explored by analyzing the relationships between climatic and agricultural variables
(Di Falco et al. 2011).
In practice, continued refinement of soil, water, tree and crop management
practices will contribute much of the required adaptation, except in systems that
are already water stressed (Turral et al. 2011). However, while it is globally
acknowledged that food productivity contributes to food security, post-harvest
processes are also important. Furthermore, since their own agricultural activities
are the primary sources of food for many people in developing countries, effects of
climatic changes on crop productivity (and the people’s responses to them) will
strongly influence their overall food security (Ingram et al. 2008). Hence, efforts to
ensure food security must include strengthening of the adaptive capacity (Plummer
and Armitage 2010) of individuals, households and communities by improving
their access to, knowledge of, and control over natural, human, social, physical and
financial resources (Pramova and Locatelli 2013). For these reasons, several
authors (Pittock and Jones 2000; Stafford Smith et al. 2011) have argued that
adaptation to climate change needs to be seen as an iterative process. If so,
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of adaptation and/or progress towards it are
clearly important to assess the effectiveness of adaptation interventions, options
and technologies (UNFCCC 2010).
However, there are uncertainties regarding appropriate adaptation indicators.
Ideally, they should be different but complementary to development variables, but
current approaches to adaptation M&E do not take this distinction into account.
This chapter describes efforts to improve the design and implementation of adaptation M&E, at program and project levels, undertaken in a CGIAR Research
Program (CRP7). Specific objectives were: (i) to demonstrate the applicability
and utility of the theory of planned behavioral changes for adaptation M&E,
focusing on adaptive capacity, and (ii) contribute to the development of an integrated biophysical-behavioral changes approach to adaptation M&E.
14.2 Approach
14.2.1 The Intervention
The efforts to improve adaptation M&E reported here were part of the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Research Program CRP7,
on climate change, agriculture and food security (CCAFS), a strategic collaboration
between CGIAR and the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP). The over‐
arching objectives of CRP7 are: (1) to identify and test pro-poor adaptation and
mitigation practices, technologies and policies for enhancing food systems, adaptive capacity and rural livelihoods; and (2) to provide diagnosis and analysis that
will ensure cost-effective investments, the inclusion of agriculture in climate
change policies, and the inclusion of climate issues in agricultural policies, from
14 Adaptation Processes in Agriculture and Food Security: Insights from. . .
257
(Di Falco et al. 2011).
In practice, continued refinement of soil, water, tree and crop management
practices will contribute much of the required adaptation, except in systems that
are already water stressed (Turral et al. 2011). However, while it is globally
acknowledged that food productivity contributes to food security, post-harvest
processes are also important. Furthermore, since their own agricultural activities
are the primary sources of food for many people in developing countries, effects of
climatic changes on crop productivity (and the people’s responses to them) will
strongly influence their overall food security (Ingram et al. 2008). Hence, efforts to
ensure food security must include strengthening of the adaptive capacity (Plummer
and Armitage 2010) of individuals, households and communities by improving
their access to, knowledge of, and control over natural, human, social, physical and
financial resources (Pramova and Locatelli 2013). For these reasons, several
authors (Pittock and Jones 2000; Stafford Smith et al. 2011) have argued that
adaptation to climate change needs to be seen as an iterative process. If so,
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of adaptation and/or progress towards it are
clearly important to assess the effectiveness of adaptation interventions, options
and technologies (UNFCCC 2010).
However, there are uncertainties regarding appropriate adaptation indicators.
Ideally, they should be different but complementary to development variables, but
current approaches to adaptation M&E do not take this distinction into account.
This chapter describes efforts to improve the design and implementation of adaptation M&E, at program and project levels, undertaken in a CGIAR Research
Program (CRP7). Specific objectives were: (i) to demonstrate the applicability
and utility of the theory of planned behavioral changes for adaptation M&E,
focusing on adaptive capacity, and (ii) contribute to the development of an integrated biophysical-behavioral changes approach to adaptation M&E.
14.2 Approach
14.2.1 The Intervention
The efforts to improve adaptation M&E reported here were part of the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Research Program CRP7,
on climate change, agriculture and food security (CCAFS), a strategic collaboration
between CGIAR and the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP). The over‐
arching objectives of CRP7 are: (1) to identify and test pro-poor adaptation and
mitigation practices, technologies and policies for enhancing food systems, adaptive capacity and rural livelihoods; and (2) to provide diagnosis and analysis that
will ensure cost-effective investments, the inclusion of agriculture in climate
change policies, and the inclusion of climate issues in agricultural policies, from
14 Adaptation Processes in Agriculture and Food Security: Insights from. . .
257