1 Session: Adaptation, Stakeholders, and Linking to Decision Making Second AIACC Regional Workshop...
-
Upload
blaze-mosley -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of 1 Session: Adaptation, Stakeholders, and Linking to Decision Making Second AIACC Regional Workshop...
1
Session: Adaptation, Stakeholders, and Linking to Decision Making Second AIACC Regional Workshop for Latin America and the Caribbean
Regente Palace Hotel, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 24-27 August 2004
Integrated Assessment of Social Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change Among Farmers in
Mexico and Argentina AIACC LA-29
“Stakeholder interaction on issues of climate vulnerability: illustrations from
Cordoba Province, Argentina and Coatepec, Veracruz.” Hallie Eakin – Monica Wehbe
2
Stakeholder Interaction FrameworkAssessment of Social Vulnerability to Climate V&C
Why Involve Stakeholders?
Social Vulnerability
is about
Social Actors
Integrated Assessment
requires actors’ own
Perceptions
and engagement
[Climate Risks ; Adaptive Capacity]
Climate Conditions System Attributes
Risk Perception Adaptations
Decision Making
AIACC LA-29
“Perception of climate signal is first step in adaptation process” (Risbey, 1999)
Ambition of research to be relevant to decision-making at farm & policy-level
3
AIACC LA-29 Project Objectives
• What climate events and threats are most critical for the production units in each region of study?
• How is climate perceived and impacts experienced?
• How are farmers’ responses and adaptation opportunities affected by the political-economic context?
AIACC LA-29
4
Map of stakeholders: ArgentinaSocial Actors Description
Project Presentation
FacilitatorInstitutional Analysis
Primary Information
Project Devolution
Local Government Represent. X Meetings/Survey In-depth Int.
X
Prov. Min .of Agriculture Represent. X Policies AEL
CRInsurance
Nat. Inst. of Agric Tech. Local Represent. X c/r activities Sol.Insu.
Nat. Animal Health Min. Local Represent. X
Arg. Agrarian Federation Local Represent. X In-depth Int. c/r activities X
Argentine Rural Society Local Represent. X X
Road Consortium Local X c/r activities X
Agriculture Cooperatives Local X Surv./ In-depth Int.
Tech. Schools on Agric. Local X Survey
Emergency response X
FARMERS X Surv./ In-d. Int X
AIACC LA-29
5
Main objectives from different ways of interaction
• Project Presentation Meetings: to make first contact with Stk, to inform about the Project and goals, to know about concerns and expectations, to provoke their interest and to encourage them to participate.
• Survey: to gather primary information on farmers’ sensitivity to climate & resources for adaptation.
• In-depth Interviews: To get insight on farmers’ climate risk perceptions & on their process of decision making.
• Group Discussions: To deepen knowledge on diff. social actors concerns related to climate.
• First Devolution Meetings: To get a feed back from diff. social actors on Project’s preliminary results
AIACC LA-29
6
Results of Project Presentation Meetings
• These meetings were highly useful as an introduction with social actors in each of the locations and,
• They enabled to create strong ties for a shared responsibility towards the Project
AIACC LA-29
First Presentation Meeting at Oncativo City
October 2002
7
Results of Group Discussions
• History of each locality• How climate problems are
perceived by farmers and local officials
• What have been past responses to climate and development concerns
• Indirect implications of climate on local economy and production
• Expectations of the project
•
AIACC LA-29
8
Figure 1
29,1
45,1
52,2
54,918,7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Insured Not insured
%
Cattle
Mixed
Crops
In-depth interviews w/farmers
Perceptions of climate risk
?
Interview with
public officialsINTA
No insurance
Problems in public programs
Some insurance
Conclusion: Objective analysis must leave a margin for more subjective aspects to be incorporated at the moment of defining policies or presenting alternatives
AIACC LA-29
Survey
Results of Integration of different sources of information
9
What we learned
• How farmers feel in relation to their sensitivity to climate• Which are the factors (resources, adaptations...) they
count on to cope with climate• What are farmers’ perceptions of climate risks and the
process of decision making towards reducing impacts• How local governments & organizations perceive climate
is affecting in their areas• To what extent higher governmental levels perceive
current policies to be appropriate to enhance AC of farmers
AIACC LA-29
10
Stakeholders in the Coffee StudySTAKEHOLDERS Interviews Workshops Surveys
INIFAP (Ag. Research) X X
SAGARPA (Ag. Programs) X
SEDESOL (Social Service) X
CONAFOR (Forestry) X
SEMARNAT (Environment) X
Exporters (Coffee Market) X
Large commercial farmers X X
Coffee associations X X
Politicians (Mayor) X
Community leaders X X X
Academics X X
Farmers X X XAIACC LA-29
11
Stakeholder Activities, Coffee Study
• Maps, calendars, surveys:
– Defining present risks
– Defining existing strategies as foundation for adaptation
• Climate histories, timelines
– Past shocks and stresses
• Focus groups:
– Use of local knowledge to orient and focus climate analysis
– Perceptions of future climate and responsibilities for action
• Presentation of ResultsAIACC LA-29
12
Perceptions of Climate Risk
AIACC LA-29
Climate Events of Most Concern, Ursulo Galván and Vaquería, Veracruz
(survey data 2003)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
HeatDrought
Wind Frost Rain Cold Hail
percent of responses
Household survey, Vaquería and Ursulo Galván, 2003
Threats to Livelihood Security
82
6357
35
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Coffee Prices
Illness
UnemploymentCrop disease
Climate
% of households
13
Urban area
Good coffeeValley area, less dryMore shade (banana)Less frost risk Poor soil, sloped
land, more native shade trees
river
waterfall
river
Coffee does not produce wellSoils are dry, land slopedshade is insufficient
Good coffeeNative shade
macadamia
Good coffee
banana
macadamia Affected by nortes
URSULO GALVÁN
CLIMATE RISK AND RESOURCE MAPPING
14
ACTIVIDADES E F M A M J J A S O N D Semillero
Preparación de la tierra (limpia, abono) X
Riego de semilla para germinación X
Tapa de hoja de plátano (calentamiento para germinación) X
Germinación (soldadito) X
Pesetilla (dos hojitas) x X X
Naranjillo X X
Preparación de tierra para llenar los bolsas X
Actividades para preparación de vivero (posteo, alambre, techo de hoja de plátano)
X X X
Se arranca naranjillo y se pasa a la bolsa. Selecciona la planta. Se fertiliza (2-3 veces al año)
X X
Vivero: Un año en bolsa X YR1
Labores de la finca X Y2
Acarreo de la planta, hoyar x x X X
Sembrada (< 3 meses) *si hay lluvias buenos
x* X X
Fertilizada (+ 1 mes de siembra) x x X X
Limpias (2 x por año) X X X X
Cosecha (4 cortes max., 2 buenos, 2 regulares) X X x X
Clima
Lluvias ll LL Ll ll LL
Canícula C C
Lluvias intensas (una vez al mes, y 1st viernes de marzo) LI li li
Nortes n n
Granizadas g g g
Heladas
Secas s s T T
Floración f F f
Siniestros
Nortes y vientos ( un vez cada 10 años) N
Granizada G G
Lluvia (no afecta mucho) LL LL
CLIMATE EVENT AND AGRICULTURAL
ACTIVITY CALENDAR
15
1970s 1980s 1990s 2003
Area Planted in Coffee
40% 90%Enter IMECAFE
100%IMECAFE
Closes
100%
Area in Other Crops
60%Sugar cane,
maize, orange
10% 0% 0%
Coffee Prices 1988: $89/quintal
(pre-devaluation)
1998: $5/kg 2000: $2.4/kg
2003: $1.2/kg
Other Land Uses
Avocado
Lemon
Citrus
Banana
Farmersbegin abandoning coffee
50% of coffee plantations abandoned
Land Use History and Prices
AIACC LA-29
16
Year Event Impact Action
1972 Hail
24 April
“Knocked off the flowers from the coffee trees, 70% of the harvest lost”
“Left to look for work, Government helped to repair roofs, women sold fruit”
1977/78 FrostJan-Feb
“Destroyed the harvest, 100% lost where there was no shade”
“Left to sell bananas, oranges, wood, quelites.”
1982-83 NortesJan-Feb
“Knocked down the coffee, about 30% affected”
“Left to sell bananas, lime. The women worked in agriculture”
1994-96 DroughtRains 3 months
late
“The plants dried up. The harvests was less 20%”
“Nothing….”
Climate History and Coping Strategies
AIACC LA-29
17
Farm unit
IMECAFE
UPEC
Market
Processors
Knowledgeinformation, resources
1980s
Farm unit
Union, Association,“SSS”
Processors
Market
Knowledge, information, resources
Today Today
Farm unit
Intermediary
Processors
Market
PublicSector
$/ha?
Interview and Focus Group Discussion Results
18
10 – 20 hacoffee
Fine timber (Caoba, cedar)
Coffee, macadamiaLemon, lychee nuts
10 years
5 years
Coffee, fruit,decorative ferns
Strategies of Larger Coffee Farms
Land rental tosugar industry
Land sale forsuburban
developmentCoffee
processingand roasting
Packaging andretail sale or
export
Organic Production
Now
Interview data
19
What we learned
• What climate impacts were most important to the farmers, and when they were most likely to occur
• Past climate impacts on coffee and farmers’ responses
• The importance of prices in livelihood vulnerability
• Effect of public sector intervention on coping strategies
• Obstacles to adaptation: lack of organization, lack of information, short time horizons
AIACC LA-29
20
General Lessons• Importance of physical presence of researchers in study
region• Key stakeholders should be incorporated into project
preparation and design before funding• Climate change is not an institutional priority for many
stakeholders, the issue must be framed according to their interests
• Local institutions are often limited in autonomy and by lack of funding, yet complexity of local vulnerability makes national-level programs less effective
• Difficulty for researchers to work with stakeholders at distinct scales of decision-making
AIACC LA-29