Changes to productivity can be measured in different ways. The most common approach is to measure yields. Yield measurement techniques vary between crops, and range from weighing harvested grain from the entire field to weighing representative samples from a plot area after plants have reached physiological maturity (Lauer 2002:1). There are also many mathematical approaches for computing basic yield.

Productivity measurements can also be expanded to include food security indicators such as calorie availability, poverty indicators, and availability of dietary diversity.

Improving the nutritional relevance of food security measurement means using indicators that capture both macro- and micronutrient consumption, that can be measured at the individual level, and that give some sense of acute food insecurity (such as seasonal shortfalls or consumption shocks).

Examples of indicators used to measure productivity include:

• Yield (e.g. product per unit of land, water, energy, nutrients, labour)
• Income (e.g. gross margin, net present value)
• Labour (e.g. person hours, labour allocations by gender)

Additional indicators to measure food security include:

• Per capita food consumption in terms of e.g. calories, protein, dietary diversity
• Food deficits, such as number of hungry months
• Food prices
• Percentage of income spent on food
• Children’s nutritional status ( e.g. upper arm measurements to indicate wasting or stunting)

For mitigation, the UNFCCC has well-established protocols for measurement. These are classified as:

• Tier 1 (reference approach): The simplest approach, which uses IPCC default emission factors and requires the most basic and least disaggregated activity data.
• Tier 2 and Tier 3 (sectorial approaches): Different methods can be used to estimate emissions or removals from most source and sink categories. The selection of a particular method will depend on the desired degree of estimation detail, the availability of activity data and emission factors, and the financial and human resources available to complete the inventory (UNFCCC, 2009). The difference between Tiers 2 and 3 is mainly an increase in the degree of detail required by the method.

Work that is more recent seeks to devise cost-effective measurement approaches for smallholder farmer landscapes. These include theStandard Assessment of Mitigation Potential and Livelihoods in Smallholder Systems (SAMPLES) program, which provides guidance for measuring emissions from smallholder systems. GHG calculators such as Cool Farm Tool, Ex-Act Tool, and SHAMBA Tool etc. also allow users to measure mitigation outcomes.

Examples of indicators used to measure mitigation include:

• Emissions of methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide from all agricultural sources including energy, soils
• Removals and accumulation of carbon in biomass and soils
• Changes in land use, particularly conversion of high C land uses such as forests and peatland
• Fuel wood consumption
• Biofuel use

Measuring adaptation, adaptive capacity and resilience is complicated. They tend to be measured in terms of attributes of the system (rather than as outcomes for farms and people). Context-specificity is important – for example, a more diverse system may be more adaptive in many cases, but not always.

Examples of indicators used to measure adaptation and resilience include:

Social indicators

• Access to capitals (financial, human, social/political, physical, natural)
• Access to services (particularly climate information services)
• Level of skills, knowledge and access to extension on climate change
• Diversity in livelihoods and income sources
• Market access (for food, agricultural inputs and agricultural product markets)
• Gender equity (e.g. labour, income differences)

Biophysical indicators

• Biodiversity (e.g. Shannon, N %)
• Pests/pathogens (e.g. % loss, damage rates)
• Erosion/Soil loss (e.g. kg/ha)
• Soil quality (e.g. changes in C, N, soil water balance, etc.)

Economic indicators

• Income levels
• Savings
• Access to credit
• Land rights/tenure
• Access to insurance
• Proportion of income from climate-prone sources

Institutional indicators

• Enabling policy and regulation environment
• Incentive systems
• Subsidies (directed away from maladaptive practices towards resilience practices)
• Safety net schemes
• Early warning systems and disaster recovery strategies

“The capacity to manage plan, implement, and monitor climate finance and activities related to climate change is a condition known as climate readiness” (Wollenberg et al. 2015). 1 Climate readiness in the agricultural sector is highly variable, and indicators for climate readiness can provide guidance to implementers and investors to target their efforts. Drawing upon some experience from REDD+ readiness, Wollenberg et al. (2015) 1 has provided examples of climate readiness indicators across five work areas. These include (examples only, see Wollenberg et al. 1 for full list):

Effective governance and stakeholder engagement:

• Lead ministry or inter-ministerial body designated to manage and coordinate climate-ready activities with clear decision-making processes and transparency.
• Institutional roles are clear in agencies and local jurisdictions.
• Platforms exist for stakeholder engagement and consultation, including the private sector and ensuring the inclusion of affected and vulnerable groups, such as smallholders, indigenous groups and women.

Knowledge base and information services:

• Classification exists of current agricultural production systems related to adaptation needs and mitigation opportunities.
• Identification of options and priorities for CSA, including reducing agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is consistent with agricultural development objectives.
• Climate information services are available and accessible to farmers and other agricultural decision makers.
• Social and environmental impacts of CSA anticipated before programs are scaled up, particularly for vulnerable groups in agriculture assessed.

Climate-smart agriculture strategy and implementation framework:

• Agreed-upon vision and goals exist for the agricultural sector that balance food security, adaptation and mitigation and help meet United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
• Identification of priority interventions, geographic areas and potential reductions in vulnerability and emissions exists.
• Cost-benefit analysis of program options exists to inform business viability and finance needs.
• CSA mainstreamed into predominant agricultural programs.

National and sub-national capabilities to develop sustainable CSA infrastructure and investment strategies and practices:

• Rural credit is available for CSA practices.
• Capacity exists to support access to seed banks and make adapted seeds available to farmers.
• Private sector and rural farmers’ organizations, including women and youth groups, support innovation, learning and implementation.

National information system for monitoring and accounting in agriculture:

• Criteria and measureable indicators for resilience, climate change mitigation and productivity or food security identified.
• Monitoring systems for climate threats and vulnerability assessments exist.
• National system in place to measure, monitor, report and verify GHG emissions and multiple-benefit indicators relevant for agriculture, in coordination with other monitoring activities.

The Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP) uses 10 specific and measurable indicators to evaluate programme progress. These indicators are (IFAD 2012a, p. 16): 2

• # of poor smallholder household members whose climate resilience has been increased because of ASAP disaggregated by sex.
• % of new investments in ENRM in IFAD 9th Replenishment compared to IFAD 8th Replenishment.
• Leverage ratio of ASAP grants versus non ASAP financing
• % increase in number of non-invasive on farm plant species per smallholder farm supported
• # of tonnes of GHG emissions (CO2e) avoided and/or sequestered
• # increase in hectares of land managed under climate resilient practices
• % change in water use efficiency by men and women
• # of community groups involved in ENRM and/or DRR formed or strengthened
• $ value of new or existing rural infrastructure made climate-resilient
• # of international and country dialogues where IFAD or IFAD-supported partners make an active contribution

These indicators have been identified based on ASAP goals, purpose, and outcomes and helps measure progress towards 2020 targets. While selecting projects for funding, ASAP evaluates their potential contribution towards these indicators. For selected projects, as part of project monitoring process, the progress to these indicators is measured and thereafter aggregated globally.

The CSA working group of the World Business Council is developing the Corporate CSA measurement protocol for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), with technical support from CCAFS. The protocol envisages the identification and assembly of the most appropriate tools and methodologies to measure progress under each CSA pillar, under an over-arching framework. Currently in the conceptual stage, the protocol considers various approaches to measurement under each pillar at the site/business-unit level. These are outlined below:

Pillar 1: Productivity

In addition to measuring yield metrics, this pillar focuses on collection of additional metrics such as earnings and incomes among smallholder suppliers and wider rural populations to understand the contributions to food security and livelihood goals.

Pillar 2: Climate change resilience, incomes & livelihoods

Under this pillar, companies are considering two approaches to measurement. One involves establishing a theory of change that identifies a plausible chain of causality of how CSA interventions build resilience. The other approach involves calculating a “climate smartness factor” for these interventions, and calculating the overall resilience by combining the climate smartness factor together with adoption of these interventions.

Pillar 3: Climate Change Mitigation

The protocol envisages measuring changes in greenhouse gas emissions per area (CO2e per ha) or per product (CO2e per kg) for different activities at the site or business unit levels. Tools including GHG calculators such as the Cool Farm Tool, Small-Holder Agriculture Monitoring and Baseline Assessment (SHAMBA) Tool, EX-ACT Tool, and CCAFS-MOT will be considered for measuring these changes.

Further reading

• WBCSD. 2015. Climate Smart Agriculture. http://www.wbcsd.org/Projects/Climate-Smart-Agriculture/News/Agri-business-Leaders-climate-smart-at-COP21-make-50-more-food-reduce-agricultural-emissions-50-2030

Background and purpose

The World Bank is currently developing a set of indicators on climate-smart agriculture with the tentative aim to provide policymakers and development practitioners with a framework for implementing the necessary policy, technical, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework to make CSA fully operational. The framework will help decision-makers prioritize strategies and interventions that most effectively lead to more climate friendly outcomes.

Use and users

The World Bank CSA indicators are currently conceived as three sets of indexes: one on policy, one on technology and practices, and one on results. The three indexes are based on a theory of change, which describes the “impact pathways” through which project outcomes are arrived at.

The CSA Policy Index (CSA Policy) comprises three themes. Readiness refers to the capacity of countries to plan and deliver adaptation, mitigation, disaster risk and land rights policies and programs in ways that are catalytic and fully integrated with national agricultural development priorities. Services and Infrastructure, reflects the ability to leverage agricultural investments through the provision of services and enabling environment such as extension, research and development, roads, social safety nets, GHG inventory and risk management systems, and support for starting agribusinesses. Coordination and Implementation, assesses collaboration between agricultural institutions and agencies in related fields such as environment, and the extent to which adaption and mitigation are mainstreamed in agricultural programs.

The CSA Technology and Practices Index (CSA Technology) comprises three themes: Productivity (P), Resilience (R), and Mitigation (M). Ex-ante application of the index reveals how project interventions can lead to productivity gains and environmental benefits. It is particularly useful in identifying the most appropriate technologies for a CSA project during its planning and design stages.

The CSA Results Index is intended to help project leaders measure an agricultural project’s performance towards achieving the CSA triple-wins individually and jointly. It can be applied to monitor progress during a CSA project’s implementation and to evaluate impacts once the project has closed. It affords project planners substantial flexibility in customizing a CSA intervention according to the specific context in which it will operate.

Link

• Presentation at the CSA Conference in Montpellier, France, April 2015, http://csa2015.cirad.fr/var/csa2015/storage/fckeditor/file/L2.1e.CSA%20Indicators%20EmenanjoL.pdf

For more information, please contact Ademola Braimoh, World Bank, abraimoh@worldbank.org

Background and purpose

A fundamental requirement for operationalizing CSA is understanding (1) which climate risks can be addressed by CSA;(2) how changing from “conventional” to “CSA” management practices changes farm-level outcomes in terms of productivity, resilience and climate change mitigation; and (3) how both these risks and outcomes are expected to change under climate change. Unfortunately little empirical evidence has been put forth to systematically evaluate CSA. For these reasons the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) are attempting to unpack the CSA concept in a systematic through a quantitative meta-analysis of the published scientific literature to date on CSA practices. The objective of meta-analysis is to combine the available information to (1) map where there is evidence and where there is not and (2) synthesize the information to answer key questions for decision makers, in this case program developers/implementers, policy makers, and investors.

Use and users

The review is based on data found in English-language peer-reviewed journals with searches using terms relevant to CSA practices and outcomes. Promising practices identified as potentially CSA were organized into five general themes: agronomy, agroforestry, livestock and aquaculture, postharvest management, and energy systems. Under these themes, 73 practices were selected. For each outcome of CSA, there are many dimensions and potential indicators that can be measured. For example, increased food security may result from changes in availability of food (e.g. increased yield), accessibility of food (e.g. increased income), utilization of food (e.g. increased food safety) or stability (less variable harvests) (FAO 2002). Similarly, mitigation benefits can come from emission reductions, enhanced removal of GHGs, or future emissions avoided through adoption of CSA technologies (Smith et al 2008). A comprehensive list of indicators were selected to represent the range of economic, environmental, and social impacts possible and desired from CSA practices (see Rosenstock et al. forthcoming). Data are currently organized in Microsoft Excel workbooks, however, the resulting data will be compiled into a searchable Web-based database and analytical engine.

Link

• Poster at the 3rd Global Science Conference on CSA, Montpellier, France http://www.slideshare.net/cgiarclimate/panacea-orpropogandaposterreduced

For more information, please contact Todd Rosenstock, CCAFS, t.rosenstock@cgiar.org