Adaptation Framework

Transcription

1 Adaptation Framework Adaptation of Food Supply Chains to the Impacts of Progressively Changing Climate Authors: A. Benedikter, P. Läderach, A. Eitzinger, C. Bunn, S. Cook International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Managua, Nicaragua and Cali, Colombia Cali, Colombia, July 2011 Fotos N Palmer (3) and A Benedikter (1), CIAT 1

2 Index Table of Figures Executive Summary Introduction... 5 Background... 5 Challenges Methodology... 6 Case description... 6 Supply chain analysis... 7 Vulnerability assessment... 7 Vulnerability at the farm level... 7 Vulnerability at the supply chain level... 7 Behavioral patterns RESULTS: Supply Chain Analysis... 8 Definition... 8 Characteristics... 8 Resilience... 9 Empirical Examples RESULTS: Vulnerability to GCC Need for adaptation and adaptive capacities Empirical Examples RESULTS: Behavior and Institutions Incentives for Change People (Actors) Behaviour (Action) Institutions (Mediation of Action) Empirical Examples The Framework Building Adaptation Strategies within the Framework Situational Patterns This Framework as a roadmap Conclusions Further Reading Case Study Reports Methodology reports Gender Reports References

3 Table of Figures Figure 1: The three components of chain-inclusive adaptation strategies... 4 Figure 2: The three pillars of chain-inclusive adaptation to GCC impacts... 6 Figure 3: The six supply chains under investigation Figure 4: Vulnerability according to IPCC... 7 Figure 5: Methodology applied throughout the framework... 8 Figure 6: Resilience layers of supply chains (adapted from Peck, 2005)... 9 Figure 7: Vulnerability at country level, Figure 8: Vulnerability for specific crops per country Figure 9: Vulnerability hot spots in different food supply chains: Farm level Figure 10: Vulnerability hot spots in different food supply chains: Entire supply chain Figure 11: Site-specific vulnerability levels by exemplary sweat pea farms in Guatemala Figure 12: Vulnerability index and variation on country level Figure 13: People, Institutions and Behavior (adapted from Woodhill, 2008) Figure 14: Interdependence of framework components Figure 15: Building adaptation strategies from comprehensive situation assessment

4 1. Executive Summary This report presents a framework for supply chain-inclusive adaptation to climate change impacts on agriculture. The overarching objective of the concepts we introduce here is to help build climate-proof agricultural production systems and to reduce small farmer s susceptibility to the adverse affects of global climate change (GCC) by lifting adaptation strategies to the supply chain level. The framework consists of three complementary key areas of focus as necessary pillars to underpin the achievement of these objectives. The frameworks components are: Supply chain analysis, vulnerability assessment and evaluation of behavioral patterns (Figure 1). Figure 1: The three components of chain-inclusive adaptation strategies Analyses of the three key elements is based upon the results from three case study sites: 1) Guatemala, where small farmers are part of an export chain of frozen vegetables to the US market, 2) Colombia, where small-holders contribute significantly to the food security of metropolitan Bogotá and 3) Jamaica, where farmers supply their vegetables to the economically important hotel sector. Results from these case studies reveal that, supply chain analysis is a crucial process to characterize the system which has to cope with the adverse effects of GCC. To precisely tackle 4 these impacts we state that first a clear definition and characterization of the food value chain 1 is necessary. This is, because these systems have the potential to absorb the impacts of GCC on the rural poor as well as on value creation processes and therefore determine the operational field which adaptation has to address. Our research identifies three supply chains in Colombia, two in Guatemala and one in Jamaica, according to farmers marketing channels. Secondly, a vulnerability assessment provides information on the stakeholders need for adaptation to GCC and capacities to respond. Our investigation has confirmed this process as being useful to identify adaptation hot spots at various scales and sites. Thirdly, a sociological approach helps identify adaptive behaviors as a key attribute of adaptive capacities. We propose that conduct of key stakeholders holds substantial role in a supply chain s ability to respond to GCC stresses. We applied multiple methodologies to put the findings presented in this report on firm ground. Eleven semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders helped both to systematically analyze the supply chains under investigation and to sketch out behavioral patterns along these production systems. Fieldwork observations contributed complementary information to these analyses. To assess vulnerability levels along the six supply chains, we calculated the suitability changes of crops to future climate conditions to reveal the biophysical impacts of GCC in the three study sites. Participatory focal workshops with farmers and cooperatives and approximately 400 questionnaires designed to assess the livelihoods of the rural poor cover the socio- 1 The terms supply chain and value chain are used synonymously in this report.

5 economic aspects of our research. Again, expert interviews and observations made in the field helped identify further vulnerability factors along the supply chains. The results of the study demonstrate that the objective of adaptation strategies in the context of food supply chains must be incentives for change. These stimuli have to match with the inhomogeneous needs to change and adaptive capacities to be found along these systems. This framework provides methods for comprehensive situation assessment to meet this requirement. 2. Introduction Background Crops rely on balanced ecologic systems allowing them to thrive. Global climate change, however, brings along increases in temperature and changes in precipitation patterns challenging these environmental niches. While crops are the first to suffer from these impacts, changing climate conditions also batter rural population and particularly small farmers in developing regions as a consequence of the shift in crop suitability. This is, because agricultural production represents the main source of income and daily nutrition of farmers and their families. In large part, however, growers in tropical areas are small-holders and therefore doubtfully possess the means to respond effectively to the GCC threats they face. Rural livelihoods form the vital base of many food supply chains. As an effect, farmers vulnerability to GCC stresses will likely permeate into value creation processes beyond the production stage, eventually affecting private sector businesses, public institutions and also the consumers of the products. Such food chains can range from locally tied to globally spread providers of staple, non-staple and specialty items and are responsible for the availability, quality and price of the products supplied. Together with escalating food consumption and shifting diet patterns worldwide, climate change adds another obstacle to food supply chains. Taking these potential socio-economic impacts into account, the resilience of food supply chains to external stresses like GCC becomes a key issue. Challenges Vulnerability analysis based on assessment of risk exposure and livelihoods assets is a common and widely recognized tool to evaluate a populations need and capacity to adapt to a certain threat (Hinkel, 2011). The possibility to precisely analyze the situation of rural families when confronted with GCC impacts justifies the importance and necessity of this approach. However, adapting supply chains to the adverse effects of changing climate conditions must not be constrained to investigation exclusively at farm level. Food supply chains are complex constructs, difficult to address as a whole. A wide variety of people and entities coming from different social strata, intend to create value through a multitude of processes. These actors pursue individual objectives, face particular problems, and exploit diverse resources to finally satisfy a customer s needs. The interaction and interdependence of these elements determines to a significant degree the way the system responds to a common threat. Thus, it becomes apparent that GCC impacts potentially strike upon different cultural and socio-economic contexts and spread throughout the various stages of food supply chains. Owing to this complexity, problems and obstacles may 5

6 be hidden behind the processes of value creation or the hardly measurable perceptions and values of the people involved. Similarly, undisclosed adaptive capacities might appear at multiple levels of food supply chains. In order to find chain-inclusive, yet situation-specific solutions, adaptation strategies need to effectively address this intricate situation in all its components and at different scales. To confront these challenges, we propose three components to build the frame for chaininclusive adaptation to GCC impacts (Figure 2): Figure 2: The three pillars of chain-inclusive adaptation to GCC impacts Guatemala, Colombia and Jamaica, each of which is discussed in detail in a separate document 2. Based on the results from vulnerability assessment at farm level and fieldwork observations we decided to split the three cases up into six supply chains according to different marketing channels: In Colombia we found 3 cases: Farmers selling directly to the consumer via the NGO supported farmer s market mercado de campesinos (COL 1); farmers selling exclusively to intermediaries in the free market system (COL 2); farmers selling to both (COL 3). Regardless of these supply chains, small farmers in this region contribute significantly to Bogotá s food security. At the study site in Guatemala we identified two types of supply chains. On the one hand, small-holders sell their products through intermediaries in a well-established supply chain to the US market (GTM 2) Farmers in GTM 1 are part of the same supply system, however with local NGO support. As for Jamaica (JAM), we encountered hardly observable supply chain structures when we investigated the case of small farmers supplying vegetables to the local hotel industry. To tackle the complexity of GCC impacts on food supply systems, we state that together with a vulnerability assessment, comprehensive analyses of the business background (supply chains) and sociological capacities and constraints (people and behavior) are indispensable. 3. Methodology Case description This report is based upon the results from investigation in three case study sites, namely 6 Figure 3: The six supply chains under investigation2 Our research in the three case studies is built upon the fact that rural livelihoods and food supply chains are vulnerable to GCC impacts. 2 Details can be retrieved from detached case study reports (See chapter 10)

7 However, the comprehensive approach presented here required going beyond vulnerability assessment to effectively address the diversity of information which is the subject of this research. For this reason, a multitude of methodologies were necessary to gain insights into the three components supply chain analysis, vulnerability assessment and evaluation of behavioral patterns. Supply chain analysis In order to gain insights in the characteristics and to assess chain-inclusive adaptive capacities of the above outlined supply chains, we conducted semi-structured interviews with experts of each supply system. A total of eleven conversations with exporters, sourcing managers, representatives of NGOs and public institutions, tradesmen, wholesalers and public relation officers were necessary to collect the required information. The interviews aimed at gaining insights into the structures and dynamics of the supply chains, power and relationships of stakeholders and resilience patterns along the system. An additional 24 focal workshops (8 in each study site) with stakeholders as well as observations during fieldwork proved to be indispensable complements to these topics. Vulnerability assessment We assessed vulnerability patterns at two different levels. 1) At the farm level, 2) at the overall supply chain level. Vulnerability at the farm level In the three sites Guatemala, Colombia and Jamaica we evaluated the vulnerability of small farmer s livelihoods in the context of changing climate conditions for the years 2030 and The methods we used build upon the concept of vulnerability as defined by the IPCC Third Assessment Report (McCarthy, Canziani, Leary, 7 Dokken, & White, 2001). In short, vulnerability is seen as a function of crop exposure to GCC plus farmers sensitivity to impacts minus their capacity to adapt to effects perceived. VULNERABILITY = Exposure + Sensitivity - Adaptive Capacity Figure 4: Vulnerability according to IPCC We computed exposure together with the direct sensitivity of crops through crop prediction models using current and future climate scenarios to estimate the suitability of agricultural products to future climate conditions at specific sites. Sensitivity and adaptive capacity of small-holders were subject to on-field assessment of five livelihood capitals available to the rural population 3. We assessed the five assets -physical, natural, human, social and financial capital- through approximately 400 total questionnaires with farmers in the three sites. Vulnerability at the supply chain level Vulnerability assessment at supply chain stage is based upon vulnerability results at the farm level. To assess vulnerability throughout the entire value creation system, however, we included additional factors in the evaluation of 3 According details can be retrieved from detached methodology report (See chapter Error! Reference source not found.0)

8 sensitivity and adaptive capacity. We argue that a food supply system has a high sensitivity to GCC impacts when producers are affected and when other stakeholders depend on the producers to supply inputs such as foodstuff. However, by definition adaptive capacity comprises a system s ability to respond to a hazard. Hence, any adaptation supporting means could potentially be included. Adaptive Considering the supply chain after farm level, results for adaptive capacity are based on robust estimations about adaptive assets available throughout the system, crop diversification and tangible institutional capacities. Behavioral patterns The evaluation of behavioral patterns followed the same methodology as supply chain analysis. In semi-structured interviews, key stakeholders provided information about action cycles in the value creation process, how supply chain actors relate to each other and revealed adaptive behaviors along the value chain. Fieldwork observations confirmed or undermined these insights. Figure 5 summarizes the methods applied for the purpose of this research: Figure 5: Methodology applied throughout the framework The purpose of this methodology was to obtain important messages about the three main components of this framework without wasting efforts on redundant information. 4. RESULTS: Supply Chain Analysis Definition Supply chains can be seen as a network of * + organizations * + working together to control, manage and improve the flow of materials and information from suppliers to end users (Christopher, 1998). Alternatively, we can summarize supply chains as people interacting in resource consuming and value-adding processes to satisfy customers with goods and services. They host distinct structures and dynamics and are embedded in a specific enabling environment, two characteristics necessary to allow value creation (Downing, 2006). In the case of (agricultural) food supply chains, the value creation process inherently starts with a crop to finally end up as food item to be offered in supermarkets or restaurants, among others. This characterization demonstrates the multitude of interwoven subjects which justify and -at the same timecomplicate supply chain analysis. On the other hand, a clear definition of a food supply system also delivers the contours within which chaininclusive adaptation can take place. Identification of main crops and products, processes, markets and people involved (e.g. customers) helps determine the playing field for response measures. Characteristics Food supply chains are important for rural development. These systems hold high potential to facilitate access to markets for production 8

9 and consumption and amplify income sources for the poor (Marsden, Banks, & Bristow, 2000). Furthermore, they help maintain the availability of food and support economic growth. The core of supply chains are value streams i.e. distribution, information and communication of values to customers. According to the type of supply chain, certain assets and structures are required to underpin this flow. In turn, different people and entities own processes in organizational networks which make use of these assets. These layers are very interrelated and all depend on the environment in which they are embedded. This so-called enabling environment comprises political, economic, social, technological, and ecological determinants, which open or limit the operating space for supply chains (Peck, 2005). Resilience Food supply systems are by their nature highly dependent on their ecologic environment. Global climate change, however, challenges this vital condition. Figure 6: Resilience layers of supply chains (adapted from Peck, 2005) Figure 4 illustrates that hazardous impacts of GCC on the natural environment of food supply systems potentially puts the value streams to the customer at risk. In such cases, structures and assets, and the organizational interrelation of process owners have to act as a sponge to soak up the negative effects produced by changes in the environment. To understand how a food supply chain would react under external pressure, it is necessary to outline the nature of the organism. Complete and partial objectives of stakeholders, their positions and power dependencies, business focus, distribution of assets and availability of structures and many other indicators can give a hint about the resilience of food supply chains under pressure of climate change impacts. Empirical Examples Our research reported a short-term driven, non-transparent wickerwork of supply chain participants in Jamaican agriculture. In Guatemala, on the other hand, the food supply is clearly structured and participants are easy to identify. The latter case is much more suitable for chain-inclusive adaptation since key parts can be addressed directly. Guatemalan value chains indicated that strong hierarchies in well-established supply systems can increase the resilience of a supply chain, when power dependencies are not misused. This can be ascribed to better control over how assets are used and by whom. Value chains investigated in Colombia give reason to assume that strengthening professionalism i.e. process ownership and installation of organizational structures at farm level can increase supply chain resilience to GCC threats. 9

10 FACTS AND FINDINGS Food supply chains have great potential to improve rural livelihoods. The less traceable a supply chain is, the more difficult the assessment and targeting of adaptation strategies. GCC impacts on the natural environment have to be filtered by organizational and structural layers to decrease their impacts on value streams. 5. RESULTS: Vulnerability to GCC Food supply chains vulnerability to changing climate is the main consideration to explore ways of adaptation to the uncertain conditions that will be faced. Small farmer s vulnerability to GCC can put entire food supply systems at risk. Therefore, our research focuses on vulnerability of producers. However, its derivative effects on the entire value chain have also been assessed. Need for adaptation and adaptive capacities Exposure to changing climate conditions represents expected changes in precipitation and temperature patterns. Together with direct sensitivity, i.e. the consequences of changing climate on the suitability of a crop, these values combine to what we denominate direct impacts (of GCC). It summarizes the primary adverse effects of GCC on agriculture. It is calculated and illustrated as the change in suitability of a crop from current to predicted future climate. The second component of vulnerability is (indirect) sensitivity, i.e. the extent to which livelihoods are affected by climate related changes. Together with exposure, the results of these two factors combined then add up to an indicator which we denominated need for adaptation to GCC impacts. We argue that 10 people need to adapt to climate change when they are exposed to this hazard and affected by its consequences. This value demonstrates if and to what extent a certain system in fact faces a problem imposed by changing climate conditions. The third component of vulnerability assessment is adaptive capacity which comprises a systems available means to adapt to a situation. The three components of vulnerability are suitable for different scales. We therefore analyzed vulnerability patterns for distinct populations, systems and subjects. Since we included additional factors to calculate sensitivity and adaptive capacity levels at supply chain level, vulnerability patterns are likely to differ between farm level assessment and supply chain level assessment. Empirical Examples Following graphical illustrations help identify adaptation hot spots at different scales. They highlight needs for adaptation of a system or population and juxtapose them with its capacities to adapt. For better comparability among the different cases, all displayed results for sensitivity and adaptive capacity base on the arithmetic mean upon the modal values of the five livelihood assets, respectively 4. Location of the bubbles indicates the average need for adaptation as a combination of the exposure and current sensitivity of a respective system or population. The bubbles situated in the red section in the upper left corner indicate high scores for this value. Bubble color represents their current average adaptive capacity. Red bubbles highlight low means to 4 For further information and alternative methodologies please consult concomitant methodology report (see chapter 10)

11 Sensitivity, Ø Sensitivity, Ø respond, fading into green bubbles for high adaptive capacity. Low Lowmedium Medium GTM JAM COL Mediumhigh Suitability Change, 2050, Ø Figure 7: Vulnerability at country level, 2050 High Figure 7 shows vulnerability values at country level for the three study sites under investigation based on suitability change values for the year Suitability change values summarize the average exposure of 11 (Guatemala), 14 (Jamaica) and 19 (Colombia) crops in one single value for each country. The chart reports Jamaica together with Guatemala as the most vulnerable among the three sites. With an average suitability change of -10, Jamaica scores 2.2 on a sensitivity scale from 1 (very low) to 3 (very high sensitivity). At the same time, Jamaica only reached a low-medium level of adaptive capacity (highlighted in orange). Guatemala is on average most exposed (suitability change -14) and sensitive to changing climate (scoring 2.6), yet the country reports intermediate availability of means to respond to the hazard (highlighted as yellow bubble). On the other hand, Colombia s moderate levels of sensitivity (only 1.2) and medium-high rated adaptive capacities compensate for its considerable exposure to GCC (suitability 11 change -14). Together these produce an overall low-medium vulnerability level. Figure 7 provides a proper overview of the overall situation in the three countries. Yet, few statements can be made about the effects of GCC on specific sites or crops. For example, it cannot be stated that Colombia is not vulnerable to GCC impacts, however it is less affected than the other two sites. Figure 8 on the other hand highlights exemplary key crops for each country to demonstrate the dispersion of future crop suitability among the different products in Jamaica and Guatemala and juxtaposes it with the respective (indirect) sensitivity and adaptive capacity values JAM_ginger GTM_broc COL_maize GTM_pea COL_blberry JAM_banana Suitability change, 2050, Ø Figure 8: Vulnerability for specific crops per country As can be seen, ginger in Jamaica will likely lose suitability to climate conditions in 2050 at an alarming rate whereas banana will benefit from higher temperatures. However, while ginger and banana farmers report the same sensitivity, the latter score even lower on adaptive capacities than ginger farmers. Therefore, in Jamaica banana can be a potential adaptation option in terms of crops. Nevertheless, the humble adaptive capacities of today s banana farmers will need to be addressed first. In Guatemala,

12 Sensitivity, Ø Sensitivity, Ø sweet pea farmers see themselves much less affected by GCC impacts and report higher adaptive capacities to respond than small holders cultivating broccoli. Crop-wise however, sweet pea will drastically lose suitability to conditions in 2050, while broccoli almost remains stable. Hence, broccoli farmers potentially might learn from sweet pea farmers how to better deal with GCC impacts. In turn, sweet pea farmers might consider switching gradually to broccoli or other crop alternatives as an adaptation option. As for Colombia, our research highlights blackberry farmers as little affected by GCC and equipped with proper means to respond to expected impacts. The crop itself will encounter a moderately lower suitability to climate conditions in Maize on the other hand, is much more exposed to changing climate Farmers cultivating this crop are also quite affected and have only mediocre assets at their disposal to respond to the adverse effects they are likely to face. On another scale, vulnerability assessment on supply chain level is indispensable for the purpose of this study. Figure 109 and 10 summarize the results for exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity in the six supply chains which our analyses have identified Vulnerability, Farm Level COL 1 GTM 2 JAM GTM 1 COL 2 COL Suitability Change, 2050, Ø Figure 9: Vulnerability hot spots in different food supply chains: Farm level Vulnerability, Supply Chain Level COL 1 GTM 2 JAM GTM 1 COL 2 COL Suitability Change, 2050, Ø Figure 10: Vulnerability hot spots in different food supply chains: Entire supply chain Charts 9 and 10 reveal the differences in sensitivity and adaptive capacity between the findings at the overall supply chain level including all stakeholders and at the farm level only. Here, suitability change values reflect the average results of the farmers main crops. The differences -highlighted by red circles- emerge from factors which we included additionally in vulnerability analyses at supply chain stage, however not on farm level. For example, along supply chain COL 1 our investigation located little, along COL 2 significant assets to respond 12

13 Sensitivity, Ø to GCC impacts. For this reason, COL 1 s adaptive capacity level decreases, while COL 2 s level rises from the farm to supply chain point of view, both to medium-high level. Similarly, sensitivity level of GTM 2 declines if we look at the entire supply chain. This is, because buyers and intermediaries are able to easily substitute their suppliers in this system. Our research also identified site-specific vulnerability hot spots. Figure 11 demonstrates GCC impacts as experienced by exemplary sweet pea farmers in Guatemala. The chart indicates that farm #76 from our survey is not as exposed to changing climate as the other two; however, livelihood assets are highly affected and too scarce to respond effectively to GCC impacts. Farm # 105 is relatively more exposed, less adaptive, but also less sensitive than farm # 76. Yet, farm # 103 faces the opposite situation as farm # 76 with high exposure but proper availability and moderate sensitivity of assets. Therefore, farm # 76 and # 105 might potentially learn from farm # 103 how to cope with GCC stresses. 3 2 FARM_#103 FARM_#76 FARM_#105 compare these values with their standard deviation, since this indicator can tell about the distribution of values and therefore the scope of adaptation options for a certain system. Alternatively, standard statistical methods such as Oneway-Anova and t-test statistics also provide insights into the variation of vulnerability factors. Figure 12 shows a vulnerability index based on suitability change values of evaluated farms regarding the year 2030, their sensitivity and adaptive capacity scores and farmers perceptions of climate change impacts. Similar to Figure 7, this method also reports Colombia as the least vulnerable (scoring a mean of 8.42 with 4 being high, 12 being low vulnerability) and Jamaica as the most vulnerable (7.21) of the three countries. Guatemala ranks 2 nd, scoring a mean of However, the whiskers in the graphs indicate the variation in the values. This means that even in resilient Colombia households exist that are very vulnerable. The vulnerability index value of Guatemala, on the other hand, is more homogeneous which is mainly owing to lower crop diversification and therefore lower variety in suitability results. In Jamaica farmers do not perceive climate change as a severe threat to their livelihoods. This contributes to their vulnerability, since farmers are less motivated to engage in adaptation (Grothmann & Patt, 2005) Suitability change, 2050, Ø Figure 11: Site-specific vulnerability levels by exemplary sweat pea farms in Guatemala The graphs presented here are based on average results of the respective subject matter. Hence, decision makers will find it useful to 13

14 6. RESULTS: Behavior and Institutions Figure 12: Vulnerability index and variation on country level Above outlined vulnerability hot spot charts and box-whiskers diagrams represent some examples to illustrate GCC impacts on different scales. Alternatively, these tools can also provide insights in vulnerability patterns regarding gender, farm size or production cost, just to name a few. In a second phase, decision makers then have the possibility to consult precise crop suitability and livelihood analyses to gather more detailed information about a specific situation. FACTS AND FINDINGS Sensitivity of non-producer stakeholders to GCC impacts strongly relies on the extent to which they depend on farmers to supply inputs (foodstuff) for downstream value-adding processes. Adaptive capacities can together with livelihood assets include (crop) diversification, institutional capacities and structures along a supply chain. 14 People are the foundation of every supply chain. In the food sector, the value-adding actions and relationships between farmers, transporters, processers, wholesalers and retailers transform crops to products which finally satisfy specific customer demands. This interaction together with other social factors shapes to a large extent the objectives of adaptation and the risks perceived with it (Adger et al., 2008). Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the interactive behavior of stakeholders in a supply chain since it helps to determine the non-asset related adaptive capacities of the system. Considering the big picture of chain-inclusive adaptation, however, decision makers will encounter a difficult challenge in responding to the multitude of actions, rationales, values, dependencies, knowledge imperfections, uncertainties and many other characteristics that are subject to social interaction. We argue that the key lies within the identification of incentives for the stakeholders of a supply chain to alter or leverage their habits in favor of adaptation to GCC. Incentives for Change Adaptation means to change. However, people are unlikely to change their habitual patterns unless they absolutely must or perceive substantial advantages in doing so. If not, however, people require incentives to change their behavior (Liverani, 2009). We state that incentives must be tailored to the specific needs and haves of people along a supply chain to potentially alter their behavioral patterns in favor of adaptation to GCC impacts. However complicating the situation, people along a food supply system will inherently be different. Stakeholders pursue distinct objectives, have

15 particular rationale to do so and face individual obstacles which may prevent them from achieving their goals. Hence, shaping incentives for adaptation requires comprehensive knowledge about the people involved. People (Actors) Food supply systems are built on perceptions of human beings who, consciously or unconsciously, make decisions and interact. Perceptions, in turn, are built upon values which can comprise anything individuals consider as important (Adger et al., 2008). Corresponding to these values, people form groups of interest and organizations which, in a supply chain, form complex networks of stakeholders. For these reasons, adaptation to GCC at the chain-inclusive level has to be responsive to its stakeholders. However, it is not necessary, and even less effective, to address all the people and entities in a supply chain with adaptation measures. To simplify the process, decision makers should rather focus on key actors within the system. Key actors are people, groups or entities who fit with one or more of three relevant attributes. They either need change, want change and/or they can facilitate change in terms of adaptation to GCC. Logically, the more attributes a stakeholder fulfills, the higher their ranking to be addressed first by adaptation strategies. Behaviour (Action) Participants of a supply chain perform different actions and action cycles to generate values. Most repetitive patterns of actions are then likely to transform into habits and eventually shape behavior (Pratkanis & Breckler, 1989). Like the identification of key stakeholders, decision makers cannot afford to spend time on evaluation of redundant behavior in the context 15 of chain-inclusive adaptation. For sakes of simplicity, three types of behaviors are identified as adaptation-relevant: 1. Positive, adaptation-enabling behavior which is available or institutionalized in a system 2. Negative, adaptation-obstructing behavior which is available or institutionalized in a system 3. Adaptive behavior required in a system Type 1 behavioral traits are points of leverage since they can support change and potentially resilience along a supply chain or parts of it. Decision makers should simply focus on endurance of these traits. Behavior types 2 and 3 themselves are subject to change. Although they seem to be each other s complement, type 3 behavior might also appear independently, whenever required patterns cannot be realized by simple conversion from negative to positive behavioral structures. For both cases, however, adaptation strategies will need to identify incentives to drop out of negative or inhibiting action cycles. Institutions (Mediation of Action) Institutions can be seen as systems of established and prevalent social rules that structure social interactions (Hodgson, 2006). They can be of tangible (entities, structures, laws, etc ) and/or non-tangible nature (values, norms, etc ) and help people anticipate behavior within a system. Therefore, institutions arrange and mediate social interaction and build the groundwork for behavior. As such, they build the frame within which people s actions take place and limit their options of behavior and change. On the other hand, institutions provide a platform for behavior to take place and enable action within the rules and

16 structures of the system (Hodgson, 2006; Vermeulen, Woodhill, Proctor, & Delnoye, 2008). Figure 13: People, Institutions and Behavior (adapted from Woodhill, 2008)Error! Reference source not found. summarizes the interrelation between actors (stakeholders), action, (behavior) mediation of action (institutions) and incentives. People are guided by values to engage in taking actions which eventually become behavioral patterns. These traits are mediated by institutions i.e. stable installations such as rules and norms and can confirm or undermine these institutions. Latter, in turn, create incentives which draw back on decision making processes of people (Vermeulen et al., 2008; Woodhill, 2008). The graph outlined above visualizes the role of behavior in the context of adaptation to GCC impacts. Clearly, adaptive behavior is a substantial component of adaptive capacities since it determines to a large extent the motivation to engage in change. In the long run, it also holds the opportunity to shape institutions and create incentives for change. Empirical Examples Although action cycles in supply chain GTM 1 are clearly determined, the system is open for adaptation. The local NGO supports this attitude by giving incentives to increase 16 engagement in adaptation. On the contrary, farmers in GTM 2 (no NGO assistance) rely on inputs provided by intermediaries, which strongly constrains their adaptive behavior. Supply chain COL 1 also reported incentives given by local NGOs. The legalization of the farmer s market and facilitation of marketing support, among others, the farmers desire to improve their situation. In the open market system of COL 2, the power is institutionalized at the intermediary level. This fact, in combination with low professionalism among the farmers creates a negative effect on their motivation to change. For supply chain COL 3 our results report clever adaptive behavior patterns. Producers actively engage in adaptation through the farmer s market, while still maintaining their current marketing channels through the intermediary system. Jamaica scores relatively poor adaptive behaviour patterns. Our investigation indicates that key buyers such as hotels and restaurants do not recognize farmers as competitive suppliers. Also, a short-term mindset is prevalent at farm level. Opportunistic inputs supply by public institutions fosters this adaptationhindering attitude. FACTS AND FINDINGS Adaptive behavior is a key attribute of adaptive capacities. Adaptation strategies foremost have to address key actors. Key actors are people who need, want and/or facilitate change. Decision makers must firstly focus on adaptation-relevant types of behavior. Institutions create incentives and mediate behavior.

17 7. The Framework Although we have discussed the aforementioned pillars separately, the three components weave in and out with one another, forming a multidimensional framework within which adaptation strategies are thought to operate (Figure 14). Global climate change adversely affects crops and, in a second phase, the people and entities who directly or indirectly depend on them. In a food supply chain these stakeholders are linked and interact through different value creation processes. Vulnerability to GCC impacts can spread out. Institutions carry these processes, since they are reflected as repetitive actions in people s behavior. These action cycles in turn require resources in form of assets. When GCC threatens the natural environment of agricultural systems, embedded resources will also suffer. At the same time these assets will also have to support adaptation measures and maintain the resilience of value creation by feeding process owners in organizational networks with vital inputs. The green lines in Figure 14 highlight some of these complex interdependencies. The outlined framework highlights adaptation hot spots, identifies the haves and needs of a system in the context of adaptation to GCC impacts and helps understand the interdependence among its components. Thus, it provides a comprehensive situation assessment which is necessary to build adaptation strategies upon. In other words, the interplay between its components gives the opportunity to filter out specific incentives to spark engagement in adaptation at different levels. Figure 14: Interdependence of framework components 17

18 Building Adaptation Strategies within the Framework Adaptation strategies are concepts designed to achieve a goal in the context of building adaptive capacities and/or implementing adaptation practices (Hinterhuber, 1996; Nelson, Adger, & Brown, 2007). Accordingly, we propose that the aforementioned incentives must form the central objective to be pursued by strategies that address adaptation to GCC impacts. This is because a need for adaptation does not necessarily materialize in the required modification of a situation. People might lack motives or capacities, face cognitive obstacles, have different perceptions, or associate uncertainties with change, all factors which inhibit engagement in adaptation (REF). Therefore, it is the duty of decision makers to tailor incentives for change to the people involved and to the situation in which they find themselves. Adaptation strategies to GCC impacts can then be framed using following template (Figure 15): Figure 15: Building adaptation strategies from comprehensive situation assessment The starting point is the formulation of an objective in the form of incentives which are targeted to the situation assessed in prior analyses of supply chain characteristics, vulnerability to GCC and behavioral traits. Outlined incentives must then be juxtaposed to available and required means to see whether implementation is viable. Based on this information, suggestions for the next steps can be derived. At this stage, it is important to include potential enablers and obstacles in the strategy formulation, since they can substantially influence the prospects of success. Situational Patterns Our research revealed patterns of situations in the context of adaptation based on the outlined interdependence of framework components (Figure 14). Needs for adaptation to GCC impacts will likely be higher at producer level than for other stakeholders in a food supply chain. This has been confirmed by the six supply chains under investigation. Hence, incentives must target how non-producer participants are affected when farmers are hit by GCC. Mere supply of inputs (e.g. fertilizers) to farmers inhibits necessary adaptive behaviors which might tackle GCC impacts on the long term. In the supply chains of Jamaica and GTM 2 such arm s length principles locked farmers into action cycles depending on input supply. Value chain COL 1 (farmer s market) revealed that new supply systems can emerge when: o there is a high need for adaptation throughout a substantial population of producers and o intermediaries in a free market system misuse their institutionalized power, and o suppressed producers incorporate a positive attitude to change. 18

19 In open market systems the highly sensitive supply bases -i.e. farmers- with little means to adapt are likely to become victims to the policies of more powerful players. Supply chain COL 2 reported the disproportionate organizational capacities to fortify and institutionalize power imbalances which can inhibit chain-wide adaptation. FACTS AND FINDINGS Adaptation strategies must be aimed at incentives which are based on comprehensive situation assessment. Incentives must be tailored to situations and the people affected by it. The outlining process of adaptation strategies must pay special attention to enablers and obstacles. 8. This Framework as a roadmap We propose following step sequence to use this framework: 1. Define the playing field: Identification of crops (products), main actors and processes as well as consumers and markets is the necessary first step to understand where and at what scale adaptation can potentially take place. 2. Get briefed by key players: Detection and approach of key actors in the supply system efficiently allows to: i. Understand structures, dynamics and resilience patterns along the chain ii. Sketch out people s perception, important behavioral traits and the mediating institutions like cultural norms and powerful entities iii. Locate important stakeholders as points of leverage for adaptation Focus the situation: Precise assessment of crop exposure to GCC and its impacts on the rural livelihoods, food supply and stakeholders depending on it permits exact analysis of the challenges to be faced. In combination with detailed evaluation of adaptive behavior and profound supply chain analysis, this method provides indispensable information about where adaptation to GCC is needed and where counteracting measures are feasible. 4. Outline response measures: Assessed information then must be translated into incentive-focused adaptation strategies in order to discharge a specific situation or population from GCC impacts. This conceptualization process should concentrate on answering following questions: o What can be done by what means? o Which incentives can ignite chaininclusive adaptation? o What enablers and what obstacles are there to influence the implementation of these incentives? 5. Troubleshoot: Implement, measure, revise and integrate adaptation strategies in practice. Scale-up what works. 9. Conclusions Comprehensive situation assessment helps put chain-inclusive adaptation strategies on solid ground. The framework which we introduced in this report fulfills this purpose by incorporating methodologies and analyses from the fields of business, climatology, geography and sociology. Independently from scale, crop and site outlined chain-inclusive adaptation framework facilitates both to respond effectively to GCC and help locate and patch resilience gaps throughout the system. The practical application of highlighted

20 assessment methods will likely remain a challenge for decision makers. Nevertheless, they provide substantial support to decrease the complexity that the problem of GCC impacts on food supply chains brings about. 10. Further Reading Case Study Reports Colombia: Impact of climate change on Bogotá s food security and smallholder s livelihoods Jamaica: Impact of climate change on Jamaican hotel industry supply chains and on farmer s livelihoods Guatemala: Vulnerability Assessment of Frozen Vegetable Value-chain to Climate Change Methodology reports Adaptation by agricultural communities to climate change through participatory & supply chain inclusive management Gender Reports The impact of climate change on men and women 11. References Adger, W. N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D. R., et al. (2008). Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change, 93(3-4), Springer. doi: /s z. Christopher, M. (1998). Logistics & Supply Chain Management. London: Pitmans. Downing, J. (2006). GLOBALIZATION AND THE SMALL FIRM : A VALUE CHAIN APPROACH TO ECONOMIC GROWTH GLOBALIZATION AND THE SMALL FIRM. Development, (February). Grothmann, T., & Patt, A. (2005). Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change Part A, 15(3), Elsevier. doi: /j.gloenvcha Hinkel, J. (2011)., Indicators- of vulnerability and adaptive capacity : Towards a clarification of the science-policy interface. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), doi: doi: DOI: /j.gloenvcha Hinterhuber, H. H. (1996). Strategische Unternehmensführung - Band 1. Walter de Gruyter. Hodgson, G. M. (2006). What are institutions. Journal of Economic Issues, XL(1), Citeseer. Retrieved from G=Search&q=intitle:What+Are+Institutions?#0. Liverani, A. (2009). Climate Change and Individual Behavior: Considerations for Policy. World Development, (September 2009). The World Bank. Retrieved from ml. Marsden, T., Banks, J., & Bristow, G. (2000). Food Supply Chain Approaches: Exploring their Role in Rural Development. Rural Sociology, 40(4), Wiley Online Library. doi: / McCarthy, J. J., Canziani, O. F., Leary, N. A., Dokken, D. J., & White, K. S. (2001). Contribution of Working Group IIto th third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (B. Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart, & J. Pan, Eds.) (p. 1000). Cambridge University Press, UK. Nelson, D. R., Adger, W. N., & Brown, K. (2007). Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a Resilience Framework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 20

21 32(1), Annual Reviews. doi: /annurev.energy Peck, H. (2005). Drivers of supply chain vulnerability: an integrated framework. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 35(4), Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi: / Pratkanis, A. R., & Breckler, S. J. (1989). Attitude Structure and Function. Attitude structure and function. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vermeulen, S., Woodhill, J., Proctor, F., & Delnoye, R. (2008). Chain-Wide Learning for Inclusive Agrifood Market Development: A guide to multi-stakeholder processes for linking smallscale producers to modern markets (pp ). International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and Wageningen University and Research Centre. Retrieved from rces/global/chain_wide_learning_guide_for_in clusive_agrifood_market_development. Woodhill, J. (2008). Shaping behaviour. The Broker, (10), 4-8. doi: /eb