Search

The ongoing climate crisis is significantly impacting the livelihoods of millions of farmers worldwide. Despite various efforts, many climate adaptation projects have struggled to yield the desired results. What determines the success or failure of these projects? Utilizing Qualitative Comparative Analysis, we delve into the intricate connections among climate patterns, resilience, and adaptation initiatives. Through a case study of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) program, we aim to discern critical factors contributing to success or failure. Our findings underscore the importance of integrating climate trends into adaptation strategies, which fosters a deeper comprehension of climate-related risks and bolsters the resilience of smallholder farmers. Notably, no single factor can solely account for success; rather, it is the combined presence or synergy of multiple factors that drive effective adaptation interventions. Key elements include adept project management, improved institutional coordination, scalability of interventions, bolstering beneficiaries’ coping mechanisms, and fostering innovation. It is the harmonious interplay of these components that paves the way for successful outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Structural and rural transformation in a country are intricately linked to food system outcomes. Structural transformation captures a country's level of dependence on agriculture, while rural transformation captures the productivity in the agricultural sector. Specifically, the agri-food system and employment transitions accompany country transformations and shape the spatial distribution of populations by influencing where people live, work and eat, all of which closely relate to food system transitions. We create a food systems index (FSI) capturing a rich set of drivers established in the literature. Using country level data from 85 low and middle-income countries (LMIC's), we analyse the linkages between food system, structural and rural transformations as well as spatial population distributions. We also analyse a large number of policy relevant variables using machine-learning methodology to shed light on patterns related to institutions, female empowerment, infrastructure and health. Our analysis indicates that rural-dominant countries in the lowest FSI group will see their youth populations more than double in the next 30 years, indicating that their food system investments today will affect one third of global youth in the future. Medium FSI countries need to invest more in the semi-rural and peri-urban areas. We find that structural transformation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for desirable food system outcomes. Rural transformation by itself without structural transformation is not enough either. For LMIC's, broad development interventions such as financial and digital connectivity as well as women's empowerment loom more important than narrowly focused interventions regarding progress in the food system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Food systems must serve different societal, public health and individual nutrition, and environmental objectives and therefore face numerous challenges. Considering the integrated performances of food systems, this paper highlights five fundamental paradigm shifts that are required to overcome trade-offs and build synergies between health and nutrition, inclusive livelihoods, environmental sustainability and food system resilience. We focus on the challenges to raise policy ambitions, to harmonize production and consumption goals, to improve connectivity between them, to strengthen food system performance and to anchor the governance of food systems in inclusive policies and participatory institutions. Taken together, these shifts in paradigms shape a new discourse for food system transformation that will be capable to respond to current and future policy challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change is imposing a transformative process on agricultural and food systems, threatening the livelihoods of people dependent upon them which includes a large share of the world's poor people. Transformative adaptation that addresses the risks and vulnerabilities to livelihoods that climate change imposes is essential for effective and inclusive transformation of food systems. Financing that is adequate, accessible and appropriate is essential to realizing these objectives. Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) are already playing an important role in financing transformative adaptation in the agri-food sector and are well-placed to address some of the existing shortcomings. Expanding public sector climate finance and incentivizing private sector investments is needed to attain adequate levels of financing. Reconsidering the rules and procedures for obtaining public sector finance and the capacity to utilize already existent administrative structures, as well as better targeting of activities and communities is important for accessibility. Appropriate finance requires use of mechanisms that address characteristics of the investment, including riskiness, delayed returns, high social values and new and unproven activities. Utilizing blended finance integrated with development finance can generate financing appropriate to the investment needs. Some positive shifts in these directions are already being undertaken by MDBs but more is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we seek to identify where the greatest potential for synergies between carbon sequestration and poverty alleviation lie and ways they can be enhanced. We assess the amount and eligibility criteria of sequestration payment sources to developing countries. Many land-use changes accessible to low-income land users are potentially competitive in a market where payments are likely to range between between $11 to $15 per carbon ton sequestered. We present a conceptual framework of land-use decision-making to assess the potential for sequestration adoption among the poor. The determinants of adoption vary according to the impact of adoption on the returns to productive factors in the absence of any payment for sequestration. Where sequestration leads to a decrease in returns, the key determinant is the return to sequestration and labor, which are driven by the potential sequestration supply per unit land area and labor-use requirements. When sequestration adoption leads to an increase in returns, barriers to land-use change are present, which is frequently the case for the poor. Adoption is determined by the capacity of sequestration payments to overcome constraints. Barrier removal may involve designing payments to overcome risk or investment constraints, or wider institutional reform. Sequestration values may be insufficient to cover costs of institutional reform, requiring incorporation into wider development programs. A survey of results from empirical studies lend support to the analysis. We conclude with an assessment of transaction cost impacts on sequestration adoption among the poor, and how these can be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]