CSA Indicators Database Summary and Key Findings

Transcription

1 Companion Document CSA Indicators Database Summary and Key Findings June 2016 Marie Quinney, Osana Bonilla-Findji and Andy Jarvis

2 Contents 1. The database and methodology Key Findings... 4 Observations according to the CSA pillars...4 Gaps...5 Observation on the M&E Approaches...5 Conclusions New indicators created Total indicators used in the CSA programing and Indicator Tool... 6 Percentage indicators used per agency...6 Total indicators per question...7 Sources... 9 Acknowledgments P a g e

3 1. The database and methodology Over 378 indicators from DfID, World Bank, CCAFS, USAID, IFAD, GIZ and FAO were compiled into a database and revisited thought the CSA lenses forming the basis for this tool. Beyond identifying their relevance to the three pillars (Productivity/Income; Adaptation/Resilience; Mitigation) the following characteristics were also included in the classification exercise: Indicator Type (Readiness/Enabling environment; Process/Output; Outcome/Impacts) and related topic/area Readiness indicators: Condition reflecting the capacity to manage plan, implement and monitor climate finance and activities related to climate change. Most countries still lack the larger institutional technical capacities and infrastructure necessary to enable climaterelated programs at large scales. Such infrastructure and capacities may be needed at the subnational level in a project or local district, or be nationwide. Indicators for climate readiness can help donors and policy makers anticipate what is needed to make progress and to track that progress (Wollenberg et al 2015) Process indicators: allow programs to be evaluated for meeting CSA and planned objectives. They provide insights into implementation processes (such as the diversity and gender of team composition, number and quality of interactions with communities, etc) and adaptation measures, and monitor or measure the development of adaptation policies and building of adaptive capacity. They are more specialized and generally must be developed and measured specifically for an adaptation program or plan. See Also: CSA Guide. They may fall somewhat short in measuring achievement of adaptation, as indeed, e. g there is no guarantee that successful development and implementation of an adaptation policy translates into effective adaptation (Harley et al., 2008) Outcome/impact indicators: allow measuring progress, downstream effects or medium/long-term impact on the three CSA objectives/pillars. E.g: Effectiveness of adaptation measures, policies and actions or progress towards pre-defined goals (See Also: CSA Guide). Note: In practice, classifying indicators as process versus outcome indicators can be challenging as there is no clear agreement in the literature on how this classification should be approached. CSA Type of Intervention (Technologies and Practices; Services; Tools; Incentive Mechanisms/Financial; Empowerment, Capacity Building and Planning) Scale at which the changes are intended to be measured i. Household/ Farm ii. Subnational (including the regional, landscape, value chains, institutional scales) iii. National (policy, institutional and programmatic scales) 3 P a g e

4 Specific relevance rating was also (subjectively) assessed to help users identify most appropriate indicators from a long list. Indicators relating to income and poverty were classed under productivity; Indicators that did not directly relate to a CSA pillar, such as health and nutrition, were not included. Some indicators were edited to be more in line with CSA outcomes and 85 new indicators were created. 2. Key findings In the database, the most common indicators are those pertaining to the pillars of productivity and adaptation while there was significant lack of indicators relating to mitigation outcomes. Observations according to the CSA pillars Productivity: indicators emphasis on yields, income and livelihood security, with a notorious gap on indicators related to: support policy and legal framework to improve food security and food availability and access. - There are a significant amount of indicators measuring investment in agriculture and sales of agricultural produce, for example, which are suitable to measure productivity. However, this does show how skewed towards monetary outcomes FTF s metrics are, so the balance between the three pillars is uneven. Adaptation/Resilience: - Indicators are largely geared towards risk management, technologies, information and enabling environment. - Potential adaptation is measured over actual adaptation. Unclear whether technology and practices actually working. - Many measurements do not necessarily implicate improvements or re-evaluation e.g. 10 people are participating in certain management techniques, so the following year the improvement would be for 20 people to be participating, the techniques themselves do not necessarily have to be assessed or improved. - There could be vast amounts of hectares under improved technologies or hundreds of stakeholders receiving training, but the improvements could be minimal or, at least, not maximal. - There are very few indicators specifically addressing seed varieties, crop insurance and financial indicators geared towards the adoption of CSA technologies and practices. - Generally, indicators lacked the ability to show a change over time, or to measure specific changes in low/lean season (increase on-farm production and/or livelihoods) and - Perception indicators were missing Mitigation: 34indicators from the database have the potential to address mitigation related issues to some degree, 10 exclusively targeting mitigation and only 8 focus on mitigation outcomes. 4 P a g e

5 Assumption that if the technologies are in place, then mitigation is happening and at sufficient levels. The few indicators relating to mitigation outcomes, such as the one below from IFAD ASAP were included in the tool: Mitigation Percentage tons of GHG emissions (CO2e) avoided and/or sequestered Net carbon balance (GHG emission in tons of CO2-equivalent emission/ha/year) of project compared to a without project scenario. Expected lifetime energy savings from energy efficiency or energy conservation, as a result of USG assistance Indicator Source IFAD- ASAP WB (CSA-Res indicator) USAID/ Standard Foreign Assistance Indicators Gaps Entirely missing from this database were indicators aiming directly to: Productivity/Income support policy and legal framework to improve food security; and food availability and access Adaptation/Resilience increase on-farm production and/or livelihoods during lean season Mitigation promote the use of renewable energy (this may be an artefact of the food security focus of the indicators incorporated into the database) contribute to use of crop residues for energy generation reduce burning of residues, or reincorporation of residues to increase soil organic carbon improve feed to livestock which will increase production efficiency reduce post-harvest losses and food waste promote information services and sharing to foster climate change mitigation actions Observation on the M&E Approaches Emphasis on quantitative indicators is clear. Nevertheless, some agencies, such as DfID, have some interesting examples of qualitative or mixed methods indicators which add additional depth. For example: Degree of integration of climate change into national planning 5 P a g e The qualitative assessment will focus on the following criteria: a) Existence of a specific climate change policy, plan b) Climate resilience strategies embedded in the principal planning documents at various levels (national, sector, ministry); c) Responsibility assigned to coordinate the integration of climate resilience into planning; DFID Climate Investment Fund

6 No., type, and sector of policies introduced or adjusted to address climate change risks d) Specific measures to address climate resilience identified and prioritized e.g. laws, regulations and incentives in these policies and plans; and e) Routine screening for climate risk in planning. Quantitative: number Qualitative: Effectiveness: are policies set/modified to achieve climate change risks, increase adaptive capacity, or achieve an enhanced level of protection? Link measurement to an analysis of policy and adaptation scenarios DFID Adaptation Fund Conclusions Some of the indicators collected from the different development agencies are CSArelated, however, there is a focus on quantitative measurements as proxies for environmental outcomes. In order to adequately measure CSA outcomes, more specific and varied indicators would be needed to avoid ambiguity and develop a balance between the three pillars. 3. New indicators created Generally, the indicators lacked the ability to show a change over time, or to measure specific changes in low/lean season. This temporal element is key to bring stability in environmentally unstable times. Furthermore, there lacked perception indicators. There were some good examples, however, which inspired several new indicators: Mitigation Number of Infrastructure Employment Project (IEP) person days during the lean season (September December) Number of people who claim to have increased capacity to cope with risks Indicator Source DFID Chars CCAFS- Resilience 4. Total indicators used in the CSA programming and Indicator Tool As of March 2016, 312/378, or 82%, of agency indicators were used in the tool. A further 85 indicators were added, either as completely new or edits of current agency indicators. Percentage indicators used per agency Agency Programme Number of indicators used Percentage USAID FTF 35/53 63% USAID/ Standard Foreign Assistance Indicators 32/50 selected 64% (Environment; Agricultural Sector Capacity; Capacity Building, Gender; Science Technology and innovation sections) Total per agency 63% 6 P a g e

7 FAO Resilience 8/8 100% FAO Production 12/13 92% 96% CCAFS Readiness 36/38 95% CCAFS Resilience 23/25 92% 93% GIZ 81/92 88% 88% DFID Climate Investment Fund 5/5 100% DFID Adaptation Fund 30/31 97% DFID International Climate Fund 4/4 100% 89% DFID Chars 16/27 59% IFAD ASAP 6/8 75% 75% WB CSA Results Indicators 24/24 100% 100% Total indicators per question Pillars and questions Productivity Number of indirect indicators. Total (new) Number of direct indicators. Total (new) To what extent do your project/intervention aim to: Increase food availability and access by rural and urban poor 0 6 (2) Increase yield and productivity 11 19(1) Improve access to inputs that increase productivity 5 9(7) Apply management schemes geared at raising the profitability of 2 4 smallholders agricultural production Improve livelihood security and/or decrease poverty 5 20(4) Support policy and legal framework to improve food security 1(1) 2(2) Improve institutional capacities and services to promote agricultural 1 10(1) production and marketing Develop financial mechanisms to promote adoption of practices or technologies that increase productivity and livelihoods 2(1) 1 Adaptation To what extent do your project/intervention aim to: Land, water, Ag Practices & technologies Reduce likelihood and/or impact of climate shocks to cropping and 8 39(8) livestock systems Promote improved technologies with proven resistance to climaterelated 4 11(3) constraints (e.g. drought, waterlogging, high temperatures etc.) Increase availability of water and efficiency of water use for 2 17(5) smallholder agriculture production and processing, especially during dry seasons Livelihood Strategies Support increased on-farm production and/or livelihoods during lean 0 1(1) season Promote adaptation strategies (i.e diversification) that increase livelihood resilience and decrease vulnerability to climatic variability and extreme weather events 8 12 Services 7 P a g e

8 Provide access to weather information, seasonal forecasts and 3 12(1) warnings of extreme climatic events to support farmers risk management, planning and decision making Support services, mechanisms and infrastructure to cope with climate 5 6 change and variability Establish crop insurance and safety net schemes 1 6(2) Incentive mechanisms/financial (incl. finance) Promote incentives (incl. financial services/mechanisms) for adoption 6 10(6) of climate resilient practices and technologies that increase adaptive capacity Increase participation of private sector in addressing climate change adaptation 1 3(1) Capacity strengthening, Knowledge products & Decision Support Tools Increase human capacity to manage short- and long-term climate risks 14 17(2) and reduce losses from weather related disasters Promote the use of information, communication and/or decision 5 10 support tools that increase adoption of adaptation technologies and practices Support the creation of and participation in networks of cooperatives, (1 7(1) groups or committees that help increase adaptive capacity Policy, governance and planning Improve national and local policy frameworks and enabling 8 32 environments that support the adoption of adaptation plans, investments and interventions Mitigation To what extent do your project/intervention aim to: Promote greater efficiency in fertilizer use in cropping systems 2 9(7) Promote the use of renewable energy 1(1) 9(6) Contribute to use of crop residues for energy generation 0 4(4) Reduce burning of residues, or reincorporation of residues to increase 2 7(7) soil organic carbon Improve feed to livestock which will increase production efficiency 1 1(1) Measure reduced GHG emissions 1 6(1) Reduce post-harvest losses and food waste 0 5(5) Contribute to reducing or reversing deforestation and/or forest 3(1) 7(3) degradation Promote information services and sharing to increase climate change 2 2(2) mitigation Support the design of policies, development and investment program at different levels to promote climate-mitigation interventions 1 9(4) 8 P a g e

9 Sources CCAFS - Readiness Wollenberg E, Zurek M, De Pinto A Climate readiness indicators for agriculture. CCAFS Info Note. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). CCAFS- Resilience Hills T, Pramova E, Neufeldt H, Ericksen P, Thornton P, Noble A, Weight E, Campbell B, McCartney M A Monitoring Instrument for Resilience. CCAFS Working Paper no. 96. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). DFID -Climate Investment Funds Monitoring and Reporting toolkit: oolkit_final_march_2014.pdf -Adaptation Fund methodologies for reporting Adaptation Fund core impact indicators: -International Climate Fund implementation plan: Climate_Fund ICF Implementation_Plan_technical_paper.pdf -Chars Livelihoods Programme logframe: Logframe xlsx FAO - Production. Production strategic indicators (FAOSTAT) : Production and productivity Crops net per capita production index number ( = 100), including fiber; Livestock net per capita production index number, including wool ( = 100); Fish production per capita (tonne/cap) (both capture and aquaculture); Roundwood production per capita (m3/cap); Agriculture value added per worker (constant 2,000 USD); Total factor productivity (TFP) growth in agriculture has remained stable or increased, since the last reporting period (source of all above: FAOSTAT); Area with improved agricultural productivity and crop suitability in agriculture (Source: Global Agro-Ecological Zones GAEZ) -Resilience. Corporate indicators on resilience (information collected through a questionnaire) GIZ -Repository of Adaptation Indicators -Climate change adaptation indicators list IFAD-ASAP Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP) results and indicator framework: 9 P a g e

10 USAID -FTF. Summary of indicators chart -Indicator handbook and definitions -USAID Standard Foreign Assistance Indicators (under 4.8: Environment; Capacity Building, Gender, and Science (STIR) indicators) World Bank -CSA-Result Indicators Acknowledgments In addition to CCAFS Donors, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) supported the development and publication of this Tool on the CCAFS webpage. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID. We would like to thank Paola Camargo from the International Center of Tropical Agriculture for her technical assistance as well as our colleagues from the different agencies and CCAFS partners for their comments. 10 P a g e