At the core of the ongoing debate regarding the implications of climatechange in sub-Saharan Africa there is the issue of foodsecurity. In this part of Africa,
millions of small scale subsistence farmers farm land and produce food in extremely challenging conditions. The production environment is known to be characterized by a joint combination of low land productivity and harsh weather conditions (i.e., high average temperature, and scarce and erratic rainfall). These result in very low yields of food crops and food insecurity. With low diversified economies and reliance on rain-fed agriculture, sub- Saharan Africa’s development prospects have been closely associated with climate. For instance, the World Bank reported that droughts and floods have reduced Ethiopia’s economic growth by more than a third. Climatechange is projected to further reduce food production (Rosenzweig and Parry, 1994; Parry et al., 2005; Cline, 2007). A plethora of climate models converge in forecasting scenarios of increased temperatures for most of this area Dinar et al. 2008).
important to establish adequate access to credit, e.g., via micro- credit. Moreover, the availability, variety, and quality of inputs like fertilizer and seeds should be improved to enhance adapta- tion. Second, short- and long-term maintenance of SLM prac- tices is important to enhance effectiveness of adaptation prac- tices, but maintenance is often overlooked in Ethiopia. Exten- sion workers, experts, and farmers could collaborate to plan and implement short- and long-term maintenance services. Third, farmers are shifting to cereal crops and decreasing the use of enset for food, while enset is a perennial crop that is more drought tolerant and has higher yields than cereals. The gov- ernment could promote the use of enset for different livelihood activities (such as food, income generation, and forage). Finally, farmers’ foodsecurity can also be enhanced by taking advan- tage of synergies between SLM and LF and resolving their contrasting effects. Now, LF is largely exogenous to farmers— which is why we do not consider endogeneity problems in our estimation—but it is clear that the assembling of plots into larger heterogeneous clusters of the plots could help farmers to become more food secure. Plot assembly may be possible through government assistance with the voluntary bartering of plots, introduction of an inheritance scheme that avoids further plot disintegration, and the creation of a land rental market by introducing land privatization. Each of these policy options re- quires additional research. Given the benefits and challenges of the high level of LF in the study area, further research is needed to investigate LF and its effects.
Some attempts have been made to estimate the impact of climatechange on food production at the country, regional, or global scale (Pearce et al. 1996; McCarthy et al. 2001; Parry et al. 2004; Stern 2007). Insights from these studies are crucial to appreciating the extent of the problem and to designing appropriate mitigation strategies at the global or regional level. However, these attempts fail to provide critical insights in terms of effective adaptation strategies at the micro or household level. Studies on the impact of climatic change (in particular rainfall and temperature) and climate-related adaptation measures on crop yield are very scanty. To the best of our knowledge, Deressa (2007) is the only economic study that attempts to measure the impact of climatechange on farm profits in Ethiopia. This study applies the Ricardian approach, wherein the cost of climatechange is imputed from farm net revenue as a proxy for capitalized land value. However, while this study was conducted using subregional (agro-ecology) agricultural data as well as household-level it did not identify the determinants of each of the adaptation methods used.
The IPCC defines “CCA refers to the modification in natural or manmade systems in response to actual or expected climatic incentives and/or their effects that regulate harm or exploits beneficial opportunities” (IPCC, 2001). There are different sorts of adaptation with respective application area. Structural adaptation means taking some fundamental measures to lessen the impacts of environmental change. For example, to ensure foodsecurityfrom the impacts of unfavorable environmental change generation of the sustenance things should be extended (Gallopin, 2006). Non-structural adaptation is considered as the delicate adjustment. Scattering of the appropriate and applicable data to the people, conveying issues to light among the people, thus on is joined in this sort (Nelson et al., 2007). Expectant adaptation is based on the view that is “prevention is better than cure.” Sooner or later more groups can take the exercises to lessen unfavorable impacts of environmental change before encountering the outcomes. In reactive adaptation adjustments, that taken after calamity infers the responsive adjustment. Possible options are implicated considering the results of the calamities (Kabir et al., 2016). Autonomous and planned adaptation are micro-farm level and macro-policy level adaptation, respectively (FAO, 2007). Autonomous adaptation involves environmental change that includes changes generation of distinctive yield diversities or species, changes in the usage of irrigation water or variations in the use of different inputs in farm administration. Planned adaptations are division-wide changes in any procedures or frameworks that can assemble atmospheric flexibility to a more proficient use under impacts of environmental change (Kabir et al., 2016).
The parameter estimates of the MNL model provide only the direction of the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable shown in Table 1. Thus, the marginal effects measure the expected change in probability of a particular choice being made with respect to unit change in an explanatory variable (Green, 2012; Long, 1997). The signs of the marginal effects and respective coefficients may be different, as the former depend on the sign and magnitude of all other coefficients. Then, the interpretations for each of the adaptive strategy are has reduced farm productivity and household foodsecurity. Although farmers have been able to deal with past related hazards is forcing farmers to engage more frequently in emergency coping strategies such as consuming seeds reserved for planting and
2007 ). Because of the challenges caused by population growth, water shortages (Tao et al. 2003 ), loss of cropland due to urbanization (Liu et al. 2005a , b ), soil degradation (Tao et al. 2005 ), and climatechange (Tao et al. 2006 ), the need for reliable predictions of food production and potential adaptation options has become increasingly important. Future food demand and supply are strongly related to the country’s future population, economy, technology, resources, climate, and other factors. Current studies have generally failed to comprehensively account for changes and adaptations in future land-use, socioeconomic and technological scenarios. More integrated multidisciplinary studies are needed to provide reasonable scenarios for future changes. However, since the problem of predicting future food production is becoming more and more complex, the time is not yet ripe for designing a compre- hensive coupled model that accounts for all the factors that will have a significant influence on food production (Döös 2002 ). Nevertheless, recent advances in scenario development make it possible to perform a reasonably well-integrated analysis. For example, on the basis of an analysis of a range of development and policy scenarios over a 30-year time horizon, CHINAGRO ( 2005 ) tried to establish an informed policy dialogue between China and the European Union to improve foodsecurity, farmer income, and sustainable agricultural development in China. Ewert et al. ( 2005 ) and Rounsevell et al. ( 2005 ) predicted changes in crop productivity and agricultural land use in Europe by using scenarios that represent alternative economic and environmental pathways for future development.
Amsalu and De Graaff 2007). Based on the data from a comprehensive survey of agricultural households across three agro-ecologies in Muger River sub-basin of the Blue-Nile Basin, Amare and Simane (2017b) identified soil and water conservation practices are most widely used adaptation option in response to climatechange. The use of these adaptation options was found to reduce soil erosion associated with short but heavy rains. Farmers are adapting SWC practices to retain soil-water content and maintain humidity during dry spells through an improved soil structure (McCarthy et al. 2011). Simi- larly, the use of different agronomic practices is consid- ered as the potential adaptation option to the adverse effects of climatechange on agriculture. The analysis by Amare and Simane (2017b) in the Muger River sub-basin showed that using agronomic practices such as drought- tolerant crop varieties, crop diversification, and improved crop varieties is an another dominant strategy that is found to be used by smallholder farmers in adapting to the negative effects of climate variability and change as well as resultant changes in crop pest and disease pres- sures. Improved varieties (drought-tolerant varieties and/ or short cycle) allow for increased productivity even dur- ing dry seasons (Lobell et al. 2008). Furthermore, Ellis and Freeman (2004) found that crop diversity is used as a strategy for risk avoidance due to sharp fluctuations in crop yield or prices.
There have been an increasing amount of calls for wide-ranging transformational change to societal structures to address climatechange (O’Brien 2016). However, multiple drivers of institutional inertia slow down action in the international sphere (Munck af Rosenschöld et al. 2014). Dangerous climatechange marks a planetary boundary (Steffen et al. 2015), the effects of which are significant once past a certain tipping point (Lenton et al. 2008). Yet, as some regions are more vulnerable than others due to their geographical location and position in the globalized economic system, impacts are being felt and appraised differently across the globe (O’Brien & Leichenko 2000). Climate-related hazards are an elusive category of disruptive natural calamities, as they often coincide with other environmental problems – and compounded by socio-economic, demographic, or cultural factors. Despite apparent tensions and challenges in addressing climatechange effectively, it is noted that adopting appropriate climateadaptation policies directed toward maintaining social and ecological resilience has become increasingly politically legitimate. This can be discerned in the recently adopted UNFCCC Paris Agreement, stressing the importance of adaptation in climate policy (Mogelgaard et al. 2016), as well as in an increase in adaptation funding on a global scale (Termeer et al. 2017). Because of the increasing complexity of society and connectedness between societal sectors, regions, countries, and beyond, the role of public policy to structure adaptation practices and strategies and more autonomous efforts enacted by non- governmental actors have been emphasized (Bauer et al. 2012; Mees et al. 2012; see also Chapter 23).
countries in East Africa— Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. In addition, the study assesses the adequacy of current climatechange and agriculture related policies.
2. Study approach
The study combines literature review with face to face interviews of 53 key informants across the four countries. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to interview representatives from government institutions, civil society organizations, project contact persons and the private sector representatives in 2011. Of the 53 respondents interviewed, 28% were fromEthiopia, 15% from Kenya, 34% from Tanzania, and 21% from Uganda. The government departments interviewed included agriculture, energy, environment, meteorology, water and climatechange coordinating agencies. Others interviewed included research institutions, donor agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In each country, a national facilitator reviewed literature, collected data and prepared the draft national report. Overall, the study was coordinated by a regional facilitator, who analysed the survey data and synthesized the national reports into a regional report, including filling in existing gaps.
The first step of the analysis highlighted that access to information about climatechange and extension services are key determinants of adaptation. They significantly increase the likelihood that farm households adapt to climatechange. This finding is consistent with Koundouri et al. (2006) on irrigation technology adoption under pro- duction uncertainty. Farm households that are better informed may value less the option to wait, and so are more likely to adopt new technologies than other farmers. This implies that waiting for gathering more and better information might have a positive value, and the provision of information on climatechange might reduce the quasi- option value associated with adaptation. Koundouri et al. (2006) conclude that “policy makers may use information provision to induce faster diffusion of adoption among farmers” (p. 659). They also emphasize that subsidies can be an alternative instrument to incentivize adoption and diffusion of new technology. However, subsidy policies may cause income transfers from other economic sectors with consequential welfare losses (Stoneman and David, 1986).
Future climatechange cannot be adequately predicted without a sound understanding of the future expectation of the emission and concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, which will depend on socio-economic trends including population and economic growth, technological changes, energy demand, fuel mix, etc. IPCC (2001) have developed a set of six emission scenarios that can be used for climate changes studies. These are known as SRES scenarios (A1FI, A1T, A1B, A2, B1, B2). The “A” scenarios have more of an emphasis on economic growth while the “B” scenarios emphasis on environmental protection. The “1” scenarios assume more globalization while the “2” scenarios assume more regionalization. The A1 scenario family develops into three groups that describe alternative directions of technological change in the energy system. The three A1 groups are distinguished by their technological emphasis: fossil intensive (A1FI), non-fossil energy sources (A1T), or a balance across all sources (A1B) (where balanced is defined as not relying too heavily on one particular energy source, on the assumption that similar improvement rates apply to all energy supply and end use technologies). It should be noted that a scenario is not a forecast but a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world (IPCC 2001).
The General Equilibrium economic Models (GEMs), which deal with the entire economic part with the optimal distribution of resources when the profit is maximized under perfect competition in all markets, are developed for analysis of international trade policy in the first instance, but could also be used to investigate the explicit results of economic fluctuations due to climatechange. Kane et al. (1992) and Reilly et al. (1994) have studied impact assessment on global agriculture by using the SWAPSIM world food model. It is worthwhile noting that the national and partial equilibrium studies report higher impacts than global and general equilibrium studies. For one thing, the substitute procedure between agricultural and non‐agricultural sectors and international trade effect smoothen the losses in a certain sector due to regional climatechange. Another reason is that the general equilibrium models take account of the welfare of all the agents within the whole economic system, which means the losses of one agent would be balanced out by the gains for another, and the net effect is finally weakened. At the macro scale, the modelling work requires a much larger coverage in sectors of economy as well as a special consideration of effects of international market and trade as the background of regional analysis in terms of economy, and then at a more disaggregated scale the regional impacts of climatechange would be incorporated. However, it is difficult to satisfy the large requirement of data in economy for these kinds of model.
Creation of Legitimacy Adaptation measures need to become part of an incumbent regime or replace the regime. Parties with vested interests, like value chain actors will often oppose this since it will put pressure on their current economic interests.
Market Formation Adaptation measures may come at higher costs (opportunity costs) relative to the incumbent production system. Value chain actors may therefore need to create temporary niche markets for experimentation. Tax regimes or payments (incentives, subsidies) may also support farmers. Farmer Activities The farmer has to incorporate adaptation measures and generate (new) opportunities in coffee production while coping with increasing climate
In view of that, vast majority of previous studies in developing countries have focused on investigating determinants of climateadaptation strategies. Deressa et al. (2008), Hassan and Nhemachena (2008), Seo (2010), Falco et al. (2011a, 2011b) and Tessema et al. (2013) assessed farmers’ perception about climatechange and factors affecting their decisions to use adaptation mechanisms. To our knowledge, though growing, there is little evidence on the effectiveness of individual climateadaptation strategies adopted by smallholder farmers. This is particularly important to inform policy makers in identifying most effective adaptation measures that could help reduce farmers’ vulnerability to climatechange and variability. In this regard, Molua (2002) for Cameroon and Falco et al. (2011b) for Ethiopia partly assessed the effect of adaptation on foodsecurity. Their analyses took crop production and net farm revenue as measures of household foodsecurity. But, both crop production and farm revenue can indicate only one dimension of foodsecurity i.e. food availability.
Mitigation and a reduction of the carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere could help in a great way in address- ing climatechange effects on agriculture yield. In addition, both mitigation and adoption strategies will require support from governments and policy makers. Mitigation basically means measures undertaken with the aim of reducing the amount of emissions so as to enhance absorption capacity of greenhouse gases. Also, carbon sto- rage through crop management “best practices” for example no-till agriculture or reduce the amount of carbon emission into the atmosphere through, burning, tillage, and soil erosion. There are numerous “best” management practices in agriculture that raise SOC, including reducing the amount of bare fallow, restoring degraded soils, improving pastures and grazing land, irrigation, crop and forage rotation, and no-tillage practices . Most important, production of liquid fuels from grains and oilseeds would on a greater way help in mitigation and also cutting down continued dependence and reliance on fossil fuel. Equally important, improving the efficiency of fertilizer application or turning to organic production can decrease the amount of nutrient load and N 2 O emis-
effectively, thereby posi ng new risks for foodsecurity. For ins tance, more people will be exposed to vector-borne diseases such as Malaria, Dengue and Chikungunya. According to Dhara, Schramm and Luber (2013), the entire population of India except those living in areas above 1700 m above sea level are at ris k of contracting malaria. The viral diseases like Chikungunya and Dengue may also be influenced by climate as both are trans mitted by the common vector Aedes Aegypti. The urban poor living in informal settlements are particularly vulnerable, absent the basic facilities such as piped water, sanitation, clean drinking water, drainage sys tems, and health facilities. High incidence of undernutrition due to poverty exposes the urban poor to diseases linked to climate impacts, which in turn aggravates undernutrition and ill -health and reduces the ability to adapt and build resilience to climatechange. Children have been found to be at greater risk when food supplies are restricted.
Abstract: The world’s drylands are home to 2 billion people, many of whom depend on natural resources, biodiversity and agro-biodiversity for their livelihoods. The vulnerability of pastoral communities to climatechange is higher than those who depend on agriculture (crop production) due to the synergic effect of inadequate health services, inadequate infrastructure, poverty (especially among rural communities), lack of alternative means of income(especially in marginal areas), inadequate public awareness of disease risks, illiteracy, and so on. As a result, this review focuses on the adaptive and mitigation strategies for pastoral communities to climatechange and variability in Ethiopia. The objective of this review is to identify different adaptation and mitigation strategies (both traditional and modern) to climatechange that should be used in different Pastoral communities of Ethiopia. In other words, it helps those pastoral communities to share the information about applicability and benefits of the new adaptation and mitigation strategies, and/or improve the implementation process of previously existing strategies (measures). Consequently, the loss of human and livestock life, damage of buildings by wind, reduction in production and productivity, extra cost for cure, inappropriate (sudden migration), and disturbance of overall activities of pastoral community can be minimized by sharing the important information about the future occurrence of disasters. The appropriate measures either used by local communities and/or recommended by different researchers after their findings are: keeping or improving animal health, de-stocking and re-stocking livestock depending on weather conditions, keeping the sustainability of livestock feed and water, diversifying livelihood, seasonal migration, using alternate energy sources other than fire wood and charcoal, improving human health (sanitation) and clean water supply, market and infrastructure development and improvement, using integrated natural resource management, and sound policy and Conflict resolution methods.
In the Afar drylands areas where households are sensitized to the effects of drought occurrences, ac- cess to water harvesting actions could have important implications on their income improvement. In this study, access to water sources was found to have a positive and statistically significant effect on house- hold income (Table 6). The positive result suggests that most agro-pastoralists and mixed-farming com- munities sought to cope with several drought events by engaging in various small scale irrigation schemes such as flood diversion from the Tigray highlands, which had positively contributed to their income. Most mixed-farming communities and agro- pastoralists that relied on perennial water sources produce vegetables and crops whereas semi- pastoralists and pastoralists that live distantly from perennial water sources depend on ponds that might be used only for few months. Moreover, community members who are near to perennial water sources are able to enhance sedentary way of life due to the op- portunity it offers them for better access to animal feed and improved income. In tackling drought- related challenges owing to climatechange, farm communities who are aware of the importance of water sources for the improvement of their income sources have engaged in water harvesting activities.
Previous studies have, however, suffered from at least one of four limitations. First, they often provide global or regional assessments. Yet, climatechange is expected to vary widely within continents and even countries, and so adaptation policies require higher- resolution information, possibly even at sub-national levels (Lobell et al. 2008). Second, despite considerable uncertainty surrounding future climatechange, some studies rely on only a few climate projections (see, for example, Butt et al. 2005). Third, many calibrated agronomic crop models exclude ‘autonomous adaptation’ that may offset at least some climatechange damages. Finally, previous studies typically measure direct or partial equilibrium production changes, but may exclude indirect and general equilibrium effects, including price and household income changes and inter-sectoral linkages. Since foodsecurity depends on both food availability and accessibility, it is inadequate to measure production changes without considering, for example, the impacts of climatechange for households’ incomes (Parry et al. 2004; Ahmed et al. 2009).
The paramount concern of this study is to construct vulnerability index and finding its determinants including the gender differentiated factors. As described earlier, we have categorised vulnerability index into three categories namely high vulnerability, moderate vulnerability, and less vulnerability however, only two categories were found as highly vulnerable and less vulnerable. High vulnerability category is assigned a value equal to two (2) and less vulnerability, a value equal to one (1). We estimated the ordered logit model to find out determinants of vulnerability. The explanatory variables included family members in age groups 15 years or below, 16-30, 31-40, 40-60 and above 60 years, ratio of females in family, ratio of educated females to total females in a family, dummy variables (representing entitlement rights of females to inheritance, females permitted to participate in social ceremonies, non-farm income earning participation of male and female in decision making related to agriculture access to credit, and tenancy status of farmers), farming experience, distances to boys and girls schools, distance to basic health unit, and climatic factors (20 years averages of Rabi and Kharif season temperature and precipitation and deviations of the climatic factors from long run mean. The results of ordered logit model are given in Table 8. The overall results show that the model is a good fit. The families with more middle-aged members (31-40 years age) are found significantly less vulnerable as compared to families that have more older members (>60). Further, female ratio to total family members and ratio of educated females to total number of females in a family are found statistically insignificantly affecting vulnerability of farm households.