Download - CCAFS Selection of New Regions
CCAFS Selection of New Regions
Bonn, June 2011
Next round of region selection
Final CRP7 proposal
• A process to identify, by the end of 2011, two further target regions for starting activities and baselines in 2012
• Three further regions to be identified during 2012, with activities and baselines being undertaken starting in 2013
ISPC comments on CRP7 proposal
• Too much dilution of effort: identify just two further target regions by the end of 2011
Selection criteria proposed for the next set of regions (Nairobi launch meeting May 2010 and MT meeting Feb 2011)
1. Regions that complement the current regions so that CCAFS is a global program (complementarities related to geographical spread, agricultural potential, coverage of agroecological zones, nature of the adaptation challenges, …)
2. Regions with high potential for pro-poor mitigation
3. Regions with hotspots of vulnerability and climate change
4. Regions with high potential for innovation, adoption and impact
5. Regions in which there is sufficient institutional support to implement a regional research-for-development program
Process to select new regions
1 A global vulnerability assessment report (June)
2 A document with the draft selection criteria, the list of potential target regions, and the proposed process (June)
3 Design (July) and implement (August) an activity to evaluate each candidate region according to the criteria using objective methods (if available) or expert judgment (if not) for the following stakeholders:(a) Contact points and 5-8 global partners(b) CCAFS Management Team(c) CCAFS Independent Scientific Panel
4 Circulate to partners for final feedback (MT, October)
5 Final decision by the CIAT Board (November)
Existing regions
Region Sample countries (with “Medium” or “Low” HDI)
Eastern Africa Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda
Western Africa Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cote d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo
Indo-Gangetic Plain
Bangladesh, India, Nepal (Pakistan)
Candidate regions
Region Sample countries (with “Medium” or “Low” HDI)
Middle Africa Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, DR Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Sao Tome & Principe
Northern Africa &Western Asia
Egypt, Morocco, Sudan; Syria, Yemen
Southern Africa Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Central America &Caribbean
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua; Dominican Republic, Haiti
South America Bolivia, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname
Central Asia Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
Eastern Asia China, Mongolia
South Asia (expansion) Afghanistan, Maldives,Pakistan, Sri Lanka
South-Eastern Asia Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Viet Nam
Oceania Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Federated Micronesia
Candidate region evaluation
Criteria
Regions
Rate low / medium / high / unknown
with a sentence of explanation
Ask respondents to do all candidate region or a subset
Criterion Information that could be used
1 Complementarities Agro-ecological zones, human populations and rates of change, populations in poverty, agricultural potential, …
2 Potential for pro-poor mitigation (1) Areas with high mitigation potential of the natural system (above ground biomass, soil C potential, wetlands and organic soils, degraded areas, grasslands, forest boundaries …)(2) Areas where existing or potential practices create high emissions - interventions could have high impact (livestock densities, areas with high fertilizer use, large areas of wet rice, …)
3 Hotspots of food system vulnerability Vulnerability mapping report
4 Potential for innovation and impact -
5 Institutional support -
Are there objective inputs to the process?
3 Hotspots of vulnerability
Exposure of populations to the impacts of climate change
(hi, lo)
Sensitivity of food systems
to these impacts(hi, lo)
Coping capacity of populations
to address these impacts
(hi, lo)
x x
Agricultural land areas from 35 ⁰S to 45 ⁰N (Ramankutty et al., 2008) plus LGP>60 days
Proxy: % stunting (40%)Proxy: % cropland (mode 16%)
Proxies: several climate change thresholds
Vulnerability domains for theLGP delta >5% threshold
Domain Area (km2) Population
LLL 4,508,660 40,275,900
LLH 13,120,500 102,357,000
LHL 1,412,400 89,935,000
LHH 3,321,920 219,658,000
HLL 13,248,100 126,387,000
HLH 22,374,000 155,368,000
HHL 5,172,800 369,162,000
HHH 5,078,220 238,567,000
Next steps
• Comments on the process (now)
• Circulation of material to contact points and other stakeholders, and evaluation of candidate regions (July-August)
• Synthesis of results of the evaluation exercise and writing up (October)