FAO.org

Along with community disaster risk management and community based adaptation, there are several other approaches that can be used to enhance technical, financial, and social capacities to build community resilience to disasters and that can also contribute to reaching the objectives of climate-smart agriculture. This chapter looks at local disaster risk reduction practices and approaches that have generated evidence on the value that disaster risk reduction can add to broader climate-smart sustainable development. It proposes pathways for using good practices in disaster risk reduction to scale up climate-smart agriculture.

Reducing the vulnerability of people and the exposure and sensitivity of the systems to disaster risk and climate change are key element for increasing the resilience of livelihoods to threats and shocks. 

In many societies, strengthening resilience has been a natural, evolving process for coping with shocks and adjusting to changes that have an impact on livelihoods (Pandey et al., 2003). An example of this process is can be seen in the ways indigenous peoples worldwide have cultivated an enormous diversity of traditional crop varieties using a variety of effective traditional practices (IIED, 2011). Numerous case studies have documented the importance of indigenous knowledge to disaster risk reduction. For example, in many regions of the world, a diversity of indigenous rainwater harvesting and management practices has evolved over millennia to cope with climate variability, particularly drought. In South Asia, rainwater harvesting dates back over 8 000 years. In India alone, more than 1.5 million traditional village tanks, ponds and earthen embankments harvest rainwater in 660 000 villages across the country (Pandey et al., 2003; IUCN, 2008).

In the rangelands of the Horn of Africa, pastoralism, which emerged thousands of years ago and has evolved in response to weather uncertainty, is a resilient livelihood strategy for coping with the harsh environment of arid and semi-arid lands and optimizing the use of natural resources. It allows rural communities to manage risk and conserve their resources (WISP et al., 2007; HPG, 2009). (see also module B2 on climate-smart livestock).

Traditional or local practices that help mitigate the impacts of extreme events can be combined with a wide range of new science-based technologies and practices for reducing the vulnerability of farming systems and building their resilience. Modern techniques include diversifying crop production; adjusting cropping calendars; developing drought- or flood-tolerant crop varieties; breeding more resistant livestock and improving the bio-security of animal production systems; building hazard-proof grain storage facilities and livestock shelters; setting aside strategic fodder reserves; creating water reserves as a buffer against droughts; and implementing crop insurance schemes, (FAO, 2011b). Because of their value in strengthening the adaptive capacities to extreme events and supporting sustainable agricultural livelihoods many of these practices are important for climate-smart agriculture. Some of these practices, such as conservation agriculture can contribute to reaching all of climate-smart agriculture's objectives. Conservation agriculture is particularly suitable for areas that are exposed to difficult climatic conditions (e.g. increasing unpredictability of the onset of the rainy season) and use technologies that offer flexibility in the timing of field operations (see module B1 on climate-smart crop production systems). Conservation agriculture is also a way to manage agricultural ecosystems to improve and sustain productivity and food security and at the same time preserve and enhance the natural resource base (FAO, 2011a). 

Many technologies for disaster risk reduction are available to help farming communities prepare for climate variability and extreme weather events, and cope with their impacts. Climate change, however, also creates new hazards (e.g. rising sea levels, increased average temperatures and the expected spread of plant pests and diseases) that require additional measures that complement disaster risk reduction. This is one of the reasons, why local expertise should be combined with scientific knowledge, research and technological innovations. However, in some cases, practices based on traditional knowledge may be insufficient to cope with the full complexity of the impacts of climate change and carry a risk of evolving into maladaptation. The example in Box C5.5 on potatoes in the Andes illustrates how traditional risk reduction practices can be effectively combined with new adaptive technologies to address risks associated with the impacts of climate change.

Despite a wealth of knowledge on good practices on disaster risk reduction, there is still a long way to go toward identifying specific contexts where suitable practices can be piloted before replicating them on a wider scale. Before any disaster risk reduction practices can be recommended for scaling up, evidence from the field must be obtained to determine the returns of investment. There is a crucial need to quantify the percentage of damage and losses that can be reduced by implementing a particular disaster risk reduction practice. Cost-benefits analyses are used to assess the net benefits of a given intervention. For disaster risk reduction initiatives, they take into account their agro-ecological suitability, socio-economic feasibility, the potential to increase resilience of livelihoods to disasters, and their environmental impacts. The net benefits of the new practice are compared with baseline data on the historic performance of the current practice and with the investments that were made to implement the new practice. Results obtained during the observed time are then extrapolated over a longer time period. The cost-benefits analysis is used to calculate the Benefit Cost Ratio, which indicates the dividend (measured in monetary terms) that is returned on the financial investment. FAO supports countries in identifying, testing, and scaling up good practices and technologies in disaster risk reduction, and promotes a consistent approach for monitoring and evaluating these technologies at the local level. The cost-benefits analysis process is intended to help identify, under normal conditions and hazardous conditions, the most cost-effective disaster risk reduction practices and provide guidance on the socio-economic potential for scaling them up, (Figure C5.6). The calculation is based on primary farm level data collected on agricultural seasonal basis. For the cost-benefits analysis, the data collected on farms includes the costs of inputs, labour, maintenance and capital, and the benefits in terms of the gross value of production.

Preliminary results from studies conducted in Bolivia, Cambodia, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, the Philippines and Uganda indicate that, when hazards strike, the net economic benefits at the farm level that are gained from implementing good disaster risk reduction practices are 2.5 times higher than business-as-usual practices (FAO, 2017). Box C5.6 shows detailed results obtained from a specific disaster risk reduction technology tested in Uganda.

Given the long history and wide range of potential disaster risk reduction practices, a cost-benefit validation that is based on sound evidence from the field can help select practices that have potential for scaling up. This involves validating practices that have been effective in a variety of landscapes and against different types of hazards. Once the evidence has been gathered and the practices validated, government investments for disaster risk reduction are essential for promoting the uptake of these practices on a larger scale. 

Where disaster risk reduction technologies have been proven to be effective locally, they can be taken up and promoted through both disaster risk reduction and climate-smart agriculture initiatives. A main obstacle to the widespread adoption of climate-smart that also reduce the risk of disasters is the fact that the most vulnerable and poor agricultural producers have very limited access to the required technologies and resources.

Effective disaster risk reduction depends in large part on sound environmental stewardship and natural resource management practices that can ensure the sustainable use of ecosystems. Deforestation, desertification the degradation of land, water and other natural resources, and marine and coastal environments reduce the capacity of vulnerable communities to defend themselves against climate-related hazards and aggravate the impact of disasters (FAO, 2011b). In turn, disasters can accelerate environmental degradation. On the island of Sumatra in Indonesia, the 2004 Asian Tsunami damaged approximately 20 percent of sea grass beds, 25 to 35 percent of wetlands, about 60 000 hectares of agricultural land, nearly 49 000 hectares of coastal forests, and 32 000 hectares of mangroves (UNEP, 2005; UNEP, 2007). Environmental degradation reduces the goods and services available to local communities, shrinks economic opportunities and livelihood options, and ultimately contributes to greater food insecurity and hunger (FAO, 2011b). 

Conversely, healthy and diverse ecosystems are more resilient to natural hazards. Forests and trees provide windbreaks, and play an important role in stabilizing riverbanks and reducing soil erosion, which help protect communities against landslides, avalanches and floods. Wetlands store water and provide a buffer against storms, mitigate flooding, protect shorelines and control erosion (FAO, 2011b).

When strengthening resilience of vulnerable agricultural communities, interventions must necessarily take into account how natural resources are managed within the entire agriculture landscape or broader ecosystem (see also module A3 on integrated landscape management). A landscape or ecosystem approach is of critical importance for disaster risk reduction and climate-smart agriculture.

Sustainable ecosystem management provides the unifying base for successful disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. It also maximizes opportunities for safeguarding or diversifying rural livelihoods and improving food and nutrition security (PEDRR and The Council of Europe, 2010). Box C5.7  presents an example from Uganda of an integrated watershed management approach that brings together a diverse range of stakeholders in the pursuit of win-win options for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation.

As climate change affects rainfall patterns and increases surface temperatures, ecosystem services will become more vulnerable and fragile. The Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction have both recognized the importance of ecosystem-based approaches as critical elements for building resilience to change (see Chapter C5.5). Ecosystem-based approaches are also a fundamental pillar of climate-smart agriculture. Existing ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction measures can strengthen adaptation and mitigation efforts in the agriculture sectors and play a large role in making the transition to climate-smart agriculture. Initiatives that combine disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation objectives are beginning to emerge. For instance, agronomic practices with multiple benefits such as conservation agriculture and the System of Rice Intensification have been promoted to support disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and resilience. These crop production practices are describe in module B1.

Risk Insurance schemes can buffer the costs of the impacts of disasters and climate change, including losses of agricultural assets. Insurance provides a risk transfer mechanism in which users pre-invest in risk reduction by ensuring repayment and timely recapitalization when affected by disasters. The Munich Climate Insurance Initiative and the Secretary General’s Climate resilience initiative (A2R) are examples of global efforts to scale up support for increasing insurance coverage for risks associated with disaster and climate change. Many legal requirements, tools, and services to develop insurance products are based on existing disaster risk reduction techniques and practices, such methods for damage and loss assessments, disaster risk reduction agriculture practices, early warning systems tailored to end-users in the agriculture sectors, or standards for the reconstruction of irrigation systems. These are services that are in the mandates of various stakeholders in agriculture line ministries and other partners. The Palestinian Agricultural Disaster Risk Reduction and Insurance Fund (PADRRIF) (Box C5.8) is one example of an initiative to foster the holistic application of disaster risk reduction services in agriculture coupled with risk insurance and compensation schemes.

Agriculture risk insurance schemes require an analysis of production levels, the damage and losses caused by disasters over the past decades and current risk factors. They must also take into account the possible future impacts of climate change on insurable assets. Several successful agriculture insurance schemes have been put in place around the world, especially for medium and large-scale production systems. The design of index-based insurance for the agriculture sector have had to overcome some difficult challenges, such establishing processes to accurately verify damages to trigger bonus payments. Yet, for remote communities in many developing countries, the obstacles that need to be overcome to achieve a sufficient return on investment from agricultural risk insurance schemes and deliver them on a large scale have made it difficult to raise awareness of smallholder agriculture producers about the potential benefits of risk insurance schemes and provide them with access to these types of schemes. Designing and improving risk insurance products for smallholder producers will require the combined efforts of different groups of stakeholders working in the fields of disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, sustainable development and humanitarian assistance, but it will especially demand public-private partnerships. The multiple components of climate-smart agriculture, which link climate change adaptation and sustainable intensification of production, have the potential to complement and support disaster risk reduction and support climate change programmes and strategic partnerships that can establish risk transfer mechanisms for the agriculture sectors.