Www.rema.gov.rw
REPUBLIC OF RWANDA
[pic]
GUIDELINES TO MAINSTREAM CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
(DRAFT)
ACRONYMS
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program
CBA Cost-benefit Analysis
CCA Climate Change Adaptation
CCD
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CEA Cost-effectiveness Analysis
EDPRS Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GoR Government of Rwanda
GWC Green Water Credit
IFDC International Fertilizer Development Center
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISAR Agricultural Research Institute of Rwanda
IWRM Integrated water resources management
MCA Multi-criteria Analysis
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources
MINECOFIN Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning
NAMAS Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions
NAP National Agricultural Policy
NAPA National adaptation programs of action
NEPAD New Partnership for African Development
NHS National Horticulture Strategy
NSC National Seed Council
NSP National Seed Policy
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy
RADA Rwanda Agricultural Development Authority
REMA Rwanda Environment Management Authority
RHODA Rwanda Horticulture Authority
RPF Resettlement Policy Framework
SDFDS Strategy for Developing Fertilizer Distribution Systems
SD-PAM Sustainable Development Policy and Measures
SPAT Strategic Plan for the Agricultural Transformation
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
VERC Variety Evaluation and Registration Committee
WMO World Meteorological Organization
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Overview
1.2 Why Mainstreaming
1.3 Objective and Scope of the Guidelines
1.4 Objective and Scope of the Guidelines
2. CLIMATE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT: RISKS AND VULNERABILITIES
2.1 The Linkages between Climate Change and Development
2.2 The Relevance of Climate Change to Achieving the MDGs
2.3 Climate Change Impact on Agriculture
2.4 Climate variability and extreme weather events
2.5 Impacts and vulnerabilities
2.6 Climate change impacts on food security
2.7 Maintaining food security in a changing climate
3. CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ON AGRICULTURE: RWANDA’S CASE
3.1 Diminishing agricultural productivity and arable land distribution
3.2 Observed impacts of Climate change in Rwanda
3.3 Occurrence of extreme phenomena of drought and floods
3.4 Influence of climate hazards on agricultural production
3.5 The Challenges in Agricultural Sector
3.6 Cost of Climate change impacts in Rwanda
4. RWANDA GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY
4.1 Climate Change Opportunities
4.2 Initiatives to Improve Agriculture
4.3 Sectoral Policies and Strategies
4.3.1 National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPA)
4.3.2 The Agricultural Sector Policies and Strategies
i) The National Agricultural Policy
ii) The National Agricultural Extension Strategy
iii) Rwanda Agricultural Development Authority (RADA)
iv) Rwanda Horticulture Authority (RHODA)
v) Strategic Plan for Agricultural Transformation (SPAT) in Rwanda
vi) The Strategy for Developing Fertilizer Distribution Systems (SDFDS)
vii) The Rwanda National Coffee and Tea Strategies
viii) National Seed Policy
ix) Resettlement Policy Framework for Land Husbandry, Water Harvesting and Hillside Irrigation Project
x) Agricultural Research
4.4 Donor Supported Programmes on Natural Resources and Environment
4.5 Institutional Arrangements for the Agricultural Policy Implementation
4.6 Policy Implications of some of the Climate Change strategies
7. An Assessment of Current Policy Frameworks
4.7.1 Lessons from some NAPA documents
5. APPROACHES TO CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
5.1 Climate Change Adaptation and mitigation Concepts
5.2 Climate Change Mitigation options in agriculture
6. GUIDELINES FOR MAINSTREAMING CLIMATE CHANGE INTO AGRICULTURAL SECTOR ACTIVITIES
6.1 Challenges to Mainstreaming Climate Change in Agriculture
6.2 Approaches for Adaptation Mainstreaming Climate Change
6.3 Identification Analysis and Classification of Adaptation Options
1. Selection of potential adaptation options and integration with national objectives of sustainable development
6.4 Mainstreaming Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation at local levels
6.5 Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation in Project Cycle Management
Mainstreaming Adaptation
6.5.1 Mainstreaming and Project Cycle Management
6.5.2 Project Identification and Screening for Vulnerability
6.5.3 Identification & Selection of Adaptation Measures in Project Designing
6.5.4. Integration of Selected Adaptation Measures in Project Implementation
6.5.5. Adaptation Options as Indicators of Monitoring and Evaluation Tools
6.6 Some Examples
6.6.1 Water Harvesting
6.6.2 Water-harvesting and Irrigation
7. EXAMPLES OF RISK ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL SECTOR RESPONSES TO INCREASE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND POSSIBLE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES
7.1 Risk Identification, Assessment and Mitigation Strategies
7.2 Risk Matrix
8.0 MAISTREAMING OF CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGIES IN INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURAL IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL POLICY
8.1 Major Constraints and Areas for Review and Reform to Achieve Effective Mainstreaming of Climate Change in the Agricultural Sector
8.2 Policies to encourage adaptation of crop development and farming practices
8.3 Promising mitigation and adaptation strategies
8.4 Restoration of degraded land: Drawing lessons from Ethiopia and the Traditional Highland Vietnamese Production System
8.5 Mitigation potential of a conversion to organic agriculture and its developmental synergies
8.6 Mitigation options in the agriculture and forestry
8.7 Trade-offs and mitigation and adaptation synergy in agriculture and forestry
8.8 Barriers to Mainstreaming
8.9 Overcoming Barriers
8.10 Conclusions
List of Tables
Table 1: Linkage between Climate Change and MDGs
Table 2: Examples of projected climate change impacts on agriculture, forestry and fisheries
Table 3. Relevance of Climate change adaptation to selected policies and strategies
Table 4: An Approach to Adaptation Mainstreaming
Table 5: Key Mainstreaming Entry Points and Components at the Sectoral Level
Table 6: Key Mainstreaming Entry Points and Components at the Project Level
Table 7. Climate vulnerability and adaptation pathway and the project cycle
Table 8: Rainwater management strategies and corresponding management options to improve crop yields and water productivity.
Table 9: Risk and mitigation strategy matrix for adaptation response actions in Rwanda
Table 10. Vulnerabilities to climate change and possible adaptation strategies for an Integrated Agricultural Development Programme
Table 11: Policies, crop development and farming practices to minimize impact of climate change
Table 12: Examples of mitigation technologies, policies and measures, constraints and opportunities for agriculture and forestry sectors.
List of Figures
Figure 1: Climate change effects and related impacts in agriculture and allied sectors
Figure 2: Synergy between climate adaptation and mitigation in agriculture
Figure 3: Approach to National Level Adaptation actions for Mainstreaming Climate Change
Figure 4: Relationship of the programmatic approach to National Planning Cycle
Figure 5: UNDP Climate Mainstreaming Key Steps and Climate Change Adaptation Quality Standards
Figure 6: Comprehensive Framework for Integrating Climate Change adaptation at the local level (UNDP 2010)
Figure 7: Process of selection, evaluation and prioritization of adaptation practices
Figure 8: Framework for Decentralized Accountability
Figure 9: The project cycle
Figure 10: The Widely Cumulative Benefits of Soil Carbon
List of Boxes
Box 1: Examples of Maladaptation in Agriculture
Box 2: Key messages
Box 3: Progress Checklist for Adaptation Mainstreaming
Box 4: Four main methods for prioritizing and selecting adaptation options
Annexes
Annex 1: Definition of Key terms in Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Overview
The croplands, pastures and forests that occupy 60 percent of the Earth’s surface are progressively being exposed to threats from increased climatic variability and, in the longer run, to climate change. Abnormal changes in air temperature and rainfall and resulting increases in frequency and intensity of drought and flood events have long-term implications for the viability of these ecosystems. As climatic patterns change, so also do the spatial distribution of agroecological zones, habitats, distribution patterns of plant diseases and pests, fish populations and ocean circulation patterns which can have significant impacts on agriculture and food production. Increased intensity and frequency of storms, drought and flooding, altered hydrological cycles and precipitation variance have implications for future food availability. The potential impacts of climate change on rain-fed agriculture vis-à-vis irrigated systems are still not well understood.
The developing world already contends with chronic food problems. Climate change presents yet another significant challenge to be met. While overall food production may not be threatened, those least able to cope will likely bear additional adverse impacts (WRI, 2005). The estimate for Africa is that 25–42 percent of species habitats could be lost, affecting both food and non-food crops.
While farmers are often flexible in dealing with weather and year-to-year variability, there is nevertheless a high degree of adaptation to the local climate in the form of established infrastructure, local farming practice and individual experience. Climate change can therefore be expected to impact on agriculture, potentially threatening established aspects of farming systems but also providing opportunities for improvements.
1.2 Why Mainstreaming
1.3 Objective and Scope of the Guidelines
This guiding framework is developed to serve as an overarching outline for integrating climate change adaptation into local level project planning for use by all partners, with a focus on climate change impacts on the agricultural sector, which embraces crop and livestock production in general, and propose short-term and long-term adaptation and mitigation measures. It is intended to assist planners, implementers and evaluators of its partners to bridge the existing gap of looking at development interventions through a climate change lens. The authors believe that it will be further developed and refined over time by incorporating field-based information and case studies, and also by collecting feedback and suggestions from development partners, field level practitioners and other stakeholders.
1.4 Expected Outputs and Outcomes
(a) Climate change issues are integrated into national and sectoral frameworks. The outputs that will contribute to this outcome include provision of Technical Assistance and training for members of the relevant sub-sectors, who are responsible for formulating these plans as well as other sector stakeholders including local governments and other central government ministries.
(b) Enhanced knowledge and skills on climate change amongst key stakeholders in the agricultural sector. The outputs contributing to this outcome include trained staff and the development and dissemination of mainstreaming guidelines.
(c) The principal outcome of the guidelines will among others include sustainable livelihoods and food security through increased awareness of climate change issues and their mainstreaming into sector policies to minimize the impact of climate change. The implementation of adapted technologies and best practices for mitigating effects of climate change in agriculture, together with improved land use and management practices will short and long term, contribute to local and national development goals in terms of sustainable land resources use thereby enhancing sustainable livelihoods and food security through productive and diverse agricultural systems.
2. CLIMATE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT: RISKS AND VULNERABILITIES
2.1 The Linkages between Climate Change and Development
Symptoms of changing climate, such as higher frequency and amplitude of extreme weather events, changes to average temperature and precipitations, and sea level rise, all have implications for the environmental and socio‐economic situation of a country. Although agriculture accounts for only 9% of greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change, it is the main source of methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. On the other hand, conversion of agricultural land to forest offers considerable potential to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Moreover, studies carried out under the European Union’s (EU) Fourth Framework for Research and Development highlight that the Agriculture sector is likely to suffer severely as a result of climate change.
Like environmental management, climate change poses a risk to development and development planning should take into account anticipated impacts of climate change. The poorest countries often face an adaptation deficit, characterized by lacking resilience to current changes in climatic conditions. Lack of market access for agricultural products, limited knowledge and access to credit are all examples of adaptation deficits in the agricultural sector (World Bank, GN 45). At the same time, development choices made in the country can worsen its vulnerability, an issue known as mal-adaptation. For instance, development strategies can increase dependency on climate‐sensitive resources (e.g. certain crops); or there can be a mismatch between adaptation activities supported by external aid and the development priorities of recipient countries (IIED 20087).
Box 1: Examples of Mal-adaptation in Agriculture
In some cases climate change adds urgency to current activities to improve policies and institutional mechanisms that impact on the poor. There are tradeoffs between climate change and development, particularly when the two are considered in isolation rather than as an integral part of development planning.
2.2 The Relevance of Climate Change to Achieving the MDGs
The links between climate change, poverty and hunger reduction, environmental sustainability and human well‐being can also be expressed through the lens of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), as shown in the Table 2 below.
Table 1: Linkage between Climate Change and MDGs
|MDGs |Examples of MDG links with climate change |
|Eradicate extreme |Climate change is projected to reduce the value of the assets and degrade the livelihoods of many poor |
|poverty and hunger |people, for example in terms of health, access to water, homes, and infrastructure. |
| |Climate change is expected to alter the path and rate of economic growth due to changes in natural systems |
| |and resources, infrastructure, and labour productivity. A reduction in economic growth impacts poverty |
| |through, for example, reduced income opportunities. |
| |Climate change is projected to alter regional food security. In particular in Africa, food security is |
| |expected to worsen. Adverse impacts on food security could be seen in Latin America as well as in South and |
| |Southeast Asia. |
|Promote Gender |In the developing world in particular, women are disproportionately involved in natural resource‐dependent |
|Equality and |activities, such as agriculture, which are particularly vulnerable to climate change. |
|Empower Women |Women’s traditional roles as primary users and managers of natural resources, primary caregivers and |
|(Goal 3) |laborers engaged in unpaid labour (i.e. subsistence farming) mean they are involved in and dependant on |
| |livelihood and resources that are put most at risk by climate change. |
|Health related |Direct effects of climate change include increases in heat‐related mortality and illness associated with |
|goals: |heat waves (although fewer winter cold related deaths may happen in some regions). |
|Combat major |Climate change may increase the prevalence of some vector‐borne diseases (for example malaria and dengue |
|diseases |fever), and vulnerability to water, food, or person‐to‐person borne diseases (for example cholera and |
|Reduce infant |dysentery). |
|mortality |Climate change will likely result in declining quantity and quality of drinking water in many locations, |
|Improve maternal |which is a prerequisite for good health, and exacerbate malnutrition – an important source of ill health |
|health |among children – by reducing natural resource productivity and threatening food security, particularly in |
|(Goals 4, 5 & 6) |Sub‐Saharan Africa, but also in many other low latitude areas. |
|Ensure |Climate change is likely to alter the quality and productivity of natural resources and ecosystems, some of |
|environmental |which may be irreversibly damaged, and these changes may also decrease biological diversity and compound |
|sustainability (Goal |existing environmental degradation. |
|7) | |
Source: OECD 200917, based on Multi Agency Report (2003); IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007); WEDO (2008).
2.3 Climate Change Impact on Agriculture
The nature of agriculture and farming practices in any particular location are strongly influenced by the long-term mean climate state (Figure 1). Changes in the mean climate away from current states may require adjustments to current practices in order to maintain productivity, and in some cases the optimum type of farming may change. Higher growing season temperatures can significantly impact agricultural productivity, farm incomes and food security (Battisti & Naylor 2009). Moderate levels of climate change may not necessarily confer benefits to agriculture without adaptation by producers, as an increase in the mean seasonal temperature can bring forward the harvest time of current varieties of many crops and hence reduce final yield without adaptation to a longer growing season. In areas where temperatures are already close to the physiological maxima for crops, such as seasonally arid and tropical regions, higher temperatures may be immediately detrimental by increasing heat stress on crops and water loss by evaporation.
Water is vital to plant growth, so varying precipitation patterns have a significant impact on agriculture. As over 80 per cent of total agriculture is rain-fed, projections of future precipitation changes often influence the magnitude and direction of climate impacts on crop production (Olesen & Bindi 2002; Tubiello et al. 2002; Reilly et al. 2003). The impact of global warming on regional precipitation is difficult to predict owing to strong dependencies on changes in atmospheric circulation, although there is increasing confidence in projections of a general increase in high-latitude precipitation, especially in winter, and an overall decrease in many parts of the tropics and sub-tropics (IPCC 2007).
The differences in precipitation projections arise for a number of reasons. A key factor is the strong dependence on changes in atmospheric circulation which itself depends on the relative rates of warming in different regions, but there are often a number of factors influencing precipitation change projections in a given location. Precipitation is not the only influence on water availability. Increasing evaporative demand owing to rising temperatures and longer growing seasons could increase crop irrigation requirements globally by between 5 and 20 per cent, or possibly more, by the 2070s or 2080s (Döll 2002; Fisher et al. 2006), but with large regional variations.
2.4 Climate variability and extreme weather events
Historically, many of the largest falls in crop productivity have been attributed to anomalously low precipitation events (Kumar et al. 2004; Sivakumar et al. 2005). However, even small changes in temperature and mean annual rainfall can impact on agricultural productivity, negatively affecting overall national economic development (Figure 1). Lobell & Burke (2008) report that a change in growing season precipitation by one standard deviation can be associated with as much as a 10 per cent change in production (e.g. millet in South Asia). As current farming systems are highly adapted to local climate, growing suitable crops and varieties, the definition of what constitutes extreme weather depends on geographical location. However, in regions where farming exists at the edge of key thresholds increases in extreme temperatures or drought may move the local climate into a state outside historical human experience. In these cases it is difficult to assess the extent to which adaptation will be possible.
Changes in short-term temperature extremes can be critical, especially if they coincide with key stages of development. Only a few days of extreme temperature (greater that 32°C) at the flowering stage of many crops can drastically reduce yield (Wheeler et al. 2000). Crop responses to changes in growing conditions can be nonlinear, exhibit threshold responses and are subject to combinations of stress factors that affect their growth, development and eventual yield (Table 2). Crop physiological processes related to growth such as photosynthesis and respiration show continuous and nonlinear responses to temperature, while rates of crop development often show a linear response to temperature to a certain level. Both growth and developmental processes, however, exhibit temperature optima. In the short-term high temperatures can affect enzyme reactions and gene expression. In the longer term these will impact on carbon assimilation and thus growth rates and eventual yield. The impact of high temperatures on final yield can depend on the stage of crop development.
Figure 1: Climate change effects and related impacts in agriculture and allied sectors
Table 2: Examples of projected climate change impacts on agriculture, forestry and fisheries
|Phenomenon and direction of trend |Likelihood |Possible impacts on agriculture, forestry, |
|in weather and climate events | |fisheries and ecosystems |
|Warmer and fewer cold days and nights; warmer and more |Virtually |Increased yields in colder environments; decreased yields in warmer|
|frequent hot days and nights over most land areas |certain |environments; increased insect pest outbreaks. |
|Warm spells and heat waves increasing in frequency over |Very likely |Reduced yields in warmer regions due to heat stress; increased |
|most land areas | |danger of wildfire. For example, a temperature increase of 2ºC |
| | |would dramatically reduce the total area available for growing |
| | |robusta coffee in Uganda, and restrict it to higher altitude areas.|
| | |Models of farm incomes in India suggest that a 2‐3.5ºC increase in |
| | |temperature would result in a decline in farm net revenues by |
| | |between 9% and 25%. |
|Heavy precipitation events increasing in frequency over |Very likely |Damage to crops; soil erosion; inability to cultivate land due to |
|most areas | |water-logging of soils |
|Drought-affected area increases |Likely |Land degradation and soil erosion; lower yields from crop damage |
| | |and failure; increased livestock deaths; increased risk of |
| | |wildfire; loss of arable land |
|Intense tropical cyclone activity increases |Likely |Damage to crops; uprooting of trees; |
|Extremely high sea levels increase in |Likely |Salinization of irrigation water, estuaries and freshwater systems;|
|incidence (excludes tsunamis) | |loss of arable land and increase in migration |
Based on IPCC, 2007
2.5 Impacts and vulnerabilities
Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a system or societies are susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude and rate of climate change and variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity and its adaptive capacity (IPCC, 2007). Impacts of climate change on food security are global and local. Climate change will affect agricultural food systems in all countries, including exporters and importers as well as those at subsistence level. Changes in mean rainfall and temperate as well as the increase in extreme weather events will affect agriculture, livestock, forestry as well as fisheries (Table 2). Many impacts, such as increased land degradation and soil erosion, changes in water availability, biodiversity loss, more frequent and more intense pest and disease outbreaks as well as disasters need to be addressed across sectors.
2.6 Climate change impacts on food security
FAO defines food security in four dimensions, namely food availability, access to food, stability of food supply and utilization of food. This goes far beyond food production. In the short term, socio-economic factors such as those linked with market forces may dominate food security. However, in terms of the long-term stability and sustainability of food production and food supply, environmental factors become crucial. Although there will be some positive impacts, the following list illustrates that climate change will have mostly negative effects on the food security dimensions:
• availability of food – will be reduced by a drop in food production caused by extreme events, changes in the suitability or availability of arable land and water, and the unavailability or lack of access to crops, crop varieties and animal breeds that can be productive in conditions have lead to changes in pests and diseases;
• access to food – will be worsened by climate change events that lead to damages in infrastructure and losses of livelihood assets as well as loss of income and employment opportunities;
• stability of food supply – could be influenced by food price fluctuations and a higher dependency on imports and food aid;
• utilization of food – can be affected indirectly by food safety hazards associated with pests and animal diseases as well as the increased presence of human diseases such as malaria and diarrhoea.
Although climate change impacts on food security on national and sub-national levels remain highly uncertain, IPCC regional assessment projected regional variations in climate change impact.
2.7 Maintaining food security in a changing climate
Many countries worldwide are facing food crises due to conflict and disasters, while food security is being adversely affected by unprecedented price hikes for basic food, driven by historically low food stocks, high oil prices and growing demand for agro-fuels, and droughts and floods linked to climate change. High international cereal prices have already sparked food riots in several countries. In addition, rural people (who feed the cities) are now, for the first time, less numerous than city dwellers and developing countries are becoming major emitters of greenhouse gases.
Traditional equilibriums are changing, such as those between food crops and energy crops and cultivated lands and rangelands, as is the nature of conflicts in general. These changing equilibriums are, and will be, affected by changing climate, resulting in changed and additional vulnerability patterns. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that during the next decades, billions of people, particularly those in developing countries, will face changes in rainfall patterns that will contribute to severe water shortages or flooding, and rising temperatures that will cause shifts in crop growing seasons. This will increase food shortages and distribution of disease vectors, putting populations at greater health and life risks. The predicted temperature rise of 1 to 2.5 0C by 2030 will have serious effects, including reduced crop yield in tropical areas. The impact of a single climate-, water- or weather-related disaster can wipe out years of gains in economic development.
Climate change will result in additional food insecurities, particularly for the resource poor in developing countries who cannot meet their food requirements through market access. Communities must protect themselves against the possibility of food-shortage emergencies through appropriate use of resources in order to preserve livelihoods as well as lives and property. It is imperative to identify and institutionalize mechanisms that enable the most vulnerable to cope with climate change impacts. This requires collaborative thinking and responses to the issues generated by the interaction of food security, climate change and sustainable development.
3. CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ON AGRICULTURE: RWANDA’S CASE
3.1 Diminishing agricultural productivity and arable land distribution
Agriculture, accounts for more than 90% of the labour force, yet remains unproductive and largely on a subsistence level. Distribution of arable land now stands at one hectare for every Rwandans and is diminishing due to high birth rates. The obvious consequence is that a substantial number of rural families who subsist on agriculture own less than 1 hectare, which is too small to earn a living. Available pastureland is 350,000 hectares most of which is of poor quality. This results in intense exploitation of the land, with no simultaneous application of corrective measures, most notably through fertilizer use. The net result has been a decline in land productivity and massive environmental degradation, contributing to rampant malnutrition amongst the Rwandan population. Rwandans can no longer subsist on land and ways and means need to be devised to move the economy into the secondary and tertiary sectors.
Scientific based knowledge on climate variations in Rwanda is limited, but it is fully recognized that the country is one of the most vulnerable nations in the world in regard to climate changes. Many of the specific resources (e.g. water, land, soils) and the ecosystems (e.g. the natural forests, the marshlands and lakes and the highlands) are furthermore overused, very fragile and geographical fragmented (limited in space and not connected). Thus, climate change preparedness for Rwanda is essential both in a local, national and international context.
The economy of Rwanda is mainly agricultural. In 2002, the agriculture sector accounted for 43% of GDP and sustains almost 90% of the population. The agricultural use depends almost exclusively on the quality of the rainy season, which makes the country particularly vulnerable to the climate change. The increased frequency of drought periods, floods, landslides and erosion presently observed considerably decreases the country’s food availability.
In Rwanda, degradation of environment and ecosystems is a phenomenon caused by both the anthropogenic activities and climate disturbances. Thus, the floods of 1997 and the drought in the year 2000 respectively associated to the episodes El Nino and La Nina are clear examples. In addition, the intensity and frequency of climate hazards and their harmful effects are emphasized by the topographical structure proper to Rwandan territory, a country particularly characterized by a very accidented relief and consequently very sensitive to erosion and land slides.
The dependence upon the agriculture sector for Rwanda’s economy and poverty reduction efforts has been recognized by the Government of Rwanda (GoR), especially true when it comes to food crops. The sector in Rwanda accounts for 33% of GDP, 87% of employment, and substantial foreign exchange especially from tea and coffee. Therefore, if there is one sector that has to mainstream environment as a priority, it is agriculture. Under Rwanda’s current Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS), the agricultural sector is expected to play a key role in eliminating poverty. The key requirements for the sector to play this role effectively include optimal utilization, sustainable management, and conservation of environment and natural resources.
3.2 Observed impacts of Climate change in Rwanda
Major Climate Change related impacts already observed include the lowering of lakes’ and rivers’ water levels, as well as a loss of associated biodiversity. A significant decrease in agricultural productivity caused by changing climatic conditions is leading to poor performance of crops. This has triggered a worsening food security situation, malnutrition and poor health throughout the country. Especially the southern part of the country is already rainfall constrained, and prone to aggravating dry spells and prolonged droughts. In the past five years alone, crop failures and poor performance of traditionally cultivated species were observed.
Extreme floods in western Rwanda have led to the death of dozens of people and have destroyed roads and other infrastructure, as well as significant amounts of agricultural production and houses, leaving many people homeless. Auto-adaptation is already ongoing, with people flood proofing their homes through stone walls, and road construction companies investing into stronger canalization and run-off management, established river channels are being strengthened and partially reinforced through cementation and local authorities invest in drainage systems.
The spreading of diseases, especially malaria and waterborne threats have been observed. The worsening food security situation has negative impacts on health especially already vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant women, elderly people and the poor. Linkages to the effects of HIV/Aids have not been formally established, however may be significant.
In terms of water availability (drinking water, production including irrigation, hydro-electricity), overall Rwanda is believed to have sufficient water resources, characterized by a good hydrological network, and 101 lakes and 860 wetlands covering 16% of the surface area of Rwanda. However, a lowering of water tables as well as impacts of reduced water flows have been observed especially, but not only, in eastern Rwanda. These impacts are at least partially attributed to climate change stresses (other drivers are related to non-climatic causes such as sub-optimal water resource and watershed management), which limit water availability. Rainfall variability is related to overall impacts on hydrological flow, water storage and availability, leading to more floods and dry spells while ground water recharge diminishes.
In other extreme climate related incidences following torrential rainfall events, flash floods occur and flood water accumulates in low laying valleys and forms ponds, which impede on settlements and production land. Mostly negative impacts are observed on (i) irrigation potential for agricultural production, (ii) availability of good drinking water, and (iii) feasibility of hydro-electrical schemes in planned places in Rwanda. For example, lower water flows or more extreme flash floods often carrying high sedimentation loads, lead to increasingly high levels of siltation, worsened by the severe erosion problem. These adversely impact on micro-hydropower schemes, which will have to deal with more erratic water supplies, as well as higher maintenance costs, which need to be factored into designs.
In last decades, Rwanda has experienced negative effects linked with disturbances of climate system affecting agriculture, energy and natural resources sectors all of which are directly linked to socioeconomic development. In fact, a correlation exists between the increase in temperature and the humidity of the soil; the lowering of lake water levels and water flows, drying up of water sources, agricultural productivity and appearance of paludism. In 1997, serious floods linked with El-Nino episode of 1997/98 destroyed a big number of agricultural plantations and ecosystems occupying shallow areas and swamps of Nyabarongo and Akanyaru river basins, while a prolonged drought seriously affected parts of the Eastern and Southern Provinces between 1999 and 2000. Like the famous Ruzagayura famine of 1943 - 1945, such disasters are mostly provoked by climate change.
3.3 Occurrence of extreme phenomena of drought and floods
Like other central and eastern regions of Africa, Rwanda is from the 80’s confronted with either prolonged droughts episodes or serious floods. As an example, during October-December 1997, the pluviometry varying between 725 and 1240 mm, being largely above normal reference pluviometry . It is noteworthy that these excessive rainfall are not well distributed during the month, they fall in less than 3 days and sometimes in a single day and are followed by floods and landslide areas. Records show that since 1971, the number of rain days was always greater than 120 days. However, from 1991 to 2006, the number of rain days was 5 times below 120 days respectively in 1992, 1993, 2003, and 2005.
Available records also indicate that mean annual temperature has increased gradually from 1971 to 2007, with an average value of 19.8 °C in 1971 and 20.7 °C in 2007, making an increase of 0.9 °C in 27 years. The temperature increase in Rwanda is higher than the mean worldwide temperature increase of 0.8 °C since 1850 up to date making the situation alarming. The annual numbers of warm days on which recorded temperature exceed 30°C have gradually increased since 1971. The average number of warm days has increased from about 5 days in 1971 to about 80 days in 2006. The high frequency of warm days is corroborated by increasing temperatures has led to increased malaria cases mainly in the highland regions of North and West.
To the contrary, during March-April-May 2000, an important low pluviometry was registered followed by a prolonged drought which devastated these regions including Rwanda. The same scenario of irregularities of rainfalls was produced from September 2005 until February 2006 where practically the September to December farming season did not give any harvests. This provoked a famine in the eastern and southern provinces of Rwanda, which provoked an emergency intervention from the Government to the most vulnerable population (especially in the Eastern and Southern Provinces).
Floods, landslides, droughts episodes constitute the major repetitive natural disasters for Rwanda associated with climate change often linked with ENSO episodes. These phenomena take birth from the Pacific far from African coastal zones, but this doesn’t spare these continental regions including Rwanda under the shelf of their effects such as among others, the disturbance of pluviometric regime. External factors linked to El Nino and La Nina episodes often influence the climate variability in Rwanda and connected effects such as famines. Since the year 1902, a series of big famines, following prolonged droughts episodes has been registered in Rwanda. In 1999/2000 East and South-eastern regions of the country were seriously affected by a low agricultural production associated with La Nina 1999/2000 episode. The same case was reproduced in 2005/2006. Also, an increase of frequent prolonged droughts has been experience since the 1980’s.
3.4 Influence of climate hazards on agricultural production
Available figures show fluctuations in production of cereals, leguminous, tubers and roots, banana and fruits as well as vegetables from the year 2000 to 2004. Cereal production has hardly increased regardless of low production of Sorghum, which represents almost 53% of the total production of cereals. This slight increase was according to MINAGRI statistic department, due to the efforts of the Ministry, which improved the production of some cereals such as rice and maize in helping the extension of cultivated areas. The leguminous production sensibly went down in 2004 due to heavy rains registered in high altitude regions, which are generally more productive.
According to the MINECOFIN’s department of statistics, the low performance of food production from 2002 was as a result of irregular rainfall and a dislocation of rainy seasons which took place. The weakening of agricultural production linked to climate change hazards are to be seriously considered knowing that food needs in the country are ever growing.
3.5 The Challenges in Agricultural Sector
Rwanda’s landscape faces a unique set of challenges; due to the country’s high population density, land is a scarce commodity, while labor is Rwanda’s most abundant resource. As a result, soil fertility has deteriorated dramatically overtime and much of Rwanda’s land is a high risk of erosion. The risk of erosion is increased by the need of smallholders to cultivate slopes of up to 55% and farming land that is not suited to purpose. As erosion increase so does the risk of floods, landslides and the continued degrading of the soil quality. Landslides in particular, can happen with little warning and cause extreme devastation, as was the case in the March 2010 Ugandan mud slides. Aside from landslides, erosion can cause reduced agricultural production by the washing away of soil and the loss of essential nutrients. Erosion affects 50% of all farmers, which equates to a 30% decline in farm productivity; this means Rwanda loses over 15 tonnes of topsoil each year. Moreover, the deterioration of soil reduces food availability for people who depend solely on agriculture. It is estimated that about 40,000 people each year fail to be fed due to soil erosion (ROR 2004).
3.6 Cost of Climate change impacts in Rwanda
The study of Stockholm Environment Institute entitled “Economics of Climate Change in Rwanda” (2009) analyzed the impacts of climate change events and found that they are economically significant. The most severe of the recent events was the 2007 flood. The study has estimated that the direct measurable economic costs of this event were $4 to $22 million (equivalent to around 0.1 – 0.6% of GDP) for two districts alone. However, this only includes the direct economic costs of household damage, agricultural losses and fatalities. It does not include the wider economic costs from infrastructure damage (including loss of transport infrastructure), water system damage and contamination, soil erosion and direct and indirect effects to individuals. The total economic costs of the 2007 floods are therefore much larger and would increase further when other national level effects are considered. It is clear that these events have economic costs that would be very significant in terms of national GDP. The continued annual burden of these events leads to reductions in growth over time.
The study further estimated the costs of adaptation in Rwanda and found that this cost will rise in future years. The aggregated estimates provide a possible range, with implications for the source and level of finance required. Estimates of medium-term costs to address future climate change are typically of the order of $50 – 300 million per year for Rwanda by 2030, focused on enhancing climate resilience. Note that the investment in 2030 builds resilience for future years when potentially more severe climate signals occur. However, higher values (in excess of $600 million /year) are plausible if continued social protection and accelerated development are included, noting that these are primarily development activities.
4. RWANDA GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY
4.1 Climate Change Opportunities
Climate change presents many opportunities for investments through the grants from developed countries, through Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects and Voluntary Carbon Market. Among available opportunities, the UNDP project entitled “Supporting Integrated and Comprehensive Approaches to Climate Change Adaptation in Africa - Building a comprehensive national approach in Rwanda” or UNDP-AAP project. The main objective of this project is “institutional, individual and systemic capacity to address climate change risks and opportunities through a national approach to adaptation” and it has a program period for 3 years with US$ 2,588,300 of budget.
Another relevant opportunity is mentioned in the report of the Sida-supported Natural Resources and Environment Program in Rwanda (REMA, 2009). Among suggested activities in this report, it is emphasized that the capacity building aspect (human and technical capacity) for climate change preparedness should be the core focus for the envisaged Sida supported program. Key activities and inputs included are: short term technical assistance and training on climate change information and database establishment; equipment, material and technical capacity inputs for assessing vulnerability and addressing identified issues; skills development at all levels (staff, private sector, communities); and the required funds for training and information campaigns of prioritized stakeholders (e.g. community training or public media campaigns on specific core issues for adaptation or mitigation).
4.2 Initiatives to Improve Agriculture
Effective use of resources ensures the success of Rwanda’s agricultural sector, the integration of farming systems is essential, along with farmer training, development of entrepreneurial capacities and a strengthening of the institutional framework. In order for a viable and sustainable sector, soil must be preserved and past degradation reversed. Improvement can be achieved through Practices for which can reduce soil erosion and increase fertility, which means agricultural productivity, can be maintained at a lower cost. The GoR, for example, is spending heavily on subsidizing fertilizers, estimated at Rwf 1.50 billion in 2008 (PER-2007).
It is known economic returns to using fertilizer are very negligible due to high costs associated with its importation to a landlocked country. Given the steep terrain of Rwanda, it cannot be ruled out that some fertilizer is lost. Subsidized fertilizers could act as a disincentive to adoption of alternative land use practices. Spending to systematically help farmers restore ecosystem functions on their land through legumes, agro-forestry, is therefore considered to be a more sustainable way of increasing productivity.
The targeted management of other natural resources also contributes directly to an economically viable and sustainable sector. In particular the protection of marshes, lakes, rivers, peat lands and other wetlands require protection, as they provide valuable reservoirs of water and biodiversity, as well as energy sources. Marshland accounts for about 6% of the territory in Rwanda, 165,000 hectares, 55% are cultivated with traditional methods and only 3% using water management practices. It is crucial to rationalize wetland farming so as to allow time for the regeneration of soils and the water table. ‘Protected areas’ sites marshlands have been restored and crop production increased two or three-fold on the slopes of hillsides, according to officials of the marshland and hillside management committees. Water from the marshland is resurfacing after a dry period of more than three years. Papyrus has started growing there once more, while several rare species of waterfowl have reappeared. Growth in agricultural productivity itself is not sufficient-it must be environmentally sound to ensure its sustainability.
4.3 Sectoral Policies and Strategies
In the effort to respond to national development needs, the Rwandan government has come up with a series of sectoral development policies and strategies for development, modernisation and transformation of the agriculture sector in order to contribute to the achievement of food security for her population and to boost the Country’s economy. These among others include development of;
4.3.1 National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPA)
National adaptation programs of action (NAPAs) communicate priority activities addressing the urgent and immediate needs and concerns of the least developed countries (LDCs), relating to adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change.
In 2006, Rwanda formulated a National Adaptation Programs of Action to Climate Change (NAPA). The preparation for the NAPA had the participation of a wide range of stakeholders and sectors. The NAPA report outlines overall actions, strategies, approaches and priority projects. The NAPA specifically highlights the following strategic priority responses to addressing climate change (adaptation). The relevance of climate change adaptation to policies and strategies are presented in Table 3.
1. An Integrated Water Resource Management – IWRM;
2. Setting up an information systems to early warning of hydro-agro meteorological system and rapid intervention mechanisms;
3. Promotion of non-agricultural income generating activities;
4. Promotion of intensive agro-pastoral activities;
5. Introduction of species resisting to environmental conditions;
6. Development of firewood alternative sources of energy; and
7. A National Plan for Disaster Management (Emergency Plans).
Table 3. Relevance of Climate change adaptation to selected policies and strategies
|Policies /strategies |Relevance / complementarities |
|Most policies, strategies & |Promoting social protection, disaster risk reduction, environmental rehabilitation, poverty |
|programs |reduction and sustainable development which will reduce vulnerability, build social, economic|
| |and ecosystem resilience and build adaptive capacity. |
|• Environmental policy |Strengthen and enhance resilience of ecosystems, thereby helping to reduce the economic and |
|• Biodiversity conservation policy |social vulnerability of local people. |
|• Agricultural and rural development strategy | |
|• Agricultural and rural development strategy |Focus on rehabilitation and reclamation of degraded land, reforestation, and conservation, |
|• Food security strategy |management and protection of natural resources. |
| |Encourage activities that reduce poverty, protect assets, diversify livelihoods and |
| |simultaneously conserve and protect the |
| |ecosystem. |
| |Promoting drought-resistant plants and crop species easily adaptable to areas with moisture |
| |stress and interventions to rehabilitate and maintain biodiversity of dry land and fragile |
| |Ecosystems. |
Source: Adapted from NMA (2007:35)
4.3.2 The Agricultural Sector Policies and Strategies
Rwanda’s long-term development strategy has been articulated in the document “Vision 2020” with the ultimate goal of vanquishing poverty and misery, and attains a per capita income of middle income countries by the year 2020. Agricultural transformation is one of the major pillars for achievement of the Vision 2020 goals.
Based on the Vision 2020, the Government of Rwanda, in a broad popular consultative process, in 2001 formulated the Poverty Reduction Strategy, whose principal objective is, in conformity with Vision 2020, to significantly improve the living conditions of the entire population and reduce the number of people living under the poverty line from 62 % to less than 25 % and increase the annual per capita income to at least 1,000 US Dollars by the year 2020. Agricultural transformation is expected to play a key role in achieving these objectives. It is expected that agricultural transformation will boost off-farm growth, boost the formal and informal sectors, and contribute to overall poverty reduction. The proportion of working population dependant on agriculture is expected to decline from the present 87% to 50% by 2020.
xi) The National Agricultural Policy
Rwanda sustainable development objectives are stipulated in the documents of policies dealing with development, poverty and vulnerability such as vision 2020, decentralisation policy, documents for strategies for poverty reduction (PRSP I and EDPRS), sectoral strategies and policies, policies and plans for the implementation of MEA(Multilateral Environment Agreement) action plans such as CBD and CCD. Agriculture is recognized as an integral part of economic development and poverty reduction and has been identified as a cross-cutting issue.
The agricultural sector remains the economic backbone of the country. It employs about 87 % of the working population, produces around 46% of the GDP and generates about 80% of the total export revenues. The Government of Rwanda revised the agricultural policy and strategies, in order to achieve the objectives, as formulated in the Vision 2020 and in the PRSP. The ultimate objective of the agricultural policy is to contribute to the national economic growth, to improved food security and the nutritional status of the population and increase the revenues of the rural households. The adopted strategy aims at transformation of agriculture into a modern, professionally operated and market oriented economic undertaking. This will be achieved through promotion of professionalism, specialization, technological innovations and public–private partnerships in the agricultural transformation process.
The Vision of agricultural policy is to create conditions favourable for sustainable development and promotion of agricultural and livestock produce, in order to ensure national food security, integration of agriculture and livestock in a market-oriented economy and to generate increasing incomes to the producers. The overall vision of the agricultural policy is based along the following lines:
i. To ensure food security through increased production and accrued revenues of the rural population.
ii. To practice modern agriculture, characterized by innovations, professionalism and specialization,
iii. Commercialized agriculture, oriented towards both internal and external markets,
iv. Integrated and diversified agriculture, which is environmentally sound.
The developed policy implementation strategy is based on four aspects:
i. Strengthening of professionalization and specialization in agriculture, focusing on particular commodities,
ii. Choice of a limited number of priority crops on national, provincial, district
and down to “secteur” level5
iii. Promotion of traditional and non-traditional export crops and,
iv. Partnership with the private sector, to maximize its involvement in the agricultural transformation process.
Sub-sector specific objectives have been outlined as shown below:
A. Agriculture: Specific objectives of the agriculture sub-sector are as follows:
• To set up measures aimed at increasing utilisation of agricultural input in intensification, implementation of regional and personal specialisation, professionalism of agriculture, improvement of measures to protect and conserve water and soils, marketing, conservation and transformation of agricultural produces;
• To improve quality and increase quantity in production of traditional export crops namely coffee, tea, pyrethrum in order to be competitive on international market;
• To diversify export crops through development of horticulture and introduction of new speculations easy for marketing;
• To encourage the private sector through incentive measures to enable it to
• participate intensively in production, processing, conservation and marketing of agricultural products;
• To promote professionalism in agriculture which includes transferring skills and techniques for production, marketing and processing of agricultural produce.
B. Animal Resources: The specific objectives of animal production sub-sector are:
• To create favourable conditions for the increase of livestock produces (milk, meat, eggs, honey, fish) through genetic improvement, feeding and animal health;
• To organise marketing circuits for livestock produces;
• To contribute to the increase of monetary income for farmers;
• To contribute to environmental protection through conservation and protection of soils.
C. Soil and water Management: Specific objectives defined for the soil and water conservation sub-sector are:
• To utilize all available arable lands for cultivation through optimum development of marshlands and lowlands subject to flooding using adequate water management infrastructures;
• To promote the management and optimum utilisation of water in agriculture;
• To improve soil fertility through implementation of measures that promote the use of more fertilisers either mineral or organic;
• To modernise production equipment through the development of animal traction farming and agricultural mechanisation suitable to the real conditions of a particular area.
The National Agricultural Policy 2004 (NAP) acknowledges the role for increased production of traditional export crops, and the need to increase the quality, amount and variety of crops for export. It also focuses on the soil and water conservation, and role of the private sector. Although growth in agriculture is one of the most effective strategies for reducing poverty and promoting overall growth, there are a few environmental challenges triggered by increased agricultural production that must be studied and addressed. The agricultural policy, however, must be coherent with other policies relative to rural development. It is also in line with major development orientations as outlined in:
• The New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), whose objectives include restoration of agricultural growth, rural development and food security. It focuses mainly on implementation of key recommendations on food security, poverty reduction and sustainable use of natural resources adopted in recent international conferences, such as the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, the World Food Summit, 5 years later and the Maputo Declaration of July 2003;
• Development objectives for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in which reduction of hunger and poverty are among priorities.
xii) The National Agricultural Extension Strategy
The main objective is to contribute to the professionalisation of producers and effective adoption of agricultural innovations, in order to increase, diversify, specialize and intensify agricultural production, under economic profitability conditions for producers and for the Nation at large.
Strengthening research and extension of research findings as well as promotion of any mechanism in sensitizing the rural communities are of paramount importance. This is aimed at ensuring development of the sector by giving particular attention to new technologies and by ensuring adequate means for their diffusion and uptake by the rural communities. The basic principle for actors lies in their participation, which must allow all stakeholders to be both partners and associates, based on the real needs of the rural world. Extension will allow farmers to receive training and information on a regular basis in order to help them improve their production systems.
xiii) Rwanda Agricultural Development Authority (RADA)
The creation of Rwanda Agricultural Development Authority (RADA) was approved by the government cabinet of July 2005 with a mission of ensuring the implementation of the policy for crop production and management issues and enabling the attainment of the target vision of the sector. The mission of RADA is "to contribute towards the growth of agricultural production through the development of appropriate technologies, providing advisory, outreach and extension services to stakeholders in agriculture including provinces, districts, NGOs, farmers and farmers organizations, private entrepreneurs, to allow them to modernize the sector in the framework provided by the Vision 2020, PRSP, the National Agricultural Policy (NAP), the Strategic Plan for the Agricultural Transformation (SPAT)”.
RADA is responsible for implementing the national agriculture policy by;
• Supplying farmers with appropriate technologies in order to increase their production;
• Coordinating farmers’ activities and those of other agricultural stakeholders;
• Reinforce the farmers’ technical capacity enabling them to be the pillar of their own development;
• Coordinating all the agricultural activities bearing in mind their complementarities;
• Setting up adequate mechanisms to make markets accessible to farmers.
xiv) Rwanda Horticulture Authority (RHODA)
In an effort to increase export diversification, horticulture was been declared one of the top government priorities. Although the industry offers considerable opportunities in terms of export receipts projected to reach over 12 US $million in 2010, remains to be achieved. The realization of this potential requires significant intervention and coordination on the part of both the private sector and the public sector. It is for this reason that Cabinet on 27/01/06 constituted a horticulture task force which tasked to formulate the legal framework for establishment of Rwanda Horticulture Development Authority and draft its business plan. RHODA acts as the central hub for all needs related to the Horticulture industry, and serves as a champion of the national horticulture strategy.
In collaboration with all stakeholders, RHODA’s mission is to promote the growth and development of horticulture products with export potential through the promotion of appropriate production and post harvest technology, out growers organisation, the necessary infrastructure, marketing information systems, export compliance mechanism and advisory and extension services in line with the Vision 2020, EDPRSP, the National Agricultural Policy (NAP), the Strategic Plan for the Agricultural Transformation (SPAT) and the National Horticulture Strategy(NHS). RHODA envisions providing efficient and reliable services from one stop centre to all stakeholders in the horticulture industry with the aim of transforming the industry into viable and profitable business.
xv) Strategic Plan for Agricultural Transformation (SPAT) in Rwanda
In the present context, this perspective confers to the agriculture sector a heavy mission whose realization requires deep changes in the conception and in the implementation modalities as well as in the roles and responsibilities of different actors.
In full conformity with the national plan for elaboration of sector strategies, the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal resources has elaborated the agricultural policy and strategy documents within the spirit of these dynamics of change.
More than a simple appellation and far from the methodological innovation described, the Strategic Plan for Agricultural Transformation in Rwanda, clearly shows the concern to bring innovations within the sector and in a sustainable manner, the dynamics of change leading towards modernization. On the content level, SPAT is based on voluntary stimulation and incentives for the production systems towards regional specialization, producer’s professionalism, commodity chains and the market-orientation.
MINAGRI benefits from SPAT implementation through support actions of other Ministries and other partners in the fields of governance and local development; environment, water and land security, education and scientific research, commerce, industry, handicrafts, health and social protection, transport and communication infrastructure (ICT), as well as the financial sector. Harmonization of actions of the different actors is desirable for integration in the on-going decentralization process.
xvi) The Strategy for Developing Fertilizer Distribution Systems (SDFDS)
The strategy describes the Government's’ plans to develop the fertilizer sector by establishing market-based mechanisms to improve fertilizer distribution systems and thereby address Rwanda’s fertilizer challenge. The strategy’s vision is the establishment of a distribution system that enables the right product to be delivered at the right time in sufficient quantities and at the most cost-effective manner by a competent and profitable private sector. Its overall goal is to increase fertilizer use and application rates from the current average of 8 kg/Ha to 25 kg/Ha by 2011 and thereby achieve the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program (CAADP) target of 8 percent agricultural growth and significantly reduce poverty in rural areas. The key objectives of the SDFDS are to: i) Identify short- and long-term measures needed to address supply and demand-side constraints limiting fertilizer use in Rwanda; ii) Assign responsibilities among the relevant stakeholders; iii) Establish a time-frame for implementation of the strategy; iv) Identify performance indicators for assessing the impact of the actions on national growth, food security and poverty objectives; and v) Estimate the cost of implementing the strategy.
This Strategy identifies priority actions, along with complementary implementation steps, to effectively improve fertilizer distribution systems and thereby address demand and supply-side constraints limiting fertilizer use in Rwanda. Removal of supply and demand-side constraints in the fertilizer sector through policy improvement, demand stimulation and capacity building activities would provide a more favorable investment climate and adequate human capital for fertilizer market development. The resulting reduction in transaction costs and strengthened availability, access and affordability of fertilizer constitute a stepping stone towards sustainable agricultural intensification, household food security and poverty reduction in rural areas.
xvii) The Rwanda National Coffee and Tea Strategies
The Tea Sector Strategy, 2003-2010, focuses on increasing productivity, quality, fast growth of the tea industry, employment and earnings, thereby contributing to economic and monetary stability in the rural sectors, and to alleviation of poverty. The Rwanda National Coffee Strategies (2002 – 2012) focused on replanting of trees to building a strong Production pillar and upgrading capacity of coffee associations and farmers. Since the Strategy was developed in 2002, farmers have seen the value in producing coffee since cherry prices have more than doubled since 2003. Coffee has become one of the country’s leading exports, with receipts growing at an average of 30% per year during the period of 2002 to 2006. Long-term relationships with household names such as Starbucks and Marks & Spencer have facilitated Rwanda’s coffee value addition and differentiation drive, a key basis for future competitiveness.
xviii) National Seed Policy
Quality seed is a very important factor of production without which no other input or investment can have significant value. It is therefore crucial to ensure access to good quality seed by all farmers if agricultural transformation is to work. It must also respond to and correspond to different agro-bio-climatic regions of the country. The National Seed Policy (NSP) is, inter alia, intended to contribute to establishing an organized and strong seed commodity chain which meets the challenges of intensification and promotion of agricultural development.
The GoR continues to support the formal seed production sector spearheaded by the private sector. The Government, however, recognizes the role of the informal sector in supplying seeds in rural areas. It will help to improve the quality of seeds produced by the informal sector pending the time the formal seed sector will be able to meet the demand of improved seeds. In order to better orient and organize the seed commodity chain, a National Seed Council (NSC) responsible for monitoring the implementation of this policy was established within the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI). The Variety Evaluation and Registration Committee (VERC) was also established as a sub-component of the National Seed Council.
xix) Resettlement Policy Framework for Land Husbandry, Water Harvesting and Hillside Irrigation Project
This Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) relates to the Rwandan Rural Support Sector Project (RSSP) Phase 2 and the Rwandan Land Husbandry, Water Harvesting and Hillside Irrigation (LWH) Project, both financed by the World Bank and implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI) with sections of the RPF. The RPF used by the MINAGRI ensures that the World Bank safeguards for involuntary resettlement and national requirements for land acquisition and resettlement are adequately addressed. MINAGRI, in addition ensures that the relevant capacity and training needs are established in order for the recommended measures to be implemented effectively.
To address the critical agenda of hillside intensification, the Government designed and developed a Land Husbandry, Water Harvesting and Hillside Irrigation Program under Program 1 of its SPAT. The LWH Programme is a two-phased programme aimed at improved land-husbandry and increased productivity in 101 pilot watersheds covering 30,250 ha of land. It envisions some 12,000 ha of the 30,250 ha total to be irrigated. The Land Husbandry, Water Harvesting and Hillside Irrigation (LWH) project which is a comprehensive project that deals with a comprehensive watershed management, water-harvesting in valley dams for hillside-irrigation and horticultural development that uses commercial-value fruit species.
Specific Phase 2 activities which are most likely to result in resettlement implications include rehabilitation of marshland areas, currently underdeveloped and mainly used for subsistence farming and low levels of commercial crop cultivation; rehabilitation of hillside areas to prevent erosion; and rehabilitation of informal market places.
(xx)Agricultural Research
The Agricultural Research Institute of Rwanda (ISAR) started its operations again in 1995 after the events of 1994. The Institute is guided by the law N° 21/1982 of 10th June 1962 (J.O. 1982, PP 518). ISAR is an autonomous public institution under MINAGRI. Its mandate is to promote the scientific and technical development of Agriculture and Livestock in Rwanda. Its major activities include: (i) Conduct studies, research and experiments for agricultural development, (ii) Contribute to training of researchers and specialists in the agricultural sector, (iii) Collaborate with other research institutions and (iv) Publish and disseminate research results and contribute to their extension.
So far, activities of ISAR have focused on research activities aimed at producing seed varieties, which are potentially well performing and adapted to specific climatic and soil conditions in different regions in the country. It is upon this basis that ISAR has so far applied the "Commodity Approach”, with research programmes for different agricultural commodities. The produced (breeder) seeds are given to MINAGRI (NSS) for further multiplication to basic and commercial seeds and distribution to (a limited number of) clients. ISAR has no extension programme at all.
4.4 Donor Supported Programmes on Natural Resources and Environment
The governments of Rwanda and Sweden have agreed to implement a Natural Resources and Environmental Support Program. The program supports Rwanda in achieving its Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EPDRS), Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Vision 2020. The program consists of four components, designed to strengthen the capacity of MINILA and key national institutions to improve (i) land administration and management; (ii) forestry resources development and management; (iii) water resources management; and, (iv) environmental management.
The immediate objective of the environmental management component is:
• The capacity of MINELA and REMA is strengthened to secure effective pollution control for sustainable development;
• mainstream environment in different sectors, strategies, programs and policies;
• Climate change issues.
The report of the Sida-supported Natural Resources and environment Program (July, 2009) highlight six main activities for climate change preparedness:
i. Revise and update of relevant National Strategies and Plans for climate change preparedness, adaptation and mitigation with focus on technology development and transfer, and human capacity building; Engagement and support to the UNFCCC process, and any relevant follow up to international or regional initiatives;
ii. Investigate and target present or new opportunities for support and partnerships on climate change oriented mechanisms (technology transfer, the NAMA mechanism, CDM etc);
iii. Prepare information and database system;
iv. Skills development at all levels on climate change related fields;
v. Initiate and coordinate implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and other development programs.
4.5 Institutional Arrangements for the Agricultural Policy Implementation
Agricultural development is expected to play a significant role in Rwanda’s socioeconomic development programme, in order to achieve the goals as articulated in the Vision 2020 and in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). The Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI) will have to play a primordial role in formulating the agricultural policy and ensure efficient and effective coordination of its implementation on the ground. Within the decentralization context, the role of MINAGRI is policy definition, coordination as well as Monitoring and Evaluation of its implementation. The execution of different agricultural activities is carried out by different actors under the direct coordination and supervision of the decentralized authorities at the provincial and district levels.
Effective implementation of the agricultural policy requires an effective institutional framework, from the central level, to the provincial, district, secteur and down to the household level. It is also critical, that MINAGRI works in very close collaboration with all stakeholders involved in the rural development sector. These include other Ministries, decentralized administrative entities, research institutions, NGOs, the civil society, professional farmers associations, the private sector and other development partners. Within the decentralisation context, the role of MINAGRI is policy formulation coordination and monitoring of its implementation, while the decentralized local authorities are responsible for planning and coordinating the implementation of the programmes on the ground. It is in this context, that the review of the current institutional arrangements for implementation of the agricultural policy is considered necessary, so as to improve the efficiency and effectiveness at all levels, i.e. MINAGRI central departments, associated Institutions, decentralized entities and all stakeholders.
Planning and implementation of activities related to Agriculture and Animal Resources involves several stakeholders, both at the central and decentralized levels. These include MINAGRI, Semi-Autonomous Bodies directly under MINAGRI, public parastatal organizations and research institutions, decentralized local authorities (Provinces and Districts), NGOs, the Civil Society and the private sector economic operators.
Collaborative structures on climate change including Climate Change Department acting through Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA), Rwanda Meteorological Service and Disaster Management Unit acting through National Police has been proposed. Conjoint activities of these 3 institutions are coordinated by Climate Change department. The conjoint activity output is a quarterly report on Climate Change, Early Warning and disaster management. However, the main conjoint activity of these institutions is to prepare a cabinet paper on the status of Climate Change, Early Warning and disaster management at least once a year.
The conjoint reporting should include followings:
• Observed climate hazards and climate change tendency;
• Early warning and application of climate information to key sectors (energy, agriculture, health, water resources etc…);
• Disaster preparedness and management;
• Progress of adaptation to climate change projects;
• Progress of carbon trade and other mitigation projects;
• Status of International Environmental Obligation of Rwanda.
4.6 Policy Implications of some of the Climate Change strategies
The vision of agricultural policy comprises implications focusing on:
• Food security different from self-sufficiency: farmers must produce for the market and generate income required to meet their food needs and of others;
• Integration of Agriculture in the national economy and to contribute macro-economic stability and economic growth;
• Major role of extension and research: they will be oriented towards the needs of the market, innovation, modernisation and transfer of appropriate rural technologies;
• Turning agriculture into a professional, profitable, non-seasonal and income generating activity;
• Selection of commodities must be economically rational and strictly based on comparative advantages;
• Selection of commodities must be flexible and dynamic in time and space;
• Agriculture should adequately respond to market signals;
• It will be necessary to devise policies and procedures for certification (origin tracing), sanitary assessment, hygiene and quality of agricultural products;
• Setting up mechanisms enabling to shift from subsistence agriculture to market-oriented agriculture;
8. An Assessment of Current Policy Frameworks
A critical evaluation of the agricultural and related sector policies indicates that;
• Many of these policies and plans only indicate anticipatory measures.
• The Vision 2020 and 5th Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy provide good opportunities for an integrated approach for mainstreaming climate adaptation into national development policies and plans.
However, in general;
• The effectiveness of agricultural and other policies in Rwanda, with respect to climate change adaptation issues, is weak.
• The policy framework for aligning human development and climate change management efforts through adaptation is largely undeveloped in the country.
• The policies are very broad and are not in position to provide Rwanda with the required focused response to adaptation concerns of the country.
• While climate change is mentioned in some key government policies, specific policies or strategies for climate change adaptation sector activities are required.
• Exiting national policies, strategies and plans in different development sectors for sustainable development need a coordinated and proper launch of adaptation climate change responses.
4.7.1 Lessons from some NAPA documents
A review of some NAPA documents highlights the following lessons;
• Detailed sectoral studies on vulnerability must be available to have a list of potential options which could be the subject of a multicriteria analysis (MCA). These studies must be done within a well-formulated and accepted national policy framework (in Rwanda’s case, the Vision 2020). Participatory Vulnerability Assessment is vital.
• Multi-sectoral consultations at all levels are critical for proper identification of adaptation priorities and programmes.
• An objective method is imperative for the prioritization of the adaptation measures (e.g. the use of MCA).
• Good criteria selection and prioritization process is very critical.
• Transparency and consensus building are very pertinent.
• Government endorsement at the highest level of authority is very crucial.
5. APPROACHES TO CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
5.1 Climate Change Adaptation and mitigation Concepts
Climate Change Adaptation: spontaneous or organised processes by which human beings and society adjust to changes in climate by making changes in production systems and social and economic organisation in order to reduce vulnerability to changing climatic conditions.
Adaptation in agriculture refers to actions (on-going or new) intended to:
• improve the resilience of agriculture,
• enhance its capacity to deal with conditions associated with climate change, and hence,
• reduce the vulnerability of agriculture to changing climate.
Climate Change Mitigation refers to organised processes whereby society seeks to reduce emissions of Carbon and other greenhouse gases and increase the sequestration of atmospheric Carbon through absorption by carbon sinks.
5.2 Climate Change Mitigation options in agriculture
Many of the technical options are readily available and could be deployed immediately by:
• reducing emissions of carbon dioxide through reduction in the rate of deforestation and forest degradation, adoption of improved cropland management practices;
• reducing emissions of methane and nitrous oxide through improved animal production, improved management of livestock waste, more efficient management of irrigation water on rice paddies, and
• sequestering carbon through conservation farming practices, improved forest management practices, afforestation and reforestation, agroforestry, restoration of degraded land.
The synergy between climate adaptation and mitigation in agriculture are presented in figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Synergy between climate adaptation and mitigation in agriculture
Two main types of adaptation are autonomous and planned adaptation. Autonomous adaptation is the reaction of, for example, a farmer to changing precipitation patterns, in that s/he changes crops or uses different harvest and planting/sowing dates. Planned adaptation measures are conscious policy options or response strategies, often multisectoral in nature, aimed at altering the adaptive capacity of the agricultural system or facilitating specific adaptations. For example, deliberate crops selection and distribution strategies across different agroclimatic zones, substitution of new crops for old ones and resource substitution induced by scarcity (Easterling 1996).
Farm level analyses have shown that large reductions in adverse impacts from climate change are possible when adaptation is fully implemented (Mendelsohn and Dinar 1999). Short-term adjustments are seen as autonomous in the sense that no other sectors (e.g. policy, research etc.) are needed in their development and implementation. Long-term adaptations are major structural changes to overcome adversity such as changes in land-use to maximize yield under new conditions; application of new technologies; new land management techniques; and water-use efficiency related techniques. Reilly and Schimmelpfennig (1999, p. 768ff.) define the following “major classes of adaptation” in agriculture:
• seasonal changes and sowing dates;
• different variety or species;
• water supply and irrigation system;
• other inputs (fertilizer, tillage methods, grain drying, other field operations);
• new crop varieties;
• forest fire management, promotion of agroforestry, adaptive management with suitable species and silvicultural practices (FAO, 2005).
Accordingly, types of responses include:
• reduction of food security risk;
• identifying present vulnerabilities;
• adjusting agricultural research priorities;
• protecting genetic resources and intellectual property rights;
• strengthening agricultural extension and communication systems;
• adjustment in commodity and trade policy;
• increased training and education;
• identification and promotion of (micro-) climatic benefits and environmental services of trees and forests (FAO, 2005).
With changes in precipitation and hydrology, temperature, length of growing season and frequency of extreme weather events, considerable efforts would be required to prepare developing countries to deal with climate-related impacts in agriculture. Among the key challenges will be to assist countries that are constrained by limited economic resources and infrastructure, low levels of technology, poor access to information and knowledge, inefficient institutions, and limited empowerment and access to resources. Managed carefully, climate adaptation strategies could have environmental benefits for some countries.
Climate change and variability are among the most important challenges facing Least Developed Countries because of their strong economic reliance on natural resources and rain-fed agriculture. People living in marginal areas such as drylands or mountains face additional challenges with limited management options to reduce impacts. Climate adaptation strategies should reflect such circumstances in terms of the speed of the response and the choice of options.
In view of the above, a framework for climate change adaptation needs to be directed simultaneously along several interrelated lines:
• Legal and institutional elements – decision making, institutional mechanisms, legislation, implementing human right norms, tenure and ownership, regulatory tools, legal principles, governance and coordination arrangements, resource allocation, networking civil society.
• Policy and planning elements – risk assessment and monitoring, analysis, strategy formulation, sectoral measures.
• Livelihood elements – food security, hunger, poverty, non-discriminatory access.
• Cropping, livestock, forestry, fisheries and integrated farming system
elements – food crops, cash crops, growing season, crop suitability, livestock fodder and grazing management, non-timber forest products, agroforestry, aquaculture, integrated crop-livestock, silvo-pastoral, water management, land use planning, soil fertility, soil organisms.
• Ecosystem elements – species composition, biodiversity, resilience, ecosystem goods and services.
• Linking climate change adaptation processes and technologies for promoting carbon sequestration, substitution of fossil fuels, promoting use of bioenergy.
Climate change adaptation requires the use of good agricultural, forestry and fisheries practices to meet changing and more difficult environmental conditions. To make sure appropriate information is shared and put into practice, FAO works to build capacities at the national, local and community levels to raise awareness and prepare for climate change impacts. At the government level, the goal is to mainstream climate change strategies and actions in agricultural policies and programmes to reduce vulnerability and provide local communities with site-specific solutions.
6. GUIDELINES FOR MAINSTREAMING CLIMATE CHANGE INTO AGRICULTURAL SECTOR ACTIVITIES
6.1 Challenges to Mainstreaming Climate Change in Agriculture
Based on experience to date in the field of poverty‐environment mainstreaming and climate adaptation, a number of challenges can be anticipated for adaptation mainstreaming in the agricultural sector. These challenges have to be addressed in implementation of adaptation actions presented in figure 3 below. These include:
• Raising awareness and building knowledge: Climate change is a complex issue with many links to development issues. To make it relevant to decision‐makers across the government, it is important to understand the linkages with broader poverty reduction and pro‐poor economic growth, which implies identifying the potential economic costs of climate change and the benefits of taking action.
• Making the issue central in the government: While often the responsibility for adaptation lies with the ministry of agriculture, it is critical to have the issue recognized as an economy‐wide issue and be coordinated by ministries like planning or finance.
• Involving other sectors (e.g. environment, land use, water, etc.) and sub-national bodies. Just as agricultural sustainability requires the involvement of key sectors and sub-national bodies, climate change adaptation calls for the active participation of most sectors of the economy, as well as of the sub-national authorities.
• Linking the impacts at the local level and the responses at the national level: Climate change impacts manifest themselves at the local level, affecting the livelihoods, health and vulnerability of the population, especially the poorest. It is thus important that the responses put forward at national level are rooted in local conditions, recognizing the great damage that climate change can cause to livelihoods.
• Meeting the implementation challenge (e.g., financing, measuring the impact of policy measures, etc). Following the successful integration of adaptation considerations into policy processes, the challenge of translating words into action remains and requires a persistent effort.
• Strengthening institutional and capacities sustainably at various levels. Institutionalizing mainstreaming, in particular by making mainstreaming a standard practice (e.g. mandates, coordination mechanisms, procedures) is critical for the sustainability of such work.
• Ensuring political will. Climate change is a long‐term issue whose consequences are not yet fully visible. It is also an issue which requires managing risks and taking decisions in an uncertain environment, with often limited or imperfect information. This long‐term and uncertain context is not the most conducive to decision‐making on the part of political leaders or politicians whose mandates and terms are shorter, and who are concerned with political cycles.
As highlighted by these above challenges, mainstreaming can inherently be seen from two points of view: the viewpoint of actors whose institution as a mandate to lead on an issue to be mainstreamed and the viewpoint of the development actors, seeking to improve practice in a wide range of areas. Similar to poverty‐environment mainstreaming, the challenge for adaptation in a poor country is thus for decision-makers, led by the ministry of finance and planning, to understand the relevance of climate change and adaptation for development and poverty reduction and to ensure a coherent national response across all sectors of the economy, so that ultimately adaptation is fully integrated as a standard development practice.
[pic]
Figure 3: Approach to National Level Adaptation actions for Mainstreaming Climate Change
6.2 Approaches for Adaptation Mainstreaming Climate Change
The poverty‐environment mainstreaming approach set out in the publication Mainstreaming Poverty‐Environment Linkages into Development Planning: A Handbook for Practitioners (2009) provides a credible platform to assist countries to successfully mainstream adaptation into development planning processes. Modules focusing specifically on climate change – and hence building particularly on existing adaptation efforts and carried out in partnership with and/or led by climate experts.
Using the approach described in tables 4&5 and figure 4 below, helps in prioritizing mainstreaming efforts in a specific national context and seeing more clearly how different activities and tactics can be combined to achieve intended outcomes at different stages in the design or implementation of development planning (UNDP‐UNEP 200918). While the sequence is not fixed and some activities may even be skipped in particular when already undertaken by other actors in the country, it is likely that a certain number of modules will need to be undertaken so that the mainstreaming effort leads to the expected outcomes and provides lasting results.
Table 4: An Approach to Adaptation Mainstreaming
|Finding Entry Points and Making the Case |Mainstreaming Adoption into Policy |Meeting the Implementation Challenges |
| |Processes | |
|Preliminary Assessments |Collect Country specific evidence |Strengthening the national monitoring system for |
|Understanding the climate change – |(Assessments, Economic analysis and |adaptation |
|Agricultural Development linkages and |formulation of projects) | |
|impacts | | |
|Preliminary Assessments |Influencing Policy Processes |Budgeting and Financing |
|(Understanding the governmental, |(Sectoral and sub-sector) |(National, Sectoral and subsectoral building funding |
|Institutional and political contexts) | |mechanisms) |
|Raising awareness and building partnerships|Developing and climate-proofing policy |Supporting policy measures |
| |measures |(National, Sectoral and sub-sectoral) |
| |(Building on national communications ) | |
|Evaluating the institutional and capacity |Strengthening institutions and capacities |Strengthening institutions and capacities |
|needs |(Learning-by-doing) |(Mainstreaming as standard practice) |
|(Building on National Capacity | | |
|Self-Assessments) | | |
|Engaging stakeholders and coordinating with the development community |
|(Government, non-governmental and development actors) |
Table 5: Key Mainstreaming Entry Points and Components at the Sectoral Level
|Policy Cycle |Sector Level |Adaptation Actions |Mainstreaming Components |
|Policy formulation |Sectoral strategies and |1. Include recognition of climate risks |1. Awareness raising |
| |policies |2. Apply climate lens to determine the | |
| | |vulnerability to climate risk including |2. Pre‐screening of climate risks and |
| | |the |vulnerabilities |
| | |possibility of maladaptation, etc. |3. Detailed climate risk |
| | | |assessment |
|Planning |Sector plan |1. Apply a climate lens |1. Identification of |
| | |2. Include cross‐sectoral and sector |adaptation options |
| | |top‐adaptation activities | |
| | | |2. Prioritization and |
| | | |selection |
|Resource allocation |Sectoral budget envelope |Make room for cross sectoral activities |Implementation of adaptation options |
| | | |including budget allocations |
| |Additional resources for |Claim resources from adaptation fund | |
| |adaptation | | |
|Programme implementation |Sector peogramming |1. Add climate considerations to criteria|Implementation of |
| | |for assessing project proposals |adaptation options, |
| | | |including budget allocations |
| | |2. Incorporate top‐down adaptation | |
| | |activities | |
| | |Identified during the sectoral planning |M&E |
| | |stage | |
Find the entry Agenda Policy making Mainstreaming
Points and setting agricultural-climate change
and making linkages into policy
the case processes
Implementation
and monitoring
Meeting the implementation challenge
Figure 4: Relationship of the programmatic approach to National Planning Cycle
Box 3 below provides a checklist of outcomes to be achieved throughout the application of the above described approach.
|Box 3: Progress Checklist for Adaptation Mainstreaming |
| |
|Finding the entry points and making the case |
|Entry points for adaptation mainstreaming agreed on and related roadmap taken into account in the workplan for the following stage of the |
|effort. |
|Key ministries (e.g. environment, finance, planning, sectors) and other non‐governmental actors (e.g. representatives of communities and |
|private sector) relevant to the agreed entry points are members of the steering committee or task force of the adaptation mainstreaming |
|effort. |
|Adaptation mainstreaming champions liaising with in‐country donor coordination mechanisms. |
|An increased awareness that poor people are likely to be the most affected by climate change, that national development goals and key sector|
|strategies (e.g. agriculture, health, energy, tourism) can be affected by climate change and that national development and sectors can in |
|turn affect the vulnerability of the country and the poor. |
|Activities to be implemented in collaboration with finance and planning or relevant sector ministries included in the workplan for the |
|following stage of the effort. |
| |
| |
|Mainstreaming adaptation into policy processes |
|Country‐specific evidence collected on the costs and benefits of climate change and adaptation (e.g. impact, vulnerability and adaptation |
|assessment, socio‐economic analysis, demonstration projects). |
|Adaptation and its links to development and poverty reduction included in the working documents produced during the targeted policy process |
|(e.g. documents produced by the working groups of the relevant national, sector and subnational planning processes). |
|Adaptation and its links to development and poverty reduction included as a priority in the completed policy documents of targeted policy |
|process (e.g. PRSP, MDG strategy, relevant sector or subnational plan). |
|Climate‐proofed and specific adaptation policy measures for climate change adaptation costed by finance and planning or sector ministries |
|and subnational bodies. |
| |
|Meeting the implementation challenge |
|Adaptation related indicators linked to policy documents of national development planning integrated in the national monitoring system. |
|Increased budget allocations and public expenditures for adaptation policy measures of non-environment ministries and sub‐national bodies. |
|Increased in‐country donor contributions for adaptation issues. |
|Adaptation mainstreaming established as standard practice in government and administrative processes, procedures and systems (e.g. budget |
|call circulars, systematic inclusion of adaptation in public expenditure reviews, coordination mechanisms, systematic climate proofing, |
|monitoring). |
| |
|Long‐term outcomes |
|Institutions and capacities strengthened for long‐term adaptation mainstreaming. |
|Conditions for simultaneous improvement of adaptation and poverty reduction enhanced. |
The key steps in mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation in the agricultural sector are presented in the figure 5 below.
Figure 5: UNDP Climate Mainstreaming Key Steps and Climate Change Adaptation Quality Standards
6.3 Identification Analysis and Classification of Adaptation Options
Adaptation options to climate change per key sector of Rwanda economy have been identified following sectoral studies on vulnerability carried out by experts, the PRSP I, the Initial National Communication related to UNFCCC and public consultations carried out in all Provinces during the fourth term of the year 2005.
A first list has been prepared and comprises 40 identified options from 6 most vulnerable sectors including: Agriculture and animal husbandry, lands, water resources, forestry and health. After analysis of these potential options, a second list comprising 20 options taking into consideration the necessity to implement integrated and transversal projects within these sectors was prepared. The NAPA team formulated key adaptation options which adequately respond to most immediate and urgent needs of most poor local communities and hence, most vulnerable in socio-economic and climatic point of view. These key adaptation options proposed for integration into local dynamics or the national development programmes are:
1) Promotion of non rain-fed agriculture;
2) Increase agricultural techniques;
3) Introduction of species resistant to drought in arid and semi arid zones;
4) Introduction of precocious varieties in arid and semi arid zones;
5) Protection of basin sides in mountainous zones;
6) Promote stocking techniques of agricultural products after harvesting;
7) Reinforce early warning and rapid intervention systems;
8) Reinforce animal husbandry in permanent stalling;
9) Promote veterinary and phytosanitary services;
10) Develop alternative sources of wood energy;
11) Rational utilisation of wood energy;
12) Preparation and implementation of forestry development plan;
13) Preparation and implementation of land development plan;
14) Integrated water resources management (IWRM including rainwater);
15) Promotion of non agricultural activities;
16) Increase the rate access of drinking water;
17) Favour access of the public to medical insurance services;
18) Prevent and fight against vectors of water-borne diseases;
19) Integration of NAPA in policies and national development plans;
20) Facilitate accessibility to health services.
2. Selection of potential adaptation options and integration with national objectives of sustainable development
Some of the options and adaptation measures to climate change which were identified during various consultations of NAPA processes constitute important information linked to formulated national objectives and multilateral conventions on environment ratified by Rwanda. Rwanda’s sustainable development objectives are stipulated in policy documents of dealing with development, poverty and vulnerability such as vision 2020, decentralisation policy, documents for strategies for poverty reduction (PRSP I and EDPRS), sectoral strategies and policies, policies and plans for the implementation of MEA (Multilateral Environment Agreement) action plans such as CBD and CCD.
The PRSP I review in February 2006 helped to integrate environment and other aspects of climate change such as drought, salt and pest in EDPRS – Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy as an essential element of economic development so as to fight poverty and consolidate the welfare of Rwandans. Environmental data should be integrated in local development plans so as to determine impacts of action plans and their policies. The dimension of environment and agricultural problems should be integrated in local and national development plans.
After consideration of national priorities to maintain analysis processes easy and manageable, taking into account urgent and immediate needs established in PRSP, EDPRS and other development programmes, 11 priority options were retained for multicriteria analysis. The priority strategies and objectives underlined in these national development plans in relation to NAPA include:
1. Promotion of non rain-fed agriculture;
2. Intensive agriculture and animal husbandry;
3. Introduction of drought resistant species;
4. Integrated water resource management;
5. Stocking and conservation of agriculture produce;
6. Information systems, early warning and rapid intervention mechanisms;
7. Development of sources of energy alternative to firewood;
8. Preparation and implementation of a national land development plan;
9. Access to health facilities and fight vectors of water-borne diseases;
10. Promotion of non agricultural activities, and
11. Preparation of a forest development plan.
6.4 Mainstreaming Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation at local levels
Integrating climate change adaptation at national, sectoral and project levels takes a partner country perspective and discusses in detail how to assess and address climate risks and opportunities, and how to integrate adaptation responses within development at key decision making levels: national, sectoral and project.
Integrating climate change adaptation at the local level examines the specific challenges and opportunities arising from climate change in urban and rural contexts and discuss how to incorporate adaptation considerations within government and community-level processes in both contexts (Figures 6).
The local level is important for mainstreaming climate change adaptation for three reasons; First, climate change impacts are manifested locally affecting local livelihood activities, economic enterprises, health risks etc. Second, vulnerability and adaptive capacity are determined by local conditions. Regional or national vulnerability indices often mask the dramatic variations in variability at local levels. Third, adaptation activities are often best observed at the local level. Decisions about livelihood strategies and investments can represent real-life demonstrations of adaptation. These demonstrations allow for the monitoring and evaluation of how policies, programmes and projects are supporting adaptation. They also provide a basis for upscaling and learning.
[pic]
Figure 6: Comprehensive Framework for Integrating Climate Change adaptation at the local level (UNDP 2010)
The process for integrating climate change adaptation into development policies and activities is broadly the same in urban and rural settings. In general this involves linking two separate but related processes in order to achieve stated objectives;
i) the process of understanding climate risks and selecting adaptation options; and
ii) the process formulating and implementing development policies conducive to adaptation.
The successful process of integration of climate change adaptation into local development processes depends on a number of enabling conditions. In both urban and rural contexts, there needs to be broad and sustained engagement with and participation of local stakeholders including local governments, communities, civil society and businesses (Figure 7). Local authorities need to adopt a collaborative approach where local actors are seen as legitimate decision makers. In addition, there needs to be greater awareness raising and targeted messaging on climate change, as local actors need to know why they have to take different decisions or call on different or additional resources in shaping their livelihoods. Awareness raising should be among a number of different local stakeholders, such as households, local organizations, opinion leaders and educators. Further appropriate information needs to be gathered and used to inform local level adaptation decisions. Finally, responses to short-term climatic shocks and those called for by prolonged long-term climate change need to be reconciled.
Figure 7: Process of selection, evaluation and prioritization of adaptation practices
Four entry points are identified to facilitate the integration of climate change adaptation into local development planning processes;
i. consideration of the implications of climate change in development planning process of local governments (village action plans and rural or district development plans, as well as city development plans or strategies;
ii. Adjustment of local regulatory and service provision frameworks, to include provision of information based on likely local impacts of climate change;
iii. Adjustment of local government accountability mechanisms(Figure 8); and
iv. Engagement of private-sector and civil society organizations and processes, which can support adaptation at the local level by internalizing and institutionalizing climate change risk management into their own decision-making processes and operations.
Figure 8: Framework for Decentralized Accountability
6.5 Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation in Project Cycle Management
Mainstreaming Adaptation
As it is mentioned in the sections above, targeted climate change adaptation measures will be needed in different circumstances, while at national and local levels adaptation measures will have to be mainstreamed within national development processes and activities at all levels of decision making. Mainstreaming has two major outcomes to achieve. These are ‘climate proofing’ development investments and building resilience and adaptive capacity of the systems of interest or target populations. The objective of ‘climate proofing’ is primarily to reduce risks from climate change to development investments and thereby increase sustainability of outcomes. Reducing risks may for instance involve modifying project components or implementation plans.
The outcome of enhanced adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change will be achieved as mainstreaming requires analysis of vulnerability and risks and seeks to maximize adaptive capacity while also avoiding inadvertent development effects that may actually increase vulnerability. For instance, introduction of high yielding crop varieties with high sensitivity to moisture stress may actually increase vulnerability where climate change will cause changes in rainfall patterns and consequent crop failures. In other words, there is also the need to avoid practices that may lead to what is known as mal-adaptation.
Mainstreaming climate change adaptation can be undertaken at national, sectoral and project levels, or at strategic and operational levels. Obviously the nature and characteristics of adaptation options will be different for each of these levels. For example, adaptation at a project level can be limited to short-term strategies such as creation of alternative livelihood choices, whereas at a national level resettlement can be considered as an adaptation measure which is a longer-term option. The discussion below focuses on mainstreaming at the project level, which is most relevant to the needs of the partners.
6.5.1 Mainstreaming and Project Cycle Management
The term ‘project’ generally refers to a set of discrete activities in a specific geographic location with a specified timeframe for its accomplishment. Projects differ in terms of size, objective, and modality of implementation, but share common attributes such that each project has specific objectives, activities, target beneficiaries, and indicators for monitoring and evaluation. The key mainstreaming entry points and components at project level are presented in Table 6. The mainstreaming approach outlined here is general to be applicable to different types of projects. Of course, not all projects are relevant to climate change adaptation considerations. There are ‘non-physical’ projects like institutional capacity building for which climate change is largely peripheral to warrant a detailed consideration. Also, vulnerability of a project to climate change impacts can be direct or indirect. For instance, a water supply project is directly vulnerable to climate change impacts when it is affected by changes in water availability, while it will be indirect when climate change induces land use changes that will affect runoff generation patterns in the water source catchment.
The process of planning and managing projects is often represented as a cycle, thus known as the ‘project cycle management’. It is a way of representing the major steps in the development of a project and how they are sequenced; each node or step of the cycle leading to the next. The project cycle provides a general framework for developing projects regardless of the nature of projects, although the detailed structure of the cycle may vary across projects and organizations. Figure 9 shows the project cycle.
Table 6: Key Mainstreaming Entry Points and Components at the Project Level
|Project Cycle |Adaptation Actions |Mainstreaming Components |
|Project |Assess potential climate risks and effects on |Awareness raising |
|Identification |vulnerability |Pre‐screening of climate risks and |
| | |vulnerabilities |
|Project appraisal |1. Undertake in‐depth climate risk Assessments |1. Detailed climate risk assessment |
|Detailed design |2. Identify adaptation options | |
| |3. Prioritize and select adaptation options |2. Identification of adaptation Options |
| | |3. Prioritization and selection |
|Implementation |1. New projects: Implement |Implementation of adaptation |
| |selected adaptation options |options including budget allocations. |
| |2. Ongoing projects: carry out interventions of| |
| |previous stages then implement adaptation | |
| |options | |
|Monitoring and |Monitor and evaluate implementation of |Monitoring and Evaluation |
|Evaluation |adaptation measures within the projects | |
[pic]
Figure 9. The project cycle
As it is shown in Figure 10, the major steps in the project cycle are situation analysis and project identification, project appraisal, detailed project design, project implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. The project cycle can be used as a guiding framework to integrate climate change adaptation at the operational or project level. For this, a six-step approach, known as the Climate Vulnerability and Adaptation approach (V&A approach), which follows parallel steps to the project cycle, has been developed by USAID (2007). The V&A approach is generic to be used by any organization; and hence it can be used for climate change adaptation partners. Also, it is applicable for both new as well as ongoing projects. There is also a very similar seven-step approach known as the Climate Vulnerability and Adaptation Pathway (CVA Pathway) which can be used for the same purpose. Table 7 presents the V&A approach, modified into a five-step process, together with the steps of the project cycle to illustrate their relationships.
Table 7. Climate vulnerability and adaptation pathway and the project cycle
The C&A Approach to the Project Cycle
Step 1: Screening for vulnerability Project Identification
Step 2: Identify adaptation measures Project Design
Step 3: Prioritize & select adaptation options
Step 4: Implement selected adaptation option/s Project Implementation
Step 5: Evaluate adaptations Monitoring & Evaluation
Source: USAID (2007)
6.5.2 Project Identification and Screening for Vulnerability
The phase of project identification in the project cycle involves problem diagnosis and evaluation and defines objectives, principles and approaches for the project and the important output is a project framework, commonly known as the logical framework. For new projects, climate change impacts will ideally be considered at this stage so that any climate concerns will lead to modification of the project at the phase of project appraisal and detail design.
Vulnerability of a project to climate change is generally assessed in terms of physical assets it creates, activities it involves, and its geographical location.
Screening for vulnerability to climate change at this stage should have to consider:
i. vulnerability of the project to climate change impacts, and
ii. potential of the project to increase vulnerability of natural and human systems to climate change.
Two rules of thumb to screening for vulnerability to climate change as defined by USAID (2007) are:
• If a project is sensitive to current climate variability, it is likely to be sensitive to climate change.
• Long-term climate change can introduce other new risks to projects; for instance, certain activities may have to be relocated to other locations.
The screening process should involve:
• Analysis of current climate variability including seasonal and inter-annual variations, occurrence of extreme events, and trends in these parameters. In addition to historical climatic data, information from local people will be useful for this.
• Assessment of climate scenarios for the area of the proposed project. Historical records may also serve as a proxy for projections of impacts to future changes.
• Determination of which project components or activities are likely to be impacted by climate variability and climate change, including nature and magnitude of impact at least in qualitative terms (low, medium, and high).
• Determination of which project components or activities might cause maladaptations (creating or exacerbating the problem) and increase exposure to climate change impacts.
Screening for climate change risk at this stage of the project cycle provides the opportunity to:
i. avoid excessively risky projects, or project components;
ii. install appropriate climate risk management measures and financing for vulnerable projects that are selected for implementation; and
iii. prioritize projects which will contribute actively to reducing climate vulnerability (enhancing adaptive capacity).
Projects identified as sensitive to climate change or likely to lead to increased vulnerability may
require more detailed assessment at the project appraisal stage.
6.5.3 Identification & Selection of Adaptation Measures in Project Designing
The project design phase is the stage of detailed project formulation including analysis of viability of the project against multiple criteria such as economic, financial, social and environmental. It also involves project appraisal and incorporation of findings of the appraisal into the project design. Details of the project are now finalized and it is ready for implementation. It is at this stage that climate change risks to the project should be assessed in detail. The aims are to:
i. reduce climate change risks facing the project, and
ii. take advantage of any opportunities that may arise from climate change.
There are two steps to follow for integrating adaptation at this stage:
i. identifying adaptation measures, and
ii. prioritizing and selecting adaptation options
a) Identifying adaptation measures/options
The task at this step is to develop a comprehensive list of adaptation options. Two things to take into account are that:
a) the options are meant to reduce vulnerability of the project to climate change, and
b) the options are meant to mitigate any negative impacts of the project on the state of vulnerability of targeted populations or systems. Compiling adaptation options will be made easier by:
• reviewing related documentary materials, and
• conducting consultations with different stakeholders such as local community groups, relevant civil society organizations, subject matter specialists, and government officials at different levels.
As also suggested by Lim and Spanger-Siegfried (2004), it is important having, as much as possible, the following information about the adaptation options:
• Description of the measure: Objectives, location, timing and responsibilities for implementation, and financing should be indicated. This description helps in assessing technical feasibility of measures, barriers to their implementation (e.g., cultural, social), the capacity to implement and sustain the measures, etc.
• Estimated costs of the measure: Cost is a prerequisite for ranking a measure and including it in the budget, or in a wider adaptation program. Costs could be a one-off expenditure for capital investments or recurrent costs, including operational costs for project-type measures. Costs should, to the extent possible, be expressed in monetary terms.
• Estimated benefits of the measure: The potential benefits of the measures can be evaluated by comparing the “with” and “without” case. Benefits are also often in terms of avoided costs, like reduced flood damages from early warning systems.
• Feasibility of the measure: How easy or difficult will it be to implement the adaptation measure? Is the measure technically feasible? Is there any lack of capacity to implement and sustain the measure? Are there institutional (legal restrictions), cultural, social or other barriers that must be overcome to be able to successfully implement the measure?
The emphasis will be on identifying measures that are needed for climate change, but that still make sense under current climatic conditions, therefore providing a “win-win” or “no regrets” solution. The main output of this step is a portfolio of adaptation measures and policies, which will be subjected to prioritization.
b) Prioritizing and selecting adaptation options
After enlisting as many adaptation options as possible, the next step is to prioritize them based on some objective criteria. Some of the key criteria include (Lim and Spanger-Siegfried, 2004; USAID, 2007):
1) Cost: cost to implement adaptation options; cost of not modifying the project. When judging the costs of options, the costs of non-action may also be considered.
2) Effectiveness: effectiveness of adaptation options to respond to expected climate change impacts (damages mitigated, costs avoided, and lives saved, etc).
3) Ease of implementation: absence of (minimized) barriers to implementation and the need to adjust other policies to accommodate the adaptation options.
4) Acceptability to local stakeholders: political, economic, social and cultural acceptability of the adaptation options to the stakeholders.
5) Timeframe: the timeframe or speed for implementing the adaptation options.
6) Institutional capacity: amount of additional capacity building and knowledge transfer
7) required for the adaptation option to be implemented.
8) Adequacy for current climate: costs and consequences of adaptation options under the current climate, which could emerge while targeting the future climate.
There are different methods that can be used for comparing alternative options such as cost-benefit analysis (CBA), cost effectiveness analysis (CEA), multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and expert judgment. For example, a qualitative prioritization method, which is a form of MCA, was used in case studies that were carried out to test the USAID’s guidance manual. The result from this step is one or more adaptation options selected for implementation.
6.5.4. Integration of Selected Adaptation Measures in Project Implementation
The project has reached implementation stage means that project appraisal and detailed design works have been completed and required resources allocated to begin the implementation. At this stage of the project, selected climate change adaptation measures are to be implemented as part of the project components. If it is an ongoing project into which adaptation measures are to be incorporated, then climate risk assessment, and identification, prioritization and selection of adaptation options can be undertaken in this stage for implementation in a revised or modified project implementation plan.
6.5.5. Adaptation Options as Indicators of Monitoring and Evaluation Tools
Monitoring and evaluation are key elements in the project cycle that serve important purposes for decision making. The purpose is generally to correct mistakes and improve existing and future practices. To mention some of its uses, it serves to:
• Identify implementation problems, successes, and failures during implementation,
• Assess accountability for resources allocated and utilized and results achieved, and
• Assess whether or not the objectives set were achieved and implementation strategies followed were appropriate after implementation of the project.
In this phase of the project therefore monitoring and evaluation of climate change adaptation measures should be conducted as part of the ‘parent’ project. It will involve assessing whether or not:
• the selected adaptation measures were actually appropriately implemented,
• the adaptation measures delivered the intended benefits, and
• the adaptation measures caused adverse outcomes that were not anticipated, e.g. in the form of negative environmental externalities.
It is however important to note that evaluation of effectiveness of adaptation measures that are meant to mitigate impacts of less frequent climatic events may not be simple. For example, a measure designed to reduce vulnerability to low-probability extreme floods cannot be rightly judged for its effectiveness until such event actually occurs. In such a case it will be difficult even to determine whether the measure was appropriately implemented or not. Nevertheless, the measures have not been tested by actual climatic events does not mean that the investment was not justified. The performance of such adaptation measures should be assessed by using relevant indicators or proxies, which will show trends of progress towards the achievement of the stated objectives. For instance, positive changes in household livelihood assets, changes in access to market, non-farm income generating activities created, etc can be used as indicators where irrigation development has been implemented to reduce vulnerability of poor households to mega drought disasters.
In general, it is the climate-justified type of adaptation measures that often lack immediate and measurable outputs and outcomes. The no regrets or low regrets type of adaptation measures are generally useful to implement under the current climate, or even in the absence of climate change. Hence, such measures will have immediate observable benefits that can be used for evaluation purposes.
6.6 Some Examples
6.6.1 Water Harvesting
The agricultural sector is heavily reliant not only on the green water resource but also on blue water to varying degrees. In order to achieve efficient water management on the national level, the legislation governing water resources management must account for both green and blue water use, especially in regions where water poses a constraint on economic development and the trade-offs between water users and ecosystems are substantial. This is gradually being realized throughout the world. In South Africa, the National Water Act from 1998 stipulates that a reserve of water, incorporating water for basic human needs and environmental flows, is given the highest priority in terms of water allocations. Moreover, the importance of green water flows is partly acknowledged in the legislation. The law regulates the trade-off between upstream activities such as forestry that have an impact on stream flow through increased use of green water and downstream water users.
Changes in land and water use upstream impact on water availability and quality downstream. With increasing demand for water, particularly in basins and catchments subject to water scarcity, there is an increasing realization of the need to develop policy options that address water tradeoffs between upstream and downstream water demands. An innovative, incentive-based policy initiative has been adopted by IFAD (the International Fund for Agricultural Development), where a ‘Green Water Credit’ (GWC) system is piloted in the Tana river basin in Kenya. The objective is to create an incentive-based system for improved green water management in upper catchments (i.e. reduce non-productive vapour flows in land management upstream in order to increase blue water availability downstream). Water credits are given to upstream land and water users by downstream water-using sectors (e.g. industry and irrigated agriculture) as payment for increased blue water availability. Such a mechanism requires the ability to carry out catchment assessments of current water use and partitioning and estimates of increased release of water when adopting different water-saving technologies (e.g. conservation tillage, water-harvesting practices, mulching and drip irrigation).
At the regional level, there is a need for efficient tools to assess green and blue water flows to be able to compare different water management strategies and to study the impact of changing the land use in an area. Such decision-support tools must be user-friendly and flexible to suit the local conditions. Moreover, they must be able to operate in areas where data availability is limited. There are economic pay-offs for downstream
societies of investments upstream in improved water and land management. Examples are emerging in different parts of the world where downstream communities compensate upstream communities for economic gains of environmental services downstream received because of wise water management investments upstream (FAO, 2004). However, most documented experiences have so far largely been of deforestation and/or afforestation in the upstream watershed (Perrot-Maître and Davis, 2001; Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002).
Training of extension officers in the realm of water management working at the local level is crucial for adoption of new techniques to upgrade rainfed agriculture. Through the extension officers, the farmers get access to new knowledge and strategies for improving current yield levels.
6.6.2 Water-harvesting and Irrigation
Local level adaptations are the strategies and decisions farmers make with respect to water management, including use or irrigation (if available and affordable), small-scale capture and storage. National governments can affect water management through policies relating to water rights, regulations, pricing, controls and allocation. Sometimes authority is transferred to lower levels of government.
Looking ahead to 2030, irrigated areas will come under increasing pressure to raise the productivity of water, both to buffer the more volatile rain-fed production (and maintain national production) and to respond to declining levels of this vital renewable resource. This risk will need to be managed by progressively adjusting the operation of large-scale irrigation and drainage systems to ensure higher cropping intensities and reduce the gaps between actual and potential yields (Table 8).
The inter-annual storage of excess rainfall and the use of resource-efficient irrigation remain the only guaranteed means of maintaining cropping intensities. Water resource management responses for river basins and aquifers, which are often trans-boundary, will be forced to become more agile and adaptive (including near-real-time management), as variability in river flows and aquifer recharge becomes apparent (IDWG CC, 2007).
Competing sector demands for water will increase pressure on the agriculture sector to justify the allocations it receives. Reconciling these competing demands will require agriculture to engage with other productive users and use transparent means of negotiating allocations.
Table 8: Rainwater management strategies and corresponding management options to improve crop yields and water productivity.
|Rainwater management strategy |Purpose |Management options |
|Increase plant water availability Ex-situ |Dry spell mitigation, protective irrigation, |Surface micro-farm ponds, percolation |
|(external) water-harvesting systems |spring protection, groundwater recharge, enable |dams/tanks, diversion and recharging |
| |off-season irrigation, multiple water use |structures |
|In-situ water-harvesting systems |Concentrate run-off to cropped area and/or other |Bunds, ridges, broad-beds and furrows, |
| |use Maximize rainfall infiltration |micro-basins, run-off strips Terracing, |
| | |contour cultivation, conservation |
| | |agriculture, dead furrows, staggered |
| | |trenches |
|Evaporation management |Reduce non-productive evaporation |Dry planting (early), mulching, |
| | |conservation agriculture, intercropping, |
| | |windbreaks, agroforestry, early plant |
| | |vigour, vegetative bunds, optimum crop |
| | |geometry |
|Increase plant water uptake capacity Integrated |Increase proportion of water balance flowing as |Improved crop varieties, soil fertility, |
|soil and crop management |productive transpiration |optimum crop rotation, pest control organic|
| | |matter |
In most cases, water management strategies to upgrade rainfed agriculture will result in trade-offs with downstream water users and ecosystems. However, depending on the choice of management strategy, these trade-offs can be minimized. An increase in yield in areas where the productivity is presently very low results in a relatively large improvement in water productivity, compared with yield improvements in areas with higher yields. Improvements in water productivity causes a vapour shift, which means that the productive flows of green water increase while the non-productive flows decrease to the same extent, and hence blue water flows are not affected at all. Therefore, investments in rainfed agriculture, such as in-situ or ex-situ water harvesting, where yields are low at present might cause comparatively large improvements in water productivity. Moreover, the augmentation of the green water resource in in-situ water harvesting comes from blue water that has been captured close to the source. This leads to lower evaporative losses of blue water compared with when the blue water is used for irrigation further downstream and also limits erosion. An integrated approach is needed to assess the impact of different investment strategies in rainfed agriculture in terms of poverty alleviation, livelihoods, economical returns and ecosystem resilience. The conclusion is that there seems to be ample room for improving yields in rainfed agriculture, while at the same time limiting trade-offs with downstream water users and ecosystems.
7. EXAMPLES OF RISK ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL SECTOR RESPONSES TO INCREASE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND POSSIBLE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES
7.1 Risk Identification, Assessment and Mitigation Strategies
The following table outlines the risks identified with the actions resulting from implementations of policy activities in the agricultural sector and summarizes the assessment of the risks based on their likelihood of occurrence and consequent impact. Mitigation strategies associated with each risk are also listed. Classification of risk likelihood and impact is based on the following guidelines.
Likelihood of event occurring;
Low – the event is unlikely to occur.
Medium – the event is likely to occur.
High – the event is expected to occur Impact of event.
Minor – minimal impact and no significant impact on community.
Moderate – some impact resulting from climate related loss.
Severe – significant disruption impacting agricultural productivity and community.
7.2 Risk Matrix
The table 9 below shows climate change adaptation actions under implementation or proposed, likely risks from their implementation, potential impact and its likelihood and proposed mitigation strategies to minimize further aggravation of the negative effects of climate change.
Table 9: Risk and mitigation strategy matrix for adaptation response actions in Rwanda
|RESPONSE AREA |NATURE OF RISKS |IMPACT |LIKELIHOOD OF THE IMPACT |MITIGATING STRATEGY |
|Development of |increased water loss. |Reduced water flows for |Medium/Severe |Use of irrigation methods which |
|Irrigation |Salt build-up in the soil. |other users downstream. | |minimize evaporation. |
| |Increased pollution through |Reduced water quality. | |Judicious application of |
| |agrochemicals. | | |agrochemicals. |
|Marsh Development |Water drainage |Reduced productivity in |High/Severe |Grow crops that tolerate high water|
| |Loss of organic matter |the long run | |table or water logged conditions |
| |Ecosystem changes (loss of |Further enhanced climate | | |
| |biodiversity) |change | | |
|Supply and Use of |Environmental chemical |Negative environmental and|High/Moderate |Effective timing and application of|
|agricultural inputs |pollution and soil physical |health effects | |right quantities. |
| |structure destruction. | | |Use of organic soil improvement |
| | | | |practices. |
|Sustainable Management |Environmental degradation |Reduced productivity |High/Severe |Use of selected sustainable |
|of Natural Resources | | | |methods. |
|and | | | | |
|Water and Soil | | | | |
|Transformation and |Increased use of |Pollution and biodiversity|Moderate/Severe |Regulated use of agrochemicals. |
|Competitiveness of |agrochemicals in order to |loss | | |
|Agricultural Products |meet market quality demands. | | | |
|Agricultural |Soil structure destruction |Poor crop root growth & |Moderate/Moderate | |
|mechanisation | |productivity. | | |
| | |Soil run-offs and erosion.| | |
|Land law and land |Organised settlements with |Soil erosion |Moderate/Severe |Water harvesting and use for other |
|reform |increased water run-offs |High risk of crop failure | |purposes. |
| |Large expanse of land under |due to disease or pests | |Planned crop rotation system. |
| |one crop |due to mono-cropping | | |
The following risk matrix positions each of the risks (numbers correspond to risks identified) with respect to their likelihood and impact.
|I |L I K E L I H O O D |
|M | |
|P | |
|A | |
|C | |
|T | |
| | |Low |Medium |High |
| |Severe |Medium Risk |High Risk |High Risk |
| |Moderate |Low Risk |Medium Risk |High Risk |
| |Minor |Low Risk |Low Risk |Medium Risk |
Table 10. Vulnerabilities to climate change and possible adaptation strategies for an Integrated Agricultural Development Programme
|Project objectives |Expected outputs |Main activities |Potential vulnerability to |Possible adaptation |
| | | |climate change |strategies |
|Improve the |Improved |Soil and water |Land degradation and reduced|Promotion of on-farm and |
|management of |management of |conservation |carrying capacity of the |homestead forestry and |
|degraded lands |degraded lands |Tree plantation |land |agro-forestry practices |
| | | | |Community based development |
| | | | |and commercialization of |
| | | | |non-timber |
| | | | |forest products |
| | | | |Modifying farming and range |
| | | | |management practices |
| | | | |Introducing and promoting |
| | | | |zero grazing |
| | | | |Using animal manure to |
| | | | |reduce soil erosion |
|Increase and diversify |Improved household |Water harvesting |Reduced forage quality and |Early selling of weak and |
|crop and livestock |food security |& irrigation |quantity, reduced livestock |old animals |
|production/ | |Crop production |products, lower livestock |Modifying livestock |
|productivity | |Livestock |prices, |diversity, composition and |
| | |production |wilting of crops, shortening|numbers |
| | | |of |Hay making, collection and |
| | | |maturity period of crops, |preservation |
| | | |expanding diseases |Promoting drought tolerant |
| | | | |and early maturing and crops|
| | | | |Promoting organic(low |
| | | | |external input) farming |
|Increase women’s |Improved access to |Training |Can lengthen and further |Target and empower |
|access to decision making |resources and |Provision of |increase burden on women’s |resource-poor women and |
|and resources |decision-making for |credit |productive and reproductive |female-headed |
| |women | |responsibilities |households |
| | | |May change or exhaust some |Build new capacities for |
| | | |if |women and create |
| | | |the resources women use for |non-traditional job |
| | | |agricultural or pastoral |opportunities |
| | | |work, |Analyze gender relations |
| | | |productive activities, and |associated with the use of, |
| | | |household consumption |access to, |
| | | |Limit women’s access to |management and control of |
| | | |information, education,, |resources |
| | | |resources and opportunities |Consult with both women and |
| | | | |men when introducing new |
| | | | |plant and |
| | | | |animal species |
| | | | |Include gender criteria/ |
| | | | |gender approach in |
| | | | |diagnosing and planning |
| | | | |communities’ water, land or |
| | | | |technological requirements |
| | | | |Focus on raising awareness, |
| | | | |knowledge management, |
| | | | |information |
| | | | |dissemination and capacity |
| | | | |building |
|Improve food |Food production |Training farmers on improved|Food insecurity, decline in |Modifying farming practices |
|production of |of poor households |agricultural |soil |Diversifying livelihood |
|poor households |improved |practices and drip |fertility, natural resource |activities |
| | |irrigation |degradation and reduced |Promoting of on-farm and |
| | |Upgrading of small-scale |livestock |homestead forestry and |
| | |traditional |productivity |agro-forestry practices |
| | |irrigation schemes | |Introducing and promoting |
| | |Capacity building of | |participatory resource |
| | |technical staff and training| |management |
| | |of project staff | |Tree planting and |
| | | | |afforestation |
| | | | |Strengthening and promoting |
| | | | |early maturing |
| | | | |crops |
|Enhance the |Income level of |Provision of improved |Reduced production and |Improve land productivity |
|income level of |poor households |poultry |insufficient income from |Promoting horticulture |
|poor households |enhanced |Training women on petty |farming |through creation of ponds |
| | |trading and |activities |Carry out/support animal |
| | |provision of seed money | |health and disease |
| | |Provision of small ruminants| |prevention and control |
| | | | |program |
|Better manage |Improved |Training of farmers on soil |Degradation of natural |Linking watershed |
|the natural |management of the |& water |forests and |development with climate |
|resource base |natural resource |conservation and natural |agricultural land |change adaptation |
| |base |resources | |Introduce/ promote |
| | |management | |participatory management of |
| | |Assist the construction of | |available natural resources |
| | |check-dams by | |Promotion of on-farm and |
| | |providing technical | |homestead forestry and |
| | |assistance and gabions | |Agro-forestry practices |
| | |Training women on fuel | |Introducing and promoting |
| | |saving stove | |zero grazing |
| | |preparation and promotion | | |
| | |Establishing private | | |
| | |nurseries at | | |
| | |household level | | |
|Improving the |Health and |Health and nutrition |Food insecurity, |Improving food production, |
|health and |nutritional status |training, |malnutrition, |diversifying |
|nutritional status |of poor rural |development of springs and |lack of access to clean |livelihood sources, |
|of poor rural |families improved |hand dug |water, |improving health coverage, |
|families | |wells, training of staff |health services and |promoting hygiene and |
| | | |sanitation |sanitation |
| | | |structures |Mainstreaming reproductive |
| | | | |health, family |
| | | | |planning into all the |
| | | | |project activities |
|Improve agricultural |• Households’ agricultural |Horticulture and fruit |Decline in agricultural |Digging deeper wells and |
|and natural resources |skills |development |production and productivity |boreholes |
|management practices |and access to basic |Implementing income |(soil |Promoting soil and water |
| |agricultural |generating schemes |infertility) |conservation practices |
| |inputs and services |(training on sheep/goat |Declining forest cover and |Introducing and promoting |
| |increased |production and |land |early maturing, drought and |
| |• Appropriate natural |management, apiculture |degradation |disease tolerant crops |
| |resources |development, and | |Community based |
| |management practices |sustainable saving and | |rehabilitation of degraded |
| |demonstrated and replicated |credit management, | |areas |
| | |provision of sheep/goats, | | |
| | |beehives, credits) | | |
| | |Production of tree | | |
| | |seedlings, nurseries, | | |
| | |construction of check-dams, | | |
| | |cut-off drains, | | |
| | |tree planting | | |
|Improve agricultural |•Households’ agricultural |Construction of deep trench |Increased soil erosion and |Diversifying and/or altering|
|and natural |skills and access to basic |on upper |infertility |crop and livestock varieties|
|resources |agricultural inputs and |catchments |Deforestation and land |Introducing and |
|conservation and |services increased |Construction of percolation |degradation |implementing irrigation new |
|management |• Appropriate natural |ponds, |Dwindling water sources |and adaptive practices |
|practices |resources management |Gabion check dam, | |Digging deeper wells and |
| |practices demonstrated and |simple(stone) check | |developing and maintaining |
| |replicated |dam | |existing ones |
| | |Area closure and plantation | |Promoting soil and water |
| | |of multi | |conservation practices |
| | |purpose trees and/ grasses | |Introducing and promoting |
| | |Provision of shoats, | |early maturing, drought and |
| | |irrigation motor | |disease tolerant crops |
| | |pumps | | |
| | |Training on irrigation | | |
| | |agronomy, natural | | |
| | |resources management and | | |
| | |sustainable | | |
| | |saving and credit management| | |
8.0 MAISTREAMING OF CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGIES IN INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURAL IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL POLICY
MINAGRI is expected to play a primordial role in the national economic development programme, in order to achieve the objectives of the national Poverty Reduction Strategy, the Millennium Development Goals and the Vision 2020. In order to fulfill this task, the Ministry requires effective institutional arrangements, to facilitate it play its role of policy making, coordination, monitoring and evaluation of its implementation, through effective coordination and collaboration with all stakeholders.
For the successful integration of climate change strategies in agricultural sector policies, MINAGRI will have to work closely with its key partners, namely:
• Ministries involved in rural development;
• Decentralised entities (Provinces, Districts, Sectors);
• Universities and Research Institutions (RIAS, NUR, KIST, HIAL etc.);
• Civil society;
• Non governmental organisations;
• Donors.
However, successful integration among the key sector is limited by;
Interdepartmental coordination and horizontal collaboration: There is a very weak horizontal collaboration and communication between individual Directorates resulting often in duplication of efforts with counterproductive effect. This is also true for collaboration between central Directorates and the relevant Semi-Autonomous Bodies working in related areas. Some Directorates whose work largely depends on collaboration from other Directorates suffer significantly the consequences.
Inadequate collaboration with decentralized levels: Collaboration with the decentralized local government authorities is not systematic and is a major obstacle to coordinating, monitoring and evaluation of implementation of programmes on the ground.
Collaboration with other partners: There is currently no system in place to coordinate interventions by different actors in the agricultural sector, including NGOs, the civil society and the private sector. Appropriate Management Information System, as one of the tools, will also facilitate more teamwork within the Ministry departments and also enhance communication with external partners.
8.1 Major concerns for Effective Mainstreaming of Climate Change in the Agricultural Sector
Capacity challenges: Across all Directorates the capacity for planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluation needs to improve, especially in terms of skilled personnel; adequate materials and equipment. A comprehensive needs assessment for improving climate change knowledge generation and utilization in the agricultural sector will be critical.
Coordination and collaboration: There is a very weak horizontal collaboration and communication between individual Directorates resulting often in duplication of efforts with counter-productive effect. This is also true for collaboration between central Directorates and the relevant Semi-Autonomous Bodies working in related areas. Some Directorates whose work largely depends on collaboration from other Directorates suffer significantly the consequences. This is particularly true for the Planning and Agricultural Statistics Directorate and more so for the Extension and Marketing Directorate, but also for the Directorate in charge of Human Resource Development. Also the coordination role of the Secretary General for the work between the departments/units needs to be more effective to avoid any duplication and ensure adequate horizontal information flow. Special capacity building measures to improve teamwork and communication through application of appropriate modern Management Information Systems are necessary.
Collaboration with the decentralized local government authorities is not systematic and is a major obstacle to coordinating, monitoring and evaluation of implementation of programmes on the ground. Modalities to establish an effective collaboration and coordination mechanism between MINAGRI, Provinces and Districts must be worked out, in order to bridge the existing gap between policy planning and monitoring of policy implementation. In absence of such a mechanism, it will be very difficult to achieve the set objectives of the policy.
Collaboration with other partners: There is need to improve coordination of interventions by different actors in the agricultural sector, including NGOs and the private sector. There is dire need to have in place well functioning mechanisms to facilitate the communication process. Appropriate Management Information System, as one of the tools, will also facilitate more teamwork within the Ministry departments and also enhance communication with external partners. The current project to install a LAN system will need further expansion to serve these purposes.
Performance of Semi Autonomous Bodies under MINAGRI: The specialized Semi-Autonomous Bodies need review and revisiting of their mandates in order to improve the quantity and quality of services they render. Their legal status and position within the Ministry must also be revisited and made clear, with the objective to better harmonise and align their activities with the Ministry. They should furthermore be proactive in accessing the clients and ensure countrywide coverage. The CNIA which currently focuses its activities on Artificial Insemination for dairy cattle could expand its activities to cover all aspects of animal husbandry, to fully utilise the performance potential acquired through genetic improvement. The services of the new centre could also cover all animals, not only restricted to cattle. In this case, the activities so far carried out by the National Poultry Hatchery (CNR) could be integrated into those of the new institution.
The National Veterinary Laboratory (LVNR) focuses its work on diagnostic activities during epidemic outbreaks and not on systematic diseases surveillance. Its mandate could be expanded to cover the entire area of animal health and disease control and establish a form of an early warning system. The possibility of expanding the laboratory services to the plant domain for phytopathological examinations can be explored as methodologies and equipment for bacteriological, microbiological and pathological laboratory examinations are basically the same for both animals and plants.
The National Seed Service could also expand its activities beyond production and distribution of selected seeds. It could have the mandate to provide all services resulting into increased crop production based on the production potential of the selected seeds. It should provide documentation and advisory packages, advise on recommended seeds by climatic zone and soil type, proper management techniques for seeds and crops including post-harvest technologies, collaborate with Agricultural Production Unit of MINAGRI in policy development and with ISAR, UNR and ISAE in research programmes and in production and dissemination of related extension packages and outreach programmes.
ISAR is to change its approach from pure commodity-oriented research to produce potentially well performing varieties and shift towards contributing to significant rural transformation. It has to focus, more on participatory adaptive research in conformity with the general MINAGRI policy, to facilitate the technology transfer to the farmers level. The research programmes have to be aligned with the general national agricultural policies and work very closely with relevant departments in MINAGRI and with UNR as well as other research institutions and contribute to preparation and dissemination of appropriate extension packages to farmers to improve the level of production in agriculture and livestock.
Inadequate Extension system: The agricultural extension system in Rwanda was introduced in the colonial era and kept changing after independence but has not yet been successful. Several approaches were tried, including training of contact (model) farmers, creation of pilot zones, demonstration farms and establishment of extension commissions at provincial, district and “secteur” levels, but without much success. The extension system has been further characterized by a multitude of actors, including NGOs, the private sector and the civil society. Until 1994, MINAGRI had employed about 2000 extension officers (Monagri) working at the “secteur” level. To-date, there is almost no functioning agricultural extension system in the country. Main reasons for this are: (i)Weak coordination of actors in the agricultural sector, (ii) Weak linkage between research and extension, (iii) Insufficient means and personnel, and (iv) Low level of farmers organization in associations.
Until 1998 MINAGRI had employed one to three extension officers at every secteur. Extension services today are provided at the district level and the maximum available personnel is only four people. Considering the lack of means like transport and other financial constraints, it is obvious that hardly any extension work can be effectively conducted by these officers. Furthermore, there is a wide spectrum of actors operating in the agricultural services sector including NGOs (national and international) the civil society, private sector, religious groupings etc. However the absence of an efficient coordination mechanism results in ineffective utilization of both the financial and human resources of these actors.
The low level of organization of the agricultural producers is also deterrent to efficient extension. Most of the farmers associations do not have the capacities and experiences to adopt new technologies and innovations and to acquire credits for necessary investments (e.g. acquisition of agricultural inputs) and are usually not viable and sustainable. Finally, and most important, is lack of linkage between research and extension in Rwanda. Research has in most cases been conducted without considering the real needs of the population. Furthermore there is so far no functioning mechanism through which information on all innovations and technological solutions are put together for use by all actors in the sector. Each actor provides his/her extension services as considered appropriate, and not from one and the same source.
In 2001, with the FAO technical support, a new extension system was developed and endorsed by MINAGRI. The proposed extension system was based on the participatory, bottom-up approach. This extension system has not yet been applied but is worth testing. It is evident that there is a wide gap between any innovations from research institutions and information from the MINAGRI departments on one hand and the actors involved in extension services on the other. Extension activities through decentralized authorities do not reach the rural populations due to material and human resources constraints at the local authorities. All other actors intervening in the sector have no standard extension packages and operate in an uncoordinated and uncontrolled manner. This situation is counter-productive and necessitates alternative ways of extension. Some views have been expressed on the possibility of establishing a public agency, in charge of agricultural extension services at national level. The agency could collaborate with research institutions, and all other relevant institutions and compile all necessary information and data and produce adequate extension packages for the entire sector to cover both agricultural and animal production. These integrated extension packages would be regularly updated and distributed to all stakeholders involved in agricultural extension work. The agency could operate as a central agricultural outreach centre and open regional offices in provinces or serve several regions on a zonal basis. These could at a later stage, be transformed into privately operating service centres, providing services to clients on commercial basis.
Legislation in the Agricultural sector: There is need to review and update them and formulate new ones, and in conformity with the new constitution. Rwanda is signatory to several international conventions relating to agriculture and environment, but there is need to establish related implementation laws and regulations. The conducive legal framework in the agricultural sector has to aim at strengthening policies, norms and standards governing the protection of plant, human and animal health, and the environment, taking into consideration internationally approved principles and standards.
Legislation concerning land tenure and land use has so far been based on a dual system combining both customary and written laws and regulations, dating as far back as in the 19th century, during the colonial era. A new land bill has been recently prepared and presented to the parliament. The land law seeks to establish a land tenure system that gives land a market value and ensures its rational utilization. Once adopted and ratified, specific laws and regulations will be necessary for its application. With regard to agricultural production, Rwanda has only a few and old laws governing some agricultural activities, which are no longer up to date. A decree of 28th July 1936 and modified on 30th June 1950 sets regulations for the packaging and control of plant products for export. Concerning the phytosanitary control, the Presidential Decree of 13th November 1975 (J.O. 1975, p. 798) sets regulations for delivery of a phytosanitary certificate for the importation and exportation of plants and plant products. A draft law governing protection of plants and plant products against pests and diseases and governing the use of pesticides was prepared in July 2002. It is currently under revision and will soon be submitted to the Government and parliament for approval. The law seeks, inter alia, to establish a phytosanitary surveillance of the territory, set obligations and responsibilities of economic operators involved in the production of and trading with plants, set regulations for phytosanitary inspection at borders and for pesticides control and establish sanctions and penalties.
Currently, for practical purposes, Rwanda applies the principles and regulations according to the International Plant Protection Convention, adopted in Rome in 1951 and revised in 1999 and 2002, to which the country is not yet signatory.34 In the absence of the legislation for control and approval of pesticides, MINAGRI establishes a list of authorized pesticide products, considering their degree of toxicity, the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, European Union directives and consultations with different actors in the area. Recently a law35 governing production, quality control and commercialization of plant quality seeds was ratified and different specific regulations are currently under preparation for its application.
The legislation governing livestock and veterinary medicine is equally old, consisting of about 70 laws and regulations, dating as far back as 1910, covering the areas of animal health, animal movement, animal products, pastures management etc. Generally these laws and regulations do no longer conform with the present situation hence the need for review and update. The Animal Health Convention of CEPEGL is also applicable for Rwanda. In the environmental protection area, Rwanda has ratified several international conventions with relevance to agriculture, including the climate change convention and the related Kyoto protocol, convention on the fight against desertification, convention on Biodiversity and the Carthagena Protocol on Biosecurity and the Ramsar Convention on Protection of Wetlands. Application of these protocols will also require special laws and regulations.
8.2 Policies to encourage adaptation of crop development and farming practices
Climate-mitigation dominant policy options involve:
• Conservation agriculture,
• Reduction of methane from rice paddies,
• Watershed and land management,
• Livestock management.
Suggested policies to encourage adaptation of crop development and appropriate farming practices are presented in Table 11 below by category.
Table 11: Policies, crop development and farming practices to minimize impact of climate change
|Channels |Policies to encourage adapted crop development and farming practices |
|Public services and external / project support |Diversify crop types and varieties, including crop substitution, |
| |Develop new crop varieties, including hybrids, to increase the tolerance and suitability |
|Support Policies |Promote seed banks so as to help farmers diversify crops and crop varieties |
| |research and development of new crop varieties that are more resistant |
| |Strengthen capacity of the Department of Agriculture to provide seeds of a diverse mixture of|
| |crops |
| |Develop agricultural extension schemes |
| |Set tax and other incentive policies to increase diversification of crops and crop varieties |
Irrigation and water resource management
|Channels |Irrigation and water ressource management |
|Public services and external/ project |Modernization and service orientation of irrigation system management to allow for changing cropping |
|support |systems and the adaptation of farmers’ practises |
| |Develop water management innovations, including irrigation, to address increasing frequency of |
| |droughts. |
| |Improve infrastructure for small-scale water capture, storage and use |
| |Reuse wastewater for agricultural purposes. |
|Support policies |Develop and implement policies and programs to influence farm-level land and water resource use and |
| |management practices in light of changing climate conditions. |
| |Develop schemes to reduce distribution losses of irrigation water by maintaining canals |
| |Improve demand management and water allocation to encourage efficiency of use (best timing and dose |
| |of irrigation) |
| |Encourage improved irrigation methods like drip and sprinkler irrigation |
| |Undertake research to develop crop varieties requiring little water. |
Crop and income loss risk management policies
|Channels |Crop and income loss risk management policies |
|Public services and external / project |Diversify source of household income |
|support |strengthen self help groups |
| |Establish weather/meteorological stations |
| |Develop private insurance to reduce climate-related risks |
| |Participate in income stabilization programs |
|Support Policies |Mobilize adequate community based risk managements tools to face crop failures and soaring food |
| |prices (grain banks, tontines, self help groups) |
| |Modify crop insurance programs |
| |Develop innovative risk financing instruments and insurance schemes to spread residual risks |
Disaster risk management policies (flood, drought...)
|Channels |Disaster risk management policies (flood, drought...) |
|Public services and external / project |Develop early warning systems |
|support |infrastructure investments to protect against asset loss; |
| |protecting equipped areas from flood damage and maintaining drainage outlets |
|Support Policies |to strengthen the meteorological department, |
| |Incentive policies to encourage better drought management programs |
| |Policies to alter cropping patterns to suit drought |
| |planting more water-efficient and/or drought tolerant crop varieties, |
Conservation agriculture
|Channels |Conservation agriculture |
|Support policies |Encourage crop rotations, preferably with perennial crops (free planting material) |
| |Promote rotations or inter-cropping with leguminous crops |
| |Develop schemes to encourage conservation practices such as zero tillage, furrow diking |
| |Put in place programs to scale up cover cropping with leguminous (Subsidise catch or cover crops) |
Reduce methane from rice paddies
|Channels |Methane reduction policies |
|Public services and external/project |Use modern cultivation techniques that allow periodic draining fields |
|support |Promote off-season application of rice crop waste and discourage straw burning |
| |Implement a water-saving technology called alternate wetting and drying (AWD), developed by IRRI |
|Support policies |Methane reduction from irrigated rice should be made eligible for offsets and other mitigation |
| |funding opportunities |
| |Modify water-management strategies coupled with efficient application of fertilizer |
Watershed management policies
|Channels |Watershed and land management policies |
|Public services and external / project |Promote reforesting of hillside degraded areas |
|support |Develop local watershed / land use planning through municipality and community participatory planning|
|Support Policies |Develop schemes to improve watershed resilience building at community level |
| |Mobilize municipality-driven semi permanent labour intensive public works (socio-environment safety |
| |nets) |
| |Monitor carbon-fixing impact generated to allow Carbon funding to support such actions |
Livestock management
|Channels |Livestock management |
|Support Policies |Schemes to improve pasture quality |
| |Research and development to improve productivity through breeding and heifer management |
| |Schemes to include additives that reduce methane formation |
| |Programs to prevent degradation of pastures |
| |Programs to encourage adjustments in intensity and timing of grazing to increase carbon sequestration|
| |in pasture lands |
8.3 Promising mitigation and adaptation strategies
Agriculture is the sector that has the potential to transcend from being a problem to becoming an essential part of the solution to climate change provided there is a more holistic vision of food security, agricultural mitigation, climate-change adaptation and development. What is required is a rapid and significant shift from industrial monocultures and factory farming towards mosaics of sustainable production systems that are based on the integration of location-specific organic resource inputs; natural biological processes to enhance soil fertility; improved water-use efficiency; increased crop and livestock diversity that is well adapted to local conditions and integrated livestock and crop farming systems. Most of these sustainable production systems have demonstrated that they provide synergies between productivity, income-generation potential and environmental sustainability. It is however clear that a much more profound agricultural transformation is required than simply tweaking the existing industrial agricultural systems (Ishii-Eiteman and Reeves, 2009: 11).
Appropriately shaped sustainable production systems will be able to quantitatively and qualitatively feed the Rwandan population by substantially improving crop yields of subsistence farmers whose rapidly growing population and food insecurity conditions are severe (studies indicate yield increases between 60–80%). Many of these sustainable production systems are economically self-sustaining once initial investments (in particular in extension services, research and development, and physical infra-structure) are made. These production systems would also support production of feed and fibre for local use that all contribute to sustainable economic development in rural areas (Herren et al., 2011).
Based on the 4th IPCC Assessment Report, Bellarby et al. (2008) have summarized the main clusters of mitigation measures in agriculture as follows:
• Improved cropland management (lower use of synthetic fertilizers, reduced tillage etc.);
• Reducing industrial livestock production and improving grazing land management;
• Restoration of organic soils and degraded lands to increase soil carbon sinks;
• Improved water and rice management;
• Land-use change and agro-forestry;
• Increasing efficiency in fertilizer production;
• Behavioural changes of food consumers (notably aimed at reducing the meat content).
To make agriculture GHG efficient and climate-resilient, landscape and farming systems need to change in order to actively absorb and store carbon in soils and vegetation; reduce emissions of methane from use of marsh lands, rice production, livestock and burning; and decrease nitrous oxide emissions from inorganic fertilizers, on the one hand, and enhance the resilience of production systems and ecosystem services to climate change, on the other hand (Scherr and Sthapit, 2009). All these in combination with higher yields reinforce profitability of the whole sustainable production system. The scale at which modified production methods would have to be adopted, the required political and economic vision and steps related to changes in economic incentive systems, market structures, and more stable systems of land tenure (to name but the most important issues), as well as the considerable difficulties involved in measuring, reporting and verifying reductions in GHG emissions however pose considerable challenges.
Crop management, involving existing crops types and varieties, the development of new varieties or replacing crops (which is then reflected in changes in the spatial location of crops) in order to rely on crop types and varieties that are better suited to a changed climate.
Biodiversity increases resilience to changing environmental conditions and stresses. Genetically-diverse populations and species-rich ecosystems have a greater potential to adapt to climate change. FAO promotes the use of indigenous and locally-adapted plants as well as the selection and multiplication of crop varieties and autochthonous races adapted for or resistant to adverse conditions.
At the national level this is translated into programs to develop new crops or varieties in research programs (e.g. to be more heat tolerant or drought resistant), to maintain genetic resources and to develop crop management practices, all to be disseminated to farmers via outreach programmes.
These become agricultural adaptations when crop types and varieties are actually changed (reflected in changed crop location or patterns). At the local level, this involves farmers’ decision making, reflecting personal risk perceptions and trade-offs and resulting in particular crop choices.
Another option is use of a mosaic of regenerative systems which may include bio-dynamic, organic, agro-ecologic, integrated crop and livestock farming, conservation tillage, agro-forestry and similar practices. While extensively drawing on local knowledge and varieties, regenerative systems will marry them with modern agricultural science and extension services (be knowledge rather than chemical-input-intensive) and give a very pro-active role to small-scale farmers. In other words, what is being talked about here are not low-yield, low-input systems, but sustainable production methods that are sophisticated and effective ecological systems that build on traditional and local knowledge and practices without high external inputs. The mosaic of sustainable production methods can be technically applied by both small and larger farms, although their application by the former may be easier. Large farms tend to have a higher mono-culture specialization, mechanization and external-input dependence and they often rely on significant input and output subsidies to be profitable.
There are significant secondary macro-economic benefits of investment in sustainable agriculture. The most important impact is the ‘local multiplier effect’ that accompanies investments that direct a greater share of total farming input expenditures towards the purchase of locally sourced inputs (e.g. labour, organic fertilizers, bio-pesticides, advisory and support services etc.) that replace conventional procurement of externally sourced inputs. Conceptually, the same investment in any other competing activity is unlikely to have as many linkages with the local economy and hence unlikely to yield a multiplier as large.
Developing integrated agricultural and (renewable) energy production (in particular linked to the reduction of post-harvest losses, better irrigation, in combination with water efficiency and “harvesting” techniques, and the development of agricultural support services), which may be linked to improved sanitation, offers plenty of production, value added, and climate mitigation and adaptation opportunities.
8.4 Restoration of degraded land: Lessons from Ethiopia and the Traditional Highland Vietnamese Production System
In the Tigray Province, one of the most degraded parts of Ethiopia, agricultural productivity was doubled by soil fertility techniques on over 1 million hectares through agro-forestry, application of compost and the introduction of leguminous plants into the crop sequence. By restoring soil fertility, yields were increased to a much greater extent at both farm and regional levels than by using purchased mineral fertilizers.
Restoration of degraded land not only offers income opportunities for rural populations but also has a huge climate mitigation potential by increasing soil carbon sequestration. The total mitigation potential by restoration of degraded land is estimated as 0.15 Gt CO2-eq (technical potential up to US$ 20 per ton of carbon) and up to 0.7 Gt CO2-eq (physical potential). As degraded lands usually host market-marginalized populations, organic land management may be the only opportunity to improve food security through an organized use of local labour to rehabilitate degraded land and increase productivity and soil carbon sequestration.
Another proven practice, the traditional highland Vietnamese production system (VAC) that integrates aquaculture, garden, livestock and forest agriculture in small plots, could serve as a template for other tropical regions. VAC illustrates a key principle of regenerative practices - using the waste stream of one component to feed another component. Food scraps are placed in the pond to feed the fish, pond biomass growth is removed and fed to pigs, and pig manure is used to fertilize the garden and fruit trees. In this manner, regenerative systems conserve energy and maintain fertility.
VAC has other notable practices indicative of regenerative systems. It makes full use of vertical space by planting vegetables and fruiting bushes below fruit and nut trees. It uses riparian zones (small ponds) the most productive ecosystems on earth, yielding more net primary productivity per unit of area than any other ecosystem. It also stacks functions of components in the system, such as the use of the pond for waste disposal, microclimate cooling, and fish, duck, feed and fertilizer production (El-Hage Scialabba and Müller-Lindenlauf, 2010; and Hellwinckel and De La Torre Ugarte, 2009).
8.5 Mitigation potential of a conversion to organic agriculture and its developmental synergies
The important climate-mitigation potential and related adaptation opportunities of organic agriculture come in tandem with several important developmental benefits. This concerns economic benefits, in particular for pro-poor development (such as higher prices, revenues, more diversified production, and the particular suitability of organic agriculture for small-scale farmers), food-security benefits (higher and more stable yields under extreme weather events, higher income creates local demand for food), ecological advantages (better water and soil management, preservation of bio-diversity, no pollution from agro-chemical and GMO use), occupational safety gains (every year some 300,000 farmers die of agrochemical use in conventional agriculture (UNCTAD/UNEP, 2008b: iii)) and social and cultural benefits (including gender equality, strengthening of local knowledge and skills as well as communal relations).
According to the President of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), “global food security can only be achieved through significant new investment in smallholder agriculture” (cited in Mactaggart, 2010b). Furthermore, governments need to pay special attention to strengthening the agricultural innovation and extension system for ecological farming methods, with particular emphasis on providing innovative, locally adapted and locally sourced solutions for smallholders. Paving the way for mainstreaming a mosaic of sustainable agricultural production methods requires integrative learning, in which farmers and researchers in agro-ecological sciences work together to determine how to best integrate traditional practices and new agro-ecological scientific discoveries. For this to take place, new channels and platforms for information exchange and skills’ transfer need to be developed (Herren et al., 2011).
8.6 Mitigation options in the agriculture and forestry
Mitigation in the natural resources sector should focus on its five major sectors, namely: livestock, forestry, rangeland, agriculture and fisheries. The classical mitigation options in the agricultural sector at large include forest-related measures of reducing deforestation and forest degradation and increasing afforestation and reforestation, along with forest management interventions to maintain or increase forest carbon density, and efforts to increase carbon stocks in wood products and enhance fuel substitution.
Cropland mitigation measures remain unexplored although many adaptation options also contribute to mitigation. Among these measures are: soil management practices that reduce fertilizer use and increase crop diversification; promotion of legumes in crop rotations; increasing biodiversity, the availability of quality seeds and integrated crop/livestock systems; promotion of low energy production systems; improving the control of wildfires and avoiding burning of crop residues; and promoting efficient energy use by commercial agriculture and agro-industries.
Soil carbon sequestration is one of the most promising options with a wide range of synergies. By increasing carbon concentrations in the soil through better management practices, this option offers benefits for biodiversity, soil fertility and productivity, and soil water storage capacity. Further, it stabilizes and increases food production and optimizes the use of synthetic fertilizer inputs, reversing land degradation and restoring the “health” of ecological processes.
The benefit of carbon sequestration is described as a triple win for carbon (figure 6) and apportioned as follows:
Value to farmer: for soil quality enhancement “Climate mitigation through carbon offsets and carbon trading can increase income in rural areas in developing countries, directly improving livelihoods while enhancing adaptive capacity”. (Gary Yohe, et al, 2007, p.1). A large proportion of the mitigation potential of agriculture (excluding bioenergy) arises from soil C sequestration, which has strong synergies with sustainable agriculture and generally reduces vulnerability to climate change. Agricultural practices collectively can make a significant contribution at low cost by:
increasing soil carbon sinks,
reducing GHG emissions,
contributing biomass feedstock for energy use.
Value to farmer: C sequestration improves agriculture performances (yield increase, input saving, water saving) and incomes.
Stronger Rural Communities
Healthy Farm Families
Healthy Profit
Healthy ecology
Biodiversity
Soil Fertility
Reduced Salination
Better Water Use
Improved Soil Structure
Less Erosion
Increase Soil Carbon
Soil Carbon Credits
Figure 10: The Widely Cumulative Benefits of Soil Carbon
Source: Australian famers carbon group
Value to society: for ecosystem services such as:
• Reduction in erosion and sedimentation of water bodies,
• Improvement in water quality,
• Biodegradation of pollutants,
• Mitigation of climate change.
Value to community: C sequestration increases cropping systems and watershed climate shocks resilience (adaptation), while the Value to society lies in large mitigation potential benefits of agriculture arising from C sequestration (local and global carbon value).
Fertilizers, pesticides and monoculture production have failed to optimize soil carbon sequestration or to moderate GHGs. Any attempts to increase production by increasing mineral nitrogen use need to be evaluated with respect to the fertilizer’s efficiency and N2O emissions. Experience from longterm studies has shown that nitrogen fertilizers do not support organic matter build-up. Fertilizer evaluations also must include off-site effects such as water contamination and off-site N2O emission, particularly in the most advanced countries. On the other hand, integrated crop and animal production, use of intermediate and catch crops and cover crops, compost application, crop rotation and diversification, and zero or reduced tillage have potential to improve soil carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Increased emphasis on energy efficiency and biologically based production practices is needed to address GHG and climate change issues related to the food and agricultural system. Developing food and agricultural systems based on energy efficiency and improved soil carbon levels has potential to improve the greenhouse gas and climate change scenarios.
Livestock is responsible for significant GHG emissions, as noted above. Mitigation options to reduce these emissions include: improving livestock waste management through covered lagoons, improving ruminant livestock management through improved diet, nutrients and increased feed digestibility, improving animal genetics, and increasing reproduction efficiency.
Mitigation implementation may suffer because the fragmentation of agriculture and the localized nature of mitigation make implementation resource intensive. Also, if intensive systems of developing countries are to play a significant part in mitigation of emissions, they have to invest in agro-ecological research and capacity building. For the most vulnerable populations, the potential for implementation of mitigation measures is rather low and adaptation is the major concern. On the other hand, farming systems with reduced external inputs that are based on recycling nutrients and using natural processes to provide sufficient crop growth (e.g. nitrogen fixing cover crops) reduce dependence on purchasing fertilizers and other inputs. In the long run, these systems are a valid mitigation option that may enhance adaptation synchronously and that need to be developed locally. In this respect, mitigation is perceived very differently for countries that have an obligation to reduce their emissions (mostly developed) and those that increasingly suffer from climate changes affecting climate variability patterns. However, international mechanisms that could channel international financial resources to the most vulnerable in developing countries provide a new opportunity that is still very far from affecting the lives of smallholders. Indeed, some mitigation measures may even disrupt traditional food production systems thereby compromising food security.
Preventing activities known to contribute to global warming is the simplest and most cost-effective approach to avoid negative impacts of human activities on the climate and food production systems. Evaluation standards are needed to ensure mitigation strategies have no negative impacts on food security. For instance, clear guidelines would help resolve some of the conflicts between rural income from bio-energy and food security, taking into account likely short- and long-term impacts of individual decisions and national policies, and their effect on other resources such as water and on price trends.
Table 12 outlines some mitigation technologies and practices that could be applied on a commercial scale.
Table 12. Examples of mitigation technologies, policies and measures, constraints and opportunities for agriculture and forestry sectors.
|Sector |Key mitigation technologies and practices currently commercially |Environmentally |Key constraints or |
| |available. |effective policies, |opportunities |
| | |measures and | |
| | |instruments | |
|Agriculture |Improved crop and grazing land |Financial incentives and |Opportunities: May |
| |management to increase soil carbon |regulations for improving |encourage synergy with sustainable |
| |storage; restoration of cultivated peaty soils and degraded |land management, |development, |
| |lands; improved rice cultivation techniques and livestock and |maintaining soil carbon |reducing vulnerability to |
| |manure management to reduce CH4 emissions; improved nitrogen |content, and making |climate change, and thereby |
| |fertilizer application techniques to reduce N2O emissions; |efficient use of |overcoming barriers to |
| |dedicated energy crops to replace fossil fuel use; improved |fertilizers and irrigation |implementation |
| |energy efficiency; mulch farming, conservation tillage, cover | | |
| |cropping and recycling of bio-solids. | | |
|Forestry |Afforestation; reforestation; forest management; reduced |Financial incentives |Constraints: lack of |
| |deforestation; harvested wood product management; use of forest |(national and |Investment capital and land tenure |
| |products for bioenergy to replace fossil fuel use. By 2030, |international) to increase |issues. |
| |forest mitigation technologies will include: tree species |forest area, reduce |Opportunities: Help poverty |
| |improvement to increase biomass productivity and carbon |deforestation and |alleviation and provide essential |
| |sequestration. Improved remote sensing technologies for analysis |maintain and manage |ecosystem services to protect |
| |of vegetation and soil carbon sequestration potential, and |forests; land-use |watershed, conserve biodiversity |
| |mapping land-use change. |regulation and enforcement |and advance conservation recreation|
8.7 Trade-offs and mitigation and adaptation synergy in agriculture and forestry
There can be negative trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation. Adaptation measures in one sector can negatively affect livelihoods in other sectors. For example, river fisheries can be negatively affected from adaptations in other livelihood sectors upstream. In particular, additional water needs for irrigation can reduce flows and affect seasonal spawning and fish productivity. Mitigation measures, such as reduced emissions from deforestation, can threaten the land rights and livelihoods of rural people and undermine efforts to improve food security and sustainable development.
It is possible to reduce trade-off risks by promoting diverse and flexible livelihood and food production strategies, flexible and adaptable institutions, food security risk reduction initiatives and planned food security adaptation to climate change. In many cases, there is evidence that adaptation, mitigation and food security enhancement and rural development can go hand in hand. Unlike other sectors, adequate agriculture and forestry strategies can simultaneously increase adaptive capacity and mitigate climate change. For example, increasing soil organic matter in cropping systems, agro-forestry and mixed-species forestry can improve soil fertility and soil moisture holding capacity, reduce impact of droughts or floods, reduce vulnerability and sequester carbon. There is need to explore and promote the synergy between adaptation and mitigation in the agriculture and forestry sectors (IPCC). Although the most vulnerable countries should focus on food security and adaptation, they also should look for synergies with mitigation whenever possible. Adaptation and mitigation and their synergies and antagonisms are often location specific, although some patterns are based on elements such as climate, soil type, farming system and level of development.
8.8 Barriers to Mainstreaming
Several barriers to mainstreaming adaptation to climate change are recognized and are highlighted below:
• Limited political will and commitment at all levels, particularly at the highest level of authority;
• Weak legal and policy framework for climate change issues (when no specific legal framework has been directed to ensure that climate change issues at various levels are properly institutionalized in the planning process);
• Institutional fragmentation (responsibility for climate change and disaster management separated between environment ministry, other institutions and agencies, including research institutions);
• Limited capacity, both institutional and individual, at the national, state and local level;
• High turnover of governments and loss of “climate champions” – may lead to loss of skills and capacity as well as the political will for continuity;
• Awareness of actual climate risks mainly within a few government departments and no serious sectoral coordination;
• Inadequate public awareness on climate change and their potential impact on the social-economics, livelihood, and the ecosystem - hinders public participation in helping to shape climate change policy and legislation;
• Limited grassroots participation in policy-making process (but this is the level where there is persistent extreme poverty, poor health conditions, which make them more vulnerable to climate change);
• Limited private sector involvement in issues related to climate change adaptation.
• Inadequate funding;
• Inadequate infrastructure, including data and information on climate change impacts;
• Current deliberate efforts to address the problem of climate change are more reactive than futuristic.
8.9 Overcoming Barriers
Barriers to climate change adaptation can be overcome through the following ways explained below;
1. Informational: Governments should engage more actively with all stakeholders and provide easily accessible climate risk information
2. Institutional/Regulatory:
• The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change and SCCU should be made more functional to manage national adaptation strategies;
• Regulatory issues should be considered from the start of the mainstreaming process;
• The capacity of Vision 2020 implementation mechanisms should be expanded to incorporate climate adaptation where possible;
• Governments should ensure that any national adaptation strategy is consistent with existing policy criteria, development objectives and management structures;
• Policy-makers should look for policies that address current vulnerabilities and development needs, as well as potential climate risks;
• Actions to address vulnerability to climate change should be pursued through social development, service provision and improved natural resource management practices.
3. Financing:
• Government should focus on internal resources for climate change adaptation (National Strategic Climate Change Trust Fund is a good step in the right direction);
• Donors should provide incentives for particular adaptation actions, appropriate to local contexts.
4. Inclusion: A broad range of stakeholders should be involved in climate change policy-making, including civil society, sectoral departments and senior policymakers. Climate change adaptation should be informed by successful ground-level experiences in vulnerability reduction. NGOs should play a dominant role in building awareness and capacity at the local level.
9. Key Considerations and tools for local level climate change mainstreaming
9.1 Basic Considerations in local level Climate change mainstreaming
The Agriculture-climate change nexus is perhaps the most easily understood in Rwanda, given the high dependence of agriculture on climatic parameters like rainfall. But actions to be undertaken to protect the agricultural sector and those most dependant on it, from extreme climate events, are often not easily appreciated, especially if they remain hypothetical. The effectiveness of the climate change adaptation mechanisms for agriculture and their implementation strategies is tested at community level. The following considerations are important for translating policy tools, mechanisms and strategies into results at the community level:
1. Local relevance (fit with local priorities): Climate change impacts on agricultural production have a spatial dimension, and Rwanda’s diverse terrain and agro-ecological zones imply high variations. Thus, each district and local community must be supported to work on adaptation mechanisms that address their specific agricultural production or marketing challenges. In effect, a hybrid of bottom-up and top-down approach to climate change mainstreaming should be considered.
2. Local structures and systems in agricultural service delivery: Like others, agricultural services are delivered through decentralized system around commodity cooperatives and through local government structures (Agricultural officers at cell and Sector level). In addition, Animateurs Agrocole (community extension workers) who play an important role in the community mobilization for agricultural production sich as the on cow per poor household (Girinka) and the land consolidation programmes. These are crucial pillars in climate change mainstreaming and must be actively involved. Equally, the systems for generating priorities to be included in the Imihigo (Performance contracts) from Ubudehe to district councils (Njyanama), have to be empowered, informed and involved.
3. Local human and institutional capacities: adaptation measures and tools must be designed or adapted to community abilities. The high mobilization potential of local authorities will have to be activated by increasing their awareness and understanding of the climate-agriculture nexus, and of course providing with the tools and incentives needed to mobilize. Appropriate measures to leverage community capacities and mechanisms to build their capacities for effective climate change adaptation and mitigation, should be considered e.g. on how to collect data or communicate findings.
4. Resilience of communities, households and individuals: there must be deliberate efforts to pay more attention to the people and communities that are more vulnerable (to food insecurity, malnutrition), boost their social safety nets to increase resilience to climate change effects. Existing experience in social protection and other development initiatives must be connected to climate change adaptation and mitigation measures considered.
9.2 Tools and techniques for local climate change mainstreaming
Some of the basic tools for local level climate change mainstreaming are summarized as follows:
Figure 13: Logical flow of the Key steps and actions for climate adaptation and mitigation at the local level
The basic tools for local and community level Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, and integration of mitigation measures into local plans, are included as Annex 3 (Annexes 3A, 3B and 3C).
Annex 1: Climate Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Tools at the Local level
Annex 1A: Basic Steps in Local climate screening
| |Basic step/ Broad action |Imihigo priorities |Key climate-change issues | |
|1 |Climate Risk screening | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|2 |Identification & Analysis of Adaptation and | | | |
| |Response measures | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|3 |Verification, Analysis and Selection of | | | |
| |Appropriate Response options | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|4 |Implementation of Adoption measures | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|5 |Review / Performance evaluation | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
Annex 1B: Climate Vulnerability Assessment
|Area:…………………………………… |Sector ……………… District ………….. | |
| |Incidences of Extreme climate-health Events |Likelihood of occurance during the|Frequency of occurance |Impact on production |
| | |period (year) | | |
| | |H |M |L |H |M |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|2 |Training | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|3 |Participatory tools design |Screning checklists | | | | |
| |and testing | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|4 |Implementation (Supervision | | | | | |
| |& monitoring support) | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|5 |Review / Performance | | | | | |
| |evaluation | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Annex 2: Definition of Key terms in Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
Adaptation: action or adjustment taken by society in response to the actual or potential impacts of predicted climate change, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities.
Climate: Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather” or more rigorously as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.
Climate change: Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forces, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines “climate change” as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between “climate change” attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and “climate variability” attributable to natural causes.
Climate system: The climate system is the highly complex system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the land surface and the biosphere, and the interactions between them. The climate system evolves in time under the influence of its own internal dynamics and because of external forces such as volcanic eruptions, solar variations, and human-induced forces such as changing composition of the atmosphere and land-use change.
Climate variability: Climate variability refers to variations in the mean state and other statistics (such as standard deviations, the occurrence of extremes, etc.) of the climate on all temporal and spatial scales beyond that of individual weather events. Variability may be due to natural internal processes within the climate system (internal variability), or to variations in natural or anthropogenic external forces (external variability).
Impacts of Climate change: Impacts of Climate change are consequences of climate change on natural and human systems. Depending on the consideration of adaptation, one can distinguish between potential impacts and residual impacts. Potential impacts: All impacts that may occur given a projected change in climate, without considering adaptation. Residual impacts: The impacts of climate change that would occur after adaptation.
Climate proofing: actions taken to protect infrastructure, systems and processes against projected climate impacts for a period into the future.
Greenhouse effect: the result of certain gases in the atmosphere (so-called greenhouse gases) absorbing energy that is radiated from the Earth’s surface, and so warming the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gas: a number of anthropologically produced and naturally occurring gases whose presence in the atmosphere traps energy radiated by the Earth. This property causes the greenhouse effect. Water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3) are the primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere.
Informative: where it is inappropriate for local planning authorities to impose conditions or negotiate planning obligations, but where the local planning authorities considers that the developer should be made aware of certain matters, it is possible for them to attach a short statement known as an informative to any consent for planning permission.
Limited or low regret options: options for which the implementation costs are low while, bearing in mind the uncertainties with future climate change projections, the benefits under future climate change may potentially be large.
Mitigation: activities which seek to reduce the human effects on global warming by reducing the quantity of greenhouse gases released to the atmosphere.
Precautionary approach/principle: a principle which states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. This approach is promoted by the UNFCCC to help “achieve stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous man–made interference with the climate system”.
Sequestration: the process of increasing the carbon content of a carbon reservoir other than the atmosphere. Biological approaches to sequestration include direct removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through land-use change, afforestation, reforestation and practices that enhance soil carbon in agriculture. Physical approaches include separation and disposal of carbon dioxide from flue gases and long-term storage underground.
Sink: any process, activity or mechanism that removes a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere.
Sustainable development: development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable development tries to reconcile the needs of social and economic development with ecological conservation and environmental protection.
Mainstreaming: In order for climate change adaptation and mitigation to be sustainable and applicable on a wide scale, it must be incorporated, integrated or “mainstreamed” into the policy apparatus of governments.
In the climate change context, mainstreaming refers to the incorporation of climate change considerations into established or on-going development programs, policies or management strategies, rather than developing adaptation and mitigation initiatives separately. See also climate proofing or climate resilient development.
Resilience: the capacity of a complex system to absorb shocks while still maintaining function, and to reorganize following a disturbance (from dynamic of ecological systems).
Climate Change Mitigation refers to organised processes whereby society seeks to reduce emissions of Carbon and other greenhouse gases and increase the sequestration of atmospheric Carbon through absorption by carbon sinks.
Mal-adaptation: An action or process that increases vulnerability to climate change-related hazards. Maladaptive actions and processes often include planned development policies and measures that deliver short-term gains or economic benefits but lead to exacerbated vulnerability in the medium to long-term.
References
[1] Re-greening Rwanda’s Thousand Hills, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 29 October 2008.
Republic of Rwanda/MINAGRI (2009). Strategic Plan for the Transformation of Agriculture in Rwanda – Phase II (PSTAII), February 2009
-----------------------
Natural socioeconomic conditions
NGOs/CSOs projects; research
Introduced adaptation practice
Feedback from local organizations & farmers
Continue adaptation
Future climate risks
National & international research organisations
Science based/new adaptation practices
Feedback from research institutions & organisations
Continue adaptation
National Development Planning
Key Steps
Climate Change Adaptation Quality (CCA QS)
C
P
a c i t y
D
e v e l o p m e n t
Step 1
Risk screening
Step 2
Formulation of adaptation response options
Step 3
Verification
Step 4
Implementation support
IV. Identification and assessment of potential adaptation measures.
I. Identification of climate change risks to sector programmes and projects
II. Identification of risks that a programme or project will result in maladaptation.
III. Identification of adaptation opportunities.
Lower rainfall
Humid/warm climate
More rainfall
Impact on agriculture & allied sectors
Resulting into ….
POOR NATIONAL DEVELOP-MENT
• Food insecurity
• Nutrition deficiency
• Increased poverty
• Poor health
• Poor livelihoods
• Migration
• Instability
• Irrigation water scarcity
• Soil nutrient deficiency
• Increased disease attack in crops & livestock
• Rise in pest and disease attack on crops and livestock
• Less evapo-transpiration
• Agric. Land inundation & erosion
• Damage to crop, fishery & livestock
• Agric. Input loss (fertilizers, seeds, etc)
• Frequent & prolonged droughts
• Soil degradation
• Lowering water table
• Rise in temperature
• More wet climate
• Frequent & severe floods
• Higher river erosion
• Increased sedimentation
C
L
I
M
A
T
E
C
H
A
N
G
E
LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Local adaptation practices
DRAFT ADAPTATION MENU
VIABLE ADAPTATION PRACTICE MENU
PARTICIPATORY FIELD TESTING/DEMONSTRATIONS WITH FARMERS
Livelihood systems & vulnerability profiles
Labour intensive public works
Reforested areas, improved pasture management
Reduced deforestation and slash and burn practice
Rehabilitated land in watershedes
Reduced CH4 emissions
Enriched carbon soil
Agriculture Mitigation targets
Increase protection against disaster (Disaster risk
management, insurance)
Self-help groups (Savings, stores etc.)
Environmental control or maintenance
Land use management
Adequate irrigation
New Cropping techniques
double-target
actions
Diversify rural income and strengthen HH economic resilience
reduce flood recurrence and improve resilience
to natural disasters
cropping systems resilient to drought and water stress
Agriculture Adaptation
Targets
National Policy Makers
Citizens
Service providers
public, private, civil
Contractual
performance
approach
(health,
education,
national tender
procedures)
National Voice
Citizen/client power
Contractual performance
approach (health, education, tender
procedures) JADF
Local voice
Imihigo
Inspection audit
Local Governments
Evaluate climate mitigation performance
Identify & prioritise local alternative practices &actions for climate mitigation
Integrate in Programme design, M&E activities (including Imihigo & DDP indicators)
Assess carbon foot print (inventory of carbon emissions; polluting activities)
MITIGATION GHG reduction
(Low carbon growth)
ADAPTATION
(Building community resilience)
Detailed climate Risk Analysis
Identify & prioritise appropriate adaptation options
Integrate in Programme design, M&E & reporting
(Key indicators in IMIHIGO)
Evaluate climate adaptation performance
Prepared by:
[pic]
craconsult@
July 2011
Building a Climate Resilient Agricultural Sector for Rwanda
Box 2: Key messages
Key messages
• Poverty environment mainstreaming and climate change adaptation mainstreaming face common challenges and thus can benefit from a common approach.
• The poverty environm‐environment mainstreaming and climate change adaptation mainstreaming face common challenges and thus can benefit from a common approach.
The poverty‐environment mainstreaming approach provides a credible platform to assist countries to mainstream climate change adaptation into development planning processes.
While (the sequence of) the proposed set of activities or modules is not fixed, it is likely that a number of them will be needed so that the mainstreaming effort provides lasting results.
• Investment in an irrigation scheme that fails to take account of shifts in rainfall may not be sustainable in the long term. Irrigation may in fact increase dependency on water as well as practices or crops reliant on it in the short term (IIED 200810).
An agricultural policy might support a monoculture of high‐value crops (e.g. through subsidies) with the objective of maximizing production and incomes. In the absence of insurance against yield losses, the farmers’ income generation bases become more vulnerable to climate variability (World Bank, GN 411).
There are five generic objectives of adaptation to climate variability and change, namely;
• Enhancing the adaptability of vulnerable natural systems; e.g., by reducing other (non-climatic) stresses and removing barriers to migration (including establishing eco-corridors);
• Reversing trends that increase vulnerability (also termed maladaptation); e.g., by introducing setback lines for development in vulnerable areas, such as floodplains; and
• Improving societal awareness and preparedness; e.g., by informing the public of the risks and possible consequences of climate change and setting up early-warning systems.
• Increasing robustness of infrastructure designs and long-term investments; e.g., by extending the range of temperature or precipitation a system can withstand without failure and changing the tolerance of loss or failure;
• Increasing the flexibility of vulnerable managed systems; e.g., by allowing midterm adjustments (including changes of activities or location).
Source: Lim and Spanger-Siegfried (2004)
Box 4: Four main methods for prioritizing and selecting adaptation options
The four major methods used for prioritizing and selecting adaptation options are cost benefit analysis, multi-criteria analysis, cost effectiveness analysis, and expert judgment.
• CBA can handle optimization and prioritization; it also provides an absolute measure of desirability, albeit judged by only one criterion, i.e., economic efficiency. CBA has comparatively heavy data requirements.
• MCA is suitable when more criteria are thought to be relevant, and when quantification and valuation in monetary terms is not possible. MCA is normally used for the ranking of options. But if the “do-nothing” case is included as an alternative, it can also help to clarify whether the measure is better than simply “bearing with the situation”. Subjective judgment plays an important role in this method, making outcomes more arbitrary than that of CBA.
• CEA is a method that falls somewhere between CBA and MCA. As is the case with MCA, CEA only produces a ranking.
• Expert judgment is a discipline in its own right and has its own place in the domain of policy making.
Source: Lim and Spanger-Siegfried (2004)
................
................
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.