Introduction

In the twentieth century, significant increases in agricultural productivity were achieved under the banner of the so-called 'Green Revolution'. Through monocropping and an increased use of pesticides and fertilizers, crop yields around the world steadily rose. This progress, however, was made at a significant cost. Soil qualities were degraded, biodiversity reduced and pest resistance diminished. At the same time, increased pesticide and fertilizer pollution in soils and groundwater put both the environment and human health at risk (IFAD 2012b). 1

Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is not yet another reincarnation of the ‘Green Revolution’. To the contrary, CSA has much in common with sustainable agricultural approaches. This means that addressing climate change does not require us to discard or reinvent everything that has been learned about agriculture and sustainable development in recent decades (ibid). In fact, CSA is built upon a technical foundation that largely already exists and a range of sustainable agricultural approaches - such as sustainable agriculture, sustainable intensification and conservation agriculture - are the cornerstones of implementing CSA in practice.

So how does CSA differ from sustainable agriculture? This boils down to three essential features: (i) an explicit focus on climate change; (ii) the search for synergies and negotiation of trade-offs in the pursuit of productivity, adaptation and mitigation outcomes in a broader landscape or system perspective; and (iii) the availability of new funding opportunities for agricultural development.

The three big differences

i) A focus on climate change: Like other sustainable agricultural approaches, CSA is based on principles of increased productivity and sustainability. But it is distinguished by a focus on climate change, explicitly addressing adaptation and mitigation challenges while working towards food security for all. In essence, CSA is sustainable agriculture that incorporates resilience concerns while at the same time seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

CSA = Sustainable Agriculture + Resilience – Emissions.

ii) Outcomes, synergies and trade-offs: To develop interventions that simultaneously meet the three challenges of productivity, adaptation and mitigation, CSA must not only focus on technologies and practices, but also on the outcomes of interventions beyond the farm level. In doing so, it must consider the synergies and trade-offs that exist between productivity, adaptation and mitigation, as well as the interactions that occur at different levels including wider socio-ecological implications. For instance, CSA interventions at the farm/community level may affect both the social and ecological systems in place, as well as the wider landscape. Likewise, a CSA intervention that aims to increase productivity should also consider how it affects adaptation and mitigation, and how it can best optimize all three outcomes at the most appropriate level. All of this requires farmers and decision-makers to understand the synergies and trade-offs that exist between the three pillars and between different levels. To help people make informed decisions - from the farm to parliament - CSA focuses on developing metrics and prioritization tools that bring these synergies and trade-offs to the fore.

iii) New funding opportunities: Currently, there is an enormous deficit in the investment that is required to meet food security. By explicitly focusing on climate change, CSA opens up new funding opportunities for agricultural development, by allowing the sector to tap into climate finance for adaptation and mitigation. This includes funding from, among others, the Adaptation Fund, the Least Developed Countries Fund or the Special Climate Fund, as well as the Clean Development Mechanism and the Voluntary Carbon Market. Most promising of all is the earmarked allocation which has been made specifically for CSA by the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund (GEF) and the future Green Climate Fund.