James Neumann Principal February 24, 2011

1. Responding to Climate Change in ECA Agriculture: Impact Assessments and Menu of Adaptation Options for Albania and Uzbekistan James NeumannPrincipalFebruary 24, 2011

2. Overview • Objectives of the study and consulting team • Study process and timing • Modeling approach – impacts and adaptation • Stakeholder/farmer consultations • Summary of results – Albania and Uzbekistan • Overall recommendations – Albania and Uzbekistan

3. Objectives of the Study “Enhance the ability of four countries in Europe and Central Asia (ECA) to mainstream climate change adaptation into agricultural policies, programs, and investments.” • The four countries are: • Albania • Moldova • Macedonia • Uzbekistan • Strategies used: • raising awareness of the threat • analyzing potential impacts and adaptation responses • building capacity among national and local stakeholders • A key product of the work is a menu of adaptation measures for the agriculture sector – including crops, water resources, and livestock.

4. Study Components and Work Flow

5. Key Consulting Team Members • James Neumann, IEc, Project Manager • Kenneth Strzepek, Univ. Colorado and MIT, Technical Director • Ana Iglesias, Univ. of Madrid, Agronomist and Crop Modeler • Peter Droogers, FutureWater, Crop and Water Resources Modeler • Janusz Kindler, Warsaw University of Technology, Water Resources Expert • Richard Adams, Oregon State Univ. and Brent Boehlert, IEc, Agricultural Economists • Samuel Fankhauser, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, Economist & Expert Reviewer • Andrew Schwarz, IEc, Participatory Process Expert

6. Modeling Approach

7. Modeling Approach – Climate Scenarios • Select three scenarios from among 56 IPCC AR4 options, intent is to capture relevant range for agricultural yield • Selection based on Climate Moisture Index, combines temperature and precipitation forecast • “Medium Impact” is roughly the mean; “High Impact” is driest, “Low Impact” is wettest.

8. Modeling Approach – Crop Yield and Water Resources • Crop Modeling – Process-based models (e.g., AquaCrop) for up to 7 select crops – country nominates crops for focus • Water Resource Availability “Screening Tool” – CliRun – projects runoff for all key basins in country • Basin-level Water Balance Modeling – WEAP for all large basins in each country • Agricultural water demand from crop model • M&I water demand projections from EACC study • Climate-induced water supply changes from CliRun

9. Other Dimensions of the Impact Assessment • GeographicScope: Agro-ecological zone, with representative crop modeling for each region. • Time: Decadal averages from 2010 to 2050 (i.e., 2010s, 2020s, 2030s, 2040s) • EconomicBaseline: current conditions/markets, also IFPRI projections of market prices through 2050. • NOTE: Goal of quantitative analysis is to estimate marginal effect of adaptation measures on farm-level net income, so it includes two components: • Effect of measure on closing adaptation deficit to current climate • Effect of measure in responding to forecast changes in climate

10. Capacity Building Workshop • Conducted a formal training workshop at a central location for a specific impact assessment technique. • In Albania and Uzbekistan, training focus was: • Process-based crop modeling (e.g., AquaCrop) • Also touched on how to integrate with basin-level water resources modeling (e.g., WEAP)

11. Farmer Engagement - Stakeholder Consultations • Conducted in each AEZ, two sets of meetings • First meeting, present draft impact results, and ask: • Experts/analysts: Do the crop, livestock, water modeling results look reasonable to you? • Farmers: What options would you employ in response to these outcomes? What other ideas do you have? • Second meeting, present draft adaptation recommendations, and ask: • Which of the recommended options do you favor? • What barriers do you see to implementing the recommendations (economic, institutional, policy)? • What options are missing from our list?

12. Develop Initial Menu of Adaptation Options Consider results of stakeholder consultations and quantitative modeling, six step process: • Generate farm-level estimates of net benefits of adaptation options, using readily available data • Rank initial set of adaptation options based on net benefit criteria • Add a second, qualitative ranking based on the recommendations of our expert team • Assess whether there is “win-win” aspect to measure • Add a third ranking based on stakeholder consultations • Consider other, country-level policy options (e.g., changes to water allocation scheme) qualitatively based on assessment of existing adaptive capacity

13. Results – Albania

17. Crop Yield Effects – No Adaptation

18. Range of Crop Yield Effects Across Scenarios

19. Albanian Crop Water Demands – Percent Increase

20. Albania Monthly Runoff Estimates

21. Forecast Monthly Water Balance in 2040s

22. BCA for Rehabilitating Drainage in Lowlands AEZ

23. Farmer Consultation Results Responses differed in each AEZ, but in general top three ranked adaptations were: • Rehabilitate infrastructure: Depending on the specific climate related risk faced by each AEZ, the priority infrastructure was for either irrigation or drainage. • Increase institutional capacity: Increase the reach of extension services, focus on technical training, seed and crop selection knowledge transfer, and increasing the availability of hydro-meteorological information. • Improve market structure: Farmers emphasized that overall market effectiveness would assist in making farms more productive and provide a “win-win” adaptive response. Need for processing and storage facilities.

24. Overall Recommendations - National

25. Recommendations – AEZ Level

26. Uzbekistan AEZs

27. Uzbekistan River Basins

30. Monthly Temperature and Precipitation for Piedmont AEZ

31. Uzbekistan – Yield Changes

32. Range of Crop Yield Results Across Climate Scenarios

33. Crop/Irrigation Water Requirements

34. Mean Monthly Runoff and Irrigation Demand – 2040s

35. Projected Unmet Water Demand for Irrigation

36. Farmer’s Preferred Adaptation Options • Increase farmer know-how and skills through capacity building • Improve extension services to small farmers. • Improve farmers’ skills in countering the increased incidence of pests, especially for wheat and apples • Improved training for pest-resistant, and/or heat-stress-tolerant seed and crop variety selection from both international and national markets • Provide information on improving on-farm water use efficiency. • Invest in on-farm irrigation infrastructure • Improve the availability/affordability of crop insurance

37. Recommendations – National Level

38. Recommendations – AEZ Level

39. Final Thoughts All countries have been receptive to the concept, and generally supportive of our work Cooperation from local governments was initially good, but data was very sparse – needed to use global data in many instances Farmer workshops were more productive and engaging than expected – more could be done with that format in follow-up Major challenge in separating current adaptation deficit from needs to adapt to changing climate – but perhaps we can do some work in that direction in regional report

40. Detailed BCA Results – Sensitivity Analyses

41. IEc INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED 617.354.0074