1

Climate Change and Agricultural Communities in the Greater Mekong Subregion: A Framework for Assessing Climate Vulnerability and Adaptation Options at the

Community Level

DRAFT NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

I. Introduction

Climate change will have a significant impact on the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS)1 --both in terms of economic growth and human development. Many key sectors which underline the economies, particularly agriculture which majority is rain-fed system, are directly under influence of climate pattern and people‟s livelihoods in the GMS are dependent on climate-sensitive natural resources including forests, water resources, biodiversity and other ecosystem services. Increasing weather variability, extreme weather events, and shifts in rainfall patterns and agricultural zones as a result of climate change are likely to put pressures on this natural capital base of the GMS and amplify adverse impacts on dependent poor communities. Climate change responses are increasingly integrated into activities of the Core Environment Program and Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Initiative (CEP-BCI) of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). CEP-BCI has supported the GMS countries to achieve the shared vision of a “poverty-free and ecologically rich GMS” by mainstreaming sound environmental practices within key economic growth sectors and geographic landscapes. Within this context, CEP-BCI aims to build capacity in the GMS to assess climate change risk and vulnerability, develop mitigation and adaptation strategies, and institutionalize climate change considerations into policy and planning. In 2010, CEP-BCI completed a study on biodiversity, food security, water resources and livelihoods in the GMS.2 The study identified impacts of climate change on agriculture and rural livelihoods as a major issue which needs to be better understood through an appropriate assessment methodology. Specifically, while there have been many regional- and national-level studies on the potential -threats of climate change on the GMS, there is still a need for local-level assessments which translate long-term, large-scale climate projections into an improved understanding of climate risk and vulnerability at the sectoral and community levels. As adaptation to climate change is site-specific, local-level assessments are also needed to help identify context-appropriate adaptation options and guide adaptation investments. To address the knowledge gap, CEP-BCI undertook a study to develop and test a participatory methodology to assess climate vulnerability and identify potential adaptation options in agricultural communities in the GMS. The framework was also designed to support mainstreaming of climate change adaptation in broader development planning at the community level. The assessment framework was applied at selected Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Initiative (BCI) pilot sites in Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam in 2011-2012.

1 The GMS countries are Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, and People‟s Republic of China

(Yunnan and Guangxi Provinces). 2 ADB and Murdoch University (2010). “Risks and Adaptation to Climate Change in BCI Pilot Sites in PRC,

Thailand and Viet Nam”, Final consultant report for TA 6289 (REG): Greater Mekong Subregion – Core

Environment Program (CEP) and Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Initiative (BCI) Phase 1 (2006 – 2009), July

2010

2

This report summarizes the findings from the study. The main objective of the report is to disseminate the developed assessment methodology and the knowledge generated from the pilot country assessments. It also aims to stimulate discussions on to further improve and promote wider-scale application of the assessment methodology in the GMS. II. Rural Communities, Agriculture and Climate Change in the GMS It is widely recognized that rural communities in the GMS are particularly vulnerable to climate change due to their dependence on agriculture for livelihoods. Seventy one percent of people in the GMS still live in rural areas where agriculture is a major source of employment and majority of them are rain-fed agriculture system. The shares of employment in agriculture range from 74.1% of total labor force in Lao PDR to 38.2% in Thailand. The agricultural sector also makes a significant contribution to the GMS economies in terms of contribution to GDP (Table 1). Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar still have relatively high reliance on agriculture, with the sector‟s value added contribution to GDP of above 30% in each country. On the other hand, Thailand, Viet Nam, and PRC have reduced its reliance on agriculture due to recent economic progress but agriculture is still a major economic sector of the countries. For PRC, while the 2010 data show a relatively low share of 10.2% for agricultural value added to the country‟s GDP, the share is likely much higher for the Yunnan and Guangxi provinces due to the large agricultural sector and the high share of rural populations in the total populations (65% for Yunnan and 60% for Guangxi3). Table 1 Contribution of agriculture to the economy and employment in the GMS in 2010

Country Agriculture Valued Added (% of GDP)

Employment in Agriculture (% of labor force)

Cambodia 36.0 72.3

Peoples‟ Republic of China (PRC)

10.2 39.6 (2008)

Lao PDR 30.8 74.1a

Myanmar 36.4 No data

Thailand 12.4 38.2

Viet Nam 20.6 48.7

Source: ADB Key Indicators for Asia and Pacific, 2011.

Agriculture in the GMS is shifting from traditional subsistence to modern commercial farming. Although individual countries are progressing at vastly different paces, they are generally following a path of intensification, specialization, and increased agrochemical use and mechanization. Agricultural production has steadily increased in all GMS countries in the past 20 years. Production of commodities, such as rice, oil crops (soybean, ground nut, sesame, and sunflower) and coarse grains (maize, millet, and sorghum), has more than doubled.4 Such an expansion of agricultural production has required intensive use of the agricultural resource base, particularly land and water resources. Increasing water and land scarcity, declining quality in the ecosystem services which support agricultural production, as well as pressures from development trends, including population growth and urbanization,

3 ADB (2012) GMS Atlas of the Environment 2

nd Edition.

4 Johnston, R,M. et al 2010. Rethinking agriculture in the Greater Mekong Subregion. Colombo, Sri Lanka. International Water Management Institute.

3

will pose challenges to agriculture and food security in the GMS in coming decades.5 Such transformation is also affecting the nature of livelihood challenges and opportunities of agriculture-dependent rural communities throughout the GMS. Climate change posts a range of additional threats to agricultural production and rural communities in the GMS. An example of future climate projection for Southeast Asia from SEA START RC, using PRECIS and ECHAM4 climate models, indicates longer and warmer summer time, shorter and warmer winter time, wetter rainy season and increase in inter-annual variability of weather pattern in mainland Southeast Asia.6 These increased intra- and inter-annual climatic variations could threaten production of crops in many areas. Several studies estimated the potential impacts of climate change on agricultural production in the GMS. For example, a recent study predicted that by 2050 maize yield across selected hot spot provinces in Thailand, Lao PDR, Viet Nam and Cambodia could decrease by 3 to 12 % due to increased rainfall or temperature.7 Representing more extreme findings, a study conducted for Cambodia indicates that climate change scenarios resulting from continuing high global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could result in a fall in rice yields by 5% by 2020, 25% by 2050, and 45% by 2080 compared to current levels.8 Another study on the impact of climate change on rice crop in Thailand predicted yield reductions of 30%-50% in both low and high emission scenarios. However, the yield reductions were either moderated or the yields even improved when farmers‟ response to rainfall change was incorporated in the analysis.9 These impact study results are inconclusive and the range of predicted impacts is wide, indicating a high level of uncertainty. However, some studies indicate the potentially large positive impacts of farmers‟ early adaptation responses. Given the uncertainty of climate projections and potential impacts, there is a need for policy makers in the GMS to move away from a “predict-then-act” approach towards scenario-based planning and incorporate future climate as factor to development strategy planning process.10Mainstreaming climate change into development plan, using scenario-based approach to extend vision in planning process to far future and addresses uncertainty by looking at multiple possibilities, could help improve robustness of development plan and helps identify no-regret adaptation measures. III. Assessment Objective and Outputs Based on the increased understanding of the potential impacts of climate change on the GMS at the regional level, the CEP-BCI study aims to assess the vulnerability to climate pressures of key livelihood strategies of agricultural communities in the selected BCI sites in Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam. . The main outputs of the study are:

5 Rosegrant, M. et al. (2012) “Water and Food Security in the Mekong Subregion: Outlook to 2030-2050”. Conference proceedings of the International Conference on GMS 2020.February 2012. Bangkok.

6 SEA START, “Future Climate Projection for Thailand and Mainland Southeast Asia Using PRECIS and

ECHAM4 Climate Models” (Technical Report No. 18) accessed on 1 June 2013 at http://www.start.or.th/documents/all-documents/STARTTechnicalreportno18-CCscenarios_v3.pdf/view

7 ICEM and DAI (2013), “Mekong Adaptation and Resilience to Climate Change (Mekong ARCC) Synthesis

Report”, March 2013 available at http://www.mekongarcc.net/sites/default/files/mekongarcc_draft_synthesis_report.pdf 8 ADB (2012) GMS Atlas of the Environment 2

nd Edition

9 Felkneret.al (2009) “Impact of Climate Change on Rice Production in Thailand” American Economic Review 99.

pp. 205-210. 10

Chinvanno, S. and Vichien Kerdsuk 2013. Mainstreaming Climate Change into Community Development Strategies and Plans: A Case Study in Thailand, Adaptation Knowledge Platform, Partner Report Series No. 5, Stockholm Environment Institute, Bangkok. Available online at www.asiapacificadapt.net or weADAPT.org.

4

An approach and methodology for participatory climate vulnerability and adaptation assessment for agricultural communities, which provides for replication and up-scaling of results to the regional level;

Vulnerability and socioeconomic profiles of the selected communities in BCI pilot sites;

Climate change risk assessments in the selected communities in BCI pilot sites;

Identification of adaptation options for the selected communities in BCI pilot sites

Consultation and dissemination processes through participatory scoping, participatory social and vulnerability assessments, multi-stakeholder adaptation options identification workshops, and a regional presentation.

IV. Study Sites

The GMS is comprised of five agro-ecological zones that have similar farming systems and subject to similar geographic constraints and risks. These five zones are: (i) river deltas; (ii) the Tonle Sap Floodplain; (iii) lowland plains and plateaus; (iv) coastal zones; and (v) intensively farmed and forested uplands. The CEP-BCI study focused on the intensively farmed and forested uplands, which is one of the most prevalent agro-ecological zones in the GMS. Studied communities are located in BCI sites in Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam. The choices of these sites also complement other ADB funded studies in the agricultural sector in the Mekong Delta11 and Northeast Thailand.12

A. Xe Pian – Dong Hua Sao – Dong Ampham, Lao PDR The BCI pilot site is located in Southern Lao PDR (Figure 1). Covering a 32,000 hectare strip of land in Champasak Province, the site is a corridor of critical connectivity between the Dong Hua Sao National Protected Area (NPA) in Champasak and the the Xe Pian NPA in the tri-border (Lao PDR, Cambodia and Vietnam) forest landscape. Both NPAs are endowed with biological diversity with national and international importance. The corridor between the two NPAs provides an important source of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) which poor villagers depend on for their livelihood. Threats to biodiversity in the site come from land conversion, over exploitation of forest and wetland resources, and invasive species. The BCI pilot in this site aims to develop a sustainable use corridor linking the two NPAs, with the long term goal to maintain linear forest links between all three countries to revitalize important transboundary ecosystem connectivity. Within this larger area, the villages of Ban Houayko, Ban Kiet Ngong, and Ban Nakok were selected for the participatory climate change vulnerability and adaptation assessment study.

11

Climate Change Impact and Adaptation Study in Mekong Delta. Draft Final Report. Prepared by Sinclair Knight Mertz for ADB TA7377-VIE.October 2011, Asian Development Bank, Manila Philippines. 12

Thailand Vulnerability to Climate Change. Vulnerability to Climate Change: Adaptation Strategies and Layers of Resilience. Report 2 prepared by ICARSAT for ADB Regional TA 6439. 2011, Asian Development Bank, Manila Philippines.

5

Figure 1: Study Area for Lao PDR - Dong Hua Sao–Xe Pian BCI site.

B. Tenasserim – Western Forest Complex, Thailand This BCI pilot site is located in the Tenasserim Range in Western Thailand, between the Western Forest Complex (WEFCOM) and the Kaeng Krachan Complex (Figure 2). To the west, both complexes border forested areas in Myanmar. The two complexes are connected by a biodiversity conservation corridor, which starts at the southern tip of Sai Yok National Part and stretches down to the northern border of Maenam Phachi Wildlife Sanctuary, with a total length of over 70 kms. The corridor is under increasing pressure from commercial plantations, recreational projects, illegal forest use, forest fires, poaching, uncontrolled fishing, uncontrolled domestic livestock rearing, land encroachment and mining. BCI pilot activities in this site support poverty reduction, land use planning and land management, and restoration and maintenance of ecosystems. The pilot activities target four cluster areas within the site and five villages within each cluster, covering a total of 20 villages and 12,453 people. For the participatory climate vulnerability and adaptation assessment, one village from each cluster was selected: Ban Bongti Lang, Kanchanaburi Province (Sai Yok Cluster); Ban Huay Phak, Ratchaburi Province (Suan Phueng Cluster); Ban Bohwee, Ratchaburi Province (Tanaosri Cluster); and Ban Huay Makrud, Ratchaburi Province (Ban Bueng Cluster).

6

Figure 2: Proposed Study Area for Thailand – Tenasserim BCI Pilot Site

C. Ngoc Linh – Xe Sap, Viet Nam This BCI pilot site is located in the Quang Nam and Quang Tri Provinces of Central Vietnam (Figure 3). Biodiversity conservation corridors at this pilot site cover 130,827 hectares, including part of the Central Annamite mountains which are a critically important landscape due to the unique variety of species that inhabit this area. The area is facing high levels of habitat loss and degradation, mainly through shifting agriculture, hunting, trapping, and illegal logging. These threats have been exacerbated as road development increases access, particularly along the Ho Chi Minh Highway. BCI pilot activities focus on the northern part of the landscape and cover three main areas: poverty reduction and livelihood improvement, harmonized land management and land governing regimes, and restoration and maintenance of ecosystem integrity. Pilot activities during CEP-BCI Phase I covered 21 communes and additional 12 communes under two districts (Nam Giang and Tay Giang) were selected for BCI interventions during phase II. Within this larger BCI site, the participatory climate change and vulnerability assessment study selected Cady, A Vuong, and A Tieng communes.

7

Figure 3: Study Site for Viet Nam’s Quang Nam BCI Pilot site.

8

V. Framework for Assessing Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in Agricultural Communities

A. Key Concepts The two key concepts for the CEP-BCI study are “vulnerability” and “adaptation”. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), vulnerability to climate change refers to the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability can also be considered as the underlying exposure to damaging shocks, perturbation or stress, rather than the probability or projected incidence of those shocks themselves.13 In simple terms, vulnerability can be understood as the likelihood to be harmed. Vulnerability of an individual, a community or a system to climate change is determined by:

Exposure = Biophysical impacts of climate change, which can vary in magnitude, frequency, and duration

Sensitivity = Degree to which a system is affected, either adversely

or beneficially, by climate variability or change

Adaptive Capacity = Ability or potential of a system to respond successfully to climate variability and change

Adaptation is defined by IPCC as initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or expected climate change effects (IPCC, 2007).14 In essence, climate change adaptation is about reducing vulnerability to future climate risks. Vulnerability can be reduced by: (i) reducing exposure to future impacts and/or risks; (ii) reducing sensitivity to future impacts and/or risks; and (iii) increasing adaptive capacity to deal with future impacts and/or risks. As climate change adaptation is focused on people, vulnerability needs to be considered in socioeconomic terms. One view defines “socioeconomic vulnerability” as an aggregate measure of human welfare that integrates environmental, social, economic and political exposure to a range of harmful perturbations including climate change. In other words, an individual, community, or system can be vulnerable to climate change due to various socioeconomic factors, including geographical location, demographic profile, economic conditions, livelihood strategies etc. Based on these concepts of vulnerability and adaptation, the CEP-BCI study aims at assessing how different agricultural communities within BCI areas may be vulnerable to climate threats, both now and in the future under a changing climate condition. However, communities and agro-ecosystems that support them are at risk not only from climate threats, but also from pressures from other socioeconomic changes. These non-climate changes affect the communities and agro-ecosystem‟s exposure and sensitivity to climate risk as well as the level of adaptive capacity to such risk. As climate change is a slow process and may take decades to clearly detect the change, changes in socioeconomic conditions may occur in the meantime and at a rather fast rate, especially in the GMS. As a result, socioeconomic changes may have a larger impact on the society in a much shorter timeframe than climate change, thus potentially changing the context of vulnerability

13

Lim, B and E. Spanger-Siegfried (eds), I.Burton, E. Malone, S. Huq, 2005: Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change. Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures, UNDP.

14 IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policymakers. An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 22p.

9

completely. Therefore, it is crucial that social and economic dynamics should be addressed as an integral part of a climate change vulnerability assessment. In addition, adaptation should be mainstreamed into the broader sustainable development planning, rather than being addressed separately.

B. Assessment Approach The IPCC identified in its fourth assessment report five different approaches to climate change impact, adaptation and vulnerability (CCIAV) assessments: (i) impact assessment; (ii) vulnerability assessment; (iii) adaptation assessment; (iv) integrated assessment; and (v) risk management-based assessment (See Annex II).15 The CEP-BCI study adopted many concepts from the IPCC approaches in formulating an integrated assessment framework suitable for community level application. . The integrated framework combines the risk-based and vulnerability-based approaches. The combination was seen as both necessary and practical for analyzing and understanding threats to agricultural communities in BCI pilot sites, which result from both climate variability and change and from non-climate risks. Mainstreaming climate change into local development strategy and plan using the integrated approach focuses on the current livelihood risk facing agricultural communities in the BCI areas. The approach aims at simplified way to use future climate projection as information to determine community risk and vulnerability in the future and supporting community planning process. The current risk is determined by socioeconomic conditions and key climate threats that people have been experiencing. Such consideration of both the socioeconomic context and climate risks leads to an assessment of current vulnerability of communities in the study sites. Subsequently, the future context of the study sites was developed to be ground for an assessment of future vulnerability. The future context was based on the expectation of consequences of on-going and foreseeable development plans and other changes in the society, as well as a changing future climate. Based on the understanding of vulnerability in the plausible future context, adaptation is then formulated as a strategy and options that would be mainstreamed into local development plans to increase resilience of the community, agricultural system and other key sectors. This mainstreaming approach aims to ensure that development plans will not lead the community or key sectors to more vulnerability in the future and can achieve its goals and targets in adapting to current climate risk as well as climate risk in the future.16 The overall approach is depicted in Figure 4.

15

Carter, T.R., R.N. Jones, X. Lu, S. Bhadwal, C. Conde, L.O. Mearns, B.C. O‟Neill, M.D.A. Rounsevell and M.B. Zurek, 2007: New Assessment Methods and the Characterisation of Future Conditions. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 133-171. 16

Chinvanno, S. and Vichien Kerdsuk 2013. Ibid.

10

Figure 4: Framework on mainstreaming climate change into local development and plan and n integrated vulnerability-and risk-based assessment approach The integrated approach was applied to the study sites through a participatory process. Vulnerability at these sites was assessed using participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools – these included participatory hazard mapping, developing a cropping and event calendar, household surveys and group discussions. Using a PRA based approach helped identify current coping strategies of the communities and their applicability to future climate change scenarios. Qualitative information collected at the community level was complemented by climate projection data in order to understand each community‟s risk profile and develop risk management approaches. Drawing on this information, policy makers and community representatives identified potential adaptation interventions and looked at how these can be implemented for the study sites.

C. Assessment Steps

The integrated vulnerability-and risk-based assessment approach developed during the CEP-BCI study has the following steps:

11

Step 1: Assessing the current context of the sector and community This activity aims at collecting data and information for determining the risk and resilience profile of the agricultural system, other key sectors and different livelihood groups in the study area. Collected data primarily consist of: 1) socioeconomic information of key sectors and livelihood strategies in the community; 2) key climate risks; and 3) how the exposure to the key climate risks had affected agricultural production and wellbeing of the key sectors or livelihood groups. Step 2: Assessing the current risk and vulnerability of key systems and sectors This activity focuses on assessing the current exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of the agricultural system, other key sectors and livelihood groups to climate risks in order to determine their current climate vulnerability in the study sites. Step 3: Formulating a plausible future of the sector and community This activity formulates a plausible future of the agricultural system, other key sectors and community by assessing the potential consequences of foreseeable socioeconomic changes and changes in key climate risks in the area based on a given scenario from future climate projection. Step 4: Assessing the future risk and vulnerability of key systems and sectors This activity assesses changes in the risk profile of the agricultural system and key sectors in the study sites, which may be altered by socioeconomic changes, based on projected consequences of development plan, and by climate change, based on information summarized from future climate projection data in specific context of the community. Understanding how changes in socioeconomic conditions may affect the risk profile of the agricultural system, other key sectors, and community, under future climate pattern and also how they may be able to cope with future threats, leads to an understanding of the vulnerability of the system and key sectors under the future context of the community. Step 5: Formulating an adaptation strategy for each key system and sector This activity identifies an adaptation strategy which is the direction that the system or sector may take to minimize future vulnerability. Such strategy could be integrated in current development planning to ensure that the plan will still reach intended outcomes even under a future climate pattern. The strategy may also provide a new strategic direction in climate risk management which should yield benefits both now and in the future. The adaptation strategy should aim to be mainstreamed into local development plans. Step 6: Identifying options for measure to mobilize the adaptation strategy This activity aims to identify various options in mobilizing the adaptation strategy. These options should be evaluated for benefit, feasibility and suitability. The enabling factors, which are needed to make the adaptation options happen, and critical success factors, which are needed to make them succeed and sustain, should be identified.

12

VI. Synthesis of Case Study Results The integrated assessment methodology was applied to conduct participatory climate vulnerability and adaptation assessments in three BCI pilot sites in Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam. To analyze the potential impacts of climate change on these sites, the study selected a climate change scenario developed from a simulation conducted by SEA START Regional Center.17 Under the chosen climate scenario, the future climate in Southeast Asia, which covers the GMS region, tends to be warmer with longer summer time and higher rainfall, both in terms of annual amount and intensity. This projected trend of climate change matches with the global climate trend as summarized in by IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report (2007). Under the chosen climate scenario, the study then applied the six steps of assessment in the study sites. Key differences in the context of the three case studies should be highlighted. The Lao PDR case represents a situation whereby government policy (stricter conservation policy) and regional development (a GMS economic corridor) had changed the context of communities‟ vulnerability to future climate threat. While stricter conservation policy restricts traditional shifting cultivation as well as access to NTFPs for the studied communities, the GMS economic corridor opens up new opportunities for market-based production and non-farm income sources which are less climate-sensitive. In Thailand, the increasing influence of commercial farming in the study sites could make communities more vulnerable to climate change due to the adoption of mono-cropping in plantations. Unclear regulations on land title and conservation boundaries may also limit future access of the villagers to NTFPs, which currently supplement their farm income. In Viet Nam, the studied communities face multiple pressures coming from large scale developments (such as government policy to encourage hydropower and mining schemes), which in turn could put the villagers, mostly ethnic minorities, more at risk to current climate hazards and future change in the climate pattern. Adaptation measures have to be implemented in these ethnic communities under several constraints, including cultural ones. The following section summarizes key findings from each site. A. Upland Agricultural Communities in XePian – Dong Hua Sao – Dong Ampham, Lao PDR

Assessing the current context of the sector and community

Upland rain-fed agriculture, primarily based on wet-season upland rice farming, provides key livelihood in this study area. Rice is the main income source and provides for food security for villagers, which are poor subsistence farmers. The farmers possess small farmland and are now restricted from shifting cultivation which used to be a common practice in the past. As rice productivity is low, farmers need to harvest NTFPs to provide additional income as well as food and daily living materials. Livestock also provides additional income to some households which have sufficient fund to invest in livestock. Handicraft is practiced by some households to provide additional income but only a small sum.

17

SEA STRAT Regional Center derived the future climate projection by using a global circulation model, ECHAM4, and downscaling the results using the PRECIS regional climate model. ECHAM4 is a global circulation model, which is one of the models used in IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, developed by Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology (http://www.ipcc-data.org/is92/echam4_info.html). PRECIS is a regional climate model developed by Hadley Center, The Met Office, UK.

13

Assessing the current risk and vulnerability of key systems and sectors

Upland rice farming is vulnerable to fluctuation in rainfall which could cause dry spells during the crop season. At the same time, the rice-farming communities‟ adaptive capacity to such fluctuation is decreasing.

Exposure Sensitivity Adaptive Capacity

Fluctuation in rainfall distribution during the crop season, especially during July-September

Rice productivity loss by 30% in a typical dry-spell event

Upland farmers harvest NTFPs and produce handicraft for trade to compensate for loss in rice productivity. But during the last decade (2000-2010), villagers observed decline in NTFPs availability due to increased demand from markets, growing competition between local and external collectors, and loss of forest cover.

Formulating a plausible future of the sector and community

A shift in the pattern of climate threat combined with increasing pressures from socioeconomic changes present both future challenges and opportunities to the upland rice farming communities in this area.

Future Climate Concerns Socioeconomic Changes

Higher rainfall intensity may cause more severe soil erosion, leading to more severe soil degradation and lower yield in agricultural productivity. On the contrary, this may help lower the risk of dry-spells during the crop season

The study area is located in a GMS economic corridor, which is one of the highest development areas in the Champasak province. Infrastructure development, especially roads, could lead to easy market access and increased tourism.

Strict conservation policy restricts shifting cultivation and puts pressure on the limited upland area. Repeated farming in the area results in soil degradation and lower yields in upland rice production.

Assessing the future risk and vulnerability of key systems and sectors

Dry spell during the crop season, which is the primary short-term climate concern, could shift towards a longer term trend of higher precipitation during the rainy season that may worsen soil erosion and soil quality and result in low crop productivity. However, changes in socioeconomic conditions as a result of developments could change the context of the agricultural sector in the study area completely. With better access to markets, the upland rain-fed rice farmers may not have to primarily rely on rice production and NTFPs to secure household‟s income and food security. Alternative agricultural practice which aims at production for markets could become a livelihood option.

14

Formulating an adaptation strategy for each key system and sector

Based on the assumption that rice production will further expand in the lower plain of Champasak Province, steering away from rice production in the upland area and adopting alternative agriculture practice which is market-oriented could be an adaptation strategy for the upland rice farming villagers in this study area. Other annual crops, e.g. sugar cane or cassava, or perennial crops, e.g. “Yang Bong” tree (perseakurzii), rattan or coffee etc. could be considered. Compared to upland rain-fed rice, the annual and perennial crops are more climate-tolerant and can help hold soil surface better. Moreover, some crops may generate multiple income streams over the year or generate income all year round, which could increase the capacity of villagers to cope with climate risk.

Adaptation measure Benefit now & future

Switch from rice to perennial crop/ tree e.g. “Yang Bong” tree (perseakurzii) and rattan or coffee (some zones only)

Less sensitive to drought/ rainfall fluctuation than rice

Help reduce soil erosion

Stable market demand

Some crop generates multiple incomes annually

Identifying options for measure to mobilize the adaptation strategy

To pursue the adaptation strategy, certain enabling factors and critical success factors must be in place. Enabling factor Critical success factor

Alternate revenue or financial support, in forms of special loan or other mechanisms of funding, to support livelihood until new trees will be ready for harvesting

Need to mix perennial crops with crops which provide quick return

Adjust the mindset of villagers from producing rice for consumption to produce agricultural products for trade

Monitor progress and provide agriculture advisory services to farmers

Continue agricultural promotion, which requires institutional support i.e. the presence of an Agricultural Extension Support Unit in the community

B. Commercially-oriented Agricultural Communities in the Tenasserim – Western Forest

Complex, Thailand

Assessing the current context of the sector and community

Main livelihood of people in this area is based on rain-fed agriculture, which has been shifting from subsistence farming to commercial farming. Main crops are cassava, maize, sugarcane and pineapple. Farmers in the area are still considered poor as their average household income is much lower than the national average. Land tenure is a major issue in many villages. A large area of the land still belongs to the Government and was allocated to villagers only under a special arrangement. As the farming area is located in a narrow corridor by the conservation area, it is not technically feasible to develop an irrigation system to support farming activity. There is also an issue of unclear boundary between village and conservation zones in some villages. Expansion of population in the area and changes in lifestyle that drive the need for higher household income may push villagers to harvest more NTFPs from the conservation zones and raise tension with officials.

15

Assessing the current risk and vulnerability of key systems and sectors

Farming activity is vulnerable to fluctuation in rainfall distribution which could cause dry spells during the crop season. Farmers‟ ability to adjust livelihood strategy is mainly constrained by restrictions related to the conservation zones.

Exposure Sensitivity Adaptive Capacity

Fluctuation in rainfall distribution during the crop season

Farmers report significant drop in productivity in the year with a severe dry spell. Shifting toward a mono-cropping system also increases the sensitivity of farming in this area to the impact of extreme weather events.

Farmers adjust the crop calendar as well as crop management techniques and alternate cropping. Also, farmers harvest non-NTFPs such as bamboo and bamboo shoot etc. to supplement farming but the availability of NTFPs is limited and controlled by conservation zone officials if overly harvested.

Formulating a plausible future of the sector and community

A shift in the pattern of climate threat combined socioeconomic changes driven by market forces presents both future concerns and opportunities to the farming community in this area.

Future Climate Concerns Socioeconomic Changes

More severe dry spells, which may have direct impact on crop productivity and also increase the pest problem, especially on cassava

Increasing commercial farming, based on mono-cropping, makes livelihood more market-dependent. Higher production may increase intrusion into the conservation zones.

Increasing demand and price of rubber has drastically driven farmers to switch from annual crops to rubber which is a perennial crop. However, there has been no study whether rubber would be appropriate for the climate in the area. Shifting toward perennial crop also reduces the flexibility of farmers to respond to market situation.

Lack of understanding on land titles and of the boundary between village and conservation zones may cause villagers to violate regulations and lose their farmland.

Expansion of tourism in the area may offer more off-farm income potential for villagers.

16

Assessing the future risk and vulnerability of key systems and sectors

The farming community in this area could be more vulnerable to the impacts of future climate change due to the likelihood of more severe dry spells, resulting in low productivity and crop failure. In addition, the shift towards an intensive mono-cropping system, as well as towards perennial crops, could also increase the sensitivity of agricultural production in this area both to climate risks and market conditions.

Formulating an adaptation strategy for each key system and sector

Farmers in this area could implement mixed-crop farming or practice inter-cropping, i.e. maize-cassava, and use drought-tolerant cultivars to help reduce vulnerability to climate impacts. Such a risk management strategy could help the farmers adapt to climate variability now and to the projected future climate trend.

Adaptation measures Benefit now & future

Inter-cropping Reducing exposure, as a result of risk diversification, to both climate variability and climate change

Adopt drought-tolerant cultivars

Reduce sensitivity to dry spells

Enhance crop management technique, especially ecosystem-friendly pest control

Better crop productivity

Identifying options for measure to mobilize the adaptation strategy

To pursue the above adaptation strategy, certain enabling factors and critical success factors must be in place. Enabling factors Critical success factors

Agriculture advisory services provided by an Agricultural Extension and Support Unit

Continue agricultural promotion and progress monitoring by the Agricultural Extension and Support Unit

Support on seed production from the government

Effective seed distribution channel

Efficient information dissemination on pest situation

Local reproducing facility for parasitic warp

C. Central Highland Agricultural Ethnic Minorities in Quang Nam, Viet Nam

Assessing current context of the sector and community.

The ethnic minorities in Quang Nam live in the mountainous areas of with steep topography. These people have lived a subsistence lifestyle based on swidden agriculture. Their communities are highly dependent on traditional upland farming which support three main livelihood types: (i) subsistence crops (e.g., upland rice, wet-rice, cassava); (ii) cash crops (e.g., beans, corn, peanuts); and (iii) perennial crops (e.g., acacia, cinnamon, rubber). The wet rice practice, while being severely limited by the small amount of land available for paddy rice, is an important livelihood strategy as the wet-rice crop yields three to five times more than upland rice and is less dependent on weather conditions. Most people also engage in harvesting NTFPs to generate

17

some cash income and also raise livestock (i.e., chicken, pigs, cows, and buffalos). However, approximately 98% of the interviewed households in the area indicate that cash income sources are limited and they do not have savings.

Assessing current risk and vulnerability of key systems and sectors

Upland farming is a highly vulnerable livelihood with high exposure, high sensitivity, and limited adaptive capacity. Vulnerability to climate change includes exposure to heavy rainstorms in April, May, and July; prolonged hot and dry weather from April to July; and prolonged heavy rain, potentially leading to flash floods in September, October, and November. Exposure Sensitivity Adaptive Capacity

Medium: Heavy rainstorms – April, May

High: - Geographical

conditions of cultivated land: steep slopes

-

Limited: - Re-sowing reduces

productivity / limits seed for second crop

High: Prolonged hot and dry weather from April to June

Medium: - Beans, corns,

peanut, perennial crops are drought resistant.

- Upland rice is the most sensitive crop

-

Limited: - No irrigation system - Lack of capital to try

drought resistant varieties of rice

High: Prolonged heavy rain and potential flash floods during September to November

High: - Highly dependent on

weather conditions - Rice harvesting lasts

1-2 months

Limited: - No access to weather

forecast - Lack of equipment and

techniques

Formulating plausible future of sector and community

A shift in the pattern climate threat combined with increasing pressures from socioeconomic changes presents both future concerns and opportunities to the ethnic communities in this area.

Future Climate Concerns Socioeconomic Changes

Hotter and dry weather from March to July, exacerbating the risks to upland crops

Higher risk of flooding during the rainy season which will threaten rice harvests

Current land use practices, with shorter resting time of cultivated land, have resulted in soil degradation with an associated decline in the area of cultivated land.

Due to lack of market information and technical knowledge, local communities tend to passively follow government‟s instructions with respect to the choice of crops to plant, which in many cases did not generate income as expected when market conditions are not favorable.

The cultural conceptions of ethnic minorities influence what is

18

considered to be an acceptable choice of livelihood, which in turn could limit the consideration of a wider set of livelihood diversification options

There are a number of major economic developments planned in Quang Nam province including hydropower schemes, mining operations, and expansion of rubber plantations.

Assessing future risk and vulnerability of key systems and sectors

The communes are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, with crop yields expected to decline. Land degradation through soil erosion and improper crop rotation practices may ultimately lead to further decline in land available for agriculture. Apart from climate change, socioeconomic changes are also likely to have strong impact on the communities. Government policies including prohibitions on shifting cultivation and restrictions on hunting and access to other forest resources are reducing the traditional livelihood options such as harvesting of NTFPs. Government policy that encourages or permits hydropower development and mining is also reducing the land and forests available to the communities. Both as a result of climate change and socio-economic pressures, the ethnic communities are being forced to change their way of life. However, the communities are constrained by the geographic location, climate conditions, and strong cultural traditions, which together conspire to limit the communities to a few available adaptation options. However, increasing economic development in the area may provide new economic opportunities which the communities can consider e.g. marketing and selling of cash crops and NTFPs, community based forest protection and management and cultural and eco-tourism.

19

Formulating adaptation strategy for each key systems and sectors

A dramatic change in livelihood may not be possible for the communities in the short term. However, initial changes may be made through crop diversification, sustainable land management, and strengthening supplemental livelihood activities. In the longer term, alternate livelihoods will need to be developed to make the communities more resilient to economic and climate shocks.

Adaptation measure Benefit now & future

Crop diversification and sustainable land management

Strengthen supplemental livelihood activities, in addition to NTFPs, for upland farming communities such as livestock husbandry

Reduce dependence on traditional upland farming

Reduce the potential for crop losses due to extreme weather events

Improve soil quality

Supplementary income for the communities

Increase economic and ecological resilience of the communities

Identifying options for measure to mobilize adaptation strategy

To pursue the above adaptation strategy, certain enabling factors and critical success factors must be in place. Enabling factor Critical success factor

Development of new drought tolerant, fast growing rice varieties through research and development led by government, international agricultural extension agencies and NGOs

Alternate sources of income until the new livelihood strategy, such as the switch to perennial crops, become effective.

Perennial crops will need to be mixed with others crops which provide for a quick economic return

Education and awareness programs will be needed to introduce new practices and change current farming practices

Government assistance to help develop partnerships between producers and buyers combined with training in processing, marketing and sales of agriculture products.

Technical support must be provided to farmers

20

VII. Cross-cutting Findings

It is not possible to generalize the pattern of climate risk based on the three study areas to the entire GMS. However, some observations from the study are relevant for climate change adaptation planning for agricultural communities in other areas in the GMS. First, threats from climatic characteristics that may have negative impact on agricultural production could become greater. Based on the climate change scenario used in this study, agricultural communities in the study areas are likely to experience an increase in extreme weather events including higher temperature, floods and droughts. Higher average annual temperatures are projected in all the sites, which may negatively affect plant growth and lead to reduced agricultural yields. Higher flood risk during the rainy session, particularly with respect to flashfloods, is also expected under the climate change scenario. The flood risk is likely greater in the study sites in Lao PDR and Viet Nam, while there may be slight increase in the frequency of flooding in the study site in Thailand. On the other hand, hand, drought risk is more uncertain and varies across the sites. To adjust to these potential impacts of climate change, innovations in agriculture, both in terms of technology and management practices, will be needed for the current farming systems in the study sites. Second, socioeconomic dynamics and government policy can significantly change a community‟s risk profile and adaptive capacity. These forces can put the community more at risk to climate change or increase its adaptive capacity by expanding access to new livelihood options. For example, this study found that ecosystems and services especially NTFPs currently play an important role in supporting livelihoods of agricultural communities in all the study areas. Apart from contributing to food security and living materials, NTFPs are a key source of supplemental income in case that a primary cash crop fails. However, government policy which affects land use and access to resources, such as conservation policy and large economic concessions for hydropower and mining, are being implemented in all sites and could reduce the communities‟ future access to NTFPs. On the other hand, new employment opportunities such as from ecotourism and wage labor are being created as a result of these developments. Understanding such a changing community risk profile is key to identifying an adaptation strategy which helps reduces vulnerabilities and takes advantage of the new opportunities. Third, while adaptation is site-specific, there are common elements among adaptation strategies identified for agricultural communities in the study sites. For example, the upland farming livelihood is common in all study sites in the three countries and is very vulnerable to climate change. Common elements of an adaptation strategy for upland farming include livelihood diversification through crop diversification away from reliance on upland rice; adoption of drought resistant varieties of upland crops; improved land management practices to control soil erosion and reduce flash flood risk; financing resources for alternative livelihoods including options for climate risk transfer (such as microinsurance), and transfer of knowledge to farmers to enable their transition out of the reliance on upland rice. Fourth, government assistance, government planning, and policy reform will be needed to create enabling conditions for effective climate change adaptation at the community and household levels. New approaches and techniques are needed to for incorporating climate change consideration into the planning process for land use, agriculture development, and water resource management. Targeted policies on livelihood, poverty reduction and food security have potential to complement climate change adaptation planning, and therefore should be deigned taking into account adaptation considerations. Especially in all the three study sites, alignment of forestry and biodiversity conservation policies had a great potential to enhance adaptive capacity and promote ecosystem based adaptation for the agricultural communities.

21

Finally, capacity gaps exist, both among community members and government agencies in the study sites, in envisioning how a community‟s risk profile may change as a result of the interactions between climatic and non-climatic factors. . There is even less understanding about climate change adaptation and how to plan adaptation measures. Therefore, capacity building programs on risk assessment, scenario-based planning and adaptation mainstreaming are needed to increase the knowledge of government officials and local communities. In addition, broad awareness raising programs are needed to increase community knowledge to pursue a long-term, climate-resilient development path. VIII. Recommendations for Future Research Agenda

Future research could build on the experience from this CEP-BCI study. The following are three key areas for further research and development.

A. Improving the Overall Approach and Methodology

As the current methodology recognizes both climate change and socioeconomic changes as key stressors of livelihood, more analysis is needed to prepare socio-economic development scenarios to project the socioeconomic changes that will, alongside climate change, affect human communities and ecosystem alongside over the near term, medium term, and long term. Multiple scenarios may be developed for future assessment activity in order to cope with uncertainty of long term change.

Future research should improve the application of community-based adaptation (CBA) and ecosystem-based adaptation (EBA) approaches from the current study, and integrate them in a framework for a holistic assessment. The participatory CBA approach to identify adaptation options employed in the study needs to be improved. New techniques and approaches are needed to help communities better visualize and understand the implications of adaptation options that promote resiliency. In addition, future research will need to better study the role of forest ecosystem in supporting agricultural livelihoods and incorporate EBA in promoting resilience in forest-dependent agricultural communities. The current study was only able to consider the agro-ecosystem in the study communities, but not the surrounding forest ecosystems. There was also no direct consideration of climate impacts on forest ecosystems, ecosystem vulnerability, and adaptation measures that might be needed to protect biodiversity and ensure or enhance the ecological services which support livelihoods of communities.

Future studies will need to better examine the impact of climate change on agriculture productivity. The current study design includes a component on crop modeling, whereby changes in agricultural productivity would be projected in response to climate scenarios. Unfortunately, the need for site specific data to parameterize the crop models, made it impractical to undertake crop modeling at all sites.

A better understanding is needed on how villagers might respond to climate variability and change. Knowledge on this issue will lead to proper planning for adaptation to future change that addresses the balance between communities‟ needs and environmental conservation goals in the BCI areas.

Economic analysis needs to be integrated into future assessment, e.g. cost of not adapting to future changes. In addition, identified adaptation options should be

22

subjected to a more rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Such analysis will better justify strategy and actions as well as inform selection and prioritization of adaptation options which are appropriate for the communities.

B. Expanding the Study Coverage to Regional Level

The study was limited to only three BCI sites. Within each of these sites, only a few communities were selected for the development of socio-economic profiles and vulnerability assessment. This limited coverage limits the generality of the findings of the study. To move to a regional level, future study should include all the BCI sites and other areas in the GMS. The vulnerability assessment should be targeted at a representative set of communities carefully stratified based on biological, geographical, and climatic factors, future climate risks, development pressures, the range of livelihood types present in the community, population and demography etc.

C. Examining the Multiple-scale Policy and Planning Context

While this study focused on vulnerability assessment, climate risk assessment, and adaptation option analysis, consultations with stakeholders, particularly in the workshops, included consideration of the policy and planning context. It is recommended that further analysis be conducted to examine the policy and planning context at the national, provincial and local levels. A multiple-scale analysis is important as large scale changes form a condition to assess risks and adaptation options at a local scale. The policy analysis should be focused on identifying constraints to and opportunities for better adaptation planning and strategy development. The institutional analysis of the local planning process should begin by describing the steps of current planning processes to identify appropriate entry points for consideration of climate change. Existing capacity (e.g., procedures, staffing, staff skills, and knowledge) should be assessed. A capacity development plan should be prepared and implemented to improve capacity of government and community leaders.

IX. Way Forward

Building on this Phase I study in three BCI sites, CEP-BCI Phase II (2012-2016) will focus on building capacity of GMS practitioners and institutions to conduct climate vulnerability and adaptation assessment at community levels. Through a consultation process and partnership with GMS institutions, CEP-BCI support will aim to enhance the overall assessment approach and methodology based on the framework developed and piloted during Phase I. The enhanced framework will aim to assist communities to identify an adaptation strategy and plans which focus on the benefit of the communities at the present time, but will ensure sustainability and robustness of community livelihoods to future changes from both climate change and socioeconomic developments.

23

Annex I – Other Key Climate Change Terminology

Climate - Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the „average weather‟, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system. The classical period of time is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Climate change - Climate change refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which defines „climate change‟ as: „a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods‟. Climate variability - Climate variability refers to variations in the mean state and other statistics (e.g. standard deviations, statistics of extremes) of climate on all temporal and spatial scales beyond that of individual weather events. Variability may be due to natural internal processes within climate system (internal variability), or to variations in natural or anthropogenic external forcing (external variability). Climate change impacts - The effects of climate change on natural and human systems. Depending on the consideration of adaptation, one can distinguish between potential impacts and residual impacts: Potential impacts: all impacts that may occur given a projected change in climate, without considering adaptation. Residual impacts: the impacts of climate change that would occur after adaptation. See also aggregate impacts, market impacts, and non-market impacts. Anticipatory adaptation – Adaptation that takes place before impacts of climate change are observed. Also referred to as proactive adaptation. Autonomous adaptation – Adaptation that does not constitute a conscious response to climatic stimuli but is triggered by ecological changes in natural systems and by market or welfare changes in human systems. Also referred to as spontaneous adaptation. Planned adaptation – Adaptation that is the result of a deliberate policy decision, based on an awareness that conditions have changed or are about to change and that action is required to return to, maintain, or achieve a desired state.

Source: IPCC

24

Annex II – Summary of Characteristics of Five CCIAV Assessment Approaches The climate scenarios-driven impact assessment approach has traditionally dominated the early CCIAV literature reviewed by IPCC, but recently the other four approaches have increasingly been incorporated into decision making. Risk management is increasingly recognized as a useful framework and its use is expanding rapidly. Table A1 summarizes key characteristics of each assessment approach. Table A1: Characteristics of Five CCIAV Assessment Approaches Impact Assessment

Evaluate the likely impacts of climate change under a given scenario

Follow a top-down analysis that begins with the global climate system and move down to impacts at the local levels

Assess the need for and identify actions to reduce risks

Vulnerability Assessment

Assess processes which affect vulnerability to climate change

Follow a bottom-up approach which commences at the local scale by addressing social-economic responses a changing climate (but could be top-down if employing macroeconomic approaches)

Tend to be location-specific

Identify actions to reduce vulnerability

Adaptation Assessment

Assess processes which affect climate change adaptation and adaptive capacity

Follow a bottom-up approach which commences at the local scale by addressing social-economic responses a changing climate (but could be top-down if employing macroeconomic approaches)

Tend to be location-specific

Identify actions to improve adaptation

Integrated Assessment

Assess interactions and feedbacks between multiple drivers and impacts of climate change.

Combine assessment methods/approaches

Commonly global/regional scales

Identify global policy options and costs

Risk Management-based Assessment Process

Decision making-oriented, rather than research-driven

Standard elements of a risk-management process include a scoping exercise, risk identification, risk analysis, risk evaluation, and risk treatment (for example, a climate change adaptation measure is applied, with follow-up monitoring and review)

Two overarching activities across the process are communication and consultation with stakeholders, and monitoring and review.

Source: Summarized from Carter et. al (2004).