Page 55 - FAO-IPCC Expert meeting on climate change

Policies for land use, sustainable food production and consumption and climate action
33
In many parts of Africa, a large proportion of food production originates from smallholders.50 Agriculture in Africa, however, is changing and as is observed in several countries that are reinvesting in agricultural land, large-scale farming
is expanding. The patterns of migration are also altering rural areas, raising the question of demographics in the future
in the face of good planning. While there are huge trade-offs from the status quo (i.e. ensuring that people remain in agriculture), would it be better to have them transition to other occupations? Some policy examples have shown the benefits of transitioning, at least in the short term. A further example occurs in China, where farmers seek complementary employment. Here, while farmers are able to make their own decisions, the land does not belong to them; rather, it belongs to the government. Many farmers experience land tenure issues due to the land being publicly owned.
The resilience of poor farmers to climate change and climate extremes depends largely on the integration of agriculture to other sectors to reduce economic damage of harvest failure at the household level. Policies need to address employment transition to offer alternative employment and study means to ensure livelihoods. Another important element of a pro-poor policy is the emphasis on economic aspects at the sub-farm level, to ensure the participation and empowerment of women and youth.
5.3.1 Integrated, cross-sectoral, multi-objectives policies are more effective
Socio-economic policies that assist smallholders to strengthen their resilience to climate change must be comprehensive, cross-sectoral (i.e. crops, livestock, forestry) and multi-objective (i.e. mitigation, adaptation, food security). To be effective, such policies should also be cross-scale to acknowledge fully that the relevant stakeholders and the trade-offs vary across scales, requiring actors to operate at these different scales, from local to global. One policy may be effective in one
sector but not in another, an example being forestry and agriculture. Another example is that the underlying land tenure structure differs for crop farmers and mobile livestock farms, creating a policy dilemma given that one policy may be quite effective under one land tenure regime but not the other.
There is a fragmentation between adaptation and mitigation occurring in climate policy. The result is that policies relating to plantations for carbon do not incorporate food security objectives across sectors. It is not always necessary to look only for policies with multiple-win outcomes. But if it can be achieved cost effectively then it is worth pursuing. An example
is given from Burkina Faso, West Africa, related to deforestation. Here, the people − aside from cereal growing − usually leave food-producing trees in what is referred to as a parkland, where the trees are protected beyond the forest. This ultimately becomes a significantly important safety net. The policy becomes even more important when taking into account the shea butter that is produced by the trees and the resulting sequestration of carbon. A drawback, however,
is the fact that the trees end up felled once the land has been settled. On the positive side, the policy gender aspect is strengthened by the opportunity women have to sell the shea butter, providing an incentive to protect those trees beyond forest areas.
Cropland albedo management (e.g. through mulching, no-till farming or the selection of cultivars with higher reflectivity) is a recommended practice with potential win-win outcomes (i.e. adaptation and mitigation). Modelling studies demonstrate that a switch to no-till farming increases albedo, resulting in a decrease in temperature during heat waves.51 No-till farming can therefore strengthen resilience and help farmers cope with increased variability in climate and yield (adaptation) while providing some climate mitigation benefits through soil carbon sequestration. Policy design, therefore, should consider such local biophysical effects in an effort to identify win-win outcomes.
Policy objectives may result in contradictory outcomes between food security and mitigation and thus prioritization should be at the sectoral level with harmonization taking effect at national level. National mitigation strategies, particularly with reference to the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions following COP21, provide such a case. Policy framed
at the national cross-sectoral level may be more effective than that formulated on a sector-by-sector basis. An overall national mitigation strategy can call for a higher sequestration of emissions in agriculture − with food security as a
higher priority − if other sectors take responsibility for the heavy lifting. For example, Brazil calculates that agriculture
may increase emissions if bioenergy achieves the GHG savings objective. The challenge is that this type of inter-sectoral planning requires a high degree of integration across various sectors whose planners tend to work within line ministries. For many countries, this remains a major policy coordination challenge that needs redress through improved climate policy and governance.
Samberg et al. (2016). Davin et al. (2014).
50 51
FAO-IPCC Expert meeting on climate change, land use and food security