A week ago I arrived again in Tanzania. I came to prepare a Stakeholder workshop of our research project (pictures). It was nice to come back to Tanzania and meet some old friends. In fact, here little has changed since last year. When I met Harry and Anja it was like a flashback: they are doing fieldwork for another project of ZALF research centre and they are struggling with similar things like I did last year: adaptation to local food, simple and isolated village life, intercultural understanding etc. Honestly, I was just happy that my data is already collected!
The big day was on Monday. For the workshop we invited farmers from the villages of my household survey and participants from science, NGO and government. The first presentation was from our colleague Jawoo Koo from IFPRI, who travelled all the way from Washington for this event (cheers, once more!). It was a genius moment when Jawoo explained emission scenarios and his work on climate change and crop models to the farmers. It was a clash of cultures in a very positive way. Communication was a challenge given the fact that farmers “only” speak Swahili, Kikaguru and Kiluguru but Aichi Kitalyi from the World Agroforestry Centre did a marvellous job in moderating the whole event both in English and Swahili and translating the most important messages.
After Jawoo’s talk one of the farmers asked, what those countries responsible for the emissions are doing in order to stop emissions and to help those who are likely to carry the burden of climate change. Good point. I guess our project could be a tiny contribution to this. Later we ranked in a group session potential farmers´ micro-level adaptation practices. As always it was not easy to come up with simple results from the complex world of rural livelihoods. However it was good to see that national and international scientists as well as people from the government and NGOs followed with interest how farmers explained and justified their priority setting.
In the end I was happy to hear some positive feedback on the workshop. It seems participants liked especially the fact we invited such a divers group of stakeholders. For me clearly the workshop was a good experience and it is great that it was made possible with all the support from people from ZALF and the other partners involved!
Dienstag, 25. Mai 2010
Sonntag, 28. Februar 2010
Responses to criticism of IPCC findings on yields in Africa by climate scientists
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been criticised lately for - real or alleged - inaccuracies in his last report from 2007. This concerns mainly statements on the melting of Himalayan Glaciers and the percentage of the territory under sea level of the Netherlands. However another point has relevance for my research project: the amount of projected reduction of yields in Africa. The reknown weblog Realclimate from climate scientists responds to the criticism. In the case of yield reduction in Africa IPCC-standards have been met, allthuogh some of the references cited in the IPCC report are only grey literature and one thing remains clear anyway: more knowledge has to be gathered, whether the yields of rainfed agriculture in Africa are really likely to drop by up to 50 percent until 2020 and how to respond.
The statement of Realclimate in detail:
¨The IPCC Synthesis Report states: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%.” This is properly referenced back to chapter 9.4 of WG2, which says: “In other countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003).” The Agoumi reference is correct and reported correctly. The Sunday Times, in an article by Jonathan Leake, labels this issue “Africagate” – the main criticism being that Agoumi (2003) is not a peer-reviewed study (see below for our comments on “gray” literature), but a report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Climate Change Knowledge Network, funded by the US Agency for International Development. The report, written by Morroccan climate expert Professor Ali Agoumi, is a summary of technical studies and research conducted to inform Initial National Communications from three countries (Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and is a perfectly legitimate IPCC reference.
It is noteworthy that chapter 9.4 continues with “However, there is the possibility that adaptation could reduce these negative effects (Benhin, 2006).” Some examples thereof follow, and then it states: “However, not all changes in climate and climate variability will be negative, as agriculture and the growing seasons in certain areas (for example, parts of the Ethiopian highlands and parts of southern Africa such as Mozambique), may lengthen under climate change, due to a combination of increased temperature and rainfall changes (Thornton et al., 2006). Mild climate scenarios project further benefits across African croplands for irrigated and, especially, dryland farms.” (Incidentally, the Benhin and Thornton references are also “gray”, but nobody has complained about them. Could there be double standards amongst the IPCC’s critics?)
Chapter 9.4 to us sounds like a balanced discussion of potential risks and benefits, based on the evidence available at the time–hardly the stuff for shrill “Africagate!” cries. If the IPCC can be criticized here, it is that in condensing these results for its Synthesis Report, important nuance and qualification were lost – especially the point that the risk of drought (defined as a 50% downturn in rainfall) “could be exacerbated by climate change”, as chapter 9.4 wrote – rather than being outright caused by climate change.¨
Find the source here.
The statement of Realclimate in detail:
¨The IPCC Synthesis Report states: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%.” This is properly referenced back to chapter 9.4 of WG2, which says: “In other countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003).” The Agoumi reference is correct and reported correctly. The Sunday Times, in an article by Jonathan Leake, labels this issue “Africagate” – the main criticism being that Agoumi (2003) is not a peer-reviewed study (see below for our comments on “gray” literature), but a report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Climate Change Knowledge Network, funded by the US Agency for International Development. The report, written by Morroccan climate expert Professor Ali Agoumi, is a summary of technical studies and research conducted to inform Initial National Communications from three countries (Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and is a perfectly legitimate IPCC reference.
It is noteworthy that chapter 9.4 continues with “However, there is the possibility that adaptation could reduce these negative effects (Benhin, 2006).” Some examples thereof follow, and then it states: “However, not all changes in climate and climate variability will be negative, as agriculture and the growing seasons in certain areas (for example, parts of the Ethiopian highlands and parts of southern Africa such as Mozambique), may lengthen under climate change, due to a combination of increased temperature and rainfall changes (Thornton et al., 2006). Mild climate scenarios project further benefits across African croplands for irrigated and, especially, dryland farms.” (Incidentally, the Benhin and Thornton references are also “gray”, but nobody has complained about them. Could there be double standards amongst the IPCC’s critics?)
Chapter 9.4 to us sounds like a balanced discussion of potential risks and benefits, based on the evidence available at the time–hardly the stuff for shrill “Africagate!” cries. If the IPCC can be criticized here, it is that in condensing these results for its Synthesis Report, important nuance and qualification were lost – especially the point that the risk of drought (defined as a 50% downturn in rainfall) “could be exacerbated by climate change”, as chapter 9.4 wrote – rather than being outright caused by climate change.¨
Find the source here.
Mittwoch, 17. Februar 2010
New discussion paper online
While I am still analysing the data collected during fieldwork in Tanzania, another output of our project became now available online (check the website of our project partner IFPRI here and here). The literature review discusses micro-level practices for adapting to climate change that are available to small-scale farmers in Africa. Results from the empirical study I will present in April at the conference continents under climate change in Berlin and in May at our workshop in Tanzania.
Freitag, 16. Oktober 2009
Maputo
In mid October I presented some preliminary findings of the household survey at the meeting of our research project in Maputo, Mozambique. We were meeting in Maputo to exchange also with another group of scientists working on the same topic who did household surveys in Mozambique and Mali. For me it was actually pretty early to present. After I had finished data collection in mid September it took a while to get started with data entry. Other work, bronchitis and annoyingly frequent power cuts hindered a fast progress. But in the end I came a up with some first findings for the meeting. I learned a lot in Maputo - about the difficulties that modellers are facing to predict future precipitation, temperature and yields under climate change as well as how other socioeconomists are assessing smallholder farmers’ perceptions and behaviour in regard to climate change. It seems like in many parts of Africa, different climate models are still contradicting each other to such an extend that they won’t be useful to recommend very detailed adaptation measures. Models can be rather applied as a discussion support tool to inform on a national and international level how much additional money has to be spend in order to compensate for climate related losses in yields (IFPRI recently came up with a sum of 7 billion dollars per year to be spend in the improvement of rural road infrastructure, more research in improved crops and to boost irrigation efficiency, here is the link), but modellers can not predict what that money should be used for in detail and in which subnational regions it should be invested.
The venue of our meeting was the agricultural research institute of Mozambique which is located on a nice green hill just outside the city centre. For the first days I only collected few impressions of Maputo on our way to the meeting (here are some pictures of Maputo). However on the last day I had the chance to float in the afternoon through the city. I REALLY LIKED IT. Mozambique has a very different culture compared to Tanzania, very relaxed and almost Caribbean. Portuguese colonists left a great seafood kitchen and dozens of beautiful art deco buildings. The famous train station constructed from the office of Gustave Eiffel is only the most prominent of them. The old trains and their environment give you the feeling that time stood still around the 1960s. Maybe that is a sign of economic deficits but for sure it is nostalgic and somehow beautiful. But not only Portuguese shaped the city. The socialist past and present becomes very apparent if you wander through the Avenidas Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kim il Sung and the Praca Robert Mugabe. In front of the museum of the revolution (which is closed due to renovation) there is a square where former Mozambiquian contract-workers in the GDR resemble. They protest because the Mozambiquian government doesn’t hand them over their pensions which apparently where paid to Maputo by the German government. Socialism in Mozambique is apparently nothing more than phrase behind which a corrupted government hides its system of patronage and clientelism. Yet it is impressive to see TV-spots and banners all over the country that make use of socialist symbols, aesthetics and slogans to campaign for the presidential elections that will be held in two weeks time. It is very likely that the ruling Frelimo will win the elections again.
The venue of our meeting was the agricultural research institute of Mozambique which is located on a nice green hill just outside the city centre. For the first days I only collected few impressions of Maputo on our way to the meeting (here are some pictures of Maputo). However on the last day I had the chance to float in the afternoon through the city. I REALLY LIKED IT. Mozambique has a very different culture compared to Tanzania, very relaxed and almost Caribbean. Portuguese colonists left a great seafood kitchen and dozens of beautiful art deco buildings. The famous train station constructed from the office of Gustave Eiffel is only the most prominent of them. The old trains and their environment give you the feeling that time stood still around the 1960s. Maybe that is a sign of economic deficits but for sure it is nostalgic and somehow beautiful. But not only Portuguese shaped the city. The socialist past and present becomes very apparent if you wander through the Avenidas Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kim il Sung and the Praca Robert Mugabe. In front of the museum of the revolution (which is closed due to renovation) there is a square where former Mozambiquian contract-workers in the GDR resemble. They protest because the Mozambiquian government doesn’t hand them over their pensions which apparently where paid to Maputo by the German government. Socialism in Mozambique is apparently nothing more than phrase behind which a corrupted government hides its system of patronage and clientelism. Yet it is impressive to see TV-spots and banners all over the country that make use of socialist symbols, aesthetics and slogans to campaign for the presidential elections that will be held in two weeks time. It is very likely that the ruling Frelimo will win the elections again.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)
