Category: Uncategorized

The AGRICA project is implemented by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in cooperation with the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

Context and objective

While most countries recognise the importance of adaptation to climate change, there is limited access to reliable information on climate impacts and risks which should inform the selection of adaptation strategies. This is also true for the operationalisation of adaptation goals which are defined in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs): How to translate adaptation goals into concrete actions? Hence, there is a need for science-based adaptation planning which requires sound climate risk analyses and assessment of potential adaptation strategies. To address this issue, the AGRICA project provides comprehensive climate risk analyses for the agricultural sector in selected countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The findings are meant to inform national and sub-national adaptation planning including NDC and NAP development and review processes but will also provide useful information and evidence to decision makers at other planning and implementation levels.

Publication formats

AGRICA currently focuses on the development of two publication formats: in-depth climate risk analyses and shorter climate risk profiles. Climate risk analyses are detailed scientific reports accompanied by a summary for policy makers and a methods factsheet, while the climate risk profiles are short briefs including a methods factsheet. The climate risk analyses are intended to inform decision makers from governments, international institutions, civil society, academia and the private sector regarding the risks of climate change impacts and provide guidance in effective adaptation planning at national and sub-national level. The climate risk profiles focus on climate impacts and risks, providing an easy to read snapshot.

Climate risk analyses

Climate risk analyses are in-depth scientific reports which consist of an impact dimension and an action dimension, providing a thorough assessment of different adaptation strategies for the agricultural sector. In the impact dimension, the analyses start out by modelling the full impact chain, including a changing climate, changing water availability and resulting climate impacts on the agricultural sector. The changing climate and weather-related risks are analysed from a historic, current and future perspective, based on different greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions scenarios. Indicators focus on temperature and rainfall including for example air temperature, number of very hot days and nights, average rainfall and days with heavy rainfall. The impact dimension is complemented by a vulnerability analysis which looks at the spatial distribution of exposure, adaptive capacity and sensitivity to climate impacts. In the action dimension, this information is used to identify and analyse suitable adaptation strategies. Adaptation strategies are carefully selected, with assessment criteria including feasibility, cost-effectiveness, biophysical performance and aptitude for local conditions. Climate risk analyses offer an in-depth risk analysis based on the latest scientific data and findings and serve as a solid basis upon which to design policy processes and make concrete adaptation decisions in partner countries.

To support an inclusive research process and to ensure that the results of AGRICA will be useful on the ground, the project puts a special emphasis on a continuous engagement of local stakeholders operating in the partner countries and districts. Stakeholders are engaged through regular consultations, workshops, joint selection of study foci and other forms of active engagement and mutual exchange.

As of now, national-level climate risk analyses have been completed for Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana and Niger, in addition to a district-level analysis for Ghana’s Upper West Region. All of these analyses can be found in the Downloads section. Further analyses are currently being developed for Cameroon, Uganda and Zambia. While much of climate policy and planning occurs at the national level, the district level is equally important since many decisions regarding climate adaptation are ultimately made by extension officers and farmers.

The different modules of the in-depth climate risk analyses follow a set of core components but can be adapted in a flexible manner depending on the national context and level of analysis.

Climate risk profiles

Climate risk profiles are short, easy to read briefs, providing a condensed overview of present and future climate impacts and climate risks at national level for relevant sectors in partner countries. The profiles thereby focus on evolving trends for future climate conditions under two greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions scenarios, including projected changes in temperature, rainfall, sea level rise, soil moisture and potential evapotranspiration. In addition, the sector-specific risk assessments focus on climate impacts on water resources, agriculture, infrastructure, ecosystems and human health. CRPs offer a sound risk analysis based on the latest scientific data and findings and have great potential for climate mainstreaming into relevant policy processes of partner countries. The profiles are divided into four sections: a summary, an introduction, projected climate trends and sector-specific risk assessments. CRPs are brief (12 pages) and use an easy language to guarantee a high uptake for decision making.

As of now, climate risk profiles have been completed for Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. In addition to the AGRICA project, climate risk profiles have been developed jointly with other projects and organisations, including with UNHCR for the Sahel region or with the GIZ for Pakistan, as well as in collaboration with the Weathering Risk project (Somalia) and the SLICE project by Climate Analytics (Malawi, Nigeria and Philippines).

Why sub-Saharan Africa?

In many developing and least developed countries (LDCs), economic development continues to be largely dependent on the agricultural sector. This is particularly true for sub-Saharan Africa, where agriculture contributes up to 50 % of countries’ GDP and where up to 90 % of the population are employed in the agricultural sector, mostly as smallholder subsistence farmers. These farmers heavily rely on agriculture for food security and livelihoods. However, agricultural production is increasingly threatened by the impacts of climate change: Temperatures are rising, while the amount of rainfall is decreasing. Extreme weather events such as droughts, floods and storms are becoming more frequent in terms of intensity and number, presenting a risk to agricultural production and food security. These climatic changes are accompanied by rapid population growth: Almost anywhere across sub-Saharan Africa, populations are growing at an annual rate of 2.5-3 % so theoretically, more people will have to be fed with less food.

Many countries need better information to address these and other climate-related challenges. The AGRICA project seeks to bridge this information gap and to provide scientific evidence to support the design of adaptation policies and strategies and to take investment decisions based on comprehensive risk assessments.

Project duration

First phase: September 2018 – December 2020
Second phase: January 2021 – December 2023

Contact

For detailed information on the AGRICA project as well as on opportunities for collaboration and participation, please contact:

Dr. Christoph Gornott (Project Lead at PIK)

T +49 (0)331 288 2655
gornott@pik-potsdam.de
P.O. Box 60 12 03
14412 Potsdam

[1] World Bank, “World Bank Open Data,” 2019. Online available: https://data.worldbank.org [Accessed: 31-Jan-2020].

[2] CIA, “The World Factbook: Burkina Faso,” 2019. Online available: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/geos/uv.html [Accessed: 30-Aug-2019].

[3] World Bank, “World Development Indicators,” 2018. Online available: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/worlddevelopment-indicators [Accessed: 09-Apr-2020].

[4] Observatory of Economic Complexity, “Burkina Faso,” 2017. Online available: https://oec.world/en/profile/country/bfa/#Exports [Accessed: 14-Apr-2020].

[5] FAO, “Socio-Economic Context and Role of Agriculture: Burkina Faso,” Rome, Italy, 2014.

[6] FAOSTAT, “Crops in Burkina Faso (Area Harvested),” 2017. Online available: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC [Accessed: 06-Mar-2020].

[7] UNDESA, “Trends in International Migrant Stock: Migrants by Destination and Origin,” New York, 2019.

[8] World Bank, “Migrant Remittance Inflows (US $ Million),” Washington, D.C., 2019.

[9] CONASUR, 2020, cited in: WFP Burkina Faso, “Emergency Response Situation Report #12”, 2020. Online available: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Sit%20Rep-%20BF%20%2311.pdf [Accessed: 28-May-2020].

[10] UNDP, “Human Development Index,” 2018. Online available: http://hdr.undp.org/en/indicators/137506 [Accessed: 08-Oct-2019].

[11] Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative, “Burkina Faso,” 2017. Online available: https://gain-new.crc.nd.edu/country/burkina-faso [Accessed: 24-Oct-2019].

[12] FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO, “Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019,” Rome, Italy, 2019.

[13] S. Lange, “EartH2Observe, WFDEI and ERA-Interim Data Merged and Bias-Corrected for ISIMIP (EWEMBI).” GFZ Data Service, Potsdam, Germany, 2016.

[14] World Bank, “Local Development, Institutions and Climate Change in Burkina Faso: Situation Analysis and Operational Recommendations,” Washington, D.C., 2010.

[15] B. Ampomah-Ankrah, “The Impact of Climate Change on Water Supply in the Sahel Region: The Case of Burkina Faso,” International Water Association, 2019. Online available: https://iwa-network.org/the-impact-of-climate-change-on-water-supply-in-the-sahel-region [Accessed: 31-Oct-2019].

[16] S. Traore and T. Owiyo, “Dirty Droughts Causing Loss and Damage in Northern Burkina Faso,” Int. J. Glob. Warm., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 498–513, 2013.

[17] M. Winsor, “Drought-Hit Burkina Faso Rations Water Supply in Ouagadougou Amid Severe Shortage,” International Business Times, 2016. Online available: https://www.ibtimes.com/droughthit-burkina-faso-rations-water-supply-ouagadougou-amid-severeshortages-2363145 [Accessed: 02-Mar-2020].

[18] B. Barbier, H. Yacouba, H. Karambiri, M. Zoromé, and B. Somé, “Human Vulnerability to Climate Variability in the Sahel: Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies in Northern Burkina Faso,” Environ. Manage., vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 790–803, 2009.

[19] B. Sarr et al., “Adapting to Climate Variability and Change in Smallholder Farming Communities: A Case Study From Burkina Faso, Chad and Niger (CVCADAPT),” J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 16–27, 2015.

[20] J. Wanvoeke, J. P. Venot, C. De Fraiture, and M. Zwarteveen, “Smallholder Drip Irrigation in Burkina Faso: The Role of Development Brokers,” J. Dev. Stud., vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 1019–1033, 2016.

[21] R. E. Namara and H. Sally, “Proceedings of the Workshop on Irrigation in West Africa: Current Status and a View to the Future,” Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2014.

[22] USAID, “Country Profile: Property Rights and Resource Governance in Burkina Faso,” Washington, D.C., 2017.

[23] USAID, “Climate Risks in Food for Peace Geographies: Burkina Faso,” Washington, D.C., 2017.

[24] USAID, “Climate Risk in Food for Peace Geographies: Kenya,” Washington, D.C., 2019.

[25] S. Dos Santos, J. P. Peumi, and A. Soura, “Risk Factors of Becoming a Disaster Victim: The Flood of September 1st, 2009, in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso),” Habitat Int., vol. 86, no. March, pp. 81–90, 2019.

[26] M. Dabaieh, O. Wanas, M. A. Hegazy, and E. Johansson, “Reducing Cooling Demands in a Hot Dry Climate: A Simulation Study for Non-Insulated Passive Cool Roof Thermal Performance in Residential Buildings,” Energy Build., vol. 89, pp. 142–152, 2015.

[27] T. M. Shanahan et al., “CO2 and Fire Influence Tropical Ecosystem Stability in Response to Climate Change,” Nat. Publ. Gr., no. July, pp. 1–8, 2016.

[28] IPBES, “Report of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on the Work of Its Seventh Session,” n.p., 2019.

[29] K. Dimobe, A. Ouédraogo, S. Soma, D. Goetze, S. Porembski, and A. Thiombiano, “Identification of Driving Factors of Land Degradation and Deforestation in the Wildlife Reserve of Bontioli (Burkina Faso, West Africa),” Glob. Ecol. Conserv., vol. 4, pp. 559–571, 2015.

[30] A. Russell et al., “Using Forests to Enhance Resilience to Climate Change: The Case of the Wood-Energy Sector in Burkina Faso,” n.p., 2013.

[31] B. Simane, H. Beyene, W. Deressa, A. Kumie, K. Berhane, and J. Samet, “Review of Climate Change and Health in Ethiopia: Status and Gap Analysis,” Ethiop. J. Heal. Dev., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 28–41, 2016.

[32] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC in Burkina Faso,” Atlanta, Georgia, 2011.

[33] Severe Malaria Observatory, “Burkina Faso,” 2019. Online available: https://www.severemalaria.org/countries/burkina-faso [Accessed: 31-Oct-2019].

[34] E. Diboulo et al., “Weather and Mortality: A 10 Year Retrospective Analysis of the Nouna Health and Demographic Surveillance System, Burkina Faso,” Glob. Health Action, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 19078, Dec. 2012.

[35] K. Belesova, A. Gasparrini, A. Sié, R. Sauerborn, and P. Wilkinson, “Annual Crop-Yield Variation, Child Survival and Nutrition Among Subsistence Farmers in Burkina Faso,” Am. J. Epidemiol., vol. 187, no. 2, pp. 242–250, 2018.

[36] International Committee of the Red Cross, “Burkina Faso: Increased Armed Violence Means Loss of Health Care for Half a Million People,” 2019. Online available: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/burkina-faso-increased-armed-violence-means-loss-health-care-halfmillion-people [Accessed: 31-Oct-2019].

Climate change threatens the health and sanitation sector through more frequent incidences of heatwaves, floods, droughts and storms [31]. Among the key health challenges in Burkina Faso are morbidity and mortality through temperature extremes, vector-borne diseases, such as malaria, waterborne diseases related to extreme weather events (e.g. flooding), such as diarrhoea, and respiratory diseases, which are the number one cause of death [32]. According to the Severe Malaria Observatory, malaria is responsible for 61.5 % of hospitalisations in Burkina Faso and the largest contributor to mortality for children under five years of age [33]. Furthermore, extreme weather events as well as climate impacts on food and water supply are likely to increase the risk of malnutrition, hunger and death by famine. Scientific investigations found a strong link between extreme weather events and mortality patterns in Burkina Faso [34]. Additionally, climate-induced variations in crop yields were negatively associated with children’s nutritional status and child survival in rural areas [35]. Despite increased government funding and expansion of health interventions, access to health care in Burkina Faso remains limited and is becoming increasingly difficult: According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), more than 500 000 people in Burkina Faso have no access to health care because many health and humanitarian organisations have limited or even closed down their operations due to armed conflicts [36].

Exposure to heatwaves

Rising temperatures will result in more frequent heatwaves in Burkina Faso, leading to increased heat-related mortality. Under RCP6.0, the population affected by at least one heatwave per year is projected to increase from 1.7 % in 2000 to 10 % in 2080 (Figure 17).

Heat-related mortality

Furthermore, heat-related mortality will likely increase from approximately 2 to about 10 deaths per 100 000 people per year, which translates to an increase by a factor of five towards the end of the century compared to year 2000 levels, provided that no adaptation to hotter conditions will take place (Figure 18). Under RCP2.6, heat-related mortality is projected to increase to about 5 deaths per 100 000 people per year in 2080.

References

[31] B. Simane, H. Beyene, W. Deressa, A. Kumie, K. Berhane, and J. Samet, “Review of Climate Change and Health in Ethiopia: Status and Gap Analysis,” Ethiop. J. Heal. Dev., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 28–41, 2016.
[32] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC in Burkina Faso,” Atlanta, Georgia, 2011.
[33] Severe Malaria Observatory, “Burkina Faso,” 2019. Online available: https://www.severemalaria.org/countries/burkina-faso [Accessed: 31-Oct-2019].
[34] E. Diboulo et al., “Weather and Mortality: A 10 Year Retrospective Analysis of the Nouna Health and Demographic Surveillance System, Burkina Faso,” Glob. Health Action, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 19078, Dec. 2012.
[35] K. Belesova, A. Gasparrini, A. Sié, R. Sauerborn, and P. Wilkinson, “Annual Crop-Yield Variation, Child Survival and Nutrition Among Subsistence Farmers in Burkina Faso,” Am. J. Epidemiol., vol. 187, no. 2, pp. 242–250, 2018.
[36] International Committee of the Red Cross, “Burkina Faso: Increased Armed Violence Means Loss of Health Care for Half a Million People,” 2019. Online available: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/burkina-faso-increased-armed-violence-means-loss-health-care-halfmillion-people [Accessed: 31-Oct-2019].

Climate change is expected to have a significant influence on the ecology and distribution of tropical ecosystems, though the magnitude, rate and direction of these changes are uncertain [27]. With rising temperatures and increased frequency and intensity of droughts, wetlands and riverine systems are increasingly at risk of being converted to other ecosystems, with plants being succeeded and animals losing habitats. Increased temperatures and droughts can also influence succession in forest systems while concurrently increasing the risk of invasive species, all of which affect ecosystems.

Species richness

Model projections of species richness (including amphibians, birds and mammals) and tree cover for Burkina Faso are shown in Figure 15 and 16, respectively. The models applied for this analysis show clear patterns of change in species richness across both RCPs: In most regions, the number of species is projected to decrease in response to climate change (Figure 15). In 2080, under RCP6.0, this decrease will reach almost 10 % compared to the year 2000. An increase of species richness is only projected for the south-west of Burkina Faso.

Tree cover

The opposite gradient is found in tree cover projections, with increases projected for the north-east and decreases projected for the south-west (Figure 16). Under RCP6.0, the increase in tree cover in the northeast amounts to about 5 % compared to the year 2000. This can be explained by the increasing precipitation levels in this region.

Although these results paint an overall positive picture for climate change impacts on tree cover, it is important to keep in mind that the model projections exclude any impacts on biodiversity loss from human activities such as land use, which have been responsible for significant losses of global biodiversity in the past, and are expected to remain its main driver in the future [28]. In Burkina Faso, the need for new settlements, land for cultivation and for fuel wood threatens tree cover and biodiversity [29]. Fuel wood covers 85 % of household energy needs in Burkina Faso, resulting in ongoing deforestation [30]. These pressures are likely to intensify due to low agricultural production and population growth, resulting in even higher rates of deforestation, land degradation and forest fires, all of which will impact animal and plant biodiversity.

References

[27] T. M. Shanahan et al., “CO2 and Fire Influence Tropical Ecosystem Stability in Response to Climate Change,” Nat. Publ. Gr., no. July, pp. 1–8, 2016.
[28] IPBES, “Report of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on the Work of Its Seventh Session,” n.p., 2019.
[29] K. Dimobe, A. Ouédraogo, S. Soma, D. Goetze, S. Porembski, and A. Thiombiano, “Identification of Driving Factors of Land Degradation and Deforestation in the Wildlife Reserve of Bontioli (Burkina Faso, West Africa),” Glob. Ecol. Conserv., vol. 4, pp. 559–571, 2015.
[30] A. Russell et al., “Using Forests to Enhance Resilience to Climate Change: The Case of the Wood-Energy Sector in Burkina Faso,” n.p., 2013.

Climate change is expected to significantly affect Burkina Faso’s infrastructure sector through extreme weather events, such as flooding and droughts. High precipitation amounts can lead to flooding of transport infrastructure including roads and railroads, while high temperatures can cause roads, bridges and protective structures to develop cracks and degrade more quickly. Transport infrastructure is very vulnerable to extreme weather events, yet essential for social, economic and agricultural livelihoods. Roads serve communities to trade their goods and access healthcare, education, credit as well as other services, especially in rural and remote areas.

Extreme weather events will also have devastating effects on human settlements and economic production sites, especially in urban areas with high population densities like Ouagadougou or Bobo-Dioulasso. Informal settlements are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events: Makeshift homes are often built in unstable geographical locations including river banks, where flooding can lead to loss of housing, contamination of water, injury or death. Dwellers usually have low adaptive capacity to respond to such events due to high levels of poverty and a lack of risk-reducing infrastructures. These challenges are particularly salient in Ouagadougou, where urban flooding is a major problem during the rainy season. For example, in 2009, the city experienced torrential precipitation leading to water runoffs and flooding, affecting more than 180 000 people. 41 people died and 33 172 houses were completely destroyed [25].

Despite the risk of infrastructure damage being likely to increase due to climate change, precise predictions of the location and the extent of exposure are difficult to make. For example, projections of river flood events are subject to substantial modelling uncertainty, largely due to the uncertainty of future projections of precipitation amounts and their spatial distribution, affecting flood occurrence (see also Figure 4 in the Climate section). In the case of Burkina Faso, projections for both RCP2.6 and RCP6.0 show almost no change in the exposure of major roads to river floods. In the year 2000, 0.13 % of major roads were exposed to river floods at least once a year, while by 2080, this value is projected to change to 0.14 % under RCP2.6 and to 0.12 % under RCP6.0. In a similar way, exposure of urban land area to floods is projected not to change under either RCP (Figure 13).

While all models project an increase in the exposure of the GDP to heatwaves, the magnitude of the increase is subject to high modelling uncertainty with two models projecting strong and two models projecting weak increases. Median model projections for RCP2.6 show an increase from 2.0 % in 2000 to 7.0 % by 2080. Under RCP6.0, exposure is projected to increase to 10.5 % over the same time period. It is recommended that policy planners start identifying heat-sensitive economic production sites and activities, and integrating climate adaptation strategies, such as improved, solar-powered cooling systems, “cool roof” isolation materials or switching the operating hours from day to night [26].

References

[25] S. Dos Santos, J. P. Peumi, and A. Soura, “Risk Factors of Becoming a Disaster Victim: The Flood of September 1st, 2009, in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso),” Habitat Int., vol. 86, no. March, pp. 81–90, 2019.
[26] M. Dabaieh, O. Wanas, M. A. Hegazy, and E. Johansson, “Reducing Cooling Demands in a Hot Dry Climate: A Simulation Study for Non-Insulated Passive Cool Roof Thermal Performance in Residential Buildings,” Energy Build., vol. 89, pp. 142–152, 2015.

Smallholder farmers in Burkina Faso are increasingly challenged by the uncertainty and variability of weather that climate change causes [18], [19]. Since crops are predominantly rainfed, they depend on water availability from precipitation and are prone to drought. However, the length and intensity of the rainy season is becoming increasingly unpredictable and the use of irrigation facilities remains limited due to high costs of initial investment, problems regarding the maintenance of the equipment and harsh environmental conditions [20]. Currently, only 0.5 % of the total national crop land and 27 % of the estimated irrigation potential of 233 500 ha are irrigated [21], [22]. Especially in northern Burkina Faso, soils are poor in nutrients, sandy and shallow, which makes them vulnerable to drying, erosion and flooding [23]. 

Crop land exposure to drought

Currently, the high uncertainty of projections regarding water availability (Figure 9) translates into high uncertainty of drought projections (Figure 10). According to the median over all models employed for this analysis, the national crop land area exposed to at least one drought per year will hardly change in response to global warming. However, there are models that project a strong increase in drought exposure. Under RCP6.0, the likely range of drought exposure of the national crop land area per year widens from 0.07–3.8 % in 2000 to 0.04–16.0 % in 2080. The very likely range widens from 0.01–12.0 % in 2000 to 0.01–29.0 % in 2080. This means that some models project up to a fourfold increase in drought exposure over this time period, while others project no change.

Crop yield projections

Climate change will have a negative impact on yields of maize, millet and sorghum (Figure 11). While maize is sensitive to hot temperatures above 35 °C, millet and sorghum tolerate hot temperatures and dry periods better [24]. Still, model results indicate a negative yield trend for all three crops under both RCPs with a stronger decrease under RCP6.0. Compared to the year 2000, amounts are projected to decline by 12.0 % for maize and 7.5 % for millet and sorghum by 2080 under RCP6.0. Under RCP2.6, yields of maize are projected to decline by 8.4 % and yields of millet and sorghum by 5.2 %, whereas yields of cow peas and rice are projected to gain from climate change. Under RCP6.0, projections show an increase in yield by 16.2 % for cow peas and 27.0 % for rice by 2080 relative to the year 2000. An explanation for the positive results under RCP6.0 is that cow peas and rice are so-called C3 plants, which follow a different metabolic pathway than maize, millet and sorghum (C4 plants), and benefit more from the CO2 fertilisation effect under higher concentration pathways. Yields of groundnuts are projected to decrease under RCP2.6 and slightly increase under RCP6.0. The decrease under RCP2.6 can be explained by non-temperature related parameters such as changes in precipitation, while the increase under RCP6.0 can be explained by the CO2 fertilisation effect.

Overall, adaptation strategies such as switching to improved varieties in climate change sensitive crops should be considered, yet carefully weighed against adverse outcomes, such as a resulting decline of agro-biodiversity and loss of local crop types.

References

[18] B. Barbier, H. Yacouba, H. Karambiri, M. Zoromé, and B. Somé, “Human Vulnerability to Climate Variability in the Sahel: Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies in Northern Burkina Faso,” Environ. Manage., vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 790–803, 2009.
[19] B. Sarr et al., “Adapting to Climate Variability and Change in Smallholder Farming Communities: A Case Study From Burkina Faso, Chad and Niger (CVCADAPT),” J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 16–27, 2015.
[20] J. Wanvoeke, J. P. Venot, C. De Fraiture, and M. Zwarteveen, “Smallholder Drip Irrigation in Burkina Faso: The Role of Development Brokers,” J. Dev. Stud., vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 1019–1033, 2016.
[21] R. E. Namara and H. Sally, “Proceedings of the Workshop on Irrigation in West Africa: Current Status and a View to the Future,” Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2014.
[22] USAID, “Country Profile: Property Rights and Resource Governance in Burkina Faso,” Washington, D.C., 2017.
[23] USAID, “Climate Risks in Food for Peace Geographies: Burkina Faso,” Washington, D.C., 2017.
[24] USAID, “Climate Risk in Food for Peace Geographies: Kenya,” Washington, D.C., 2019.

Over the last decades, Burkina Faso has experienced strong seasonal and annual variations in precipitation, which present a major constraint to agricultural production. According to the International Water Association, drought has affected a cumulative number of about 12.4 million people between 1969 and 2014 in Burkina Faso [15]. While transhumance used to be an effective way to deal with variations in precipitation and droughts in Burkina Faso, people’s reliance on this type of pastoralism has been challenged by increasingly unpredictable precipitation patterns and, consequently, a lack of good pastures and water, leading to increasing competition for limited natural resources. Other factors include population growth, conflicts between farmers and herders and terrorist activities in the region, making this mode of living less profitable and sometimes even dangerous [16]. Extreme droughts tend to have a cascading effect for farmers: First, lack of water reduces crop yields, which increases the risk of food insecurity for people and their livestock, which in turn limits their capacity to cope with future droughts [16]. Not only rural but also urban areas experience the consequences of droughts: Especially Ouagadougou suffers from recurring water shortages, intensified by rapid urban growth and poor infrastructure. During a severe drought in 2016, the local government had to ration the city’s water supply to 12 hours a day, affecting more than two million people [17].

Per capita water availability

Current projections of water availability in Burkina Faso display high uncertainty under both GHG emissions scenarios. Assuming a constant population level, multi-model median projections suggest only a minor decrease in per capita water availability over Burkina Faso by the end of the century under RCP2.6 and a decrease of 20 % under RCP6.0 (Figure 8A). Yet, when accounting for population growth according to SSP2 projections5, per capita water availability for Burkina Faso is projected to decline by 80 % by 2080 relative to the year 2000 under both scenarios (Figure 8B). While this decline is driven primarily by population growth rather than climate change, it highlights the urgency to invest in water saving measures and technologies for future water consumption.

Spatial distribution of water availability

Projections of future water availability from precipitation vary depending on the region and scenario (Figure 9). However, common to all regions is the high modelling uncertainty of the projected changes. This modelling uncertainty, along with the high natural variability of precipitation, in particular in the north of the country, contribute to uncertain regional future precipitation trends all over Burkina Faso.

References

[15] B. Ampomah-Ankrah, “The Impact of Climate Change on Water Supply in the Sahel Region: The Case of Burkina Faso,” International Water Association, 2019. Online available: https://iwa-network.org/the-impact-of-climate-change-on-water-supply-in-the-sahel-region [Accessed: 31-Oct-2019].
[16] S. Traore and T. Owiyo, “Dirty Droughts Causing Loss and Damage in Northern Burkina Faso,” Int. J. Glob. Warm., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 498–513, 2013.
[17] M. Winsor, “Drought-Hit Burkina Faso Rations Water Supply in Ouagadougou Amid Severe Shortage,” International Business Times, 2016. Online available: https://www.ibtimes.com/droughthit-burkina-faso-rations-water-supply-ouagadougou-amid-severeshortages-2363145 [Accessed: 02-Mar-2020].

While most adaptation strategies seek to minimise risks stemming from climate change, not all risks can be eliminated. Weather perils, such as droughts, storms or erratic precipitation represent so-called systemic risks that go beyond the farmers’ or communities’ coping ability. Thus, mechanisms are needed that distribute risk to avoid that certain groups or individuals are particularly affected and lose their livelihoods. One of such risk transfer solutions is crop insurance, which allows farmers to insure their crop yields against weather-induced losses. It is also a risk-specific adaptation strategy, which becomes irrelevant in the absence of weather and climate risks. While insurance usually is based on indemnity-assessment, with smallholder farmers this model is problematic due to the high transaction costs such an insurance scheme entails, e.g. for claim disbursements. Thus, a more suitable approach for smallholder farmers are weather index-based insurances (WII), a scheme that uses a weather index, such as temperature or precipitation to determine a payout. Alternative index-based insurance schemes can also be useful, such as area-yield index insurance.

Index insurance schemes for crops and livestock have been developed and tested in several pilot schemes in Ethiopia, but are not widely implemented yet. There is continued interest and engagement from within the country to further promote insurance solutions for the agricultural sector. For example, the Japan International Agency for Cooperation (JICA) recently launched a new “Index-based Crop Insurance Promotion (ICIP) project” in 2019 together with the Ministry of Agriculture and the Oromia Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources (OBoANR) (JICA, 2019). The programme is expected to cover 20,000 farmers in the Oromia region over the next five years.

During expert and stakeholder interviews conducted for this study, there was wide consensus that crop and livestock insurance has a low uptake in Ethiopia as of yet, and is regarded as having only limited upscaling potential in the country. Accordingly, interest in insurance among interviewees, survey and workshop participants was low, which may, however, be rather an expression of difficult implementation of insurance schemes than of general lack of interest, as the in-depth interviews revealed. Thus, there appears to be a need for further research on how to effectively operationalise insurance in Ethiopia and how to ensure better uptake and sustainability.

In sum, crop insurance can be considered an important adaptation strategy, because it can address risk, which cannot be mitigated in an economically sensible way with physical adaptation measures and acts as a safety net for farmers in times of extreme weather events. However, premium costs may not be affordable for farmers, requiring financial support in order to increase uptake.

References

• Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). (2019). Index-based Insurance to benefit Small-holder Farmers through JICA Project. Retrieved June 13, 2019, from https://www.jica.go.jp/ ethiopia/english/office/topics/190419.html.

Fodder and feed improvement is regarded as a promising adaptation strategy that, according to interviewed experts, has high potential for upscaling in Ethiopia. Fodder and feed improvement is an umbrella term subsuming different strategies and technologies to improve nutritional quality, digestibility, quantity and availability of fodder and feed resources for livestock production. These include, for example, integration of pasture and forages into farm production, establishing fodder banks with improved forages and fodder trees, treatment of crop residues (e.g. with urea), silage and hay production, irrigation for production of off-season pasture and feed crops, improved grazing land resources management, increase of administering high-quality feed concentrate (Birhan & Adugna, 2014; Birhanu, Girma, & Puskur, 2017b).  

To improve fodder and feed, a number of adaptation strategies have proven successful in Ethiopia, for example: Improved and high-yielding forage varieties, intercropping grasses and cereals with legumes, cultivation of irrigated fodder banks, natural pasture improvement through removing of invasive weeds, temporal zero-grazing and cut-and-carry feeding regimes on degraded pastures to restore and increase carrying capacity. Such strategies can boost livestock production, resilience and farmer income. 

We conducted a cost-benefit analysis of one specific strategy to improve fodder for livestock in Ethiopia: irrigated Napier grass. Cultivating Napier grass and irrigating it was shown to be highly cost-effective. Importantly, the farmer’s investment in Napier grass will pay off after three years when the break-even point between net costs and net benefits is reached. It thus has a high and fast return to investment, as the following figure visualises. 

While the examples above demonstrate the potential to increase livestock production even under a changing climate, the adoption of improved feed and fodder management strategies across the country so far remains rather low (Birhanu et al., 2017a), which was also confirmed by experts interviewed for this study. Yet, stakeholders and experts consistently expressed high interest in this measure throughout interviews, the survey and the workshop. In fact, due to the high importance and increasing policy awareness of this topic, experts interviewed see high upscaling potential for adoption of improved feed technologies in the country. Not all concrete strategies can be applied everywhere, irrigated Napier grass for instance may be difficult to implement in the lowland pastoralist and agro-pastoralist regions, but suitable strategies and improvements over the current practices can be found for all regions. 

However, several issues need to be addressed to achieve this goal. Insufficient financial means, lack of market access and infrastructure and limited capacity among extension agents to provide adequate information and training are common constraints to technology adoption in smallholder farming that also apply to livestock production (Gebremedhin, Ahmed, & Ehui, 2003).

Table 4 lists some key potential co-benefits or maladaptive outcomes that may accrue with improved fodder and feed. 

All in all, we conclude that looking at this specific adaptation strategy, action is much more profitable than inaction, although other improved fodder and feed strategies or factors, such as prices would change the results. 

References

• Birhan, M., & Adugna, T. (2014). Livestock feed resources assessment, constraints and improve-ment strategies in Ethiopia. Middle-East Journal For Scientific Research, 21(4), 616–622.
• Birhanu, M. Y., Girma, A., & Puskur, R. (2017a). Determinants of success and intensity of livestock feed technologies use in Ethiopia: Evidence from a positive deviance perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 115, 15–25.
• Birhanu, M. Y., Girma, A., & Puskur, R. (2017b). Determinants of success and intensity of livestock feed technologies use in Ethiopia: Evidence from a positive deviance perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 115, 15–25.
• Gebremedhin, B., Ahmed, M., & Ehui, S. (2003). Determinants of adoption of improved forage technologies in crop-livestock mixed systems: Evidence from the highlands of Ethiopia. Retrieved from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/ handle/10568/27820.

Agroforestry is a complex field of interventions, comprising many different specific practices. In the climate risk analysis, we mainly considered the integration of trees in farming systems and tree-crop production. Agroforestry practices are considered as climate change adaptation for several reasons: Trees integrated in farming systems provide shade and thus lower temperature and enhance soil moisture, regulating the microclimate (Lasco, Delfino, & Espaldon, 2014). They generally save water, as they reduce evapotranspiration and improve soil fertility, for instance with falling leaves acting as mulch. Further, agroforestry systems can reduce pests and diseases. In terms of risk response, agroforestry systems are thus able to reduce risk from changing climatic conditions, such as rising temperatures and erratic precipitation. In addition, soil erosion can be lowered with targeted forestation, particularly on steep slopes.

An analysis of the effectiveness of agroforestry using a process-based crop model showed that agroforestry has the potential to stabilise maize yields in zones which are projected to experience yield losses under climate change (see Figure 5). 10 % or 20 % shade levels can reduce the losses projected (between 4-26 % in some zones), but would negatively affect yields in zones which are projected to benefit from climate change. However, those results are rather conservative, as they do not take into account the potential yield increases and other benefits of enhanced soil organic carbon due to agroforestry strategies, for instance. 

The economic analysis showed that adapting maize production with agroforestry is very beneficial in comparison to the inaction scenario. Over time, it has a highly positive return on investment, with a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 5.1 and an internal rate of return (IRR) of 42.7 % (see Figure 6).  

Further, agroforestry practices offer scope for many development co-benefits, which are described in Table 3. 

All in all, agroforestry appears to be one of the most promising adaptation strategies considered in the climate risk analysis, thanks to the many co-benefits it can offer, when implemented wisely. 

References

Lasco, R. D., Delfino, R. J. P., & Espaldon, M. L. O. (2014). Agroforestry systems: Helping small-holders adapt to climate risks while mitigating climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(6), 825–833.