FAO.org

The sustainable (FAO, 2017e and 2017f) transformation of food and agriculture systems is extremely complex and challenging as addressing the biophysical, socio-economic, political and institutional dimensions across the three dimensions of CSA (Lipper et al, 2014). In addition, the desired scaling-up of CSA includes identifying contextualized practices and technologies within conducive enabling environments and with institutional arrangements and policies. The scaling-up process for CSA occurs horizontally (replicating promising or proven practices and technologies in new geographic areas or target groups), vertically (catalysing institutional and policy change) or diagonally (adaptive management within project implementation to reflect emerging reality), and stakeholder participation is at the core (Neufeldt et al., 2015). Applying a system-wide, integrated and inclusive capacity enhancement approach across the following capacity development dimensions directly addresses the desired complexity and supports the scaling-out and up process of CSA.

As illustrated previously, the capacity development dimension “enabling environment” addresses the systemic impediments regarding political commitment and vision, and policy, legal and economic frameworks; national public sector budget allocations and processes; governance and power structures; and incentives and social norms, as well as institutional linkages. Building on module C3 Policies and complementing specific elaborations on the importance of a conducive enabling environment for CSA (CCAFS, 2014), this section highlights the relevance of improving policy coherence and effectiveness, linking scientific assessments and decision-making, as well as participatory governance assessment processes, for a conducive enabling environment to implement CSA approaches.

Planned adaptation and mitigation, including changes in and coordination of policies, institutions and dedicated infrastructure, are needed to facilitate and maximize the long-term benefits of adaptation responses to climate change and effectively reduce and remove emissions. Policy-related constraints that can directly affect resource-poor farmers’ ability to benefit from opportunities created by research include: poor infrastructure (particularly roads), limiting access to markets; state control of input and output markets; distorted prices; poor delivery of services; lack of legal frameworks for producer associations; and inadequate (access to) finance. Similarly, fiscal and monetary policies at the macro-economic level have impacts on the agriculture sector, and call for interactions and dialogue with policy-makers. Policy responses to mainstream climate change into all agriculture sectors and food systems are systematically dealt with in module C3, and the specific enabling policies to achieve climate-smart sustainable crop production intensification are addressed in more detail in module B1-4.

Without adequate information on the future impacts of climate, autonomous adaptation actions will remain reactions to changes that are only informed by past experiences. Without necessarily being designed for potential future changes in climate, autonomous adaptation also carries a risk of evolving into maladaptation (Kahneman, 2011). For example, pressure to cultivate marginal land, or to adopt unsustainable cultivation practices as yields reduce, may increase land degradation and endanger the biodiversity of both wild and domestic species, possibly jeopardizing future ability to respond to increasing climate risks. 

There also may be trade-offs regarding mitigation objectives and how to reach them. As an example, one mitigation option for countries is to phase out the spreading of manure onto land in favour of treatment or direct incorporation into the soil. This is to reduce emissions of ammonia, which is considered a secondary greenhouse gas due to its potential contribution to nitrous oxide production when it is deposited in soils and reenters the soil nitrogen cycle. Ammonia is also a source of atmospheric pollution. However, while ammonia emissions are reduced, the side-effect of this measure may be an increase in methane emissions from anaerobic digestion of manure, or in nitrous oxide emissions from denitrification of increased sources of nitrogen incorporated into the soil (Oliver et al., 2004).

One important step towards the transition to climate-smart crop production is to strengthen and develop multidisciplinary scientific and technical capacities at all levels and engender trust in new science, innovative practices and their application. Creating a facilitated interface between science, planning and policy is essential for achieving CSA and an important factor for the enabling environment. Such interfaces enable cross-sector dialogues to overcome silos and foster coordination and collaboration. In addition, integrated research priorities are key. Research is essential to guide and inspire the generation of alternative options and adoption of climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies, and needs to be in the vanguard of innovative agricultural practices. The fragmentation of research efforts is a major constraint for efficient integrated crop, soil, water and nutrient management and the promise that these efforts hold for CSA. In many countries, research institutions for crops, soil and water are separate entities and have different priorities. Attention needs to be given to identifying integrated research priorities and developing strategies to carry out coordinated scientific investigations. 

Case Study C1.1 illustrates efforts to develop simple and robust scientific tools that can guide decision making of farmers on a seasonal and long-term basis.

More inclusive, participatory and responsible governance of natural resources, with an equitable and transparent distribution of benefits, is an essential element for better CSA approaches. Taking into consideration internationally agreed principles on Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests in the Context of Food Security (FAO, 2012d), participatory governance assessments with elements around the institutional political economy (FAO, 2015a) can shed light into the processes required for improvement.  For example, the capacity development activities for REDD+ readiness supported by the UN-REDD Programme apply a participatory governance assessment. They focus on stakeholder consultation and participation, as well as cross-sectoral coordination in REDD+ planning and implementation in developing countries. Case Study C1.2 illustrates one of the many methodologies developed in this context.

Enhancing horizontal coordination (i.e. inter-organizational, institutional or inter-sectoral), such as between ministries and agencies, and vertical coordination (i.e. intra-organizational and institutional), such as within organizations, institutions or stakeholders (national to district to landscape to local level) is critical to adopt the desired CSA approaches. This applies to governmental as well as non-governmental actors (such as producer organizations, and formal or informal natural resource user groups). At national level, an important barrier to be addressed is the fact that that the institutional mandate for climate change usually resides in the ministry of environment, and that the integration of agricultural sector needs and priorities into ongoing climate-related planning (and, vice versa, the integration of climate-related considerations into agricultural planning) is not a given. This may be further complicated in that many countries have separate ministries addressing agriculture (crops and livestock), fisheries and aquaculture and forestry as well as natural resources management. Fostering efficient, streamlined coordination processes between the multiple entities engaging in planning and budgeting on climate change and the agricultural sectors is a vital step towards achieving a transition towards CSA. 

Institutional structures together with agricultural and environmental stakeholders need to recognize that the agriculture sector is part of the “environmental” solution. For instance, strengthening institutional coordination mechanisms has been recognized in efforts to integrate agriculture into the National Adaptation Planning. This includes assessing jointly with relevant ministries the strengths and gaps in institutional coordination mechanisms, mandates, processes and procedures, and designing contextualized solutions to improve and monitor results through a rapid appraisal (FAO, 2017b). As an example, horizontal and vertical institutional coordination mechanisms across national, district and local level were strengthened during the capacity assessment, analysis and diagnostic stages to address climate change in Laos PDR (Case Study C1.3) In addition, module A3 on integrated landscape management discusses “nested scales” and the benefits of integrating agro-ecological and governance dimensions to reduce pressure on the natural resource base and minimize the need for external inputs.

Fostering spaces for multi-stakeholder dialogue is one essential element to achieve the desired scale of development interventions across agriculture, rural development and nutrition (Linn, 2012). As mentioned in module A3 on integrated landscape management, identifying, assessing, strengthening and facilitating participatory multi-stakeholder, multi-actor and/or networks is key to enhancing systemic country capacities for CSA. This encompasses policy formulation, implementation as well enabling the uptake of CSA approaches at scale (see for example the multi-partner programme for scaling up energy-smart food in chapter B9 - 5.3). Given the knowledge-intensive, participatory and innovative nature of CSA approaches, multi-stakeholder and multi-actor processes, platforms, partnerships and/or networks are therefore well placed to enable the co-creation of knowledge, and increased information sharing and collaboration (Hemmati, 2002; Brouwer et al., 2015). 

Besides strengthening multi-stakeholder structures, meaningful engagement of all stakeholders requires effective skills development, with a focus on soft skills including multi-stakeholder diplomacy (Kurbalija et al., 2006; Kalas, 2007), consideration of power dynamics (Sova et al., 2014; Duff et al., 2009) as well as measuring progress of multi-stakeholder platforms and processes (FAO, 2013a). Inclusive stakeholder spaces can include cross-ministerial roundtables, multi-stakeholder/multi-actor platforms for strategy development, implementation or coordination of regional bodies, among others. 

Another significant element is to consider which individual or institution can take on the role of a neutral, trusted convener, facilitator or partnership broker (Kalas, 2007; Nederlof et al., 2011 quoting Klerkx et al., 2011; Rioux and Kalas, 2017). For instance, FAO is often ideally placed to take on this bridging function and facilitate dialogue among diverse actors. See Case Study  C1.13. 

More specifically, multi-stakeholder or multi-actor platforms have been successfully applied around innovation to stimulate learning and catalyse collaboration for natural resources management (Misiko et al., 2013) as well as scale up and out action across community, district and national levels (Tucker et al., 2013). Multi-stakeholder and multi-actor platforms can therefore also be applied to CSA with the guiding principles suggested in Figure C1.3.

As illustrated in Figure C1.3, the key principles for strengthening existing or establishing new multi-stakeholder platforms or multi-actor platforms for CSA are:

• Promoting an inclusive and participatory process from the conceptual stage throughout to enable joint learning, joint dialogue, joint ownership and joint commitment for joint action, thus improving the desired sustainability and impact of the platform’s results 
• Enabling meaningful participation of all stakeholders through functional skills and competence development, including negotiation, effective communication and strategic planning to even the playing field, address power dynamics and move towards a common understanding, common objectives and common values for joint action
• Exploring the role of a trusted and neutral convener, facilitator or broker 

Critical building blocks (see yellow blocks above) of the platform include clarifying and reaching consensus on:

• modus operandi and operational procedures (e.g. how the agenda is set up and by whom, how decisions will be taken) 
• institutional set-up (e.g. will a secretariat be established, will it be a physical or virtual meeting space, who will facilitate the discussion?)
• resource requirements (including human and financial resources, and transport allocation to enable remote stakeholder participation and facilitation)
• monitoring process  (i.e. through self-monitoring by stakeholders to maximize learning and foster continued ownership and commitment)
• mandate and charter (i.e. defining and agreeing upon the vision, purpose and entry point)
• representativeness (e.g. are stakeholders truly representative and have the authority to take decisions, how coordinated are stakeholder groups within their constituencies?)
• definition of multi-stakeholder / multi-actor platforms (i.e. making clear what it is and what it is not)
• clarifying operational levels (e.g. national, sub-national and/or linkages between levels).

This section underscores the importance of local institutions, particularly across the landscape level, as a key entry point to transformation towards CSA practices. It complements and builds on the CSA Sourcebook module A3 as well as on existing recommendations regarding the importance of local institutions for climate change adaptation (Agrawal, Kononen and Perrin, 2009) and CSA (FAO, 2013b; CCAFS 2014) and particularly across the landscape level (Sayer et al., 2012). 

Effective climate change adaptation strategies must be location-specific. The strategies need to take into consideration local micro-climates, markets, consumer preferences, availability of inputs, and existing local institutions. Often, lack of adequate attention to this multiplicity of factors undermines the effective scaling-up of CSA interventions.  Strengthening local institutions to understand and interpret the multiple factors impacting agriculture is important for informed decision-making and to design feasible adaptation strategies. 

Smallholder farmers are particularly vulnerable to climate variability and change, as they lack adequate resources to cope with stressors caused by climate variability. It is important to build their capacity to interpret climate/weather data and make feasible adaptation decisions. Often meteorology is perceived as an abstract science, wherein data collected at the local level is aggregated at the regional or sub-regional level and interpreted to make generalized forecasts for a larger geographic area. This alienates local ownership, undermines deeper understanding of the local micro-climate, and leads to poorer understanding of the stressors/risks, all of which are critical for designing effective adaptation strategies.

Effective management, interpretation and dissemination of climate/weather data at the local level requires building and strengthening local farmer institutions. These institutions can provide farmers with a host of support services to strengthen their resilience and enhance their adaptive capacity to climate change/variability.  These could include: (i) establishing and maintaining a database of meteorological data and local indigenous knowledge; (ii) facilitating access to extension services and other support agencies, and providing weather forecasts, market price data, and technical information; (iii) disseminating information and data critical to enable farmers to make informed decisions on crop adaptation; (iv) managing custom hiring of farm machinery; and (v) providing a platform for discussion and engaging various stakeholders to support individual farmers to improve adaptation. The farmer institutions should be inclusive, including members from agriculture and related activities and ensuring adequate representation of economically and socially marginalized groups—as they are often the most vulnerable.  

In this realm, the landscape level deserves particular attention. Landscapes are usually not recognized as defined eco-regional entities in the current administrative frameworks. In recent years, there has been increasing recognition of the importance of adapting a landscape approach for effective natural resources management. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) describes a landscape as “a contiguous area with a specific set of ecological, cultural and socio-economic characteristics distinct from its neighbours” (WWF, 2002). The landscape approach “focuses on large, connected geographic areas to allow for recognition of natural resource conditions and trends, natural and human influences, and opportunities for resource conservation, restoration and development. It seeks to identify important ecological values and patterns of environmental change that may not be evident when managing smaller, local land areas” (Krishnan et al., 2012).

Integrated landscape management is the management of production systems and natural resources in an area large enough to produce vital ecosystem services and small enough to be managed by the people who use the land and provide those services (FAO, 2013b; module A3 on integrated landscape management). For sustainable management of the landscape, it is critical to engage the multiple stakeholders to develop a deeper understanding of their landscape and resource availability; explicate their strategies; and prioritize actions for effective management of the resources in the landscape. The strategies should cover issues related to ecosystem services, including those supporting/providing agro-ecological production (pollination, soil fertility, pest control, etc.), water resources, sustainable land and forest management, and biodiversity conservation. The strategies will coordinate production and capacity building.  The strategies will describe and prioritize the parameters and objectives of agro-ecological production.

Landscape Management Strategies and Action Plans can build upon FAO’s successful models of natural resources management at the landscape level taking into account the principles of agroecology (FAO). These models have been cost-efficient and effective in numerous countries.  Implementation involves working with communities (diverse stakeholders) to define the productivity and sustainable management objectives of their shared landscape, identifying capacity gaps, and working with local extension services and others to generate capacity-building programmes to fill the gaps.  The FAO-coordinated Andhra Pradesh Managed Groundwater Systems (APFAMGS) project proved with replicated results that Indian farmers in FFS groups at landscape level could reduce the overuse of groundwater by decreasing water demand once members of their own communities had collected and shared practical data on groundwater recharge and likely supply for dry-season crops. Reducing groundwater extraction while improving crop production showed how Indian farmers could manage critical natural resources at landscape scale. Likewise, the recently completed Strategic Pilot on Adaptation to Climate Change (SPACC) project proved that FFS-style groups could help farmers adapt to climate change at the community level. See Case Study C1.11.

An effective learning activity is “any type of structured or semi-structured initiative or intervention with the primary aim of supporting improved work performance and behavioural change of individuals in a way that enables them to better contribute to the development goals of their own organizations and countries” (FAO, 2012e). In addition, “learning must be integrated into a portfolio of interventions that address factors other than knowledge and skills (e.g. management, motivation, incentives, governance) which can support a gradual uptake of changes across the organizational dimension and the enabling environment through a number of different delivery methods to have a better impact on participants” (FAO, 2012e). 

Learning and knowledge sharing play a key role in strengthening individual capacities. For CSA, enabling continuous individual and institutional learning is fundamental given the complexity and uncertainty of climate change and its impacts on farming systems and local communities.

In particular, a strategic approach to skills development and learning for adapting a CSA approach, requires (UN CC:Learn, 2012): 

(i) Taking stock of relevant skills development and learning initiatives; 

(ii) Assessing existing human capacities to achieve climate change objectives; 

(iii) Identifying and prioritizing learning interventions in the short, medium and long terms; and

(iv) Engaging educational and vocational training institutions in order to enhance sustainability.

Figure C1.2 lists the specific to enhance individual capacities for facilitating endogenous (i.e. internally initiated and driven), contextualized change processes led by national actors. It covers a wide range of approaches that trigger learning and knowledge sharing, from classical classroom training to more innovative approaches such as South-South cooperation agreements, coaching, on-the-job mentoring, institutional twinning, applied experimental learning through FFS (see Case Studies C1.4 and C1.5), as well as network creation and facilitation. Beyond face-to-face solutions, many innovative approaches in capacity development foster social learning – for example through e-learning or web/ICT-supported multi-stakeholder platforms and networks (FAO, 2011a). 

A note on “trainings/workshops”: Trainings/workshops as a capacity development modality are a powerful tool, if used effectively in line with a learning cycle (FAO, 2012b). For instance, effective trainings represent useful opportunities to develop new capacities for climate resilience and climate change mitigation, and to dispel common myths. Trainings on agronomic management would need to be provided to policy-makers, extension agents, agro-dealers and farmers on a consistent basis to refresh their skills and knowledge, and to train new people joining in the agriculture business (e.g. emergent farmers and agro-dealers). For farmers, access to knowledge about changing climatic conditions and the long-term viability of adapted crop production practices is an important element to devise informed strategies to: (i) cope with the limiting factors specifically affecting their crop system; (ii) better allocate the resources they have at their disposal and those they can mobilize; and (iii) make reasoned investments in adaptation and mitigation.

In numerous countries, sector agencies strengthen individual technical capacities successfully. Technical capacities refer to aspects such as increasing the competencies of staff to intensify production sustainably or manage natural resources more effectively (FAO, 2011b). However, unless such technical capacity- strengthening efforts are adequately integrated into strategic planning, policies and decision-making, it will not be possible to scale them up efficiently or sustainably (Neufeldt et al., 2015). Moreover, non-technical (i.e. functional) capacity development is often not prioritized. These soft skills include the ability to manage personnel and organizations, good governance principles such as dialogue and communication with stakeholders, resource allocation within policy frameworks that aim for equity and poverty alleviation, transparency and accountability (UNESCO-IHE and UNW-DPC, 2009). Moreover, the lifelong learning of individuals and organizations is important to keep up with evolving tasks and trigger innovation. This requires financial, personal and managerial support mechanisms to foster knowledge generation and sharing. Functional and soft-skills development can also be generated as incentives for ecosystem services (see module A3 on integrated landscape management). More specifically, FAO’s renewed corporate approach to capacity development (FAO, 2010) recommends that to complement technical climate change capacity strengthening (see FAO 2016g), the following functional capacities should be enhanced to enable countries and regions to plan, lead, manage, sustain and scale up initiatives:

• Implementation Capacity: implement and deliver programmes and projects, from planning to monitoring and evaluation
• Partnering Capacity: engage in networks, alliance and partnerships
• Knowledge Capacity: access, generate, manage and exchange information and knowledge (see Information and Knowledge Management Toolkit online course and Africa Adapt)
• Policy and Normative Capacity: formulate and implement policies and lead policy reform.

Table C1.2 provides some examples of required capacities at the different levels. Two concrete learning interventions (FFS and e-learning) for boosting individual technical and functional capacities are illustrated in Case Study C1.4.

Applying a co-learning approach among all stakeholders to foster social learning is an essential component of CSA. One such key capacity development modality to enhance individual as well as organizational capacities are Farmer Field Schools (FFS).  The FFS approach is an innovative, participatory and interactive learning approach that emphasizes problem solving and discovery-based learning. FFS aims to build farmers’ capacity to analyse their production systems, identify problems, test possible solutions, and eventually encourages the participants to adopt the practices most suitable to their farming systems (FAO, 2011a). The pedagogical and empowering FFS approach has also been evolving into “Climate Field Schools” with the aim to adopt, adapt and grow. Case Studies C1.4 and C1.5 illustrate the practical application of FFS for CSA.