1. 1 Session: Adaptation, Stakeholders, and Linking to Decision Making Second AIACC Regional Workshop for Latin America and the Caribbean Regente Palace Hotel, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 24-27 August 2004 Integrated Assessment of Social Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change Among Farmers in Mexico and Argentina AIACC LA-29 “Stakeholder interaction on issues of climate vulnerability: illustrations from Cordoba Province, Argentina and Coatepec, Veracruz.” Hallie Eakin – Monica Wehbe

2. 2 Stakeholder Interaction Framework Assessment of Social Vulnerability to Climate V&C Why Involve Stakeholders? Social Vulnerability is about Social Actors Integrated Assessment requires actors’ own Perceptions and engagement [Climate Risks ; Adaptive Capacity] Climate Conditions System Attributes Risk Perception Adaptations Decision Making AIACC LA-29 “Perception of climate signal is first step in adaptation process” (Risbey, 1999) Ambition of research to be relevant to decision-making at farm & policy-level

3. 3 AIACC LA-29 Project Objectives What climate events and threats are most critical for the production units in each region of study? How is climate perceived and impacts experienced? How are farmers’ responses and adaptation opportunities affected by the political-economic context? AIACC LA-29

4. 4 Map of stakeholders: Argentina Social ActorsDescription Project Presentation Facilitator Institutional Analysis Primary Information Project Devolution Local GovernmentRepresent. X Meetings/Survey In-depth Int. X Prov. Min.of AgricultureRepresent. X PoliciesAEL CRInsurance Nat. Inst. of Agric Tech.Local Represent. X c/r activitiesSol.Insu. Nat. Animal Health Min.Local Represent. X Arg. Agrarian FederationLocal Represent. X In-depth Int.c/r activities X Argentine Rural SocietyLocal Represent. X X Road ConsortiumLocal X c/r activities X Agriculture CooperativesLocal X Surv./ In-depth Int. Tech. Schools on Agric.Local X Survey Emergency response X FARMERS X Surv./ In-d. Int X AIACC LA-29

5. 5 Main objectives from different ways of interaction Project Presentation Meetings: to make first contact with Stk, to inform about the Project and goals, to know about concerns and expectations, to provoke their interest and to encourage them to participate. Survey: to gather primary information on farmers’ sensitivity to climate & resources for adaptation. In-depth Interviews: To get insight on farmers’ climate risk perceptions & on their process of decision making. Group Discussions: To deepen knowledge on diff. social actors concerns related to climate. First Devolution Meetings: To get a feed back from diff. social actors on Project’s preliminary results AIACC LA-29

6. 6 Results of Project Presentation Meetings These meetings were highly useful as an introduction with social actors in each of the locations and, They enabled to create strong ties for a shared responsibility towards the Project AIACC LA-29 First Presentation Meeting at Oncativo City October 2002

7. 7 Results of Group Discussions History of each locality How climate problems are perceived by farmers and local officials What have been past responses to climate and development concerns Indirect implications of climate on local economy and production Expectations of the project AIACC LA-29

8. 8 In-depth interviews w/farmers Perceptions of climate risk ? Interview with public officials INTA No insurance Problems in public programs Some insurance Conclusion : Objective analysis must leave a margin for more subjective aspects to be incorporated at the moment of defining policies or presenting alternatives AIACC LA-29 Survey Results of Integration of different sources of information

9. 9 What we learned How farmers feel in relation to their sensitivity to climate Which are the factors (resources, adaptations...) they count on to cope with climate What are farmers’ perceptions of climate risks and the process of decision making towards reducing impacts How local governments & organizations perceive climate is affecting in their areas To what extent higher governmental levels perceive current policies to be appropriate to enhance AC of farmers AIACC LA-29

10. 10 Stakeholders in the Coffee Study STAKEHOLDERSInterviewsWorkshopsSurveys INIFAP (Ag. Research) XX SAGARPA (Ag. Programs) X SEDESOL (Social Service) X CONAFOR (Forestry) X SEMARNAT (Environment) X Exporters (Coffee Market) X Large commercial farmers XX Coffee associations XX Politicians (Mayor) X Community leaders XXX Academics XX Farmers XXX AIACC LA-29

11. 11 Stakeholder Activities, Coffee Study Maps, calendars, surveys: –Defining present risks –Defining existing strategies as foundation for adaptation Climate histories, timelines –Past shocks and stresses Focus groups: –Use of local knowledge to orient and focus climate analysis –Perceptions of future climate and responsibilities for action Presentation of Results AIACC LA-29

12. 12 Perceptions of Climate Risk AIACC LA-29 Household survey, Vaquería and Ursulo Galván, 2003

13. 13 Urban area Good coffee Valley area, less dry More shade (banana) Less frost risk Poor soil, sloped land, more native shade trees river waterfall river Coffee does not produce well Soils are dry, land sloped shade is insufficient Good coffee Native shade macadamia Good coffee banana macadamia Affected by nortes URSULO GALVÁN CLIMATE RISK AND RESOURCE MAPPING

14. 14 CLIMATE EVENT AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY CALENDAR

15. 15 1970s1980s1990s2003 Area Planted in Coffee 40%90% Enter IMECAFE 100% IMECAFE Closes 100% Area in Other Crops 60% Sugar cane, maize, orange 10%0% Coffee Prices 1988: $89/quintal (pre-devaluation) 1998: $5/kg2000: $2.4/kg 2003: $1.2/kg Other Land Uses Avocado Lemon Citrus Banana Farmers begin abandoning coffee 50% of coffee plantations abandoned Land Use History and Prices AIACC LA-29

16. 16 YearEventImpactAction 1972Hail 24 April “Knocked off the flowers from the coffee trees, 70% of the harvest lost” “Left to look for work, Government helped to repair roofs, women sold fruit” 1977/78Frost Jan-Feb “Destroyed the harvest, 100% lost where there was no shade” “Left to sell bananas, oranges, wood, quelites.” 1982-83Nortes Jan-Feb “Knocked down the coffee, about 30% affected” “Left to sell bananas, lime. The women worked in agriculture” 1994-96Drought Rains 3 months late “The plants dried up. The harvests was less 20%” “Nothing….” Climate History and Coping Strategies AIACC LA-29

17. 17 Farm unit IMECAFE UPEC Market Processors Knowledge information, resources 1980s Farm unit Union, Association, “SSS” Processors Market Knowledge, information, resources Today Farm unit Intermediary Processors Market Public Sector $/ha ? Interview and Focus Group Discussion Results

18. 18 10 – 20 ha coffee Fine timber (Caoba, cedar) Coffee, macadamia Lemon, lychee nuts 10 years 5 years Coffee, fruit, decorative ferns Strategies of Larger Coffee Farms Land rental to sugar industry Land sale for suburban development Coffee processing and roasting Packaging and retail sale or export Organic Production Now Interview data

19. 19 What we learned What climate impacts were most important to the farmers, and when they were most likely to occur Past climate impacts on coffee and farmers’ responses The importance of prices in livelihood vulnerability Effect of public sector intervention on coping strategies Obstacles to adaptation: lack of organization, lack of information, short time horizons AIACC LA-29

20. 20 General Lessons Importance of physical presence of researchers in study region Key stakeholders should be incorporated into project preparation and design before funding Climate change is not an institutional priority for many stakeholders, the issue must be framed according to their interests Local institutions are often limited in autonomy and by lack of funding, yet complexity of local vulnerability makes national-level programs less effective Difficulty for researchers to work with stakeholders at distinct scales of decision-making AIACC LA-29