259
Ahead of formal reporting by the WBCSD Climate-Smart Agriculture initiative,
this chapter provides an initial analysis of progress towards the targets and the key
potentials for—and obstacles to—measuring collective advances towards the global
targets. These findings hopefully offer valuable early lessons to the increasing number of companies in agrifood value chains that are starting to plan and implement
actions on climate risks, assisted by partners in governments, non-governmental
organisations and research.
22.3 A Simple Framework and Method for Measuring
Climate-Risk Actions in Agrifood Chains
Selection of appropriate global- and company-level indicators under each CSA pillar would try to: avoid new costs of measurement by piggy-backing on existing
metrics and data collection; establish a baseline, and cover multiple subsequent
years towards 2030; and provide a set of both activity and outcome indicators,
linked by a testable theory of change.
The WBCSD Statement of Ambition for each CSA pillar includes both outcomes
and activities towards achieving these objectives. These outcomes and activities are
linked by an implicit theory of change—a hypothesis, or best bet, that the activities
will deliver the outcomes (Vogel 2012). For example, the intended outcome of pillar
two is to strengthen climate resilience of agricultural landscapes and farming communities. The stated activities, or best bet, to achieve this outcome include adopting
agro-ecological approaches, investing in rural communities, and building long-term
empowering relationships between farmers and industry.
Combining and triangulating information from WBCSD member companies
with external global data sources is crucial. The WBCSD Statement of Ambition
addresses the global agrifood sector, not just WBCSD members. Individual member
companies will be seeking both to improve their own performance on various metrics and to track collective progress towards the global goal. They will also be looking to stimulate positive change across their own sub-sectors, as well as among
governments, rural communities, consumers and other agents of change.
Among sources of global indicators, which include the World Bank, the
International Fund for Agricultural Development and others, the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistics Division (FAOSTAT) provides global data sets on the quantity of food produced and yields (pillar 1), and
direct agricultural emissions (pillar 3), but not on activities and outcomes for pillar
two. Simple linear regression created business-as-usual projections and compared
these with business-as-usual projections to target scenarios for 50% more food (pillar 1), and 30% fewer direct agricultural emissions (pillar 3). It was not possible to
gauge progress relating to pillar two, since the pillar does not have a quantitative
target and lacks global data to support a projection to 2030.
22 Realising Ambitious Targets and Metrics for Private-Sector Action on Climate Risks
Ahead of formal reporting by the WBCSD Climate-Smart Agriculture initiative,
this chapter provides an initial analysis of progress towards the targets and the key
potentials for—and obstacles to—measuring collective advances towards the global
targets. These findings hopefully offer valuable early lessons to the increasing number of companies in agrifood value chains that are starting to plan and implement
actions on climate risks, assisted by partners in governments, non-governmental
organisations and research.
22.3 A Simple Framework and Method for Measuring
Climate-Risk Actions in Agrifood Chains
Selection of appropriate global- and company-level indicators under each CSA pillar would try to: avoid new costs of measurement by piggy-backing on existing
metrics and data collection; establish a baseline, and cover multiple subsequent
years towards 2030; and provide a set of both activity and outcome indicators,
linked by a testable theory of change.
The WBCSD Statement of Ambition for each CSA pillar includes both outcomes
and activities towards achieving these objectives. These outcomes and activities are
linked by an implicit theory of change—a hypothesis, or best bet, that the activities
will deliver the outcomes (Vogel 2012). For example, the intended outcome of pillar
two is to strengthen climate resilience of agricultural landscapes and farming communities. The stated activities, or best bet, to achieve this outcome include adopting
agro-ecological approaches, investing in rural communities, and building long-term
empowering relationships between farmers and industry.
Combining and triangulating information from WBCSD member companies
with external global data sources is crucial. The WBCSD Statement of Ambition
addresses the global agrifood sector, not just WBCSD members. Individual member
companies will be seeking both to improve their own performance on various metrics and to track collective progress towards the global goal. They will also be looking to stimulate positive change across their own sub-sectors, as well as among
governments, rural communities, consumers and other agents of change.
Among sources of global indicators, which include the World Bank, the
International Fund for Agricultural Development and others, the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistics Division (FAOSTAT) provides global data sets on the quantity of food produced and yields (pillar 1), and
direct agricultural emissions (pillar 3), but not on activities and outcomes for pillar
two. Simple linear regression created business-as-usual projections and compared
these with business-as-usual projections to target scenarios for 50% more food (pillar 1), and 30% fewer direct agricultural emissions (pillar 3). It was not possible to
gauge progress relating to pillar two, since the pillar does not have a quantitative
target and lacks global data to support a projection to 2030.
22 Realising Ambitious Targets and Metrics for Private-Sector Action on Climate Risks