a climate change adaptation strategy. CIAT Policy Brief no. 2. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia. 4 p.
Leeuwis, C. 2004. Communication for innovation: rethinking agricultural extension, Third edition, Blackwell Publishing.
Nederlof, S., Wongtschowski, M., Van der Lee, F. (eds.) 2011. Putting heads together: Agricultural Innovation Platforms in Practice. Bulletin 396. Amsterdam: KIT publishers.
Rodriguez, D., Cox, H., deVoil P., Power, B., 2014. A participatory whole farm modelling approach to understand impacts and increase preparedness to climate change in Australia, in press
Trompette, P., Vinck, D., 2009. Retour sur la notion d'objet-frontière. Revue d'anthropologie des connaissances 3: 5-27.
Van der Kamp, J. W., 2012. Paving the way for innovation in enhancing the intake of whole grain. Trends in Food Science & Technology 25: 101-107.
Vermeulen, S. J.; Challinor, A.; Thornton, P. K.; Campbell, B. M.; Eriyagama, N.; Vervoort, J. M.; Kinyangi, J.; Jarvis, A.; Läderach, P.; Ramírez Villegas, J.; Nicklin, K. J.; Hawkins, Ed.; Smith, D. R., 2013. Addressing uncertainty in adaptation planning for agriculture. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States of America 110: 8357-8362.
e
VIII. DESCRIPCIÓN DEL PROYECTO
A. Fin:
This project aims to strengthen the adaptive capacities of family famers to climate change and climate variability through the development of innovation platforms at the local level that provide solutions for mainstreaming priority CSA options. The innovation platforms will involve farmers, technicians, trainers, researchers, private partners, and other local stakeholders in all the steps of the participatory research process. The platforms will foster (1) awareness about climate change impact on farm production (2) co-design of CSA practices adapted to local needs and diversity of farming systems and (3) institutional and organizational changes by facilitating linkages among stakeholders who were not previously well connected in order to support a process of adoption of the designed CSA practices.
B. Propósito:
To identify the most efficient, effective, and equitable structure for innovation platforms dedicated to mainstreaming climate smart agriculture in Honduras and Colombia. To strengthen or initiate a process of adoption of CSA options at the local level through a participatory process that includes collectively designing innovative practices taking into account local practices and knowledge. Conduct ex-ante and ex-post assessments of CSA options, and identify changes needed to local institutions to support adoption.
C. Componentes:
The Project will be conducted in two sites located in areas with contrasted agrocecological and socioeconomical characteristics: one in Colombia, the other one in Honduras. They are respectively located in two of the megadominios defined by FONTAGRO (1) V “Sistemas Altos Andinos”, (2) VIII “América Central y Sur de México”. These two sites have been selecting because of their vulnerability to climate change, previous works of CIAT, its partners, and local institutions on climate change. The comparison of outcomes from these contrasted areas will allow producing generic outcomes for other regions of Latin America and Caribbean. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework of the project and articulates the links between components. The project process will be simultaneously conducted in the study sites of Honduras and Colombia.
[pic]
Figure 1: Conceptual framework of project components
Component 1: Project Coordination.
This component aims to coordinate project activities through the implementation of steering and advisory committees. It also aims to establish inter-linkages and communication between project partners and local stakeholders involved in the innovation platforms through workshops, meetings and videoconferencing to provide quality assurance of deliverables and reporting to FONTAGRO.
Component 2: Innovation Support.
The main objective of this component is to involve farmers, extension agents, researchers, and other local actors in one local co-innovation platform per study site that promote training, definition, experimentation, and appropriation of CSA technologies by local communities, bridging the gaps between research and extension, public and private sectors, and between national priorities and local realities. These platforms will be adapted to the specific characteristics of the study sites (types and needs of the local stakeholders). One important function of the innovation platform will be to enhance the capacity of local stakeholders to analyse, experiment, evaluate, and finally develop innovative solutions to existing challenges. This component will be transversal to all the components of the research in order to create iterative learning opportunities.
Component 3: Feasibility and Trade-offs Evaluation.
The aim of this component is to co-design with stakeholders a whole farm model allowing a prospective assessment of the trade-offs related to implementing CSA technologies at the farm level and across climatic, social, and economic scenarios defined through the innovation platforms. The participatory modeling exercise will concretely contextualize climate change impact at the farm level and inform stakeholders about the outcomes that can be expected from implementing the practices. It will be used to identify potential entry points to shift trade-offs through modification of the practice itself, selection of alternative practices, or modification of implementation pathways. Figure 2 illustrates a potential structure for the whole farm model.
[pic]
Figure 2: Example structure of the model that could be used to assess the impact of CSA practices at the farm level.
Each box represents a component of the model. The name of each component of the model is indicated in the top section of the box, its main attributes in the middle, and its main functions or calculations in the bottom. These relationships between the components of the model is indicated by lines.
Component 4: Testing CSA Options and Alternatives to Scale Out Adoption.
In this component the applicability of collectively selected CSA practices in the existing farming systems will be evaluated through participatory on farm experiments, allowing for the documentation of actual outcomes and areas for future adaptation of practices. These practices will be co-designed with local stakeholders and consequently identified with them. They will be based on local and scientific knowledge. The kinds of CSA practices identified by the scientific community are for example practices based on the principles of conservation agriculture that simultaneously increase productivity, enhance resilience, and reduce emissions.
This component also aims to evaluate the local institutional and organizational changes needed to support and incentivize the process of adoption. These institutional changes could include new modes of networking and organizing farmers to shift production and/or commercialization strategies.
Component 5: Assessment of CSA Prioritization.
Colombia and Honduras are actively developing national priorities for agriculture initiatives that address increasing productivity, enhancing resilience, and low emission development. This component aims to evaluate the alignment between nationally prioritized initiatives that link climate change and agricultural development and local priorities and contexts, assessing if desired outcomes are linked across levels. Results aim to inform the design of future national prioritization and planning processes.
D. Resultados Esperados:
For each of the components, different sets of results are expected. The numbering of each expected result (ER) refers to the related component.
ER 1.1: Project Team workshop reports at inception and end-of-project ER 1.2: Steering committee meeting reports (biannually)
ER 1.3: Periodic project reports submitted to FONTAGRO
ER 1.4: Final project report to FONTAGRO
ER 2.1 Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of main actors relevant to the innovation process to understand where weaknesses need to and can be supported
ER 2.2 Assessment of knowledge and information flows, from and to whom, and how this can be used in the design of supportive innovation platforms – knowledge management strategy developed
ER 2.3 Innovation platforms in place: alliances of agro-service providers delivering agricultural information and facilitating uptake of improved technologies and practices by farmers
ER 2.4 Lessons on how co-innovation platforms for CSA adaptation can be constituted and supported to optimize functionality – reports produced and scientific paper submitted
ER 2.5 Regional networks on CSA strengthened between Honduras and Colombia, with institutional capacities developed and regional presence reinforced
ER 2.6 Policy report on institutional factors promoting or hindering large scale adoption of CSA
ER 2.7 Local students trained on social network analysis and support
ER 3.1 An integrative modeling platform linking the various components (soil, crops, livestock, household, and communal resources and rules) of the farming systems under study, to perform trade-offs analysis between production, adaptation, and mitigation, drawing largely from the data collected during the project
ER 3.2 Scientific evidence (scientific paper submitted) and prospective evaluation of the role of different CSA alternatives in adapting and mitigating climatic impacts and improving productivity
ER 3.3 Local students trained on trade-offs analysis at the farm level
ER 4.1 Local practices used to cope with climate variability and risks strengthened
ER 4.2 Effectiveness of CSA technologies validated
ER 4.3 Livelihood analysis reports outlining the costs and benefits of CSA practices and their role in livelihood strategies of households including assessments of the dynamics of adoption constraints at household and community levels, taking into account gender aspects
ER 4.4 Local students trained on participatory on-farm experiments
ER 5.1 Differences between nationally and locally selected initiatives and desired outcomes for CSA practices identified
ER 5.2 Outcomes achieved by practices evaluated against outcomes desired nationally and locally
ER 5.3 Documentation of suggested actions to strengthen links between national level prioritization processes and local priorities and social, environmental, and economic realities
E. Actividades y Metodologías:
This research will complement research conducted by CCAFS and CIAT on a national level CSA prioritization processes in Colombia and Honduras. National stakeholder forums will have selected portfolios of prioritized CSA practices. The local innovation platforms in this project will be integrated across activity sets 1 to 5 in order to analyse how to co-design CSA practices, assess links between nationally prioritized CSA options with local practices and priorities. The section below outlines the sets of activities to be conducted with each component. The numbering of each activity links with the related component.
Activity 1.1: Coordination of the steering committee (SC) and organization of the advisory board. The SC will consist of one representative from each partner institute and local stakeholders involved in the innovation platforms. The SC will meet twice a year, in person during the Global Workshops, and by videoconference through the year, to provide a route for feedback and reflection so that opportunities for adaptive management can be actualized.
Activity 1.2: Organization of Global Workshops involving all partner institutes to be held at project inception (month 2) and upon project completion (month 24) to allow a comparative analysis between case studies and synthesis of the results.
Activity 2.1: Identification of local stakeholders’ organizations (research, training, extension, NGO, local institutions and private sector) either participating in on-going CSA activities or that would be interested in participating in CSA activities in the target region: interviews, review of literature, and social network mapping.
Activity 2.2: Review of different experiences with agriculture related Innovation Platforms (for sustainably intensify the agricultural systems), especially in the target regions, to document previous mechanisms for establishing partnerships: interviews, review of literature, and social network mapping.
Activity 2.3: Iterative training of local stakeholders on CSA practices, modeling, and analytical tools that will emerge from the process: organization of training sessions and testing on their impact on stakeholders’ knowledge and behaviour.
Activity 2.4: Participatory design of innovation platforms dedicated to mainstreaming CSA with local stakeholders interested in participating in CSA activities in the target region: collective definition of the goals, structure, rules of functioning, facilitator, associated facilitation tools, and activities for the platform.
Activity 2.5: Implementation and facilitation of the Innovation Platform with the specific facilitation tools: execution of activities defined collectively.
Activity 2.6: Participatory and iterative assessment with local stakeholders of innovation platform as an effective and efficient tool for mainstreaming CSA: initial and final assessment of farmers’ knowledge, behaviour and practices, mapping of sources and flows of knowledge between the members of innovation platforms during the meetings to assess and engage entry points for knowledge sharing and innovation, assessment of the existence of a dynamic of implementation of organizational changes.
Activity 3.1: Participatory definition of climatic and socio-economic scenarios translating possible changes in the study sites: focus group meetings with the members of the innovation platforms.
Activity 3.2: Participatory adaptation with the members of the innovations platforms of whole farm model intended to analyse the trade-offs between production, adaptation, and mitigation, to make more concrete the impact on climate change at farm level, and to be used as a decision support tool in the innovation platforms: analysis of the functioning of farming systems representative of the diversity found in the study sites, collective definition of productivity, adaptation and mitigation indicators, review of literature of existing whole-farm models, collective selection of the model able to represent the farming systems, a wide range of CSA practices, and the scenarios collectively selected (activity 3.1).
Activity 3.3: Model-based evaluation of trade-offs under scenarios and model results validated/discussed in co-innovation platforms: simulation of the farming systems under the scenarios defined collectively and for different level of adoption of CSA practices, and assessment of their effect on productivity, mitigation and adaptation indicators.
Activity 4.1: Collective selection of CSA practices to be implemented through the innovation platforms: additional local workshops intended to select a reduced number of CSA practices based on the results of simulation (activity 3.3) and on their articulation with local knowledge.
Activity 4.2: Participatory experimentation with farmers of collectively selected CSA options: participatory design of the protocols through the innovation platforms, farmers testing through on-farm experiments, and ex-post assessment of CSA options in terms of labour use and expected outcomes.
Activity 4.3: Collective ex-post assessment with local stakeholders through innovation platforms of perceptions on tested CSA options: focus group meetings on barriers to adoption and pathways to scale out adoption.
Activity 4.4: Collective testing of organizational changes intended to support an adoption process of CSA options: definition of an action plan with local stakeholders, implementation and assessment of the first steps of the process.
Activity 5.1: Analysis and workshop to assess local innovation and prioritization processes, if practices achieve the intended outcomes, and what barriers to adoption were unaccounted for in initial selection.
Activity 5.2: Comparison of national and local level priorities for climate change and agriculture interventions and desired outcomes.
Activity 5.3: Multi-level stakeholder results workshop and identification of lessons learned from process and opportunities to link national and local planning processes.
F. Cronograma:
|Activity |Year 1 |Year 2 |
| |
|Coordination of the steering committee (SC) and organization of the advisory board |
|Identification of local stakeholders organizations |
|Participatory definition of climatic and socio-economic scenario |
|Collective selection of CSA practices to be implemented through the innovation platforms |
|Assess local | |
|innovation and | |
|prioritization | |
|processes | |
|MADR | |
|SAG | |
G. Sostenibilidad:
Sustainability of the project results is based on the impact it is envisaged to bring and the articulated dissemination (section H) and contingency plans designed to deal with possible risks (section XI).
Financial sustainability
The technology that is being promoted by this project is medium to long term in nature. Farmers will continue to require technical support/backstopping from implementing institutions beyond the project. The study sites are villages where the CCAFS program intended to support future investments allowing consolidate activities from the current project as well as rolling out the success to a wider group of communities.
The foundation of financial sustainability is based on the assumption of increased profitability of CSA compared to conventional farming. Profits and the strengthening of local capacities intended by the project will entice smallholder farmers, to invest in the adoption of CSA. Early engagement of Agricultural Ministries will ensure successful policy and other incentive supports for scaling up CSA.
As technical capacity of farmers and local actors becomes in-built it is anticipated that demands for future backstopping becomes minimal.
Institutional sustainability
The ultimate objective is to promote and ensure mainstreaming, institutionalization, ownership and sustainability of the CSA intervention at local level. All relevant stakeholders in the target countries will be consulted from the very beginning and involved in the innovation platforms. This engagement will ensure that the initiative being proposed will facilitate their buy-in. During the project life, the capacities of Agricultural Ministries in the project countries will be built up to enable them to take up future leadership of the CSA activities.
The project will enhance scientific understanding of the pertinent biophysical and social issues which hindered widespread adoption of CSA technologies. The involvement of an internationally recognized research center in the project will have an impetus to sustained global cooperation in technology and information exchange.
Sustainability is further ensured by the gender consideration embedded in the project to ensure equity, transparency and accountability
Policy level sustainability
The action proposed is in line with current initiative in adapting family agriculture to climate change in Colombia and Honduras. The Agricultural Ministries will influence CSA support at policy level by lobbying and advocating for the CSA technologies through the appropriate channels.
This will help to ensure that future agricultural policies (formulated or reformed) will capture and effectively address the issues of sustainable food production through CSA technologies.
H. Divulgación:
The project will use several methods to disseminate the project results globally and locally. These include the meeting of the innovation platforms and training sessions, the scientific publications, the conferences, and workshops of which the materials will be posted to the relevant websites for easy and perpetual access for the general public. In the local countries the existing governance structure will be empowered and used for disseminating CSA information. The project’s objective to building capacity of local institutions is expected to establish a firm platform for CSA technologies dissemination
I. Manejo del conocimiento:
To ensure consistency in the methodological implementation, we not only need to look at the innovation per se, but also enhance capacities that the participants need to implement it, as well as the requirements for the support systems (facilitators, guidelines). The ability to adapt guidelines rather than follows a standard recommendation is evidence for beneficiaries enhanced capacity to analyze, experiment, evaluate and finally solve many of their own problems without having to depend upon external advise. Questions arising during implementation need to be addressed by trainers, whose role includes supporting the adjustment process and helping to bridge communications between beneficiaries and innovation specialists. The knowledge management strategy will be based on an iterative training of the members of the innovation platforms and their participation to all the steps of the project.
J. Bienes Públicos Regionales Factibles de ser Generados, Protegidos/Apropiados como Resultado del Proyecto:
All intellectual property and know how generated in the course of the project will be regarded as International Public Goods, with the commitment of their widespread dissemination and use to achieve the maximum impact to advantage the poor, especially smallholder farmers in the participating countries. As such, best efforts shall be used to make all information products Open Access.
Economic rights derived from the results of the project will be owned by the participating parties, in proportion to their intellectual contribution to said results, subject to the above considerations.
All results will be accompanied by the proper attribution notices to all participating entities, especially to FONTAGRO.
K. Grupo Objetivo y Beneficiarios:
Direct beneficiaries of the project are rural smallholder households in the study sites of Colombia and Honduras. Around 50 farmer households in each of the two sites will experiment the CSA practices. The selected rural smallholder households will be representative of the diversity of existing households in the study sites. The organizational changes also tested through the innovation platforms will aim the adoption of CSA practices by the entire rural community of both sites that means potentially 10,000 farmer households. Direct beneficiaries are also local stakeholders involved in the innovation platforms such as advisers, trainers, NGOs, input and service providers, and local institutions that will improve their interactions with smallholder farmers. Expected future end beneficiaries are farmers in areas with comparable conditions, including current and future climates, agroecology, demography, and market access, who can benefit from scaling out the process and practices.
L. Impactos Ambiental y Social:
Climate Smart Agriculture aims to link climate change with agriculture development initiatives and establish agriculture systems that simultaneously increase productivity, enhance resilience, and reduce emissions achieving food security objectives equitably and sustainably. Consequently promoting CSA practices will permit to address both environmental and social issues. Two kinds of technologies will be tested: CSA practices able to generate added economic value through increased productivity in the medium and long terms and organisational changes able to foster their adoption. The experiment of both technologies will motivate investments in CSA beyond the project cycle.
The better scientific understanding and social economic benefits realization, and the participation of the ministries of Agriculture of Colombia and Honduras are expected to trigger incentive policies encouraging wider scale adoption at local level.
V. CAPACIDAD INDIVIDUAL E INSTITUCIONAL
A. Experiencia reciente.
Institution 1 CIAT
CIAT is leading since 2010 a transversal CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). CCAFS is a major research partnership between the CGIAR and Future Earth, the global environmental change community. Our goal is to promote a food-secure world through the provision of science-based efforts that support sustainable agriculture and enhance livelihoods while adapting to climate change and conserving natural resources and environmental services. Our theory of change commits us to contributing to development outcomes that will lead to impacts through strategic partnerships, capacity building, communication, open access data, real time monitoring and evaluation and a strong focus on gender. We work in five regions: South Asia, East Africa and West Africa, Latin America and South- East Asia.
As a collective effort coordinated by the CIAT, CCAFS will become a hub that facilitates action across multiple CGIAR centers and other CGIAR Research Programs while involving farmers, policy makers, donors and other stakeholders, to integrate their knowledge and needs into the tools and approaches that are developed.
The CCAFS program in Latin America started its activities in 2013 and is focusing its efforts mainly on six (6) countries in the region (Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Colombia and Peru). Currently, the regional program is developing activities at different levels in these countries related to CCAFS main topics which are: Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA), Climate Information Services and Climate-Informed Safety Nets, Low emissions agricultural development and Policies and institutions for climate-resilient food systems.
In the framework of CSA work in the region, a project to pilot a prioritization tool to be used by policy makers in their planning and decision making process providing them a portfolio assessed in terms of costs and benefits according to government (national/local) priorities in terms of adaptation, mitigation, food security, productivity. The pilot is being developed in Guatemala, Vietnam and Mali. Another project is also conducted with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MADR) of Colombia, FENALCE and FEDEARROZ and aims to adapt Colombian agriculture to climate change and climate variability with specific researches on how to produce relevant agroclimate information. One of the main characteristics of this initiative is the public-private alliances within the country in which every partner is contributing around the same purpose, towards Colombian farmers ’adaptation to climate change and variability.
Particularly, in Honduras CCAFS-Latin America is also supporting other initiatives such as the elaboration of socioeconomic scenarios to support the SAG (Secretariat of Agriculture and Livestock of Honduras) on the assessment of current and planned policies related to agriculture and climate change, as well as risk management. Within the activities with SAG, CCAFS is also supporting the development of an index insurance prototype for Honduras jointly with the International Institute for Climate and Society (IRI) from Columbia University. The SAG prioritized beans as the crop in which the prototype is going to focus and in El Paraiso, as the region prioritized.
The Fontagro proposal will strengthened the activities conducted under the CCAFS program with a specific entry point analysing how to set up innovation platforms dedicated to the adaptation to climate change of family farmers.
Institution 2 The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MADR)
The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development is a National Government entity that is responsible for formulating the policy related to the rural development, agricultural, fisheries and forestry. Its purpose is to contribute to the improvement of the living conditions of the peasants.
The Agriculture, Fishing and Rural Development Industry, in accordance with current regulations, includes the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and subsidiary and affiliated organizations.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development shall be responsible of the guidance, control and assessment of the performance of the duties assigned to its related and ascribed organizations, without prejudice to the powers of decision concerning them, as well as their participation in the formulation of policies, in the creation of industrial programs and their execution.
Institution 3 Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock of Honduras - Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería (SAG)
The Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock of Honduras (SAG) aims to ensure that domestic agricultural production is competitive, sustainable and able to fit into the international economy, responding to the needs of the domestic market and improving human, social, and environmental development, based on self-management, community participation, gender equity approach, and sustainable management of natural resources.
In this context, the SAG plays a triple role: (1) coordinating the planning and implementation of the Public Sector Agricultural Policy, (2) performing functions that target the areas of agricultural production of the country and (3) representing the agricultural sector at regional and international level.
At sectorial level, the SAG coordinates the implementation of sectorial policies by institutions of the public agricultural sector, specifically those related to land tenure, rural finance, marketing, forestry, farming and forestry, and rural development. Institutionally, the SAG intervenes through its branches and the
Programs and Projects running at short, medium, and long terms, and that are assessed by quantifiable and measurable indicators.
At regional and global levels, SAG is a member of various organizations including: the Agricultural Council of Central America (CAC), CATIE, the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
The direction of agricultural science and technology (DICTA) is a technical, financial and administrative decentralized body attached to the SAG. The legal mandate of the DICTA is: (1) the rationalization of services of generation and transfer of agricultural technology under agreements with existing private specialized institutions in the country, and (2) to promote the creation and operation of institutions or private companies for these purposes. Also DICTA is responsible for the design and implementation of programs for the generation and transfer of agricultural technology to the agricultural sector. DICTA is ordered to support small farmers, and particularly those settled in marginal areas with the aim of developing technology transfer models that can be scale-up through the application of private mechanisms for technical assistance.
DICTA is the public institution leader in scientific and technological development of the agricultural sector in Honduras linked to the implementation of public policies at the national level and provides effective, efficient, and transparent services to farmers.
The specific mission of DICTA is to design, manage, regulate and implement research programs, technology transfer and promotion of family farming, for enhancing innovation capacities of farmers in order to achieve the development of agriculture and food security.
Relevant scientific publications
We selected below the most recent scientific publications of CIAT (2014) on climate change assessment and/or adaptation and mitigation strategies underlying its capacity to conduct the proposed research program.
Baca, María; Läderach, Peter; Haggar, Jeremy; Götz, Schroth; Ovalle, Oriana. 2014. An integrated framework for assessing vulnerability to climate change and developing adaptation strategies for coffee growing families in mesoamerica . PLoS One 9(2):e88463.
Challinor, Andy; Marthe, Pierre; Asseng, Senthold; Thornton, Philip; Ewert, Frank. 2014. Making the most of climate impacts ensembles . Nature Climate Change 4: 77-80.
Corbeels, Marc; Graaff, Jan de; Hycenth Ndah, Tim; Penot, Eric; Baudron, Frederic; Naudin, Krishna; Andrieu, Nadine; Chirat, Guillaume; Schuler, Johannes; Nyagumbo, Isaiah; Rusinamhodzi, Leonard; Traore, Karim; Dulla Mzoba, Hamisi; Solomon Adolwa, Ivan. 2014. Understanding the impact and adoption of conservation agriculture in Africa : A multi-scale analysis . Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 187: 155-170.
Dempewolf, Hannes; Eastwood, Ruth J.; Guarino, Luigi; Khoury, Colin K.; Müller, Jonas V.; Toll, Jane. 2014. Adapting agriculture to climate change : A global initiative to collect, conserve, and use crop wild relatives . Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38: 369-77.
Douxchamps, S.; Rao, Idupulapati Madhusudana; Peters, M.; Van der Hoek, Rein; Schmidt , A.; Martens, S.; Polanía, J.; Mena, M.; Binder, C.R.; Schöll, R.; Quintero, M.; Kreuzer, M.; Frossard, E.; Oberson, A.. 2014. Farm-Scale tradeoffs between legume use as forage versus green manure : The case of Canavalia brasiliensis . Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38(1): 25-45
Eitzinger, Anton; Laderach, Peter; Bunn, Christian; Quiroga, Audberto; Benedikter, Andreas; Pantoja, Antonio; Gordon, Jason; Bruni, Michele. 2014. Implications of a changing climate on food security and smallholders’ livelihoods in Bogotá, Colombia . Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 19: 161-176.
FAO. 2010. “Climate-Smart” Agriculture: policies, practices and financing for food security, adaptation and mitigation. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Gustafson, David H.; Jones, James W.; Porter, Cheryl H.; Hyman, Glenn; Edgerton, Michael D.; Gocken, Tom; Shryock, Jereme; Doane, Michael; Budreski, Katie; Stone, Chris; Healy, David; Ramsey, Nathan. 2014. Climate adaptation imperatives : untapped global maize yield opportunities . International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability Published online.
Magrin, G.O., J.A. Marengo, J.-P. Boulanger, M.S. Buckeridge, E. Castellanos, G. Poveda, F.R. Scarano, and S. Vicuña. 2014. Central and South America. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Poppy, G.M.; Chiotha, S.; Eigenbrod, F.; Harvey, C.A.; Honzák, M.; Hudson, M.D.; Jarvis, Andrew; Madise, N.J.; Schreckenberg, K.; Shackleton. C.M.; Villa, F.; Dawson, T.P. 2014. Food security in a perfect storm : using the ecosystem services framework to increase understanding . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 369 (1639).
Ramírez Villegas, Julián; Cuesta C., Francisco; Devenish, Christian; Peralvo, Manuel; Jarvis, Andrew; Arnillas, Carlos. 2014. Using species distributions models for designing conservation strategies of Tropical Andean biodiversity under climate change. Journal for Nature Conservation [Accepted Manuscript]
Staiger Rivas, Simone; Alvarez, Sophie; Arana, José Antonio; Howland, Fanny; Cunha, Flavia; Valencia, Brayan; Muñoz, Luis Armando; Feijóo, Karina. 2014. Diseño de intervenciones de gestión de conocimiento en la investigación agrícola para el desarrollo : Metodología,experiencias y lecciones aprendidas . Knowledge Management for Development Journal 10(1): 36-51.
Valbuena, Diego; Homann-Kee Tui, Sabine; Erenstein, Olaf; Teufel, Nils; Duncan, Alan; Abdoulaye, Tahirou; Swain, Braja; Mekonnen, Kindu; Germaine, Ibro; Gérard, Bruno. 2014. Identifying determinants, pressures and trade-offs of crop residue use in mixed smallholder farms in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia . Agricultural Systems.
Wise, R.M.; Fazey, I.; Stafford Smith, M.D; Park, S.E.; Eakin, H.C.; Archer Van Garderen, E.R.M; Campbell, Bruce. 2014. Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Global Environmental Change.
B. Ejecución del Proyecto.
The Steering Committee (SC), chaired by the coordinator, will provide a route for feedback and reflection so that the project remains responsive to changes suggested by contactors and other stakeholders.
The organizations of a workshop involving all partner institutes at project inception will allow trigger the beginning of the activities in each site. The identification of local stakeholders and organizations to involve in the innovation platforms, review of different experiences with agriculture related Innovation, and training of stakeholders will allow implementing the innovation platforms.
The participatory design of innovation platforms will be a key step of the project since they are transversal to the different components. An action plan for the platforms will be collectively defined in order to allow training and the participatory definition of the climatic and economic scenarios, of the tools used including the modelling framework, the participatory priorization and assessment of practices, and definition of organizational changes.
The monitoring system that will be adapted and developed will include the logical framework presented in section IX.
C. Equipo técnico.
The activities will be conducted by a multidisciplinary team made-up of agronomist, economist, and anthropologist having experience in participatory research with stakeholders at local or national level. CIAT will lead the research and consequently will coordinate project activities and establish inter-linkages and communication between project partners. Sub-contracts will be done between CIAT, government institutions, and the private sector that will be involved in the innovation platforms. CIAT has a significant experience in coordinating participatory agricultural research programs. The ministries of agriculture of Colombia and Honduras will facilitate the inter-linkages with farmers and local institutions involved in the innovation platforms. The ministries will be fully integrated in the different components and particularly in the co-design of the methods and tools that will be used in the innovation platform. They will facilitate the linkage with other existing platforms, such as Agronet (.co) or the Linkata platform (), which provide forums for exchange of technical information between actors of agricultural systems, particularly information for climate change adaptation. They will also support the link with national policies and programs on climate change.
Representatives of the different farmer organizations of the study sites will be involved in the innovation platform and will consequently be involved in all the steps of the research. This project, through the design of the innovation platforms, will give the opportunity to strengthen interactions between farmer organizations and research and their capacity to analyse, experiment, evaluate, and finally solve many of their own problems. Preliminary contact has been made with local institutions, as for example foundations supporting the experimentation of sustainable practices by farmers, and farmer organizations. This project will give the opportunity to formalize the interaction between local actors, research, and ministries. Other local actors need to be identified through activities 2.1 and 2.2 proposed.
|Investigador |Institución /País |Experiencia y capacidad |Dedicación en % al |Tareas principales a |
| | | |proyecto |realizar |
|Deissy Martinez Baron |CIAT, Colombia |Science Officer of CCAFS program |18 |Elaboration of climatic |
| | |for Latin America | |and economic scenarios |
| | | | |for the study sites |
|Caitlin Corner Dolloff |CIAT, Colombia |Research Associate, MSc in |25 |Comparative analysis of |
| | |Environmental Change and | |the outcomes of CSA with|
| | |Management with specialization in| |intended outcomes |
| | |climate change adaptation | | |
| | |planning, leading the | | |
| | |participatory process of | | |
| | |prioritization of CSA options at | | |
| | |national level | | |
|Andrew Jarvis |CIAT, Colombia |Research Area Director for DAPA, |5 |Advisory board of the |
| | |Leader of the Theme 1 | |project |
| | |(Adaptation) of the CCAFS program| | |
|Ana Maria Loboguerrero |CIAT, Colombia |Leader of the CCAFS program for |10 |Advisory board of the |
|Rodriguez | |Latin America | |project |
|Luis Armando Muñoz |CIAT, Colombia |Research Associate with |30 |Follow-up of the |
| | |experience in facilitation of | |knowledge strategy of |
| | |appropriation of technologies and| |the project |
| | |identification of adaptation | | |
| | |practices | | |
|Jeimar Tapasco |CIAT, Colombia |Señor scientist Leading a |10 |Elaboration of climatic |
| | |research program aiming to adapt | |and economical scenarios|
| | |Colombian agriculture to climate | |for the study sites |
| | |change and climate variability | | |
|Nelson Enrique Lozano |MADR, Colombia |Coordinator of the Sustainable |30 |Link with local |
|Castro | |Environment and Climate Change | |institutions and with |
| | |Unit | |national priorities of |
| | | | |Colombia |
|Ivette Velásquez |SAG |Climate change and external |30 |Link with local |
| | |cooperation advisor | |institutions and with |
| | | | |national priorities of |
| | | | |Honduras |
|Ana Dunnaway |SAG/DICTA |Coordinator of planning, |20 |Co-design the technology|
| | |follow-up and assessment of | |transfer plan |
| | |research programs | | |
|Armando Bustillos |SAG/DICTA |Deputy Director, with experience |20 |Co-design the technology|
| | |in technology transfer | |transfer plan |
Nadine ANDRIEU
|Nationality : |French |
|Professional contact:| |
| |Email : n.v.andrieu@ |
|Profession : |PhD in Agronomy: Analysis and modeling of the functioning of the farming system in order to support the |
| |design of innovative farming systems |
| | |
|Current position : |Research scientist |
| |CIAT Research Unit : « Decision and Policy Analysis» |
|Expertises : |Analysis of tradeoffs between competing objectives at the farm level, co-design with farmers | |
| |of innovative farming systems | |
| | |
|Others expertises : |Decision support, modelling |
|Education : |2004 PhD in farming system agronomy from AgroParisTech in France |
|Professional |06/2006 - 12/2012 : based at CIRDES (a regional West African research centre on livestock development) |
|experience : |in Burkina Faso in order to monitor a project intended to improve the understanding of the role of |
| |modeling for the co-design of innovations with stakeholders. |
| | |
| |12/2004 - 06/2006 : based at EMBRAPAin the north eastern region of Brazil to analyze the biomass flows |
| |between livestock and farming systems at the farm scale in order to design more sustainable farming |
| |systems, post-doctoral position of 18 months |
| | |
| |11/2001 - 10/2004 : based at CEMAGREF-Irstea (a french research center) in Clermont-Ferrand France, in |
| |order to analyze the link between the management of the fodder system and the sensitivity of the farm to|
| |climate variability (phD) |
|Main publications |M. Corbeels, J. de Graaff, T. H. Ndah, E. Penot, F. Baudron, K. Naudin, N. Andrieu, G. Chirat, J. |
| |Schuler, I. Nyagumbo, L. Rusinamhodzib, K. Traore, H. D. Mzoba, I. S. Adolwa. 2014. Understanding the |
| |impact and adoption of conservation agriculture in Africa: A multi-scale analysis. Agriculture, |
| |Ecosystems, Environment, 187 : 155-170. |
| |Andrieu N., Dugué P., Le Gal P.Y., Rueff M., Schaller N., Sempore A.W.. 2012. Validating a whole farm |
| |modelling with stakeholders: Evidence from a West African case. Journal of Agricultural Science |
| |(Toronto), 4 (9) : 159-173. |
| |[20121120]. |
| |Tittonell P., Scopel E., Andrieu N., Posthumus H., Mapfumo P., Corbeels M., Van Halsema G., Lahmar R., |
| |Lugandu S., Rakotoarisoa J., Mtambanengwe F., Pound B., Chikowo R., Naudin K., Triomphe B., Mkomwa S. |
| |2012. Agroecology-based aggradation-conservation agriculture (ABACO): Targeting innovations to combat |
| |soil degradation and food insecurity in semi-arid Africa. Field crops research, 132 : 168-174. |
| |[20120521]. |
| |Andrieu N., Chia E., Vall E.. 2011. Recherche et innovations dans les exploitations de |
| |polyculture-élevage d'Afrique de l'Ouest Quelles méthodes pour évaluer les produits de la recherche ? |
| |[Introduction générale du numéro thématique]. Revue d'élevage et de médecine vétérinaire des pays |
| |tropicaux, 64 (1-4) : 7-8. [20130704]. |
| |Andrieu N., Nogueira D.M. 2010. Modeling biomass flows at the farm level: A discussion support tool for |
| |farmers. Agronomy for sustainable development, 30 (2) : 505-513. |
| |[20100504]. |
|Nationality : |Honduran |
|Professional contact:|Email : velasquezcrespoivette@ |
|Profession : |Phd in Economy: analysis of the link between environmental management and national economy |
|Current position : | Asesora-Cooperación Externa/Cambio Climático |
| |Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería |
|Expertises : |Climate change, environmental management and Impact of renewable energy | |
|Others expertises : | Science and literature |
|Education : |2014 PhD in Economy from University of Valladolid |
|Professional |Since March 2014 based at the Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería : Asesora Cambio Climático/ |
|experience : |Cooperación Externa |
| |March 2011 –March 2014 based at Secretaría de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente: Directora de Modernización |
| |April 2009- September 2011 based at the Fundación Centro de Automatización, Robótica y Tecnología de la |
| |Información y de la Fabricación (Fundación CARTIF): research scientist |
| | |
| |May 2008- June 2008 based at the University of New Orleans office of UNO Costa Rica-Summer Program 2008:|
| |Instructor |
| |January 2007-May 2008 based at the University of New Orleans Office of UNO Costa Rica, Rome, and France |
| |summer programs: Asistente del Director |
| |Jully 2005-August 2005 based at the University of New Orleans office of the University of Montpellier |
| |UNO Glories of France-Summer Program 2005: Asistente |
| |June 2005-Dicember 2006 based at the University of New Orleans Office of UNO Costa Rica, Rome, and |
| |France summer programs : Secretaria |
|Main publications | Velásquez Crespo 2011 Las energías renovables en Honduras: una propuesta para mitigar el alto índice de|
| |desempleo. Octubre, Revista iila-sica.it n° 03. |
Ivette Velásquez Crespo
|Nationality : |Colombian |
|Professional contact:|Email : nelson.lozano@.co |
|Profession : |Forestry Engineer from the University of Tolima, Specialist in Interpreting Remote Sensing Images |
| |Applied to Forest Surveying and Planning and Regional Development Administration |
|Current position : |Coordinator of the Sustainable Environment and Climate Change Unit |
| |Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MADR) - Colombia |
|Expertises : |Climate change, forestry, ecosystem, public policy definition, and Impact of renewable | |
| |energy | |
|Others expertises : | Science and literature |
|Education : |Specialist in Interpreting Remote Sensing Images Applied to Forest Surveying and Planning and Regional |
| |Development Administration |
|Professional |Current: |
|experience : |Coordinator of the Sustainable Environment and Climate Change Unit |
| |Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MADR) – Colombia |
| |Past: Coordinator of the Forest Production Chains Group, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development |
Nelson Enrique LOZANO CASTRO
SUPUE
VI. SUPUESTOS Y RIESGOS
The main assumption is that the approach being proposed is a viable means of initiating a process of adoption of CSA options. As behaviour change at the individual and institutional levels is a long-term process, the selection of study sites where partners have previously work with local stakeholders and where they intend to focus their future resources is a way to mitigate this risk. Absence of mutual trust between key stakeholders could slowdown project implementation. Partners with existing working relationships and trust will be built into the accepted project management structure coupled with regular liaison meetings. Political instability resulting in displacement or failure to undertake activities by stakeholders and beneficiaries is a risk. This is mitigated by having an internationally neutral lead organization that also has good working relationships will local communities in the project countries. A policy related risk is that there are not sufficient incentives offered by the respective governments for community members to be motivated to invest in CSA. The involvement of the ministries in this project will allow to mitigate this risk. Another risk that may damage project success can come from farmers expecting to get quick results while CSA may produce slow but sustainable benefits. Farmers will be given relevant training to understand CSA dynamics and will participate in all the steps of the design of CSA options. Extreme climatic conditions such as prolonged droughts and flooding resulting in poor project performance can be a risk, but this will give the opportunity to assess the CSA options and will be part of the scientific results of the project.
OS Y RIESGOS
VII. PLAN DE ADQUISICIONES DE BIENES Y SERVICIOS
Supplies contribution in the amount of USD 50,000 by FONTAGRO. The acquisition plan for supplies is presented in Table 2.
Table 2 Plan de adquisición de bienes e insumos
|Adquisición de |Institución/ País|Monto estimado por |Método de |Breve |Año de adquisición | |
|Insumos | |fuente de |adquisició|Justificación | | |
| | |financiación |n | | | |
| | | |(CP / SD) | | | |
|Seeds and |CIAT/ |40,000 | |CP |On-farm experiments of |2015 & 2016 |
|agricultural |International | | | |CSA practices in both | |
|inputs | | | | |countries with 50 | |
| | | | | |farmers per country per | |
| | | | | |year. | |
|Office Suplies |CIAT/ |10,000 | |CP |Reporting and |2015 & 2016 |
| |International | | | |facilitating the | |
| | | | | |meetings of Innovation | |
| | | | | |platforms. | |
Consultants and specialists contribution in the amount of USD 83,000 by FONTAGRO. The recruitment plan is described in Table 3.
Table 3. Plan de contratación de servicios: consultores, especialistas y mano de obra no especializada
|CONSULTORES |Institución/País |Objetivo |Duración |Monto estimado |Método de contratación|
|Especialidad/ | | |(months) |(USD) | |
|Calificación | | | | |(CC / CD) |
|Post-graduate student |SAG/Honduras |Support the on farm |12 | 12,960 |CD |
| | |experiments | | | |
|Post-graduate student |CIAT/International |Support the design, the |12 | 19,224 |CD |
| | |implementation, and the | | | |
| | |facilitation of | | | |
| | |innovation platforms | | | |
|Post-graduate student |CIAT/International |Support the on farm |12 | 17,691 |CD |
| | |experiments | | | |
|International expert |CIRAD/France |Methodological support |2 | 20,165 |CD |
| | |for the design and | | | |
| | |facilitation of | | | |
| | |innovation platforms | | | |
VIII. PRESUPUESTO
Cuadro de montos máximos
In addition to the supplies and consultants costs (mentioned above), the funds requested to FONTAGRO will be used for traveling and dissemination.
Travel and per diem, contribution in the amount of USD 40,000 by FONTAGRO:
Movement of the scientific team between study sites in Colombia and Honduras in order to meet local stakeholders, collect data for the feasibility and trade-offs evaluation, follow the on-farm experiments and the functioning of the innovation platforms. At least twice a year two training events will be held by country.
Dissemination, contribution in the amount of USD 24,000 by FONTAGRO:
• Multimedia on CSA practices, for institutions that will train farmers in both countries; 100 copies by country.
• Two information leaflets: 3,000 copies.
• Three scientific publications: costs of translation USD 1,000 by scientific publication
• Support for the organization of trainings and/or field days (promotion of the events, transportation and refreshments for participating farmers).
- 200 farmers and technicians trained;
- 28 farmers by event;
- 4 events by country, 2 countries, USD 6 by farmer.
Other costs (financed by CIAT and by co-executing agencies, not by FONTAGRO):
• Administrative costs.
• Technical assistance of both MADR & SAG, including travel expenses.
• CIAT personnel
Pulsar con doble click el cuadro para abrir la aplicación de Excel e ingresar el monto total solicitado para financiación con recursos de la contribución del FONTAGRO.
[pic]
Presupuesto por componente
Pulsar con doble click el cuadro para abrir la aplicación de Excel e ingresar el monto total solicitado para financiación con recursos de la contribución del FONTAGRO y los montos de contrapartida.
[pic]
Presupuesto Detallado
Pulsar con doble click el cuadro para abrir la aplicación de Excel con los formatos para la presentación del presupuesto detallado por categoría de gasto, plan de adquisiciones, plan de contrataciones, etc.
[pic]
IX. MARCO LÓGICO
|Intervention logic |Objectively verifiable Indicator |Sources and means of verification |Hypotheses |
|Global Objective | | |Unfavorable policy for |
|to strengthen the adaptive capacities of family famers | | |community members to be|
|to climate change and climate variability through the | | |motivated to invest in |
|development of innovation platforms at the local level | | |CSA |
|that provide solutions for mainstreaming priority CSA | | |Political instability |
|options. | | |resulting in |
| | | |displacement or failure|
| | | |to undertake activities|
| | | |by stakeholders and |
| | | |beneficiaries |
| | | | |
|Specific Objectives |At least one innovation platform |Progress monitoring reports |Political instability |
|To identify the most efficient, effective, and equitable|linking relevant local actors for |Scientific publications (Peer |resulting in |
|structure for innovation platforms dedicated to |mainstreaming climate smart |review papers, Thesis (MSc) or |displacement or failure|
|mainstreaming climate smart agriculture in Honduras and |agriculture established |Scientific communication) |to undertake activities|
|Colombia. | |Surveys |by stakeholders and |
|To strengthen or initiate a process of adoption of CSA |At least one innovative CSA option |Proceeding reports for seminar or |beneficiaries |
|options at the local level through a participatory |defined, tested and validated |workshops |Less collaboration by |
|process that includes collectively designing innovative |collectively | |farmers expecting to |
|practices and integrating practices that were | | |get quick results |
|prioritized at the national level with local practices |60 % of the farmers directly involved| | |
|and knowledge. |in the project have a good perception| | |
|To conduct ex-ante and ex-post assessments of CSA |on the practices collectively tested | | |
|options, and identify changes needed to local | | | |
|institutions to support adoption. |At least one organizational change | | |
| |defined and tested collectively the | | |
| |second year of the project | | |
| | | | |
| |At least one develop plan defining a | | |
| |set of organizational changes for | | |
| |enabling the adoption of CSA option | | |
| |is adopted at community level by | | |
| |local actors | | |
|Components | | | |
|Component 1: Project Coordination |One workshop organized at the |Progress monitoring reports |Political instability |
| |inception and end of the project |Workshop reports |resulting in |
| |Two steering committee per year | |displacement or failure|
| |organized | |to undertake activities|
| | | |by stakeholders and |
| | | |beneficiaries |
| | | |Less collaboration by |
| | | |farmers expecting to |
| | | |get quick results |
|Component 2: Innovation Support |One innovation platform established |Policy brief | |
| |per site |Progress monitoring report | |
| | |Scientific publications | |
| |At least on training of stakeholders |Surveys | |
| |organized per site |Proceeding reports for seminar or | |
| | |workshops | |
|Component 3: Feasibility and Trade-offs Evaluation |One modelling platform developed |Progress monitoring report | |
| | |Scientific publications | |
| |One prospective trade-offs analysis |Surveys | |
| |of different practices developed |Proceeding reports for seminar or | |
| | |workshops | |
|Component 4: Testing CSA Options and Alternatives to |At least one CSA practice tested on |Field reports | |
|Scale Out Adoption |farm (100 farmers) and collectively |Progress monitoring report | |
| |validated |Scientific publications | |
| | |Surveys | |
| |At least one meeting of the members |Proceeding reports for seminar or | |
| |of the innovation platform to |workshops | |
| |identify and test social, economic, | | |
| |and organizational changes intended | | |
| |to support an adoption process of CSA| | |
| |options | | |
|Component 5: Assessment of CSA Prioritization |At least one workshop with |Progress monitoring report | |
| |stakeholders to discuss the results |Workshop report | |
| |from innovation platform and identify| | |
| |lessons learned for improving | | |
| |cross-level planning for climate | | |
| |smart agriculture interventions | | |
|Activities | | | |
|COMPONENTE 1 |Purchase of supplies |Progress monitoring reports |Political instability |
|Activity 1.1: Coordination of the steering committee |Travel cost and perdiem |Workshop reports |resulting in |
|(SC) and organization of the advisory board. | | |displacement or failure|
|Activity 1.2: Organization of Global Workshops involving|One workshop organized at the | |to undertake activities|
|all partner institutes to be held at project inception |inception and end of the project | |by stakeholders and |
|(month 2) and upon project completion (month 24) |Two steering committee per year | |beneficiaries |
| |organized | |Less collaboration by |
| | | |farmers expecting to |
| | | |get quick results |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|COMPONENTE 2 |Contracts signed Purchase of supplies|Policy brief | |
|2.1: Identification of local stakeholder organizations | |Progress monitoring report | |
|(research, training, extension, NGO, local institutions |Travel cost and perdiem |Scientific publications | |
|and private sector) either participating in on-going CSA| |Surveys | |
|activities or that would be interested in participating |A list of relevant actors on CSA or |Proceeding reports for seminar or | |
|in CSA activities in the target region. |that would be interested in |workshops | |
| |participating in CSA activities | | |
| |established per site | | |
|2.2: Review of different experiences with agriculture | | | |
|related Innovation Platforms (for sustainably intensify |One SWOT analysis of main actors | | |
|the agricultural systems), especially in the target |relevant to the innovation conducted | | |
|regions, to document previous mechanisms for |per site at the beginning and at the | | |
|establishing partnerships. |end of the project | | |
| | | | |
|2.3: Iterative training of stakeholders on CSA |One social network analysis conducted| | |
|practices, modeling, and analytical tools that will |per site at the beginning and at the | | |
|emerge from the process. |end of the project | | |
| | | | |
|2.4: Participatory design of innovation platforms |One innovation platform established | | |
|dedicated to mainstreaming CSA: collective definition of|per site | | |
|the goals, structure, rules of functioning, associated | | | |
|facilitation tools, and activities for the platform. | | | |
| |At least on training of stakeholders | | |
|2.5: Implementation and facilitation of the Innovation |organized per site | | |
|Platform with the specific facilitation tools: execution| | | |
|of activities defined collectively. |One policy brief prepared | | |
| | | | |
|2.6: Participatory and iterative assessment of |At least one MSc student trained | | |
|innovation platform as an effective and efficient tool | | | |
|for mainstreaming CSA: mapping of flows and sources of |At least one scientific publication | | |
|knowledge during the meetings and social network mapping|prepared on how platforms for CSA | | |
|to assess and engage entry points for knowledge sharing |adaptation can be constituted and | | |
|and innovation |supported to optimize functionality –| | |
|COMPONENTE 3 |Travel cost and perdiem |Progress monitoring report | |
|Activity 3.1: Participatory definition of climatic and | |Scientific publications | |
|socio-economic scenarios translating possible changes in|At least one meeting of members of |Surveys | |
|the study sites |the innovation platforms organized |Proceeding reports for seminar or | |
|Activity 3.2: Participatory adaptation with the members |for the prioritization of scenario |workshops | |
|of the innovations platforms of whole farm model | | | |
|intended to analyse the trade-offs between production, |At least one climatic and one | | |
|adaptation, and mitigation |socio-economic scenario translating | | |
|Activity 3.3: Model-based evaluation of trade-offs under|possible changes in the study sites | | |
|scenarios and model results validated/discussed in | | | |
|co-innovation platforms |At least one meeting of members of | | |
| |the innovation platforms organized | | |
| |for the validation of the model and | | |
| |discussion of the results of the | | |
| |trade-offs analysis | | |
| | | | |
| |One modelling platform developed | | |
| | | | |
| |One prospective trade-offs analysis | | |
| |of different practices developed | | |
| | | | |
| |At least one MSc student trained | | |
| | | | |
| |At least one scientific publication | | |
| |prepared on how modelling platform | | |
| |can be used with stakeholders to | | |
| |assess CSA practices | | |
|COMPONENTE 4 |Contracts signed Purchase of supplies|Field reports | |
|Activity 4.1: Collective selection of CSA practices to |Travel cost and perdiem |Progress monitoring report | |
|be implemented through the innovation platforms. | |Scientific publications | |
|Activity 4.2: Participatory experimentation with farmers|At least on meeting of members of the|Surveys | |
|of collectively selected CSA options |innovation platforms to select CSA |Proceeding reports for seminar or | |
|Activity 4.3: Collective ex-post assessment with local |practices |workshops | |
|stakeholders through innovation platforms of perceptions| | | |
|on tested CSA options |A list of local practices used to | | |
|Activity 4.4: Collective testing of organizational |cope with climate variability and | | |
|changes intended to support an adoption process of CSA |risk established | | |
|options | | | |
| |At least one CSA practice tested on | | |
| |farm (100 farmers) and collectively | | |
| |validated | | |
| | | | |
| |At least one meeting of the members | | |
| |of the innovation platform to discuss| | |
| |the results of the experiments, and | | |
| |their perceptions on the practices | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| |One socio-economic & livelihoods | | |
| |analysis per site - farming systems | | |
| |and their specific constraints & | | |
| |opportunities for CA adoption - | | |
| |(gender sensitive) conducted | | |
| | | | |
| |At least one MSc student trained | | |
| | | | |
| |At least one scientific publication | | |
| |prepared on the outcomes of CSA | | |
| |practices participatory selected with| | |
| |local actors | | |
| | | | |
| |At least one meeting of the members | | |
| |of the innovation platform to | | |
| |identify and test social, economic, | | |
| |and organizational changes intended | | |
| |to support an adoption process of CSA| | |
| |options | | |
|COMPONENTE 5 |At least one workshop organized with |Field report | |
|Activity 5.1: Analysis and workshop to assess local |stakeholders to discuss results and |Progress monitoring report | |
|innovation and prioritization processes, if practices |compare priorities across levels. |Scientific publications | |
|achieve the intended outcomes, and what barriers to | |Surveys | |
|adoption were unaccounted for in initial selection. |One comparative analysis per site of |Proceeding reports for seminar or | |
|Activity 5.2: Comparison of national and local level |the main differences between |workshops | |
|priorities for climate change and agriculture |nationally and locally desired | | |
|interventions and desired outcomes. |outcomes for CSA practices | | |
|Activity 5.3: Multi-level stakeholder results workshop | | | |
|and identification of lessons learned from process and |One analysis of the perceptions of | | |
|opportunities to link national and local planning |local actors on the tested CSA | | |
|processes. |practices and comparison with | | |
| |intended outcomes | | |
| | | | |
| |One improved methodology for CSA | | |
| |prioritization processes | | |
XI. CARTAS DE COMPROMISO INSTITUCIONALES
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.