African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation 3030451054, 9783030451059

Citation preview

Walter Leal Filho Editor-in-Chief Nicholas Oguge · Desalegn Ayal Lydia Adeleke · Izael da Silva Editors

African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation

African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation

Walter Leal Filho Editor-in-Chief

Nicholas Oguge • Desalegn Ayal • Lydia Adeleke • Izael da Silva Editors

African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation With 610 Figures and 361 Tables

Editor-in-Chief Walter Leal Filho Research and Transfer Centre “Sustainable Development and Climate Change Management” Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Hamburg, Germany Editors Nicholas Oguge University of Nairobi Nairobi, Kenya

Lydia Adeleke Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture Technology Federal University of Technology Akure, Nigeria

Desalegn Ayal Center for Food Security Studies College of Development Studies Addis Ababa University Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Izael da Silva Strathmore University Nairobi, Kenya

ISBN 978-3-030-45105-9 ISBN 978-3-030-45106-6 (eBook) ISBN 978-3-030-45107-3 (print and electronic bundle) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021 This book is an open access publication. Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

Climate change is a major global challenge. However, some geographical regions are more affected than others. One of these regions is the African continent. Due to a combination of unfavorable socioeconomic and meteorological conditions, African countries are particularly vulnerable to climate change and its impacts. The IPCC Special Report “Global Warming by 1.5  C” outlines the fact that maintaining global warming by 1.5  C is possible, but also points out that a 2  C increase could lead to crises in agriculture (rain-fed agriculture could decline by 50% in some African countries by 2020) and livestock, damage water supplies, and pose an additional threat to coastal areas. The IPCC also predicts that wheat could disappear from Africa by 2080 and that maize – a staple food – may decline significantly in southern Africa. In addition, arid and semi-arid soils are likely to increase by up to 8%, which will have serious implications for livelihoods, poverty reduction, and meeting the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Pursuing appropriate adaptation strategies is therefore crucial to meet the current and future challenges posed by climate change. Despite recent progress since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015 and the Katowice climate package in 2018, there is still much to be done to raise awareness on the relevance of climate issues for African nations. This process of awareness raising could be supported by specialized publications written by African experts (or by experts working in the region), based on the realities on the African continent, and comprehensively documenting and disseminating the many ideas, approaches, methods, and projects being implemented across Africa today. Based on the need to address the above issues that the African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation has been produced. It discusses current thinking and presents some of the main issues and challenges related to climate change in Africa, as well as evidences from a wide range of studies and projects that show how climate change adaptation is being – and can continue to be – successfully implemented in African countries. Thanks to its scope and wide range of topics related to climate change, this book is intended to become a flagship publication on the subject. This handbook shares some of the latest research findings on climate change and its impacts in Africa. And apart from having provided senior African researchers and representatives from government and non-governmental organizations with a platform for the documentation and dissemination of their work, it provides an v

vi

Preface

opportunity for young scholars from Africa to present their research and climate adaptation projects. Some special features of the publication are: 1. Over 100 scientific contributions written by African researchers and/or researchers based in Africa 2. All contributions have been peer reviewed by an international editorial team consisting of editors, associate editors, and reviewers 3. It represents all African regions and contexts, from North, East, and West Africa to Southern Africa. The body of information and knowledge which characterizes the African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation is of particular value to: early career and established researchers whose research and studies examine aspects related to climate change and climate change mitigation and adaptation in Africa; social institutions working on climate change and climate adaptation in Africa that need new information; nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); associations and companies, especially from the finance and insurance sectors; government institutions (ministries of the environment, planning committees, etc.); international and national aid organizations; and other actors in Africa whose activities are affected by climate change. The handbook provides an overview of the impacts of climate change on the African continent and the methods currently being used to implement climate change adaptation. The experiences from the contributors will also be useful for international and regional experts working in the field of climate change and planning, as well as for all those interested in the linkages between climate change and climate adaptation. In order to support the training of a new generation of scientists, the African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation will be especially used by young scientists (M.Sc. students, Ph.D. students, and postdoctoral students). And, as importantly, the fact that this publication is available via open access means that it is free and can be read and used by all those interested on matters related to climate change adaptation in Africa, without any costs. Here, the editors would like to thank the assistance provided by the German Ministry for International Cooperation (BMZ), whose support has made this possible. The editors would also like to thank the authors for their hard work, their patience during the peer-review process, and willingness to share their knowledge with a wide audience. Thanks are also due to the associate editors and reviewers for dedicating their time in the assessments of their manuscripts. Their support is greatly appreciated. We hope that the African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation will support the regional and global efforts to assist African nations handle the many challenges posed by a changing climate. May 2021

The Editors

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the support provided by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung), which has made it possible to produce the African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation as an open access publication. The editors also acknowledge the support provided by the International Climate Change Information and Research Progamme (ICCIRP) and the staff at the Research and Transfer Centre “Sustainable Development and Climate Change Management” at the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences for the assistance in the promotion and monitoring of the project, as well as in supporting the authors.

vii

Contents

Volume 1 Part I 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security . . . . . . . . . . Adaptation of Seaweed Farmers in Zanzibar to the Impacts of Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Georgia de Jong Cleyndert, Rebecca Newman, Cecile Brugere, Aida Cuni-Sanchez, and Robert Marchant Adaptation of Small-Scale Tea and Coffee Farmers in Kenya to Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alice Nyawira Karuri Adaptive Capacity to Mitigate Climate Variability and Food Insecurity of Rural Communities Along River Tana Basin, Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David Karienye and Joseph Macharia Agricultural Interventions to Enhance Climate Change Adaptation of Underutilized Root and Tuber Crops . . . . . . . . . . Joseph P. Gweyi-Onyango, Michael Ajanja Sakha, and Joyce Jefwa Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Africa: Small-Scale Farmers in Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nyong Princely Awazi, Martin Ngankam Tchamba, Lucie Felicite Temgoua, and Marie-Louise Tientcheu-Avana Assessment of Farmers’ Indigenous Technology Adoptions for Climate Change Adaptation in Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Idowu Ologeh, Francis Adesina, and Victor Sobanke Case for Climate Smart Agriculture in Addressing the Threat of Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Saviour Yaw Eleblu, Eugene Tenkorang Darko, and Eric Yirenkyi Danquah

1

3

29

49

61

87

117

131

ix

x

Contents

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Sorghum Farmers’ Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in the Semiarid Region of Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Salé Abou, Madi Ali, Anselme Wakponou, and Armel Sambo

147

Attaining Food Security in the Wake of Climatic Risks: Lessons from the Delta State of Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eromose E. Ebhuoma

167

Tied Ridges and Better Cotton Breeds for Climate Change Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Mandumbu, C. Nyawenze, J. T. Rugare, G. Nyamadzawo, C. Parwada, and H. Tibugari Determinants of Cattle Farmers’ Perception of Climate Change in the Dry and Subhumid Tropical Zones of Benin (West Africa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yaya Idrissou, Alassan Seidou Assani, Mohamed Nasser Baco, and Ibrahim Alkoiret Traoré Drivers of Level of Adaptation to Climate Change in Smallholder Farming Systems in Southern Africa: A Multilevel Modeling Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Byron Zamasiya, Kefasi Nyikahadzoi, and Billy Billiard Mukamuri

181

197

213

Economic Analysis of Climate-Smart Agriculture Technologies in Maize Production in Smallholder Farming Systems . . . . . . . . Angeline Mujeyi and Maxwell Mudhara

225

Role of Cassava and Sweetpotato in Mitigating Drought in Semi-Arid Makueni County in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. M. Githunguri and E. N. Njiru

241

Food Security Concerns, Climate Change, and Sea Level Rise in Coastal Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilfred A. Abia, Comfort A. Onya, Conalius E. Shum, Williette E. Amba, Kareen L. Niba, and Eucharia A. Abia Impacts of Climate Change to Poultry Production in Africa: Adaptation Options for Broiler Chickens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. O. Abioja and J. A. Abiona Climate Change Adaptation Options in Farming Communities of Selected Nigerian Ecological Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ayansina Ayanlade, Isaac Ayo Oluwatimilehin, Adeola A. Oladimeji, Godwin Atai, and Damilola T. Agbalajobi Plants and Plant Products in Local Markets Within Benin City and Environs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moses Edwin Osawaru and Matthew Chidozie Ogwu

261

275

297

315

Contents

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Retooling Smallholder Farming Systems for Climate Change Resilience Across Botswana Arid Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nnyaladzi Batisani, Flora Pule-Meulenberg, Utlwang Batlang, Federica Matteoli, and Nelson Tselaesele

xi

339

Agroecology and Climate Change Adaptation: Farmers’ Experiences in the South African Lowveld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cryton Zazu and Anri Manderson

363

Climate Change and Variability on Food Security of Rural Household: Central Highlands, Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Argaw Tesfaye and Arragaw Alemayehu

379

Intangible and Indirect Costs of Adaptation to Climate Variability Among Maize Farmers: Chirumanzu District, Zimbabwe . . . . . . Dumisani Shoko Kori, Joseph Francis, and Jethro Zuwarimwe

397

Climate Variability and Rural Livelihood Security: Impacts and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kehinde Olayinka Popoola, Anne Jerneck, and Sunday Adesola Ajayi Climate Change Impact on Soil Moisture Variability: Health Effects of Radon Flux Density Within Ogbomoso, Nigeria . . . . . Olukunle Olaonipekun Oladapo, Leonard Kofitse Amekudzi, Olatunde Micheal Oni, Abraham Adewale Aremu, and Marian Amoakowaah Osei

423

437

African Yam Bean the Choice for Climate Change Resilience: Need for Conservation and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. V. Nnamani, D. B. Adewale, H. O. Oselebe, and C. J. Atkinson

453

Underutilized Indigenous Vegetables’ (UIVs) Business in Southwestern Nigeria: Climate Adaptation Strategies . . . . . . . . . V. A. Tanimonure

471

Farmers’ Adoption of Climate Smart Practices for Increased Productivity in Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. E. Fawole and S. A. Aderinoye-Abdulwahab

495

Climate Change Adaptation Strategies Among Cereal Farmers in Kwara State, Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. A. Aderinoye-Abdulwahab and T. A. Abdulbaki

509

Dual Pathway Model of Responses Between Climate Change and Livestock Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adetunji Oroye Iyiola-Tunji, James Ijampy Adamu, Paul Apagu John, and Idris Muniru

523

xii

Contents

30

Corona Virus, Climate Change, and Food Security . . . . . . . . . . . Nkiru Theresa Meludu and Toyin Abolade

31

Role of Small Grains in Adapting to Climate Change: Zvishavane District, Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tendai Nciizah, Elinah Nciizah, Caroline Mubekaphi, and Adornis D. Nciizah

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Constraints to Farmers’ Choice of Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in Ondo State of Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . George Olanrewaju Ige, Oluwole Matthew Akinnagbe, Olalekan Olamigoke Odefadehan, and Opeyemi Peter Ogunbusuyi Maize, Cassava, and Sweet Potato Yield on Monthly Climate in Malawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Floney P. Kawaye and Michael F. Hutchinson Addressing Climate Change Vulnerability Through Small Livestock Rearingin Matobo, Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Keith Phiri, Sibonokuhle Ndlovu, Moreblessings Mpofu, Philani Moyo, and Henri-Count Evans Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation Among Pastoralists: Rwenzori Region, Western Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Robert Nkuba, Raban Chanda, Gagoitseope Mmopelwa, Akintayo Adedoyin, Margaret Najjingo Mangheni, David Lesolle, and Edward Kato Rethinking Climate-Smart Agriculture Adoption for Resilience-Building Among Smallholder Farmers: Gender-Sensitive Adoption Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sizwile Khoza, Dewald van Niekerk, and Livhuwani Nemakonde

563

581

601

617

639

659

677

Rainfall Variability and Adaptation of Tomatoes Farmers in Santa: Northwest Region of Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Majoumo Christelle Malyse

699

Rainfall Variability and Quantity of Water Supply in Bamenda I, Northwest Region of Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zoyem Tedonfack Sedrique and Julius Tata Nfor

713

Climate Change Adaptation: Implications for Food Security and Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caroline Fadeke Ajilogba and Sue Walker

735

Brachiaria Grass for Climate Resilient and Sustainable Livestock Production in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. M. G. Njarui, M. Gatheru, and S. R. Ghimire

755

Contents

41

42

Climate Change Adaptation Through Sustainable Water Resources Management in Kenya: Challenges and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . Shilpa Muliyil Asokan, Joy Obando, Brian Felix Kwena, and Cush Ngonzo Luwesi Impacts of Environmental Change on Fish Production in Egypt and Nigeria: Technical Characteristics and Practice . . . . . . . . . . M. L. Adeleke, D. Al-Kenawy, A. M. Nasr-Allah, M. Dickson, and Desalegn Ayal

Part II Climate Change, Technologies, and Resources Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

44

45

xiii

777

789

807

Sustainable Urban Drainage Practices and Their Effects on Aquifer Recharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Getrude Gichuhi and Stephen Gitahi

809

Building Livelihoods Resilience in the Face of Climate Change: Case Study of Small-Holder Farmers in Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . Saumu Ibrahim Mwasha and Zoe Robinson

829

Climate Change Adaptation: Opportunities for Increased Material Recycling Facilities in African Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gamuchirai Mutezo, Jean Mulopo, and Dumisani Chirambo

849

Volume 2 46

47

48

49

50

Farm-Level Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Reductions for the Predominant Production Systems in Northern Nigeria . . . . . . . . Taiwo B. Ayinde, Benjamin Ahmed, and Charles F. Nicholson

875

GIS-Based Assessment of Solar Energy Harvesting Sites and Electricity Generation Potential in Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mabvuto Mwanza and Koray Ulgen

899

Panel Analysis of the Relationship Between Weather Variability and Sectoral Output in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Olga Nekesa Mulama and Caroline Wanjiru Kariuki

947

Agro-ecological Lower Midland Zones IV and V in Kenya Using GIS and Remote Sensing for Climate-Smart Crop Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hilda Manzi and Joseph P. Gweyi-Onyango Water Resource Management Frameworks in Water-Related Adaptation to Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Godfrey Odongtoo, Denis Ssebuggwawo, and Peter Okidi Lating

965

993

xiv

Contents

51

Retracing Economic Impact of Climate Change Disasters in Africa: Case Study of Drought Episodes and Adaptation in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007 Mary Nthambi and Uche Dickson Ijioma

52

Rural Farmers’ Approach to Drought Adaptation: Lessons from Crop Farmers in Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Hillary Dumba, Jones Abrefa Danquah, and Ari Pappinen

53

Smart Climate Resilient and Efficient Integrated Waste to Clean Energy System in a Developing Country: Industry 4.0 . . . 1053 Anthony Njuguna Matheri, Belaid Mohamed, and Jane Catherine Ngila

54

Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Agricultural Systems and Climate Change Effects in Sub- Saharan Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081 Winnie Ntinyari and Joseph P. Gweyi-Onyango

55

Use and Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Climate Change Adaptation in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107 Isaac Rutenberg, Arthur Gwagwa, and Melissa Omino

56

Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme Rainfall Events in Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Olumide A. Olaniyan, Vincent O. Ajayi, Kamoru A. Lawal, and Ugbah Paul Akeh

57

Plastic Pollution and Climate Change: Role of Bioremediation as a Tool to Achieving Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1159 S. A. Idowu, D. J. Arotupin, and S. O. Oladejo

58

Climate Change, Rural Livelihoods, and Ecosystem Nexus: Forest Communities in Agroecological zones of Nigeria . . . . . . . 1169 Olushola Fadairo, Samuel Olajuyigbe, Tolulope Osayomi, Olufolake Adelakun, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, Siji Olutegbe, and Oluwaseun Adeleke

59

Climate Change, Biodiversity, and Tipping Points in Botswana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1193 Peter Urich, Yinpeng Li, and Sennye Masike

60

Access to Water Resources and Household Vulnerability to Malaria in the Okavango Delta, Botswana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1227 M. R. Motsholapheko and B. N. Ngwenya

61

Digital Platforms in Climate Information Service Delivery for Farming in Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1247 Rebecca Sarku, Divine Odame Appiah, Prosper Adiku, Rahinatu Sidiki Alare, and Senyo Dotsey

Contents

xv

62

Clean Energy Technology for the Mitigation of Climate Change: African Traditional Myth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1279 Abel Ehimen Airoboman, Patience Ose Airoboman, and Felix Ayemere Airoboman

63

Green Technology Approaches to Solid Waste Management in the Developing Economies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1293 T. B. Hammed and M. K. C. Sridhar

64

Pyrolysis Bio-oil and Bio-char Production from Firewood Tree Species for Energy and Carbon Storage in Rural Wooden Houses of Southern Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1313 Miftah F. Kedir

65

“Conservation Agriculture,” Possible Climate Change Adaptation Option in Taita Hills, Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1331 Lilian Motaroki, Gilbert Ouma, and Dorcas Kalele

66

Do-It-Yourself Flood Risk Adaptation Strategies in the Neighborhoods of Kano City, Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1353 Aliyu Barau and Aliyu Sani Wada

67

Global Strategy, Local Action with Biogas Production for Rural Energy Climate Change Impact Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 1381 A. S. Momodu, E. F. Aransiola, T. D. Adepoju, and I. D. Okunade

68

Biochar for Climate Change Adaptation: Effect on Heavy Metal Composition of Telfairia occidentalis Leaves . . . . . . . . . . . 1401 Doris Akachukwu, Michael Adedapo Gbadegesin, Philippa Chinyere Ojimelukwe, and Christopher John Atkinson

69

Sustaining a Cleaner Environment by Curbing Down Biomass Energy Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1423 Abubakar Hamid Danlami and Shri Dewi Applanaidu

70

Resetting the African Smallholder Farming System: Potentials to Cope with Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1441 Bernhard Freyer and Jim Bingen

71

Sustainable Food Production Systems for Climate Change Mitigation: Indigenous Rhizobacteria for Potato Bio-fertilization in Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1469 Becky Nancy Aloo, Ernest Rashid Mbega, and Billy Amendi Makumba

72

Climate Change Adaptation Among Smallholder Farmers in Rural Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1497 Peter Asare-Nuamah and Athanasius Fonteh Amungwa

xvi

Contents

73

Biomass Burning Effects on the Climate over Southern West Africa During the Summer Monsoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1515 Alima Dajuma, Siélé Silué, Kehinde O. Ogunjobi, Heike Vogel, Evelyne Touré N’Datchoh, Véronique Yoboué, Arona Diedhiou, and Bernhard Vogel

74

Precipitation Variability in West Africa in the Context of Global Warming and Adaptation Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . 1533 Gandome Mayeul L. D. Quenum, Nana A. B. Klutse, Eric A. Alamou, Emmanuel A. Lawin, and Philip G. Oguntunde

75

Socioeconomically Informed Use of Geostatistics to Track Adaptation of Resource-Poor Communities to Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1555 Martin Munashe Chari, Hamisai Hamandawana, and Leocadia Zhou

76

Risks of Indoor Overheating in Low-Cost Dwellings on the South African Lowveld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1583 Newton R. Matandirotya, Dirk P. Cilliers, Roelof P. Burger, Christian Pauw, and Stuart J. Piketh

77

Smallholders Use of Weather Information as Smart Adaptation Strategy in the Savannah Area of Ondo State, Nigeria . . . . . . . . 1601 Rasheedat Alliagbor, David Olufemi Awolala, and Igbekele Amos Ajibefun

78

ECMWF Subseasonal to Seasonal Precipitation Forecast for Use as a Climate Adaptation Tool Over Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . 1613 Ugbah Paul Akeh, Steve Woolnough, and Olumide A. Olaniyan

79

Agropastoralists’ Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Modeling: Software and Coding Method Accuracies for Best-Worst Scaling Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1631 Zakou Amadou

80

Barriers to the Adoption of Improved Cooking Stoves for Rural Resilience and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1641 Daniel M. Nzengya, Paul Maina Mwari, and Chrocosiscus Njeru

81

Improving Food Security by Adapting and Mitigating Climate Change-Induced Crop Pest: The Novelty of Plant-Organic Sludge in Southern Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1659 Chukwudi Nwaogu

Contents

xvii

82

Indigenous and Scientific Forecasts on Climate Change Perceptions of Arable Farmers: Rwenzori Region, Western Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1685 Michael Robert Nkuba, Raban Chanda, Gagoitseope Mmopelwa, Akintayo Adedoyin, Margaret Najjingo Mangheni, David Lesolle, and Edward Kato

83

Thermodynamic Environment During the 2009 Burkina Faso and 2012 Nigeria Flood Disasters: Case Study . . . . . . . . . . 1705 R. Ayodeji Balogun, E. Adesanya Adefisan, Z. Debo Adeyewa, and E. Chilekwu Okogbue

84

Differential Impact of Land Use Types on Soil Productivity Components in Two Agro-ecological Zones of Southern Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1721 Folasade Mary Owoade, Samuel Godfried Kwasi Adiku, Christopher John Atkinson, and Dilys Sefakor MacCarthy

85

Data Collection Using Wireless Sensor Networks and Online Visualization for Kitui, Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1735 Josephine Mbandi and Michael Kisangari

Part III

Interdisciplinary Aspects of Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . .

1749

86

Climate Change Adaptation in Southern Africa: Universalistic Science or Indigenous Knowledge or Hybrid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1751 Tafadzwa Mutambisi, Nelson Chanza, Abraham R. Matamanda, Roseline Ncube, and Innocent Chirisa

87

Equity and Justice in Climate Change Adaptation: Policy and Practical Implication in Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1767 Chinwe Philomina Oramah and Odd Einar Olsen

88

Climate-Induced Food Crisis in Africa: Integrating Policy and Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1789 David O. Chiawo and Verrah A. Otiende

89

Gender Implications of Farmers’ Indigenous Climate Change Adaptation Strategies Along Agriculture Value Chain in Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1811 Olanike F. Deji

Volume 3 90

Impact of Climate Change on Animal Health, Emerging and Re-emerging Diseases in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1835 Royford Magiri, Kaampwe Muzandu, George Gitau, Kennedy Choongo, and Paul Iji

xviii

Contents

91

Livestock Breeders’ Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change in Morocco’s Arid Rangelands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1853 Wadii Snaibi and Abdelhamid Mezrhab

92

Triple Helix as a Strategic Tool to Fast-Track Climate Change Adaptation in Rural Kenya: Case Study of Marsabit County . . . 1873 Izael da Silva, Daniele Bricca, Andrea Micangeli, Davide Fioriti, and Paolo Cherubini

93

Climate Change Adaptation Mechanism for Sustainable Development Goal 1 in Nigeria: Legal Imperative . . . . . . . . . . . . 1897 Erimma Gloria Orie

94

Climate Variability on Fishing Activities in Inland Waters: Case of Owena River in Ondo and Osun States, Nigeria . . . . . . . 1919 Lydia Adeleke, Jacob Victor Jerry, Desalegn Ayal, Akinola Joshua Oluwatobi, Ayodele Idowu Sunday, and Ajibefun Igbekele Amos

95

Climate Change Impact on Climate Extremes and Adaptation Strategies in the Vea Catchment, Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1937 Isaac Larbi, Clement Nyamekye, Fabien C. C. Hountondji, Gloria C. Okafor, and Peter Rock Ebo Odoom

96

Climate Change Resistant Energy Sources for Global Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1955 Oluwatobi Ololade Ife-Adediran and Oluyemi Bright Aboyewa

97

Uncertainties in Rainfall and Water Resources in Maghreb Countries Under Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1967 Mohamed Meddi and Saeid Eslamian

98

Hydrological Dynamics Assessment of Basin Upstream– Downstream Linkages Under Seasonal Climate Variability . . . . . 2005 Oseni Taiwo Amoo, Hammed Olabode Ojugbele, Abdultaofeek Abayomi, and Pushpendra Kumar Singh

99

Adaptation to Climate Change: Opportunities and Challenges from Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2025 Jonty Rawlins and Felix Kanungwe Kalaba

100

Gendered Vulnerability to Climate Change Impacts in Selected Counties in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2045 Daniel M. Nzengya and John Kibe Maguta

101

Unlocking Climate Finance Potential for Climate Adaptation: Case of Climate Smart Agricultural Financing in Sub Saharan Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2063 Edward M. Mungai, S. Wagura Ndiritu, and Izael da Silva

Contents

xix

102

Africa–European Union Climate Change Partnership . . . . . . . . . 2085 Oluwole Olutola

103

Gender and Climate Change Adaptation Among Rural Households in Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2099 Chukwuma Otum Ume, Patience Ifeyinwa Opata, and Anthony Nwa Jesus Onyekuru

104

Local Institutions, Collective Action, and Divergent Adaptation: Case from Agro-Pastoral Niger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2117 Julie Snorek

105

Climatepreneurship: Adaptation Strategy for Climate Change Impacts on Rural Women Entrepreneurship Development in Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143 C. A. O. Akinbami

106

Intersectional Perspective of Strengthening Climate Change Adaptation of Agrarian Women in Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2169 Faith Ngum and Johan Bastiaensen

107

Multifunctional Landscape Transformation of Urban Idle Spaces for Climate Resilience in Sub-Saharan Africa . . . . . . . . . 2193 David O. Yawson, Michael O. Adu, Paul A. Asare, and Frederick A. Armah

108

Climate Change Impact and Adaptation: Lagoonal Fishing Communities in West Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2221 K. Sian Davies-Vollum, Debadayita Raha, and Daniel Koomson

109

Climate Change Implications and Mitigation in a Hyperarid Country: A Case of Namibia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2247 Hupenyu A. Mupambwa, Martha K. Hausiku, Andreas S. Namwoonde, Gadaffi M. Liswaniso, Mayday Haulofu, and Samuel K. Mafwila

110

Social Vulnerability of Rural Dwellers to Climate Variability: Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2269 Jemimah Timothy Ekanem and Idongesit Michael Umoh

111

Menace and Mitigation of Health and Environmental Hazards of Charcoal Production in Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2293 Philip Olanrewaju Eniola

112

Managing Current Climate Variability Can Ensure Water Security Under Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2311 Mike Muller

xx

Contents

113

Community Adaptation to Climate Change: Case of Gumuz People, Metekel Zone, Northwest Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2339 Abbebe Marra Wagino and Teshale W. Amanuel

114

Impacts of Climate Change on the Hydro-Climatology and Performances of Bin El Ouidane Reservoir: Morocco, Africa . . . 2363 Abdellatif Ahbari, Laila Stour, and Ali Agoumi

115

Urban Flooding, Adaptation Strategies, and Resilience: Case Study of Accra, Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2387 Kwadwo Owusu and Peter Bilson Obour

116

Barriers to Effective Climate Change Management in Zimbabwe’s Rural Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2405 Louis Nyahunda and Happy Mathew Tirivangasi

117

Dichrostachys cinerea Growth Rings as Natural Archives for Climatic Variation in Namibia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2433 Benjamin Mapani, Rosemary Shikangalah, Isaac Mapaure, and Aansbert Musimba

118

Just Societal Transformation: Perspectives of Pastoralists in the Lower Omo Valley in Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2447 Sabine Troeger

119

Impacts of Global Warming on West African Monsoon Rainfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2469 Imoleayo E. Gbode, Vincent O. Ajayi, Kehinde O. Ogunjobi, Jimy Dudhia, and Changhai Liu

120

Transformative Adaptations for Health Impacts of Climate Change in Burkina Faso and Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2485 Edmund Yeboah, Aditi Bunker, Peter Dambach, Isabel Mank, Raïssa Sorgho, Ali Sié, Stephen Munga, Till Bärnighausen, and Ina Danquah

121

Sustainable Climate Change Adaptation in Developing Countries: Role of Perception Among Rural Households . . . . . . 2501 Oluwatosin Oluwasegun Fasina, Emmanuel Chilekwu Okogbue, Oluwatosin Omowunmi Ishola, and Abiodun Adeeko

122

Bioeconomy as Climate Action: How Ready Are African Countries? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2519 Oluwaseun James Oguntuase and Oluwatosin Benedict Adu

123

Flood, Livelihood Displacement, and Poverty in Nigeria: Plights of Flood Victims, 2012–2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2535 Joachim Chukwuma Okafor

Contents

xxi

124

Evidence-Based Policy Development: National Adaptation Strategy and Plan of Action on Climate Change for Nigeria (NASPA-CCN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2547 Robert Ugochukwu Onyeneke, Chinedum Uzoma Nwajiuba, Brent Tegler, and Chinyere Augusta Nwajiuba

125

Using Inclusive Finance to Significantly Scale Climate Change Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2565 Robert Wild, Moses Egaru, Mark Ellis-Jones, Barbara Nakangu Bugembe, Ahmed Mohamed, Obadiah Ngigi, Gertrude Ogwok, Jules Roberts, and Sophie Kutegeka

126

Pathways to Enhance Climate Change Resilience among Pastoral Households in Northern Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2591 Ronald Boniphace Ndesanjo, Ida Theilade, and Martin Reinhardt Nielsen

127

Building Capacity to Cope with Climate Change-Induced Resource-Based Conflicts Among Grassroots Communities in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2611 John Kibe Maguta, Daniel M. Nzengya, Chrocosiscus Mutisya, and Joyce Wairimu

128

Mainstreaming Climate Adaptation in Mozambican Urban Water, Sanitation, and Drainage Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2631 Pedro Muradás, María Puig, Óscar Ruiz, and Josep María Solé

129

Primary Versus High School Students’ Environmental Attitudes and Pro-environmental Behavior: The Case of Embu County, Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2653 Daniel M. Nzengya and Francis Rutere

130

Identifying and Overcoming Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation in the Seychelles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2675 Daniel Etongo, Vincent Amelie, Angelique Pouponneau, and Walter Leal Filho

131

Linking Adaptation and Mitigation Toward a Resilient and Robust Infrastructure Sector in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2693 Onkangi Ruth, David Lagat, and Ondari Lilian

132

Integrating Climate Adaptation, Poverty Reduction, and Environmental Conservation in Kwale County, Kenya . . . . . . . . 2713 Chiara Ambrosino, Ben Hufton, Benson Okinyi Nyawade, Harriet Osimbo, and Phanuel Owiti

133

Land Use Cover Types and Forest Management Options for Carbon in Mabira Central Forest Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2733 Aisha Jjagwe, Vincent Kakembo, and Barasa Bernard

xxii

Contents

134

Women Participation in Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration for Climate Resilience: Laisamis, Marsabit County, Kenya . . . . . 2755 Irene Ojuok and Tharcisse Ndayizigiye

135

Climate Change Adaptation and Community Development in Port Harcourt, Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2775 Julie Greenwalt, Michael Dede, Ibinabo Johnson, Prince Nosa, Abi Precious, and Barbara Summers

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2803

About the Editor-in-Chief

Walter Leal Filho holds the chairs of climate change management at the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences (Germany) and environment and technology at Manchester Metropolitan University (UK). He directs the Research and Transfer Centre “Sustainability Development and Climate Change Management.” His main research interests are in the fields of sustainable development and climate change, also including aspects of climate change and health. He has over 30 years’ experience on climate change projects in Africa, having worked in many countries across the continent.

xxiii

About the Editors

Nicholas Oguge is a professor of environmental policy at the Centre for Advanced Studies in Environmental Law and Policy (CASELAP), University of Nairobi, where he was a director for 6 years. He is a peer reviewer with NERC (UK) and a past member of the Scientific Review Committee (SRC) at the SocioEnvironmental Synthesis Centre (SESYNC), University of Maryland, USA. Professor Oguge is also the founding president of the Ecological Society for Eastern Africa (ESEA) and editorial board member of the African Journal of Ecology. He is published widely and has expertise on a wide range of environmental issues. Professor Oguge was a coordinating lead author for the African region during the recent Global Assessments of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by IPBES. He has over 27 years of postdoctoral experience spanning academia, research, resource management, project management, and community outreach. Desalegn Ayal is an associate professor of disaster risk management and sustainable development at the Center for Food Security Studies, College of Development Studies, Addis Ababa University. Desalegn holds a Ph. D. degree in geography. Desalegn serves as the deputy editor of the International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management. He has published more than 40 publications including books, book chapters, and refereed journal articles. He is East Africa vice president for Interconnections for Making Africa Great, Empowered, and Sustainable Initiative. He is a founder and director of Academics Stand Against Poverty (ASAP) Ethiopian Chapter. Desalegn has also presented papers on climate adaptation and related issues at xxv

xxvi

About the Editors

many international and national conferences. His principal areas of research include climate change adaptation, climate resilience, climate change mitigation and related issues, indigenous weather forecasting, integrated natural resources rehabilitation and management, and livelihoods and food security nexus, among others. He thoroughly understands the link between natural and human-induced hazards with sustainable development, and works hard to familiarize with current tools of climate change impact assessment on livelihood and the wider environment. He has been actively involved in climate resilience and integrated natural resources rehabilitation and management research as well as development interventions to improve food security. Lydia Adeleke is a senior lecturer and researcher with a Ph.D. in agricultural/resource economics (fisheries economist) at the Federal University of Technology, Akure (FUTA), Nigeria. As part of her doctoral studies, Adeleke was awarded a visiting scholar fellowship to the Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada. She is a fellow of the African-German Network of Excellence in Science (AGNES) and a fellow of the African Women in Agriculture Research and Development (AWARD). Her research focus is on global adaptation of the artisanal/small-scale fisherfolks to climate change in coastal areas. As an AWARD fellow, she ensures greener world for smallholders’ farmers, especially women, through sustainable food production to increase income and living and health standards. As a social economist, she has been doing research on climate change adaptation since 2013, especially in the coastal zones, in order to promote their restoration, conservation, and sustainable use. She successfully convened the hosting of the 3rd World Symposium on Climate Change Adaptation in Nigeria between 11 and 13 September 2019. The first of its kind in Africa, and The Federal University of Technology, Akure (FUTA), was the first University in Nigeria to host this world event.

About the Editors

xxvii

Izael da Silva has a Ph.D. in power systems engineering from the University of Sao Paulo (Brazil). He is a professor at Strathmore University and the deputy vice chancellor – Research and Innovation. He started the Strathmore Energy Research Centre, SERC. The center does training, research, testing, and consultancy in energy. His topics of interest are: renewable energy, energy efficiency, energy policy, and sustainable environment. He was also instrumental in the setting up of a project sponsored by DFID and DANIDA and managed by the World Bank to set up the first Climate Innovation Centre (CIC) in the world. It is housed in Strathmore and serves SMEs financially and technically to solve challenges posed by the adverse impact of climate change either by mitigation or adaptation. In 2013, he was honored by the Brazilian Government with the title of “Comendador da Ordem do Rio Branco” for his services towards education and poverty alleviation in Africa. Professor Da Silva is the first elected president and founding member of the Association of Energy Professionals (EA) and the current chairman of the KCIC board of directors.

Associate Editors

Ayansina Ayanlade Department of Geography, Obafemi Awolowo University, IleIfe, Nigeria Sebastiao Famba Land and Water Use, Faculty of Agronomy and Forestry Engineering, University Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo, Mozambique Afusat Jagun Jubril University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria C. V. Nnamani Plant Systematics and Conservation Biology Research Unit, Department of Applied Biology, Faculty of Science, Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki, Nigeria Olukunle Olaonipekun Oladapo Department of Science Laboratory Technology, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria Edmond Totin Universite Nationale d’Agriculture (Benin), Ketou, Benin Habtamu Taddele Menghistu Department of Basic and Diagnostic Sciences Mekelle University, College of Veterinary Sciences Mekelle, Tigray, Ethiopia Mekelle University, Institute of Climate and Society Mekelle, Tigray, Ethiopia Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Mekelle University, College of Dryland Agriculture and Natural Resources Mekelle, Tigray, Ethiopia Everisto Mapedza International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Accra, Ghana Nsikak-Abasi Aniefiok Etim University of Uyo, Uyo, Nigeria Artie Ng Research Centre for Green Energy, Transport and Building, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada Hamisai Hamandawana Department of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Remote Sensing, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa

xxix

Reviewers

Adolphine Kateka Global water partnership, South Africa, Tanzania Agele Samuel Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Andriamahazo Michelle Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Antananarivo, Madagascar Aubin Nzaou University of Houston Law Center, Energy and Natural Resources (EENR) Center, Houston, USA Ayodeji Oluleye Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Bertha Othoche Pwani University, Kilifi County, Kenya Boaventura Cuamba Eduardo Mondlane University, Energy Research Centre, Maputo, Mozambique Brent Jacobs University of Technology Sydney, Institute for Sustainable Futures, Ultimo, NSW, Australia Brigida Rocha Brito Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa, International Relations (Environmental Studies and International Cooperation), Lisbon, Portugal Caroline Mulinya Kaimosi Friends University, Kaimosi, Kenya Chunlan Li East China Normal University, School of Geographic Sciences, Shanghai, China Daniel M. Nzengya St Paul’s University, Limuru, Kenya Daniel Tadesse University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia David Ellison Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and University of Bern, Forest Resource Management, Baar, Switzerland Ellen Kalmbach Brot für die Welt, Africa and Asia-Pacific, Berlin, Germany Hussein Sulieman University of Gadarif, El-Gadarif, Sudan

xxxi

xxxii

Reviewers

Isaac B. Oluwatayo University of Venda, Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Thohoyandou, Limpopo province, South Africa Jamal Alibou Hassania High School of Public Works for Engineers, Department of Hydraulic, Environment and Climate, Casablanca, Maroc Jean-Luc Kouassi Felix Houphouet-Boigny Polytechnic Institute (INP-HB), Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire Jokastah Wanzuu Kalung South Eastern Kenya University, Nairobi, Kenya Jonathan Casey CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), Wallingford, UK Jyotsana Shukla Amity Institute of Behavioral and Allied Sciences, Lucknow, India Lawrence Olusola Oparinde The Federal University of Technology, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria Matthew Chidozie Ogwu University of Benin, Benin, Nigeria Università di Camerino – Centro Ricerche Floristiche dell’Appennino, Parco Nazionale del Gran Sasso e Monti della Laga, Barisciano (L’Aquila), Italy Menas Wuta University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe Michael Robert Nkuba Department of Environmental sciences, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana Nelson Chanza Department of Geography, Bindura University of Science Education, Bindura, Zimbabwe Norbert F. Tchouaffe Tchiadje Pan African Institute for Development, Engineering Science, Yaounde, Cameroon Olaniran Anthony Thompson The Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Olawale Emmanuel Olayide University of Ibadan, Centre for Sustainable Development, Ibadan, Nigeria Olga Laiza Kupika Chinhoyi University of Technology, School of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Harare, Zimbabwe Olufemi Samson Adesina World Hunger Fighters Foundation, Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria Oluwabunmi Opeyemi Adejumo Obafemi Awolowo University, Institute for Entrepreneurship and Development Studies, Ile-Ife, Nigeria Oyeshola Kofoworola Joint Research Centre, Seville, Spain Pantaleo Munishi Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), Morogoro, Tanzania

Reviewers

xxxiii

Peter J. Glynn Bond University, Robina, Australia Russell Yost University of Hawaii, Manoa, USA Sam Wong University College Roosevelt (affiliated with Utrecht University), Middelburg, The Netherlands Sarah Cunha LAQV-REQUIMTE, Porto, Portugal Zakaria Fouad Fawzy Hassan National Research Centre, Agricultural and biological Research, Cairo, Egypt Zodwa Lihle Motsa University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa

Contributors

Abdultaofeek Abayomi Department of Information and Communication Technology, Mangosuthu University of Technology, Umlazi, Durban, South Africa T. A. Abdulbaki Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria Eucharia A. Abia Integrated Health for All Foundation (IHAF), Yaounde, Cameroon Wilfred A. Abia Laboratory of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Science, University of Yaounde 1, Yaounde, Cameroon School of Agriculture, Environmental Sciences, and Risk Assessment, College of Science, Engineering and Technology (COSET), Institute for Management and Professional Training (IMPT), Yaounde, Cameroon Integrated Health for All Foundation (IHAF), Yaounde, Cameroon M. O. Abioja Department of Animal Physiology, College of Animal Science and Livestock Production, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria J. A. Abiona Department of Animal Physiology, College of Animal Science and Livestock Production, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria Toyin Abolade Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension Faculty of Agriculture, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria Salé Abou National Advanced School of Engineering of Maroua (ENSPM), The University of Maroua, Maroua, Cameroon Oluyemi Bright Aboyewa Department of Physics, College of Arts and Sciences, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA James Ijampy Adamu Nigerian Meteorological Agency, Abuja, Nigeria Akintayo Adedoyin Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana

xxxv

xxxvi

Contributors

Abiodun Adeeko Federal College of Agriculture, Agricultural Extension and Management, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria E. Adesanya Adefisan Department of Meteorology and Climate Science, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Olufolake Adelakun Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria Lydia Adeleke Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture Technology, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria M. L. Adeleke Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture Technology, The Federal University of Technology, Akure, Akure, Nigeria Oluwaseun Adeleke Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria T. D. Adepoju Department of Chemical Engineering, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria S. A. Aderinoye-Abdulwahab Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria Francis Adesina Department of Geography, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria D. B. Adewale Department of Crop Science and Horticulture, Federal University Oye-Ekiti, Ikole-Ekiti, Nigeria Z. Debo Adeyewa Department of Meteorology and Climate Science, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Prosper Adiku Institute for Environment and Sanitation Studies, College of Basic and Applied Sciences, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana Samuel Godfried Kwasi Adiku Department of Soil Science, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana Michael O. Adu Department of Crop Science, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana Oluwatosin Benedict Adu Department of Biochemistry, Lagos State University, Lagos, Nigeria Damilola T. Agbalajobi Department of Political Science, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria Ali Agoumi Laboratory of Civil Engineering, Hydraulic, Environment and Climate Change, Hassania School of Public Works, Casablanca, Morocco

Contributors

xxxvii

Abdellatif Ahbari Laboratory of Process Engineering and Environment, Faculty of Sciences and Techniques, Hassan II University of Casablanca, Mohammedia, Morocco Benjamin Ahmed Department of Agricultural Economics, ABU, Zaria, Nigeria Abel Ehimen Airoboman Department of Electrical/Electronic Engineering, Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna, Nigeria Felix Ayemere Airoboman Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria Patience Ose Airoboman Department of Biotechnology, Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna, Nigeria Sunday Adesola Ajayi Department of Crop Production and Protection, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria Institute for Sustainable Development, First Technical University, Ibadan, Nigeria Vincent O. Ajayi West African Science Service Center on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria Department of Meteorology and Climate Science, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Igbekele Amos Ajibefun Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA Caroline Fadeke Ajilogba Division of Agrometeorology, Agricultural Research Council – Soil, Climate and Water, Pretoria, South Africa Doris Akachukwu Department of Agriculture, Health and Environment, Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Chatham, UK Ugbah Paul Akeh National Weather Forecasting and Climate Research Centre, Nigerian Meteorological Agency, Abuja, Nigeria C. A. O. Akinbami Institute for Entrepreneurship and Development Studies, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife, Osun State, Nigeria Oluwole Matthew Akinnagbe Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication Technology, School of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Eric A. Alamou Laboratory of Applied Hydrology (LHA), National Institute of Water (NIW), Cotonou, Bénin Rahinatu Sidiki Alare Faculty of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Department of Environmental Sciences, C.K. Tedam University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Navrongo, Ghana Arragaw Alemayehu Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Debre Berhan University, Debre Berhan, Ethiopia

xxxviii

Contributors

Madi Ali National Advanced School of Engineering of Maroua (ENSPM), The University of Maroua, Maroua, Cameroon D. Al-Kenawy WorldFish, Abbassa, Abou-Hammad, Sharkia, Egypt Ibrahim Alkoiret Traoré Laboratoire d’Ecologie, Santé et Production Animales (LESPA), Faculté d’Agronomie, Université de Parakou, Parakou, République du Bénin Rasheedat Alliagbor Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Federal University of Technology Akure, Akure, Ondo, Nigeria Becky Nancy Aloo Department of Sustainable Agriculture and Biodiversity Conservation, Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, Arusha, Tanzania Department of Biological Sciences, University of Eldoret, Eldoret, Kenya Zakou Amadou Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Rural Economics and Sociology, Tahoua University, Tahoua, Niger Teshale W. Amanuel Wondo Genet College of Forestry and Natural Resource, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia Williette E. Amba School of Agriculture, Environmental Sciences, and Risk Assessment, College of Science, Engineering and Technology (COSET), Institute for Management and Professional Training (IMPT), Yaounde, Cameroon Chiara Ambrosino Plan International UK, London, UK Leonard Kofitse Amekudzi Department of Physics, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana Vincent Amelie Seychelles Meteorological Authority (SMA), Mahé, Seychelles Oseni Taiwo Amoo Risk and Vulnerabilty Science Centre, Walter Sasilu University, Eastern Cape, South Africa Ajibefun Igbekele Amos Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Federal University of Technology, Akure (FUTA), Akure, Nigeria Athanasius Fonteh Amungwa Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Management Sciences, University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon Divine Odame Appiah Environmental Management Practice Research Unit, Department of Geography and Rural Development, Faculty of Social Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana Shri Dewi Applanaidu Department of Economics and Agribusiness, School of Economics, Finance and Banking, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia

Contributors

xxxix

E. F. Aransiola Department of Chemical Engineering, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria Abraham Adewale Aremu Department of Physics with Electronics, Dominion University, Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria Frederick A. Armah Department of Environmental Science, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana D. J. Arotupin Department of Microbiology, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Paul A. Asare Department of Crop Science, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana Peter Asare-Nuamah Institute of Governance, Humanities and Social Science, Pan African University, Soa, Cameroon School of Sustainable Development, University of Environment and Sustainable Development, Somanya, Eastern Region, Ghana Shilpa Muliyil Asokan Climate Change and Sustainable Development, The Nordic Africa Institute, Uppsala, Sweden Alassan Seidou Assani Laboratoire d’Ecologie, Santé et Production Animales (LESPA), Faculté d’Agronomie, Université de Parakou, Parakou, République du Bénin Godwin Atai Department of Geography, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria Christopher John Atkinson Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, London, UK Department of Agriculture, Health and Environment, Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Chatham, UK Nyong Princely Awazi Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agronomy and Agricultural Sciences, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon David Olufemi Awolala African Climate Change Leadership Program (AfriCLP), University of Nairobi, Kenya and Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dar es salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Desalegn Ayal Center for Food Security Studies, College of Development Studies, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Ayansina Ayanlade Department of Geography, Obafemi Awolowo University, IleIfe, Nigeria Taiwo B. Ayinde Samaru College of Agriculture, Division of Agricultural Colleges, Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria, Nigeria

xl

Contributors

Mohamed Nasser Baco Laboratoire Société-Environnement (LaSEn), Faculté d’Agronomie, Université de Parakou, Parakou, République du Bénin R. Ayodeji Balogun Department of Meteorology and Climate Science, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Aliyu Barau Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Bayero University Kano, Kano, Nigeria Till Bärnighausen Heidelberg Institute of Global Health (HIGH), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA Africa Health Research Institute (AHRI), Durban/Mtubatuba, South Africa Johan Bastiaensen Institute of Development Policy (IOB), University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium Nnyaladzi Batisani Botswana Institute for Technology Research and Innovation, Gaborone, Botswana Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy Utlwang Batlang Botswana University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Gaborone, Botswana Barasa Bernard Institute of Environment and Natural Resources, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda Jim Bingen Michigan State University (MSU), East Lansing, MI, USA Daniele Bricca Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy Cecile Brugere Soulfish Research and Consultancy, York, UK Barbara Nakangu Bugembe International Union for Conservation of Nature – IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Aditi Bunker Heidelberg Institute of Global Health (HIGH), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany Roelof P. Burger Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa Raban Chanda Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana Nelson Chanza Department of Geography, Bindura University of Science Education, Bindura, Zimbabwe Martin Munashe Chari Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa

Contributors

xli

Risk and Vulnerability Science Centre (RVSC), University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa Paolo Cherubini DESTEC, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy David O. Chiawo Strathmore University, Nairobi, Kenya Dumisani Chirambo Seeds of Opportunity, Blantyre, Malawi Innocent Chirisa Department of Demography Settlement and Development, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa Kennedy Choongo Fiji National University, College of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Suva, Fiji School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia Dirk P. Cilliers Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa Aida Cuni-Sanchez York Institute for Tropical Ecosystems, Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, North Yorkshire, UK Izael da Silva Strathmore University, Nairobi, Kenya Alima Dajuma Department of Meteorology and Climate Sciences, West African Science Service Centre on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use (WASCAL), Federal University of Technology Akure (FUTA), Ondo State, Nigeria Laboratoire de Physique de l’Atmosphère et de Mécaniques des Fluides (LAPAMF), Université Félix Houphouët-Boigny, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire Peter Dambach Heidelberg Institute of Global Health (HIGH), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany Abubakar Hamid Danlami Department of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Bayero University Kano, Kano, Nigeria Jones Abrefa Danquah Department of Geography and Regional Planning, Faculty of Social Sciences, College of Humanities and Legal Studies, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana Eric Yirenkyi Danquah West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement, University of Ghana, College of Basic and Applied Sciences, Accra, Ghana Ina Danquah Heidelberg Institute of Global Health (HIGH), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke (DIfE), Nuthetal, Germany

xlii

Contributors

Eugene Tenkorang Darko Geography and Resource Development, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana K. Sian Davies-Vollum Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, University of Derby, Derby, UK Michael Dede Chicoco Collective, Port Harcourt, Nigeria Olanike F. Deji Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife, Nigeria M. Dickson WorldFish, Abbassa, Abou-Hammad, Sharkia, Egypt Arona Diedhiou Laboratoire de Physique de l’Atmosphère et de Mécaniques des Fluides (LAPA-MF), Université Félix Houphouët-Boigny, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire Université Grenoble Alpes, IRD, Grenoble INP, IGE, Grenoble, France Senyo Dotsey Urban Studies and Regional Science, Gran Sasso Science Institute, L’Aquila, Italy Jimy Dudhia Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Foothills Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA Hillary Dumba Institute of Education, College of Education Studies, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana Eromose E. Ebhuoma College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa (UNISA), Johannesburg, South Africa Moses Egaru International Union for Conservation of Nature – IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Jemimah Timothy Ekanem Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Faculty of Agriculture, Akwa Ibom State University, Uyo, Nigeria John Saviour Yaw Eleblu West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement, University of Ghana, College of Basic and Applied Sciences, Accra, Ghana Mark Ellis-Jones GreenFi Systems Ltd, Dublin, Ireland Philip Olanrewaju Eniola Department of Agricultural Technology, The OkeOgun Polytechnic, Saki, Oyo State, Nigeria Saeid Eslamian Department of Water Engineering, College of Agriculture, Center of Excellence on Risk Management and Natural Hazards, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran Daniel Etongo James Michel Blue Economy Research Institute, University of Seychelles, Victoria, Seychelles Henri-Count Evans School of Applied Human Sciences, Centre for Communication, Media and Society, University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

Contributors

xliii

Olushola Fadairo Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria Oluwatosin Oluwasegun Fasina School of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Akure, Nigeria B. E. Fawole Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Federal University, Dutsinma, Nigeria Walter Leal Filho Research and Transfer Centre “Sustainable Development and Climate Change Management” Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Hamburg, Germany Davide Fioriti DESTEC, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy Joseph Francis Institute for Rural Development, University of Venda, Thohoyandou, South Africa Bernhard Freyer Division of Organic Farming, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria M. Gatheru Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), Katumani, Kenya Michael Adedapo Gbadegesin Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria Imoleayo E. Gbode West African Science Service Center on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Foothills Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA S. R. Ghimire The Biosciences Eastern and Central Africa – International Livestock Research Institute (BecA-ILRI) Hub, Nairobi, Kenya Getrude Gichuhi Department of Research and Innovation, Strathmore University, Nairobi, Kenya Stephen Gitahi Department of Research and Innovation, Strathmore University, Nairobi, Kenya George Gitau Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya C. M. Githunguri Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) Food Crops Research Centre Kabete, Nairobi, Kenya Julie Greenwalt Go Green for Climate, Amsterdam, Netherlands Arthur Gwagwa CIPIT, Strathmore University, Nairobi, Kenya Joseph P. Gweyi-Onyango Department of Agricultural Science and Technology, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya

xliv

Contributors

Hamisai Hamandawana Department of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Remote Sensing, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa T. B. Hammed Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Faculty of Public Health, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria Mayday Haulofu Water Quality Research, SANUMARC, Sam Nujoma Campus, University of Namibia, Henties Bay, Namibia Martha K. Hausiku Mushroom Research, SANUMARC, Sam Nujoma Campus, University of Namibia, Henties Bay, Namibia Fabien C. C. Hountondji Faculté d’Agronomie, University of Parakou, Parakou, Benin Ben Hufton Plan International UK, London, UK Michael F. Hutchinson Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia S. A. Idowu Department of Microbiology, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Yaya Idrissou Laboratoire d’Ecologie, Santé et Production Animales (LESPA), Faculté d’Agronomie, Université de Parakou, Parakou, République du Bénin Oluwatobi Ololade Ife-Adediran Geochronology Division, CSIR-National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI), Hyderabad, India Department of Physics, Federal University of Technology Akure, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria George Olanrewaju Ige Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication Technology, School of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Paul Iji Fiji National University, College of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Suva, Fiji Uche Dickson Ijioma Department of Raw Material and Natural Resource Management, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Cottbus, Germany Oluwatosin Omowunmi Ishola Federal College of Agriculture, Agricultural Extension and Management, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria Adetunji Oroye Iyiola-Tunji National Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Services, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria Joyce Jefwa Botany Department, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya Anne Jerneck Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, Lund, Sweden

Contributors

xlv

Jacob Victor Jerry Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture Technology, Federal University of Technology, Akure (FUTA), Akure, Nigeria Aisha Jjagwe Department of Geoscience, Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa Paul Apagu John Department of Animal Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria Ibinabo Johnson Chicoco Collective, Port Harcourt, Nigeria Georgia de Jong Cleyndert York Institute for Tropical Ecosystems, Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, North Yorkshire, UK Vincent Kakembo Department of Geoscience, Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa Felix Kanungwe Kalaba School of Natural Resources, Copperbelt University, Kitwe, Zambia Dorcas Kalele Institute for Climate Change and Adaptation (ICCA), University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya David Karienye Department of Geography, Garissa University, Garissa, Kenya Caroline Wanjiru Kariuki Strathmore Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Nairobi, Kenya Alice Nyawira Karuri School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Strathmore University, Nairobi, Kenya Edward Kato International Food Policy and Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA Floney P. Kawaye Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia Miftah F. Kedir WGCFNR, Hawassa University, Shashemene, Ethiopia Central Ethiopia Environment and Forest Research Center, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Sizwile Khoza Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, African Centre for Disaster Studies, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa Michael Kisangari Centre of (CENIT@EA), Arusha, Tanzania

Excellence

in

Information

Technology

Nana A. B. Klutse Ghana Space Science and Technology Institute, Atomic Energy Commission, Accra, Ghana Daniel Koomson Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, University of Derby, Derby, UK

xlvi

Contributors

Dumisani Shoko Kori Institute for Rural Development, University of Venda, Thohoyandou, South Africa Sophie Kutegeka International Union for Conservation of Nature – IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Brian Felix Kwena Kenya Water for Health Organization, Nairobi, Kenya David Lagat Construction Research and Business Development Department, National Construction Authority, Nairobi, Kenya Isaac Larbi Climate Change and Water Resources, West African Science Service Centre on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use (WASCAL), Université d’Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou, Benin School of Sustainable Development, University of Environment and Sustainable Development, Somanya, Ghana Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Koforidua Technical University, Koforidua, Ghana Peter Okidi Lating Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda Kamoru A. Lawal National Weather Forecasting and Climate Research Centre, Nigerian Meteorological Agency, Abuja, Nigeria African Climate and Development Initiative, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa Emmanuel A. Lawin Laboratory of Applied Hydrology (LHA), National Institute of Water (NIW), Cotonou, Bénin David Lesolle Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana Yinpeng Li International Global Change Institute and CLIMsystems Ltd, Hamilton, New Zealand Ondari Lilian ClayCo, Chicago, IL, USA Gadaffi M. Liswaniso Mariculture Research, SANUMARC, Sam Nujoma Campus, University of Namibia, Henties Bay, Namibia Changhai Liu Research Applications Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Foothills Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA Cush Ngonzo Luwesi University of Kwango, Kenge, Democratic Republic of Congo Dilys Sefakor MacCarthy Soil and Irrigation Research Centre Kpong, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana Joseph Macharia Department of Geography, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya

Contributors

xlvii

Samuel K. Mafwila Oceanography Research, SANUMARC, Sam Nujoma Campus, University of Namibia, Henties Bay, Namibia Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, Sam Nujoma Campus, University of Namibia, Henties Bay, Namibia Royford Magiri Fiji National University, College of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Suva, Fiji John Kibe Maguta Faculty of Social Science, St Paul’s University, Limuru, Kenya Paul Maina Mwari Faculty of Social Sciences, St Paul’s University, Limuru, Kenya Billy Amendi Makumba Department of Biological Sciences, Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya Majoumo Christelle Malyse Department of Geography, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon Anri Manderson Hoedspruit Hub, Hoedspruit, South Africa R. Mandumbu Crop Science Department, Bindura University of Science Education, Bindura, Zimbabwe Margaret Najjingo Mangheni Department of Extension and Innovation Studies, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Makerere University Kampala, Kampala, Uganda Isabel Mank Heidelberg Institute of Global Health (HIGH), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany Hilda Manzi Department of Agricultural Science and Technology, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya Benjamin Mapani Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mining and Process Engineering, Namibia University of Science and Technology, Windhoek, Namibia Isaac Mapaure Faculty of Science, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia Robert Marchant York Institute for Tropical Ecosystems, Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, North Yorkshire, UK Sennye Masike International Global Change Institute and CLIMsystems Ltd, Hamilton, New Zealand Abraham R. Matamanda Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa Newton R. Matandirotya Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

xlviii

Contributors

Anthony Njuguna Matheri Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa Federica Matteoli Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy Josephine Mbandi School of Computational and Communication Sciences and Engineering (CoCSE), Nelson Mandela Institution of Science and Technology (NMAIST), Tengeru, Arusha, Tanzania Ernest Rashid Mbega Department of Sustainable Agriculture and Biodiversity Conservation, Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, Arusha, Tanzania Mohamed Meddi Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Hydraulique de BLIDA, Boufarik, Algeria Nkiru Theresa Meludu Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension Faculty of Agriculture, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria Abdelhamid Mezrhab Laboratory Communication, Education, Digital Usage and Creativity, ETIGGE Research Team, Bd. Mohammed VI, University Complex, Mohammed Premier Oujda University, Oujda, Morocco Andrea Micangeli DIMA, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy Gagoitseope Mmopelwa Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana Ahmed Mohamed Garissa University, Garissa, Kenya Belaid Mohamed Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa A. S. Momodu Centre for Energy Research and Development, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria Lilian Motaroki International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Nairobi, Kenya M. R. Motsholapheko Water Resources Management Program, Okavango Research Institute, University of Botswana, Maun, Botswana Philani Moyo Fort Hare Institute of Social and Economic Research (FHISER), University of Fort Hare, East London, South Africa Moreblessings Mpofu Department of Development Studies, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Lupane State University, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe Caroline Mubekaphi School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Scottsville, South Africa

Contributors

xlix

Maxwell Mudhara College of Agricultural, Engineering and Science, Discipline of Agricultural Economics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa Angeline Mujeyi College of Agricultural, Engineering and Science, Discipline of Agricultural Economics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa Billy Billiard Mukamuri Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe Olga Nekesa Mulama Strathmore Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Nairobi, Kenya Mike Muller Wits School of Governance, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Jean Mulopo School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Stephen Munga Centre for Global Health Research (CGHR) at the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kisumu, Kenya Edward M. Mungai Strathmore University Business School, Nairobi, Kenya Idris Muniru Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria Hupenyu A. Mupambwa Desert and Coastal Agriculture Research, Sam Nujoma Marine and Coastal Resources Research Centre (SANUMARC), Sam Nujoma Campus, University of Namibia, Henties Bay, Namibia Pedro Muradás IDOM, Consulting, Engineering, Architecture SAU, Madrid, Spain Urban and Territorial Planning Department, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura, Madrid, Spain Aansbert Musimba Faculty of Science, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia Tafadzwa Mutambisi Department of Demography Settlement and Development, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe Gamuchirai Mutezo School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Chrocosiscus Mutisya Department of Social Sciences, St Paul’s University, Limuru, Kenya

l

Contributors

Kaampwe Muzandu School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia Mabvuto Mwanza Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia Saumu Ibrahim Mwasha School of Geography, Geology and the Environment, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK Evelyne Touré N’Datchoh Laboratoire de Physique de l’Atmosphère et de Mécaniques des Fluides (LAPA-MF), Université Félix Houphouët-Boigny, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire Andreas S. Namwoonde Renewable Energy Research, SANUMARC, Sam Nujoma Campus, University of Namibia, Henties Bay, Namibia A. M. Nasr-Allah WorldFish, Abbassa, Abou-Hammad, Sharkia, Egypt Elinah Nciizah Department of Development Studies, Zvishavane Campus, Midlands State University, Zvishavane, Zimbabwe Adornis D. Nciizah Soil Science, Agricultural Research Council – Institute for Soil, Climate and Water, Pretoria, South Africa Tendai Nciizah Department of Sociology, Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa Roseline Ncube Faculty of Gender and Women Studies, Women’s University in Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe Tharcisse Ndayizigiye SMHI/Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, Nairobi, Kenya Ronald Boniphace Ndesanjo Institute of Development Studies, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania S. Wagura Ndiritu Strathmore University Business School, Nairobi, Kenya Sibonokuhle Ndlovu Department of Development Studies, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Lupane State University, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe Livhuwani Nemakonde Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, African Centre for Disaster Studies, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa Rebecca Newman York Institute for Tropical Ecosystems, Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, North Yorkshire, UK Julius Tata Nfor Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon Obadiah Ngigi GreenFi Systems Ltd, Dublin, Ireland Jane Catherine Ngila Department of Chemical Science, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

Contributors

li

Academic Affair, Riara University, Nairobi, Kenya Faith Ngum Lilongwe, Malawi B. N. Ngwenya Ecosystems Services Program, Okavango Research Institute, University of Botswana, Maun, Botswana Kareen L. Niba School of Agriculture, Environmental Sciences, and Risk Assessment, College of Science, Engineering and Technology (COSET), Institute for Management and Professional Training (IMPT), Yaounde, Cameroon Integrated Health for All Foundation (IHAF), Yaounde, Cameroon Charles F. Nicholson Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands Martin Reinhardt Nielsen Department of Food and Resource Economics, Section for Global Development, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark D. M. G. Njarui Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), Katumani, Kenya Chrocosiscus Njeru Faculty of Social Sciences, St Paul’s University, Limuru, Kenya E. N. Njiru KALRO Katumani, Machakos, Kenya Michael Robert Nkuba Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana C. V. Nnamani Plant Systematics and Conservation Biology Research Unit, Department of Applied Biology, Faculty of Science, Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki, Nigeria Prince Nosa Chicoco Collective, Port Harcourt, Nigeria Mary Nthambi Department of Environmental Economics, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Cottbus, Germany Winnie Ntinyari Department of Agricultural Science and Technology, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya Chinedum Uzoma Nwajiuba Department of Agriculture (Agricultural Economics and Extension Programme), Alex Ekwueme Federal University Ndufu-Alike, Ikwo, Ebonyi, Nigeria Chinyere Augusta Nwajiuba Educational Foundations, Alex Ekwueme Federal University Ndufu-Alike, Ikwo, Ebonyi, Nigeria Chukwudi Nwaogu Department of Forest Protection and Entomology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague 6-Suchdol, Czech Republic

lii

Contributors

Department of Environmental Management, Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria Department of Ecology, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague 6-Suchdol, Czech Republic Louis Nyahunda Department of Social Work, University of Limpopo, Polokwane, South Africa G. Nyamadzawo Department of Environmental Science, Bindura University of Science Education, Bindura, Zimbabwe Clement Nyamekye Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Koforidua Technical University, Koforidua, Ghana Benson Okinyi Nyawade Plan International Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya C. Nyawenze Cotton Company of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe Kefasi Nyikahadzoi Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe Daniel M. Nzengya Department of Social Sciences, St Paul’s University, Limuru, Kenya Joy Obando Department of Geography, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya Peter Bilson Obour Department of Geography and Resource Development, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana Olalekan Olamigoke Odefadehan Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication Technology, School of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Godfrey Odongtoo Department of Computer Engineering, Busitema University, Tororo, Uganda Department of Information Technology, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda Peter Rock Ebo Odoom Climate Change and Water Resources, West African Science Service Centre on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use (WASCAL), Université d’Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou, Benin Opeyemi Peter Ogunbusuyi Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, School of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Kehinde O. Ogunjobi Department of Meteorology and Climate Sciences, West African Science Service Centre on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use (WASCAL), Federal University of Technology Akure (FUTA), Ondo State, Nigeria Federal University of Technology Akure (FUTA), Ondo State, Nigeria Oluwaseun James Oguntuase Zenith Bank PLC, Lagos, Nigeria

Contributors

liii

Centre for Environmental Studies and Sustainable Development, Lagos State University, Lagos, Nigeria Philip G. Oguntunde Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Gertrude Ogwok International Union for Conservation of Nature – IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Matthew Chidozie Ogwu Department of Plant Biology and Biotechnology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Benin, Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria Scuola di Bioscienze e Medicina Veterinaria, Università di Camerino – Centro Ricerche Floristiche dell’Appennino, Parco Nazionale del Gran Sasso e Monti della Laga, Barisciano (L’Aquila), Italy Philippa Chinyere Ojimelukwe Department of Food Science and Technology, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Abia State, Nigeria Hammed Olabode Ojugbele Regional and Local Economic Development Initiative, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville, South Africa Irene Ojuok National Technical specialist Environment and Climate Change, World Vision Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya Gloria C. Okafor Department of Civil Engineering, Nigeria Maritime University, Delta–State, Nigeria Joachim Chukwuma Okafor Department of Political Science, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria Emmanuel Chilekwu Okogbue School of Meteorology and Climate Science, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Akure, Nigeria I. D. Okunade Department of Chemical Engineering, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria Olukunle Olaonipekun Oladapo Department of Science Laboratory Technology, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria S. O. Oladejo Department of Remote Sensing and Geoscience Information System, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Adeola A. Oladimeji Department of Microbiology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria Samuel Olajuyigbe Department of Forest Production and Products, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria Olumide A. Olaniyan National Weather Forecasting and Climate Research Centre, Nigerian Meteorological Agency, Abuja, Nigeria Olanrewaju Olaniyan Department of Economics, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

liv

Contributors

Idowu Ologeh Department of Environmental Management and Toxicology, Lead City University, Ibadan, Nigeria Odd Einar Olsen Department of Safety, Economics, and Planning, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway Siji Olutegbe Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria Oluwole Olutola University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa Isaac Ayo Oluwatimilehin Department of Geography, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria Akinola Joshua Oluwatobi Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture Technology, Federal University of Technology, Akure (FUTA), Akure, Nigeria Melissa Omino CIPIT, Strathmore University, Nairobi, Kenya Olatunde Micheal Oni Department of Pure and Applied Physics, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria Comfort A. Onya Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon Anthony Nwa Jesus Onyekuru Resource and Environmental Policy Research Centre, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria Robert Ugochukwu Onyeneke Department of Agriculture (Agricultural Economics and Extension Programme), Alex Ekwueme Federal University Ndufu-Alike, Ikwo, Ebonyi, Nigeria Patience Ifeyinwa Opata Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria Chinwe Philomina Oramah Department of Safety, Economics, and Planning, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway Erimma Gloria Orie Department of Private and Property Law, National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, Nigeria Moses Edwin Osawaru Department of Plant Biology and Biotechnology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Benin, Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria Tolulope Osayomi Department of Geography, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria Marian Amoakowaah Osei Department of Physics, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana H. O. Oselebe Department of Crop Production and Landscape Management, Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki, Nigeria Harriet Osimbo Plan International Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya

Contributors

lv

Verrah A. Otiende Pan African University Institute for Basic Sciences Technology and Innovation, Nairobi, Kenya Gilbert Ouma Institute for Climate Change and Adaptation (ICCA), University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya Phanuel Owiti Plan International Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya Folasade Mary Owoade Department of Crop Production and Soil Science, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria Kwadwo Owusu Department of Geography and Resource Development, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana Ari Pappinen School of Forest Sciences, Faculty of Science and Forestry, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland C. Parwada Department of Horticulture, Women’s University in Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe Christian Pauw NOVA Institute, Pretoria, South Africa Keith Phiri Fort Hare Institute of Social and Economic Research (FHISER), University of Fort Hare, East London, South Africa Stuart J. Piketh Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa Kehinde Olayinka Popoola Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria Angelique Pouponneau Seychelles’ Conservation and Climate Adaptation Trust (SeyCCAT), Mahé, Seychelles Abi Precious Chicoco Collective, Port Harcourt, Nigeria María Puig IDOM, Consulting, Engineering, Architecture SAU, Madrid, Spain Flora Pule-Meulenberg Botswana University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Gaborone, Botswana Gandome Mayeul L. D. Quenum West African Science Service Centre for Climate Change and Adapted Land Use (WASCAL) Graduate Research Program in West African Climate System (GRP-WACS), Federal University of Technology, Akure (FUTA), Akure, Nigeria Laboratory of Applied Hydrology (LHA), National Institute of Water (NIW), Cotonou, Bénin Debadayita Raha Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, University of Derby, Derby, UK Jonty Rawlins Natural Resources, OneWorld Sustainable Investments, Cape Town, South Africa

lvi

Contributors

Jules Roberts GreenFi Systems Ltd, Dublin, Ireland Zoe Robinson School of Geography, Geology and the Environment, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK J. T. Rugare Department of Crop Science, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe Óscar Ruiz IDOM, Consulting, Engineering, Architecture SAU, Madrid, Spain Isaac Rutenberg CIPIT, Strathmore University, Nairobi, Kenya Francis Rutere Faculty of Social Sciences, St Paul’s University, Limuru, Kenya Onkangi Ruth National Construction Authority, Nairobi, Kenya Michael Ajanja Sakha Botany Department, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya Armel Sambo Faculty of Arts, Letters and Human Sciences (FALSH), The University of Maroua, Maroua, Cameroon Rebecca Sarku University for Development Studies, Tamale, Ghana Zoyem Tedonfack Sedrique Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon Rosemary Shikangalah Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Geography, History and Environmental Studies, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia Conalius E. Shum School of Agriculture, Environmental Sciences, and Risk Assessment, College of Science, Engineering and Technology (COSET), Institute for Management and Professional Training (IMPT), Yaounde, Cameroon Ali Sié Centre de Recherche en Santé de Nouna (CRSN), Nouna, Burkina Faso Siélé Silué Université Peleforo Gon Coulibaly, Korhogo, Côte d’Ivoire Pushpendra Kumar Singh Water Resources Systems Division, National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee, India Wadii Snaibi Laboratory Communication, Education, Digital Usage and Creativity, ETIGGE Research Team, Bd. Mohammed VI, University Complex, Mohammed Premier Oujda University, Oujda, Morocco National Institute of the Agronomic Research of Morocco, CRRA of Oujda, Oujda, Morocco Julie Snorek United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), UN Campus, Bonn, Germany Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

Contributors

lvii

Victor Sobanke Research and Planning Department, National Centre for Technology Management, South West Office, Lagos, Nigeria Josep María Solé Meteosim SL. Barcelona Science Park, Barcelona, Spain Raïssa Sorgho Heidelberg Institute of Global Health (HIGH), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany M. K. C. Sridhar Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Faculty of Public Health, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria Denis Ssebuggwawo Department of Computer Science, Kyambogo University, Kampala, Uganda Laila Stour Laboratory of Process Engineering and Environment, Faculty of Sciences and Techniques, Hassan II University of Casablanca, Mohammedia, Morocco Barbara Summers CMAP, Port Harcourt, Nigeria Ayodele Idowu Sunday Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture Technology, Federal University of Technology, Akure (FUTA), Akure, Nigeria V. A. Tanimonure Agricultural Economics Department, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria Martin Ngankam Tchamba Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agronomy and Agricultural Sciences, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon Brent Tegler North-South Environment Inc., Campbellville, ON, Canada Liana Environmental Consulting Ltd., Fergus, ON, Canada Lucie Felicite Temgoua Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agronomy and Agricultural Sciences, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon Argaw Tesfaye Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Mekdela Amba University, Mekane Selam, Ethiopia Ida Theilade Department of Food and Resource Economics, Section for Global Development, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark H. Tibugari Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Gwanda State University, Gwanda, Zimbabwe Marie-Louise Tientcheu-Avana Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agronomy and Agricultural Sciences, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon Happy Mathew Tirivangasi Department of Research Administration and Development, University of Limpopo, Polokwane, South Africa Sabine Troeger Department for Development Research, Geography Institute, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

lviii

Contributors

Nelson Tselaesele Botswana University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Gaborone, Botswana Koray Ulgen Ege University, Solar Energy Institute, Bornova/Izmir, Turkey Chukwuma Otum Ume Agricultural and Environmental Policy Department, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany Idongesit Michael Umoh Agricultural Science Education Unit, Department of Science, Redemption Academy, Uyo, Nigeria Peter Urich International Global Change Institute and CLIMsystems Ltd, Hamilton, New Zealand Dewald van Niekerk Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, African Centre for Disaster Studies, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa Heike Vogel Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany Bernhard Vogel Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany Aliyu Sani Wada Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Bayero University Kano, Kano, Nigeria Abbebe Marra Wagino Mendel University in Brno Project in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Joyce Wairimu Department of Social Sciences, St Paul’s University, Limuru, Kenya Anselme Wakponou Faculty of Arts, Letters and Human Sciences (FALSH), The University of Ngaoundéré, Ngaoundéré, Cameroon Sue Walker Division of Agrometeorology, Agricultural Research Council – Soil, Climate and Water, Pretoria, South Africa Department of Soil, Crop and Climate Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa Robert Wild GreenFi Systems Ltd, Dublin, Ireland Steve Woolnough Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK David O. Yawson Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies, The University of the West Indies, Bridgetown, Barbados Edmund Yeboah Heidelberg Institute of Global Health (HIGH), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

Contributors

lix

Véronique Yoboué Laboratoire de Physique de l’Atmosphère et de Mécaniques des Fluides (LAPA-MF), Université Félix Houphouët-Boigny, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire Byron Zamasiya Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe Cryton Zazu Environmental Learning Research Centre, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa Leocadia Zhou Risk and Vulnerability Science Centre (RVSC), University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa Jethro Zuwarimwe Institute for Rural Development, University of Venda, Thohoyandou, South Africa

Part I Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security

1

Adaptation of Seaweed Farmers in Zanzibar to the Impacts of Climate Change Georgia de Jong Cleyndert, Rebecca Newman, Cecile Brugere, Aida Cuni-Sanchez, and Robert Marchant

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study of Zanzibar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aims and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meteorological Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceived Climatic Changes and Reported Impacts on Seaweed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adaptation Strategies and Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wider Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supplementary Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S1: List of Academics and NGOs Contacted During Scoping Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S2: Participant Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S3: Interview Questions Used as a Guideline for the Semi-structured Interviews . . . . . . . . . . S4: Coding Strategy Used to Analyses the Seaweed Farming Interview Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 5 7 7 8 9 10 11 11 11 15 17 18 18 19 19 19 20 22

This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. G. de Jong Cleyndert (*) · R. Newman · A. Cuni-Sanchez · R. Marchant York Institute for Tropical Ecosystems, Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, North Yorkshire, UK e-mail: [email protected] C. Brugere Soulfish Research and Consultancy, York, UK © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_54

3

4

G. de Jong Cleyndert et al.

S5: Presen6ce Absence Data for Challenges to the Off Bottom Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S6: Presence Absence of Challenges for Deepwater and off Bottom Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . S7: Percentage of Participants Spending Their Income from Seaweed Farming on Various Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23 24 25 25

Abstract

Seaweed farming is an important alternative livelihood activity that has been heralded as a development success story. It has advanced women’s empowerment and economic liberation in coastal communities in Zanzibar, despite recent declines in its production. Using data from 36 semistructured interviews, we explore the impacts of climate change on seaweed farming in Zanzibar and the coping and adaptation strategies available to farmers. Interviews reveal that climatic changes observed in Zanzibar are characterized by increased temperatures, increased winds, and irregular rainfall, and these changes have negatively affected coastal seaweed farming yields and quality. Combined with economic challenges, these environmental stressors are threatening the sustainability of seaweed farming and the wider development impacts that have been gained over the past decades. Establishing seaweed farms in deeper water, using new technologies, could be an adaptation method to overcome rising temperatures; however, there are significant socioeconomic barriers for this to happen. For example, women lack access to boats and the ability to swim. Adaptation options to the increasing impacts of climate change will be possible only with institutional support, significant investment, and through the empowerment of women and the participation local communities. Keywords

Development · Climate variability · Coastal communities · Gender · Coping strategies

Introduction The livelihoods of coastal communities are strongly linked to the health of the coastal and marine ecosystems on which they rely (Salafsky and Wollenberg 2000). These socioecological systems are vulnerable to sudden shocks and longterm change, including climate change, and communities often exhibit a high incidence of poverty that can be exacerbated by these shocks (Tobisson 2014; Ferrol-Schulte et al. 2015; Cohen et al. 2016). Alternative and diversification of livelihood activities are popular intervention options aimed at elevating the socioeconomic status of coastal communities and reducing the pressure on marine resources (Sievanen et al. 2005). To be successful, however, these alternative livelihood activities must be resilient to fluctuations in ecological, economic, and social systems (Allison and Ellis 2001; Newman et al. 2020).

1

Adaptation of Seaweed Farmers in Zanzibar to the Impacts of Climate Change

5

Seaweed farming is an alternative livelihood activity that has been promoted in many tropical developing countries (Crawford 2002; Sievanen et al. 2005) because of its low initial capital investment and short-farming cycle (Mshigeni 1973; Valderrama et al. 2015) which provides a fast return on investment (Valderrama et al. 2015). The positive socioeconomic impacts of seaweed farming have been documented in countries including the Philippines, Indonesia, Tanzania, and the Pacific Islands (Sievanen et al. 2005; Msuya 2006a; Namudu and Pickering 2006; Arnold 2008). However, these successes have also been contested (Bryceson 2002; Fröcklin et al. 2012) and seaweed farming is prone to environmental and economic boom-and-bust cycles (Valderrama et al. 2015). This raises questions about its resilience to ecological, economic, and social system fluctuations, particularly the impacts of climate change, and therefore about the sustainability of seaweed farming as an alternative livelihood activity (Allison and Ellis 2001).

Case Study of Zanzibar Zanzibar is a semi-independent archipelago within the United Republic of Tanzania and its population rely heavily on a vulnerable marine resource base (Suckall et al. 2014). Seaweed farming was introduced in 1989 using the offbottom method to farm Kappaphycus alvarezii (commercially known as cottonii) and Eucheuma denticulatum (spinosum) in the intertidal zone (Fig. 1) (Msuya 2011). This method involves tying algal fronds to ropes attached between wooden pegs driven into the sediment (Eklöf et al. 2012). Farming cycles are 4–10 weeks, depending on growth rates (Eklöf et al. 2012). Seaweed is dried on the ground over several days and sold to a company to be exported and processed into carrageenan (Fig. 1). Seaweed farming spread rapidly throughout Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania and yearly production increased from 800 tons (dry weight) per year in 1990 to about 11,000 t in 2002 (Eklöf et al. 2012). Farming employs 15,000–20,000 people in Zanzibar, of which 90% are women (Msuya 2006a; Fröcklin et al. 2012). In a traditionally conservative Muslim society, seaweed farming provides women with an opportunity to earn a regular cash income, negotiate household needs, and gain economic independence (Wallevik and Jiddawi 2001). It has been contended that seaweed farming has increased women’s security at both the household and community level (Wallevik and Jiddawi 2001). However, despite initial successes, the industry in Zanzibar struggles to compete with global seaweed markets and there has been a production decline of 47% between 2002 and 2012 (Eklöf et al. 2012). The combination of low-sale price and seaweed die-offs, linked to climate change and overgrowth of fouling organisms such as epiphytes (Msuya et al. 2007; Msuya 2011; Eklöf et al. 2012), have caused many farmers to reduce their farm size or abandon the activity altogether (Bryceson 2002; Eklöf et al. 2005). Adaptation initiatives aim to increase the value of seaweed and improve the livelihoods of the women who farm it. For example, the SeaPoWer project has introduced a new technology to farm cottonii (the more valuable species) in the

6

G. de Jong Cleyndert et al.

Fig. 1 (a) The seaweed farming cycle using the off-bottom method. (Adapted from Fröcklin et al. 2012). Background photo of seaweed farms in Paje, Zanzibar; (b) Fresh Eucheuma denticulatum (spinosum); (c) Two piles of seaweed drying on palm leaf matting outside Jambiani village. (All photos taken by the author)

deeper water (>8 m) using tubular nets and has provided a boat and other equipment to two groups of farmers (Brugere et al. 2019). Value addition training has been provided by academics and NGOs to enable women to process seaweed into more valuable products such as soap, shampoo, cookies, and juice (ZaSCI 2019). Some women have formed “clusters” to share costs of equipment and strengthen their business. Another example of an initiative is The Seaweed Co., a business providing seaweed farm tours and products to tourists, where farmers are employed full time and receive a fixed salary. Adaptation initiatives

1

Adaptation of Seaweed Farmers in Zanzibar to the Impacts of Climate Change

7

may increase the sustainability of seaweed farming in Zanzibar; however, their accessibility, effectiveness, and resilience remain to be assessed.

Conceptual Framework Sustainable livelihoods, adaptation, and gender equality are key concepts to be considered in relation to the unique socioecological system of seaweed farming in Zanzibar. A livelihood is understood in relation to natural, human, economic, and social capital and is considered sustainable if it can cope with present and future shocks and stresses, while not undermining natural resources (Scoones 1998; Serrat 2017; Quandt 2018). Considering the strong interrelations between environmental conditions and seaweed farming outcomes, attention needs to be paid to the implications of environmental change. Where previous literature has emphasized the challenges that environmental change can pose (Hassan and Othman 2019; Makame and Shackleton 2019) more attention needs to be paid to if, and how, people are responding. Therefore, this study adopts principles from the dynamic environmental sustainability of livelihoods (DESL) framework, which focuses on dynamic responses to change (Newman et al. 2020). Typically, those who are unable to cope, by making temporary adjustments, or to make long-term adaptations are vulnerable and unlikely to attain sustainable livelihoods (Scoones 1998). Responses to shocks and stresses include extensification, intensification, and diversification (Suckall et al. 2014). With regard to seaweed farming, these can be understood as increasing the geographical area where seaweed is farmed, increasing the time spent on the farm, and finally, taking on additional livelihood activities. Long-term adaptations are the actions of individuals, communities and governments undertaken for the purpose of improving or protecting livelihoods (Adger et al. 2005). The capacity to adapt is shaped by socioinstitutional factors, including social identities and power relations, which include gender inequalities (Brown and Westaway 2011). The sensitivity of seaweed farming to environmental fluctuations and climate change make it particularly susceptible to shocks and stresses (Msuya and Porter 2014) and the unique nature of this femaledominated industry in the context of gender inequalities in Zanzibar, may impact farmers’ ability to adapt. Assessing the viability of coping and long-term adaptation strategies is essential for understanding its future importance as an alternative livelihood activity. As such, we focus on adaptive strategies alongside barriers to adoption whilst critically reflecting on how such barriers might be overcome.

Aims and Objectives This study aims to explore whether seaweed farmers in Zanzibar can adapt to climate change to ensure its continued sustainability as a livelihood diversification option. Firstly, we assess the environmental changes that are occurring in Zanzibar and farmers’ perceptions of these changes. Secondly, we identify the challenges that women are facing, particularly in relation to climate change, and the effects these

8

G. de Jong Cleyndert et al.

challenges have on production. Finally, we explore how farmers are responding to change, the adaptation strategies available and the barriers to adaptation. In doing so, findings from this work contribute to understanding the effectiveness of adaptation options and to developing recommendations for enhancing the sustainability of seaweed-related interventions.

Methods Meetings took place with key NGOs and academics working with seaweed farming in Zanzibar to contextualize the project and gather additional background information, found in the supplementary information (S1: List of Academics and NGOs Contacted During Scoping Phase). Thirty-six semistructured interviews were carried out with seaweed farmers from five villages on Unguja, the largest island of the Zanzibar archipelago (Fig. 2, S2: Participant Profiles); participants were sought with the support of academics and NGOs working in Zanzibar. Thirty-four farmers were female, two were male and ages ranged between 23 and 70, with the average age of 45. Four different groups of farmers were selected to represent different types of seaweed farming options on the island (Table 1). Groups were identified during the scoping phase and a purposive sampling strategy was used to gain representation of the four identified groups of seaweed farmers. This number of participants was deemed an adequate sample size to permit case-orientated analysis while providing a new understanding of experience (Sandelowski 1995). Interviews were semistructured to allow for supplementary information to be incorporated into the discussion. Interviews were carried out in participants’ homes with the assistance of a translator and were recorded using a mobile phone if consent was given. The translator had an academic background in marine sciences and translated from Swahili to English. A meeting was held with the translator before interviews commenced to ensure that translation and interpretation of questions were accurate. Furthermore, to minimize misinterpretation, there was mutual consultation between the translator and the researcher throughout translation during interviews to fully unravel answers (Temple and Young 2004). Six pilot interviews were carried out and questions were adapted to make them clearer for participants and to make the challenges section less restrictive and allow participants to talk more openly and in depth about the challenges they were experiencing. Questions were developed using themes that were based around the key aims and objectives (S3: Interview Questions Used as a Guideline for the Semi-structured Interviews). The first section gathered background information to gain understanding about whether farming contributes to financial stability in the household. The second section asked farmers to consider challenges, how these have changed over time and their coping strategies. Adaptation methods were considered by opening up conversation about deepwater farming and value addition (if applicable) and ways to make farming easier. The final question was very open-ended, allowing participants to freely add any information that they deemed important. Interviews lasted between 20 and 40 min. Participants received a small remuneration for their time according to local customs (4000 Tsh / US$ 1.5).

1

Adaptation of Seaweed Farmers in Zanzibar to the Impacts of Climate Change

9

Fig. 2 Map of Zanzibar. Red dots indicate villages where participants were interviewed

Analysis Interview notes were studied to identify key themes and concepts emerging from the data (Spencer et al. 2003). Thematic categories were based on the objectives but labeled using language from participants to ensure that analysis remained embedded in the data (Spencer et al. 2003). Interview scripts were then systematically coded

10

G. de Jong Cleyndert et al.

Table 1 Summary of the groups interviewed. (No. ¼ number of participants) Group Independent Farmers Value addition Sea PoWer

No. 9

Seaweed Co.

6

11 10

Description Farmers working alone, receiving no institutional support Farmers making value addition products, part of a “cluster” Received equipment and training to farm in the deepwater using tubular nets Employed 6 days per week, receive a wage. Business sells tours to tourists

Method of farming Off-bottom

Value addition? ✗

Off-bottom

✓

Off-bottom and deepwater Off-bottom

✗ ✓

under thematic categories using NVivo 12 (version 12.4.0) (S4: Coding Strategy Used to Analyses the Seaweed Farming Interview Data). Coded information about challenges was organized into a presence-absence data format (S5: Presence Absence Data for Challenges to the Off Bottom Method, S6: Presence Absence of Challenges for Deepwater and off Bottom Methods). Statistical analyses were carried out using R (version 3.6.0). Fisher’s Exact tests were run to compare challenges across the deepwater farming (n ¼ 10) and the off-bottom method (n ¼ 36). Further analysis took place by examining recordings and full interview notes to capture detailed illustrative quotes. Quotes were selected to capture the breadth of challenges and emerging themes.

Results Seaweed farming is often seen as one of the few options available for women to earn an income. With limited options for other employment, it is an important livelihood activity to alleviate poverty. Income from seaweed farming varied dramatically, ranging from 20,000 to 160,000 Tsh (US$ 9.00–69.00) per month. Farmers noted the considerably large differences in income when the harvest was “good” or “low.” Challenges to seaweed farming are numerous and farmers indicated that farming has been affected by changes in climatic factors and nonclimatic stressors over the last 20 years. Climatic variables include increased sea temperatures, increased winds, and irregular rainfall (particularly impacting on the ability to dry the harvested seaweed). Other stressors include low market price and health repercussions, such as back pain and skin irritation. The more valuable species, cottonii, cannot be farmed in many areas in Zanzibar due to poor growth and die-offs driven by diseases, such as “ice–ice” disease. As a result of challenges, there has been a huge reduction in the number of farmers. For example, the number of farmers in Bweleo has been reduced from 200 to 60 (Seaweed farmer, VA, Bweleo, July 2019). This reduction in farmers echoes a decline in production across Zanzibar (Fig. 3).

1

Adaptation of Seaweed Farmers in Zanzibar to the Impacts of Climate Change

11

Seaweed produced (tons, dry weight)

18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

Fig. 3 Seaweed produced in Zanzibar 2009–2018. (Data acquired from Department of Fisheries Development (2019))

Meteorological Evidence See Fig. 4.

Perceived Climatic Changes and Reported Impacts on Seaweed Although some seaweed farmers did not observe climatic change or were unaware of why seaweed was not growing well, many were aware of changes and reported that stressors were having a big impact on seaweed farming, reducing yields. The more valuable species cottonii cannot be farmed anymore so farmers have to produce the lower value spinosum. Table 2 indicates the effects that climate stressors have on seaweed farming.

Adaptation Strategies and Constraints Although some farmers could see no solution to the challenges they faced, there are some adaptation strategies to mitigate the effect of low market price and climatic stressors (Table 3). One coping strategy is to tend to farms more often, using “more energy” to farm. Value addition is an adaptation to the low sale price of seaweed because it can earn more money. However, it does not provide a solution to the problem of a low harvest. Due to the disease, we try to farm seaweed, but we harvest nothing. If we want to make value addition, we have to buy from other farmers. The solution is to get a boat to farm into the deep water. (Female seaweed farmer partaking in value addition, Bweleo, July 2019)

12

G. de Jong Cleyndert et al.

Fig. 4 (a) Mean monthly minimum temperature in January and February on Unguja show temperatures have increased strongly over the last 40 years. (Figure from Paul Watkiss, copyright permissions obtained); (b) Trends in annual monthly mean wind speeds for Unguja show that wind speeds have increased in recent decades. (Figure from Mahongo and Francis (2010), copyright permissions obtained)

1

Adaptation of Seaweed Farmers in Zanzibar to the Impacts of Climate Change

13

Table 2 Effects of climatic stressors on seaweed farming as mentioned by participants % participants 61%

Stressor Increased sea temperatures

Effects More disease – “ice–ice” disease which turns the seaweed white, causes it to rot

Increased sea temperatures

Epiphytic algae, causes seaweed to rot

28%

Increased wind speed

Lower yields as seaweed breaks off the rope and farms get destroyed

50%

Changes in rainfall patterns

Lower yields as destroys the harvest if it gets wet whilst drying

19%

Example There is disease during the summer, the water got hot and boiled the seaweed (Independent female farmer, Paje, July 2017) It is getting worse because now the sun is very high and hot and so the disease is worse (Female seaweed farmer partaking in value addition, Paje, July 2019) There is a type of seagrass that grows on the seaweed and causes it to rot. . . I wanted to cry because there was so much (Female farmer employed at the seaweed business, Paje, July 2019) Due to the changing of the weather, the seaweed that we plant gets ripped off by the wind. We plant a lot but when we go to harvest it there is not much there (Independent female farmer, Bweleo, July 2017) During the rainfall we plant it but we don’t harvest it because it is difficult to dry it (Independent female farmer, Paje, July 2017)

Deepwater farming is a group activity that uses a new technology to farm in the deeper and cooler water. It requires the involvement of men to drive a boat and swim to place nets, although some swimming lessons have been provided to some women. SeaPoWer farmers believed that seaweed grows better in deeper water, particularly the more valuable species cottonii and it was believed that the new method addresses environmental challenges. A comparison of the off-bottom method and the deepwater method reveals that disease and seagrass infestation were significantly less of a challenge for farmers using the deepwater technology compared to the off-bottom method (Table 4). However, the deepwater method elevated alternative challenges including the presence of grazers (fish-eating the seaweed) and the need for training (Table 4). Farmers have placed fish traps at the bottom of the tubular nets in the deepwater to capture the herbivorous fish to sell. Interviews reveal that there are constraints to adaptation methods (Table 3). For example, independent farmers expressed a desire to partake in value addition but noted that they lacked training and equipment. Similarly, to farm in the deeper water using the tubular technology, farmers need to learn to swim and dive, and have access to a boat. Currently, farmers have to rely on men because boat skills are highly gendered activities that are

50%

39%

Deepwater farming

% of participants 19%

Value Addition

Adaptation Tend to farms more often

Grazers

Training to drive the boat Access to a boat

Ability to dive

Ability to swim

Takes too much time

Require equipment

Require training

Seaweed will not grow

Constraint Takes more time and energy

Example If there is extra wind, I spend more time because I need to check if the pegs and rope are ok (Female seaweed farmer partaking in value addition, Paje, July 2019) The main challenge is that I use more energy but get less money (Female seaweed farmer partaking in value addition, Paje, July 2019) Due to the disease, we try to farm seaweed but we harvest nothing. If we want to make value addition, we have to buy from other farmers (Female seaweed farmer partaking in value addition, Bweleo, July 2019) I would like to make products but I need education on how to do it (Independent female farmer, Paje, July 2019) I have had the training but I can’t afford the equipment so I can’t do it (Female SeaPoWer farmer, Dimani, July 2019) I used to do it in a cluster but we stopped because of time (Independent female farmer, Paje, July 2019) We would love to know how to swim so that we can participate in planting. We need training (Female SeaPoWer farmer, Dimani, July 2019) Men should be engaged a lot more with seaweed farming. I think it is difficult for the women to dive. I don’t think women will be able to dive (Male SeaPoWer farmer, Dimani, July 2019) I want to learn to drive the boat myself and not rely on men (Female SeaPoWer farmer, Muungoni, July 2019) If we had a boat we would be able to farm in the deeper water (Independent female farmer, Bweleo, July 2019) The fish eat the seaweed. We put traps at the bottom but the fish still come (Male SeaPoWer farmer, Dimani, July 2019)

Table 3 Adaptation strategies to seaweed farming and associated constraints as mentioned by participants

14 G. de Jong Cleyndert et al.

1

Adaptation of Seaweed Farmers in Zanzibar to the Impacts of Climate Change

15

Table 4 Comparison of the challenges mentioned by participants for seaweed farming using the off-bottom method and deepwater farming. P value represents the significance levels from fisher’s exact test. * denotes significant results Challenge Disease Epiphytes Winds Grazers Training

Off-bottom method 64% 39% 47% 6% 0%

Deepwater 20% 0% 40% 50% 60%

P value p ¼ 0.028* p ¼ 0.020* p > 0.05 p ¼ 0.0031* p ¼ 0.0000022*

associated with fishing activity. However, there is strong consensus among the female participants that women would like training to be able to do these activities themselves. These constraints highlight clear socioeconomic barriers to adaptation options.

Discussion Seaweed farming, using the off-bottom method, is susceptible to shocks and stresses and climatic changes are clearly having a big impact on seaweed farmers. Initial benefits associated with seaweed farming, such as increased household income and job opportunities, become less obvious as harvests are increasingly unreliable which leads to greater insecurity. Many farmers observed increases in wind speed and temperature, which is in alignment with meteorological data and other studies (Hassan and Othman 2019; Makame and Shackleton 2019). The presence of “ice– ice” disease, which causes a discoloration of the seaweed thali and affects the quality of seaweed, is linked to changes in light intensity and temperature (Largo et al. 1995). The more valuable species (Cottonii) is particularly sensitive to environmental fluctuations, and seaweed die-offs caused by “ice–ice” disease is a widespread issue and has been long documented in Zanzibar (Msuya et al. 2014; Msuya and Porter 2014). Moreover, the invasion of epiphytic algae, which causes the seaweed to rot (Critchley et al. 2004; Vairappan 2006), has also been linked to increased variability in water temperatures (Tsiresy et al. 2016). The emotional response of farmers during the interviews to this problem clearly indicates the effect it has on income and human capital because of the economic insecurity and emotional response it causes. The difficulty of high die-off rates and therefore low yields is compounded by irregular rainfall patterns, which cause post-harvest loss of yields if it rains during the drying process, and a low-sale price. The combination of environmental and economic challenges results in a very low income for farmers and therefore threatens the economic capital of farmers by reducing their ability to generate a stable income. Seaweed farming is clearly susceptible to economic and environmental shocks and stresses. Given that future projections estimate that temperatures will increase by 1.5–2 °C by the 2050s (Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar 2013), seaweed die-offs will be exacerbated and its sustainability is

16

G. de Jong Cleyndert et al.

therefore questionable if adaptation is not achieved. Other challenges, such as poor health effects (Fröcklin et al. 2012), further impact sustainability by negatively affected human capital. The off-bottom method is negatively impacting human and economic capital and is becoming increasingly vulnerable to shocks and stresses. Therefore, it is important to understand indigenous perceptions about climate change and its impacts to assess the dynamic responses to changes and to determine suitable adaptation strategies to attain sustainable livelihoods. There are a number of short-term and long-term adaptation strategies available to farmers. Intensification of farming (i.e., using “more energy” to tend to farms) is a short-term coping strategy in response to low production, high winds, and low sale price. Value addition is a form of long-term diversification, aiming to address the issue of a low sale price that farmers get as a result of their weak bargaining power with seaweed buyers. Interviews reveal that women clearly see the benefit of value addition through an increase in their income. Moreover, deepwater farming can be seen as either a form of extensification or a migration to a new production environment that successfully addresses many environmental challenges and farmers believe that they can earn more money by farming the more valuable species. Although there are still uncertainties regarding the outputs of these long-term adaptation strategies (value addition and deepwater farming), and further monitoring will be required to assess the impact that this has on the farmers’ household income, the attitudes of farmers engaging with these activities are positive. The farming innovations are also bringing about additional benefits such as greater social capital by empowering women producers and elevating women’s status in society (Brugere et al. 2020). However, successful adaptation requires an enabling environment dependent on environmental, economic, social, and institutional factors and some strategies are more effective that others, particularly in relation to climate change. Although some longterm adaptation strategies are having positive impacts, there are a number of barriers to adaptation that warrant further attention, and adaptive strategies must be analyzed in the context of these barriers to assess their effectiveness. Given that climatic change is a major challenge for seaweed farmers that is likely to be exacerbated in the future, many adaptation strategies will not be adequate in ensuring the long-term sustainability of farming. For example, intensification of farming and value addition activities will not be resistant to climatic stressors because they do not address the inability to grow seaweed. Moreover, there are economic considerations that may inhibit farmers’ ability to adapt; unlike the off-bottom method, deepwater farming and value addition both require large initial investment to purchase equipment. If farmers do not have the financial capacity to make this initial investment, adaptation will not be possible unless enabled through institutional or NGO support (Wright et al. 2014). Social factors will also either inhibit or enable adaptation. Deepwater farming and value addition both require substantial training and knowledge sharing. Many independent farmers interviewed were aware of adaptation methods but were unable to access them, highlighting the importance of social collaboration as a critical enabling environment to promote knowledge sharing for adaptation (Fu et al. 2011). Moreover, deeply engrained social practices and the complex nature of gender biases and power relations will be significant barriers to overcome for adaption methods. Labor-led intensification is characterized by an increased time burden,

1

Adaptation of Seaweed Farmers in Zanzibar to the Impacts of Climate Change

17

which disproportionately affects women due to their roles within the household and as child-carers (Wodon and Blackden 2006). Therefore, it is unlikely to be sustainable because of the impact on human and social capital by reducing time available for other roles that are typically dominated by women. The complex nature of gender biases and power relations also significantly affects deepwater farming, which currently entails the involvement of men. Gender power dynamics must be monitored to maintain (and promote) the positive impact to date of seaweed farming on women’s security at the household and community level (Wallevik and Jiddawi 2001). Interviews revealed women want to learn to swim and drive the boat to reduce their dependency on men, highlighting a shift in traditional attitudes (Brugere et al. 2019; Brugere et al. 2020). Deepwater farming represents a shift in gender attitudes because it challenges the traditional belief that the deepwater is an area accessed by men due to women’s limited mobility and role in society (Fröcklin et al. 2014). The government is promoting gender balance by increasing the number of female village leaders and females in government offices which shows a wider change in gendered roles. However, despite signs of attitude shifts, deeply engrained cultural practices and ways of thinking, held by both men and women, require repeated action, support, and perseverance over extensive periods of time to evolve (Brugere et al. 2019). Lastly, government involvement will impact the success of adaptation methods by providing (or inhibiting) an institutional enabling environment. Policies and institutions play a major contributing role to the sustainability of coping and adaptation strategies (Osman-Elasha et al. 2006). Governance mechanisms aimed at adaptation can support coping strategies by providing training, technical support, and financial support (Jabeen et al. 2010). It is promising that there is government attention on seaweed farming in Zanzibar, highlighted by the recent appointment of National Seaweed Day to emphasize the importance of the activity and previous governmental attempts to increase the price of seaweed (Davis 2011). Moreover, there are currently plans to construct a processing plant on Pemba which is a large-scale value addition project (IPPmedia 2019). However, the government should be investing in technologies that will be resilient to climate change, not only promoting value addition activities which will be an ineffective coping strategy in the long-term. Overall, short-term coping strategies are often ineffective and have resulted in many people ceasing to farm as seen by the reduction in farmer numbers in Bweleo and the reduction in production. Although long-term adaptation methods provide promising ways to increase the sustainability of seaweed farming by overcoming economic and environmental challenges, particularly those relating to climate change, there are significant socioeconomic barriers that need to be overcome. This will only be achieved through a supportive enabling environment with participation of local communities and institutional support (Sietz et al. 2011).

Future Study Although 36 participants was deemed sufficient to enable thorough analysis due to the recurrence of themes during interviews, the study would benefit from incorporating the experiences of farmers on the other islands in Zanzibar, particularly Pemba

18

G. de Jong Cleyndert et al.

where seaweed farming is a particularly important livelihood activity. More investigation is required into the potential cobenefit of using fish traps at deepwater farms to see if the catch of fish can outweigh the loss of seaweed yield. Moreover, there should be more research into drying techniques in order to reduce the post-harvest loss due to irregular rainfall, or the possibility of farmers selling seaweed fresh opposed to dried. Additionally, the complex issue of gender dynamics requires further study, particularly the possible shift in power as a result of extensification into deeper water, which could have major impacts on the long-term sustainability of seaweed farming as a way of empowering women.

Wider Implications Seaweed farming is being promoted as an alternative livelihood activity in many tropical developing counties, including Zanzibar, Indonesia, and Philippines. However, it is important that alternative livelihood activities are resilient to ecological and social system fluctuations, particularly climate change (Allison and Ellis 2001). In order to maintain yields, efforts need to focus on seaweed farming adaptation strategies that will be resilient to climate change. Deepwater farming using the new tubular technology shows the most promising adaption method to environmental challenges. However, it requires significant investment and training to ensure its success. Interestingly, despite negative impacts of climate change on the growth of seaweed that have been reported in Zanzibar and elsewhere, seaweed aquaculture is gaining recognition as a climate-change mitigation strategy by its ability to act as a carbon sink (Duarte et al. 2017). Although it would be minor at this scale, it is worth exploring how climate change mitigation policies that provide economic compensation for the environmental benefits brought about by seaweed farming could help investment and could generate a new market for seaweed production (Duarte et al. 2017).

Conclusion Seaweed farming is still heralded as a success story and is responsible for women’s empowerment and economic liberation. However, climatic stressors such as increased sea temperatures, high winds, and variable rainfall reduce seaweed growth and quality. Given the current environmental and socio-economic challenges, seaweed farming provides an unreliable income. Despite the cultural importance as a livelihood activity, the future of seaweed farming is uncertain, particularly as the impacts around climate change are likely to increase. Individual short-term coping strategies, such as intensification of tending to seaweed farms are unlikely to be effective in the long-term. The sustainability of seaweed farming is reliant on longterm adaptation methods that will require adopting new technologies, overcoming significant socioeconomic barriers, and will demand substantial institutional support. It is important to support adaptation strategies that are codesigned with communities, and that use holistic approaches that embrace the technological, individual (social and economic), and institutional dimensions of climate change adaptation.

1

Adaptation of Seaweed Farmers in Zanzibar to the Impacts of Climate Change

19

Supplementary Information S1: List of Academics and NGOs Contacted During Scoping Phase Name Narriman Jiddawi Flower Msuya Alice Mushi Cecile Brugere N/A

Organisation Department of Fisheries Development Zanzibar Seaweed Cluster Initiative Milele Foundation SeaPoWer The Seaweed Company

S2: Participant Profiles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Participant SWC1 SWC2 SWC3 SWC4 SWC5 SWC6 IND1 IND2 IND3 IND6 IND7 IND8 IND9 IND10 IND SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 SP6 SP7 SP8 SP9 SP10 VA1 VA2 VA3 VA4

Group SWC SWC SWC SWC SWC SWC IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP VA VA VA VA

Age 48 33 66 44 25 23 34 54 70 58 57 39 32 42 51 64 46 48 40 41 38 52 43 52 24 40 48 46 50

Gender F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F M F F F F F F F F F

Village Paje Jambiani Paje Paje Paje Paje Paje Paje Paje Paje Paje Paje Paje Paje Bweleo Nyamanzi Dimani Dimani Nyamanzi Dimani Muungoni Muungoni Muungoni Muungoni Muungoni Paje Paje Paje Paje

Status Married Divorced Married Married Divorced Married Divorced Married Divorced Divorced Widowed Widowed Married Divorced Widowed Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married

Children 3 5 8 2 3 0 4 8 1 4 3 5 4 3 6 5 6 12 3 3 7 5 2 7 2 4 3 2 4

Electricity 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1

Water 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

(continued)

20

30 31 32 33 34 35 36

G. de Jong Cleyndert et al.

Participant VA5 VA6 VA7 VA8 VA9 VA10 Va11

Group VA VA VA VA VA VA VA

Age 42 54 25 45 56 40 50

Gender F F M F F F F

Village Paje Bweleo Bweleo Bweleo Bweleo Paje Paje

Status Married Married Single Married Married Married Married

Children 3 6 0 4 6 3 6

Electricity 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

Water 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

S3: Interview Questions Used as a Guideline for the Semi-structured Interviews Registration: Age: Gender: Village/District: Single/Married/Widowed: Number of children: Electricity in home: Water piped in the home: Questions Background How long have you been farming seaweed? Why did you decide to start farming seaweed? What do you think are the main benefits coming from seaweed farming? What type of method do you use (shallow water/deepwater)? – If you do both, why? If you changed from the traditional method to the new method, why? – When did you start farming the new method? What type of seaweed do you farm? Cotonii or Spinosum? How much time do you spend farming seaweed in the traditional/deepwater method? How many days a week do you spend farming? Economic Who do you sell the seaweed to? How much money do you make from seaweed farming per month? What is the price per unit (kg bag of dried seaweed) Are you able to negotiate the prices? Which method earns more money? Which species earns more money? Has the value of the seaweed you farm increased, decreased or stayed the same in the last 20 years?

1

Adaptation of Seaweed Farmers in Zanzibar to the Impacts of Climate Change

21

How essential is seaweed farming to the income of the household? Do you have any other sources of income other than seaweed farming? What is the money from seaweed farming spent on? Do you have a say on how the money from seaweed farming is spent? What is the cost of the off bottom culture equipment per cycle of production? If you have farmed using both methods, how do you think the deepwater technique compares with the traditional technique, in terms of – Seaweed seedlings [more expensive, less expensive, the same] – Equipment (ropes, pegs versus nets, strings, PVC tubes, boat, petrol. . .) – Time/labour spent farming (more, less, the same) What challenges are you facing? (Off bottom method) Does the seaweed grow well? Are these new/emerging challenges or have they always existed? Are these challenges increasing/decreasing or staying the same? Do the challenges vary across different seasons? How do you respond to/cope with these challenges? What would help to stop these problems? Are you facing any health repercussions? – Have these increased with exposure or stayed the same? – How do you cope with or manage these health implications? What does your family think of farming the new method/the old method? – Does the time taken to farm seaweed affect your family? Has there been any spatial conflict with other users of the ocean space? – eg does tourism or fisherman prevent you from farming? – How do you manage this? Is there anything that would make it easier for you? Do you farm in the deepwater? How much time do you spend on this? What effect does this have on your income? What are the challenges? Do you do any value addition – making products? How much time do you spend on making products? What equipment and/or inputs are you using? How/where do you sell your products? What products do you make? Is there anything else that you would like to add or say?

22

G. de Jong Cleyndert et al.

S4: Coding Strategy Used to Analyses the Seaweed Farming Interview Data

1

Adaptation of Seaweed Farmers in Zanzibar to the Impacts of Climate Change

23

Group

Method

Price

Equipment

Disease

Seagrass

Climate

Winds

Grazers

Health

Training

SpatialConflict

Dryin

S5: Presen6ce Absence Data for Challenges to the Off Bottom Method

SWC SWC SWC SWC SWC SWC IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA

Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom

0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0

1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

24

G. de Jong Cleyndert et al.

Group

Method

Equipment

Disease

Seagrass

Climate

Winds

Grazers

Training

SpatialConflict

Health

S6: Presence Absence of Challenges for Deepwater and off Bottom Methods

SWC SWC SWC SWC SWC SWC IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA SP

Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Off_Bottom Deep_Water

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0

1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0

(continued)

Equipment

Disease

Seagrass

Climate

Winds

Grazers

Training

SpatialConflict

Health

25

Method

Adaptation of Seaweed Farmers in Zanzibar to the Impacts of Climate Change

Group

1

SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP

Deep_Water Deep_Water Deep_Water Deep_Water Deep_Water Deep_Water Deep_Water Deep_Water Deep_Water

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0

0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0

1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

S7: Percentage of Participants Spending Their Income from Seaweed Farming on Various Items Item School fees Food Everyday household expenses Clothes Savings Personal use House renovations Extra household commodities

% Participants 69.4% 55.5% 38.9% 36.1% 30.5% 27.8% 25.0% 19.4%

References Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Change 15(2):77–86 Allison EH, Ellis F (2001) The livelihoods approach and management of small-scale fisheries. Mar Policy 25(5):377–388 Arnold S (2008) Seaweed, power, and markets: a political ecology of the Caluya Islands, Philippines (Major paper). York University, Toronto Brown K, Westaway E (2011) Agency, capacity, and resilience to environmental change: lessons from human development, well-being, and disasters. Annu Rev Environ Resour 36:321–342 Brugere C, Msuya FE, Jiddawi N, Nyonje B, Maly R (2019) The introduction of an improved seaweed farming technology for women’s empowerment, livelihoods and environmental protection. Institute of Marine Sciences, Zanzibar. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34671.69280

26

G. de Jong Cleyndert et al.

Brugere C, Msuya FE, Jiddawi N, Nyonje B, Maly R (2020) Can innovation empower? Reflections on introducing tubular nets to women seaweed farmers in Zanzibar. Gender, Technology and Development, pp 1–21 Bryceson I (2002) Coastal aquaculture developments in Tanzania. Sustainable and non-sustainable experiences. West Indian Ocean J Mar Sci 1:1–10 Cohen PJ, Lawless S, Dyer M, Morgan M, Saeni E, Teioli H, Kantor P (2016) Understanding adaptive capacity and capacity to innovate in social–ecological systems: applying a gender lens. Ambio 45(3):309–321 Crawford B (2002) Seaweed farming: an alternative livelihood for small-scale fishers. Coastal Resources Center, Narragansett Critchley AT, Largo D, Wee W, Bleicher L’honneur G, Hurtado AQ, Schubert J (2004) A preliminary summary on Kappaphycus farming and the impact of epiphytes. Japanese J Phycol 52(Supplement):231–232 Davis E (2011) Seaweed farmer education: is it enough to sustain the industry? Analyzing the status of stakeholder investment in Muungoni and Jambiani, Unguja. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. 1195. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/1195 Department of Fisheries Development (2019) Export of Seaweed for the period 2008–2018. Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Livestock and Fisheries Duarte CM, Wu J, Xiao X, Bruhn A, Krause-Jensen D (2017) Can seaweed farming play a role in climate change mitigation and adaptation? Front Mar Sci 4:100 Eklöf JS, de la Torre Castro M, Adelsköld L, Jiddawi NS, Kautsky N (2005) Differences in macrofaunal and seagrass assemblages in seagrass beds with and without seaweed farms. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 63(3):385–396 Eklöf JS, Msuya FE, Lyimo TJ, Buriyo AS (2012) Seaweed farming in Chwaka Bay: a sustainable alternative in aquaculture. People, nature and research in Chwaka Bay. WIOMSA, Zanzibar, pp 213–233 Ferrol-Schulte D et al (2015) Coastal livelihood vulnerability to marine resource degradation: a review of the Indonesian national coastal and marine policy framework. Mar Policy. Pergamon 52:163–171 Fröcklin S et al (2012) Seaweed mariculture as a development project in Zanzibar, East Africa: a price too high to pay? Aquaculture Elsevier 356–357:30–39 Fröcklin S, de la Torre-Castro M, Håkansson E, Carlsson A, Magnusson M, Jiddawi NS (2014) Towards improved management of tropical invertebrate fisheries: including time series and gender. PLoS One 9(3):e91161 Hassan IH, Othman WJ (2019) Seaweed (Mwani) farming as an adaptation strategy to impacts of climate change and variability in Zanzibar. In: Climate change and coastal resources in Tanzania. Springer, Cham, pp 53–68 IPPmedia (2019) Zanzibar in final stages to construct a giant seaweed processing plant. https://ippmedia.com/en/business/zanzibar-final-stages-construct-giant-seaweed-processingplant. Accessed 8 Sept 2019 Jabeen H, Johnson C, Allen A (2010) Built-in resilience: learning from grassroots coping strategies for climate variability. Environ Urban 22(2):415–431 Largo DB, Fukami K, Nishijima T (1995) Occasional pathogenic bacteria promoting ice-ice disease in the carrageenan-producing red algae Kappaphycus alvarezii and Eucheuma denticulatum (Solieriaceae, Gigartinales, Rhodophyta). J Appl Phycol 7(6):545–554 Mahongo SB, Francis J (2010) Monthly variations in sea level at the island of Zanzibar. Western Indian Ocean J Mar Sci 9(1):1–16 Makame MO, Shackleton S (2019) Perceptions of climate variability and change in relation to observed data among two east coast communities in Zanzibar, East Africa. Clim Dev:1–13 Msuya FE (2006a) The impact of seaweed farming on the social and economic structure of seaweed farming communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. World Seaweed Resources, Version, 1, p 27

1

Adaptation of Seaweed Farmers in Zanzibar to the Impacts of Climate Change

27

Msuya FE (2006b, September) The seaweed cluster initiative in Zanzibar, Tanzania. In: Proceedings of the 3rd regional conference on innovation systems and innovative clusters in Africa, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, pp 246–260 Msuya FE (2011) The impact of seaweed farming on the socioeconomic status of coastal communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. World Aquacult 42(3):45–48 Msuya FE, Porter M (2014) Impact of environmental changes on farmed seaweed and farmers: the case of Songo Songo Island, Tanzania. J Appl Phycol 26(5):2135–2141 Msuya FE, Shalli MS, Sullivan K, Crawford B, Tobey J, Mmochi AJ (2007) A comparative economic analysis of two seaweed farming methods in Tanzania. The Sustainable Coastal Communities and Ecosystems Program. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island and the Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association. Msuya FE, Buriyo A, Omar I, Pascal B, Narrain K, Ravina JJ, Mrabu E, Wakibia JG (2014) Cultivation and utilisation of red seaweeds in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO) region. J Appl Phycol 26(2):699–705 Namudu MT, Pickering TD (2006) Rapid survey technique using socio-economic indicators to assess the suitability of Pacific Island rural communities for Kappaphycus seaweed farming development. In: Eighteenth international seaweed symposium. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 15–23 Newman RJS, Capitani C, Courtney-Mustaphi C, Thorn JPR, Kariuki R, Enns C, Marchant R (2020) Integrating insights from social-ecological interactions into sustainable land use change scenarios for Small Islands in the Western Indian Ocean. Sustainability 12(4):1340 Osman-Elasha B, Goutbi N, Spanger-Siegfried E, Dougherty B, Hanafi A, Zakieldeen S, Sanjak A, Atti HA, Elhassan HM (2006) Adaptation strategies to increase human resilience against climate variability and change: lessons from the arid regions of Sudan. Assessments of impacts and adaptations to climate change (AIACC) working paper, 42 Quandt A (2018) Measuring livelihood resilience: the household livelihood resilience approach (HLRA). World Dev 107:253–263 Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar (2013) Zanzibar climate change strategy. http://www. paulwatkiss.co.uk/newimagesanddocs/ZanzibarSummaryLRdraftfinal.pdf. Accessed 2 Sept 2019 Salafsky N, Wollenberg E (2000) Linking livelihoods and conservation: a conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integration of human needs and biodiversity. World Dev 28(8):1421– 1438 Sandelowski M (1995) Sample size in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health 18(2):179–183 Scoones I (1998) Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS working paper no. 72, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton Serrat O (2017) The sustainable livelihoods approach. In: Knowledge solutions. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp 21–26 Sietz D, Boschutzz M, Klein RJT (2011) Mainstreaming climate adaptation into development assistance: rationale, institutional barriers and opportunities in Mozambique. Environ Sci Policy 14(4):493–502 Sievanen L, Crawford B, Pollnac R, Lowe C (2005) Weeding through assumptions of livelihood approaches in ICM: seaweed farming in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean Coast Manag 48 (3–6):297–313 Spencer L, Ritchie J, O’Connor W (2003) Analysis: practices, principles and processes. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers, SAGE, London, 199, p 218 Suckall N, Tompkins E, Stringer L (2014) Identifying trade-offs between adaptation, mitigation and development in community responses to climate and socio-economic stresses: Evidence from Zanzibar, Tanzania. Appl Geogr Pergamon 46:111–121 Temple B, Young A (2004) Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qual Res 4(2):161–178 Tobisson E (2014) Consequences and challenges of tourism and seaweed farming: a narrative on a coastal community in Zanzibar. Western Indian Ocean J Mar Sci 12(2):169–184

28

G. de Jong Cleyndert et al.

Tsiresy G, Preux J, Lavitra T, Dubois P, Lepoint G, Eeckhaut I (2016) Phenology of farmed seaweed Kappaphycus alvarezii infestation by the parasitic epiphyte Polysiphonia sp. in Madagascar. J Appl Phycol 28(5):2903–2914 Vairappan CS (2006) Seasonal occurrences of epiphytic algae on the commercially cultivated red alga Kappaphycus alvarezii. J Appl Phycol 18(3–5):611–617 Valderrama D et al (2015) The economics of Kappaphycus seaweed cultivation in developing countries: a comparative analysis of farming systems. Aquac Econ Manag 19(2):251–277 Wallevik HB, Jiddawi N (2001) Impacts of tourism on the activities of the women of the southeast coast of Unguja, Zanzibar. In Marine Science Development in Tanzania and Eastern Africa. Proceedings of the 20 th Anniversary Conference on Advances in Marine Science in Tanzania 28:535–550 Wodon Q, Blackden CM eds., (2006) Gender, time use, and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. The World Bank Wright H, Vermeulen S, Laganda G, Olupot M, Ampaire E, Jat ML (2014) Farmers, food and climate change: ensuring community-based adaptation is mainstreamed into agricultural programmes. Clim Dev 6(4):318–328 ZaSCi (2019) Zanzibar Seaweed cluster initiative. https://www.mzfn.org/Advocacy_For_Seaweed. html. Date accessed 2/09/19

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

2

Adaptation of Small-Scale Tea and Coffee Farmers in Kenya to Climate Change Alice Nyawira Karuri

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate Change Policies and Regulations in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tea Sector in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate Change Challenges in the Tea Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adaptation and Mitigation Measures by Small-Scale Farmers in the Tea Sector . . . . . . . . . . . Coffee Sector in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate Change Challenges in the Coffee Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adaptation and Mitigation Measures by Small-Scale Farmers in the Coffee Sector . . . . . . . . Recommendations and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farmer Empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strengthening of Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Collaborations and Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30 30 31 32 34 34 38 39 40 42 42 43 44 44 45

Abstract

The adverse effect of climate change on agriculture is well-documented and is a cause of concern for governments globally. In addition to concerns over food crop production, the economies of numerous developing countries rely heavily on cash crops. The coffee and tea sectors are key in Kenya’s economy, contributing significantly to the gross domestic product, foreign exchange, and the direct or

This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. A. N. Karuri (*) School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Strathmore University, Nairobi, Kenya e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_70

29

30

A. N. Karuri

indirect employment of millions. Farmers engaged in the production of coffee and tea are predominantly small-scale farmers, with the majority farming on less than five acres. Climate change poses a threat to the production of these two crops and by extension to the economy of Kenya and the livelihood of farmers and those employed in these sectors. This study identifies the challenges posed by climate change in the tea and coffee sectors, the adaptation and mitigation measures identified, and the scope of their implementation. The production, processing, and marketing of tea and coffee in Kenya differs widely in terms of the institutions and institutional arrangements in the two sectors. This study will therefore analyze the role played by institutions in both sectors and how this affects climate change adaptation and mitigation measures by small-scale farmers. Keywords

Kenya · Tea · Coffee · Small-scale farmers · Climate change adaptation · Institutions

Introduction Agriculture in Kenya The agriculture sector is key to Kenya’s economy. It accounts for 65% of the export earnings and provides the livelihood of more than 80% of the population. The sector employs more than 40% of the total population and about 70% of the rural population. In 2018, it contributed 34.2% of Kenya’s gross domestic product (GDP) and an additional 27% through linkages to other sectors such as manufacturing, distribution, and services (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2020; Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) 2019; Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (MALF) 2020). The climate of Kenya varies from tropical along the coast to arid in the interior. The weather in Kenya is generally sunny year-round, with the main rainy seasons being from March to May and from November to December (International Coffee Organization (ICO) 2019a). The topography rises from the coastal plains to the eastern edge of the East African Plateau and the Great Rift Valley. The highest altitude is in the central region and temperatures of 15
C compared to the coastal region with temperatures of 29
C (UNDP 2020). The Agriculture in Kenya is 98% rain fed and highly sensitive to changes in temperature and rainfall. Studies indicate there will be a 20% decrease in rainfall by the year 2030 (Government of Kenya (GoK) 2015). Temperatures are projected to increase 1.2–2.2
C by 2050 in addition to increase in frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall, increase in severity of dry spells and duration of heat waves, and 16–42 cm rise in sea level (United States Agency for International Development (USAID) 2018). Since the early 1960s, both minimum and maximum temperatures have been increasing. The minimum temperature has risen generally by 0.7–2.0
C and the maximum by 0.2–1.3
C. There has been increased variability of rainfall from year to year and during the year. Extreme weather occurrences such as droughts and floods have become frequent and intense, leading to crop failures.

2

Adaptation of Small-Scale Tea and Coffee Farmers in Kenya to Climate Change

31

The adverse impacts of climate change are compounded by human factors such as illegal encroachments and settlements, logging and livestock grazing, which exacerbate deforestation, land degradation, and desertification. Forest cover in Kenya, for instance, has fallen from 12% in the 1960s to less than 2% in 2010. Kenya has a landmass of about 582,350 km2 with 17% being arable while 83% consists of arid and semiarid land (ASAL) (GoK 2010). The combination of deforestation to open up croplands, the extension of agriculture onto land with low potential, and the use of more basic farming techniques and technologies due to cost and capacity barriers make the current agricultural system unsustainable in the long term (Republic of Kenya 2018). This necessitates that farmers engage in activities to adapt to and mitigate climate change. Adaptation refers to actions that minimize negative impacts of climate change, including the social, environmental, and economic impacts while mitigation refers to activities that reduce, prevent, or remove greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and therefore reduce climate change. These measures require that farmers engage in sustainable agriculture, which is defined as farming in a responsible manner while enhancing profitability, well-being of the people, and the environment for now and the future (Cameron 2017). The MALF oversees agriculture in the country. The Agriculture and Food Authority (AFA) is a government agency under MALF and is responsible for the development, regulation, and promotion of scheduled crops (ICO 2019b). AFA is comprised of several directorates that are specific to particular crops and include the Tea Directorate and the Coffee Directorate. Tea, horticulture, and coffee are Kenya’s main agricultural exports. Tea and coffee are, however, unique as they are predominantly grown by small-scale farmers. This necessitates the formation of farmer organizations to benefit from economies of scale and to navigate the labor and capital-intensive process from production at the farm to the sale of the finished products.

Climate Change Policies and Regulations in Kenya Kenya recognizes the importance of climate change action and has policies and plans to enact adaptation and mitigation measures. These include the National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS) of 2010, National Policy on Climate Finance (2015), the Climate Change Act of 2016, the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) 2018–2022, and the National Adaptation Plan 2015–2030. The Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) of 1999 is the framework law on environmental management and conservation. Under this Act, EMCA established various institutions including the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA). NEMA is the principal instrument of government charged with the implementation of all policies relating to the environment, and to exercise general supervision and coordination over all matters relating to the environment (National Environmental Management Authority 2020). The NCCRS is the main document that guides the Kenya government’s climate change agenda. The main focus of the strategy is to ensure that adaptation and mitigation measures are integrated in all government planning, budgeting, and development objectives. It prioritizes agriculture as one of the vulnerable sectors

32

A. N. Karuri

of the economy. The NCCRS established that the institutions in place to govern climate change affairs were inadequate and recommended that a comprehensive climate change policy and related legislation be put in place. The Climate Change Act was subsequently passed in 2016 and provides for a regulatory framework for an enhanced response to climate change. The Climate Change Act pertains to all sectors of the economy and to the national and county level government in the 47 counties of Kenya. It aims to mainstream climate change responses into development planning, provide incentives and obligations for private sector contributions in achieving low carbon climate resilient development, promote low carbon technologies, facilitate climate change research, and enhance cooperative climate change governance between the national government and county governments. The Act obligates the Cabinet Secretary responsible for climate change affairs to formulate a five-year NCCAP. In accordance with the Act, the NCCAP represents the national mechanism through which climate change will be addressed in Kenya, including the implementation of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Kenya submitted its NDCs in 2016. The NCCAP 2018–2022 provides mechanisms for mainstreaming climate change into all sectors of the economy and in the County Integrated Development Plans (CIDPs). The initiatives undertaken through the NCCAP include the scale up of renewable energy technologies, clean energy solutions, improved water resource management, sustainable forest management and tree planting, climate smart agriculture, and agroforestry (GoK 2015). It prescribes measures and mechanisms for climate change adaptation and mitigation, and the review and recommendation of duties of public and private bodies on climate change. Climate change duties refer to the statutory obligations conferred on public and private entities to implement climate change actions consistent with the national goal of low carbon climate resilient development. NEMA monitors, investigates, and reports on compliance with the assigned climate change duties. The Act also provided for financial provisions through the Climate Change Fund, which is a financing mechanism for priority climate change actions and interventions (Republic of Kenya 2016). Kenya also has a Climate Smart Agriculture Strategy for 2017– 2026, which has been used as a source of input for the development of NCCAP 2018–2022 (Republic of Kenya 2018).

Tea Sector in Kenya Kenya is the third largest producer of black tea globally after China and India, and is the world’s largest exporter of black tea, contributing over 20% of total world exports. The sector is therefore significant to the global and national economy. By 2012 the sector accounted for 17% of total export earnings and 4 % of the national GDP (FAO 2015). In 2018, tea earnings amounted to Ksh.127.7 billion (KNBS 2019). Tea is grown on 236,000 ha with smallholders cultivating 142,000 ha and estates 93,000 ha. Tea production in 2018 was 493,000MT with 272,500MT from smallholders and 220,500 from estates (KNBS 2019). The tea sector contributes to

2

Adaptation of Small-Scale Tea and Coffee Farmers in Kenya to Climate Change

33

environmental conservation through improved water infiltration, reduced surface erosion rates, and enhanced carbon sequestration. Tea farming in Kenya is regulated by the Tea Act, Revised Edition 2012 [1960]. The Tea Directorate undertakes regulation and compliance of the tea industry, marketing and promotion of tea, the provision of technical and advisory services, and tea export guidelines. It facilitates research on all tea-related matters through the Tea Research Institute (TRI). All tea farmers are required to register with a factory as shareholders and to which they must supply the entirety of their production. Nearly all tea factories with small-scale farmer membership are shareholders in the Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA), a management company with several subsidiaries. Acreage per farmer varies from 0.25 to over 50 acres and most KTDA farmers grow on approximately half an acre of tea on average. Majority rely heavily on tea production for their livelihoods, which comprises over 60% of their total income. KTDA works directly with 611,000 farmers and indirectly impacts over four million people. A 2.5% management fee based on net price for services rendered is paid to KTDA Management Services and KTDA subsidiaries charge for their services separately. The government supports KTDA through guarantees for loans and support to extension services through the Ministry of Agriculture. The Kenya Tea Growers Association (KTGA) was established to promote the common interests of large-scale tea growers and is open to growers who maintain over 10 ha of tea. The large-scale tea sector, also referred to as tea plantation, includes both individual farmers and corporations, and accounts for about 40% of total tea production in Kenya (Kenya Tea Growers Association (KTGA) 2016). Challenges in the tea sector include declining prices, low yields, high production costs, low production diversification, low value addition, and a multiplicity of taxes and levies (Ngumo 2015). The agro-climatic requirements of tea are temperatures ranging from 10
C to 30
C, ideally 0.5–10 degree slopes, elevations up to 2,000 m, acidic volcanic soils, well-distributed rainfall between the range of 1,200 and 1,400 mm annually, sufficient sunshine hours, and a mild climate. Tea in Kenya is grown in altitudes between 1,500 m and 2,700 m above sea level, receiving 1,200–1,400 mm of rainfall annually, which is spread throughout the year (FAO 2015). The agro-zones for tea production include the areas of Mount Kenya, Aberdare Range, Nyambene Hills, Mau Escarpment, Kericho Highlands, the hills of Nandi and Kisii, Mount Elgon, and Cherangani Hills (FAO 2015). Tea production in Kenya occurs all year round but the highest yields are in the rainy seasons in March–June and October–December. The tea supply is consistent throughout the year in both quantity and quality. Over 90% of tea from Kenya is handpicked, with only the top two leaves and a bud being picked for processing to ensure high quality. About 50 varieties of tea have been developed to suit the seven tea growing regions. The tea is grown without the use of agrochemicals as it is pest and disease free, and requires only fertilizer to replenish soil (TRFK 2010). Tea husbandry includes weeding, pruning, and fertilizer application. Pruning is ideally undertaken at the end of the peak-growing period, July to August, when the soil moisture is still adequate (East Africa Tea Trade Association 2020). The weather during this period is usually cold with light rains and enables pruning to occur without sun scorch.

34

A. N. Karuri

Climate Change Challenges in the Tea Sector Tea production is highly sensitive to changes in growing conditions. These conditions are expected to be impacted by climate change (Change 2015). Climate changes include inadequate rainfall, a larger soil water deficit, unpredictable rain patterns, and temperature rise (Ethical Trade Partnership (ETP) 2011). Climate change causes low productivity and poor quality in tea. Drought reduces the yields of tea while changes in the reliability and predictability of rainfall distribution and patterns have negative effects on tea yields and quality. Hailstorms and frost damage tea leaves and extreme temperatures suppress yields. High temperatures for example lead to decreased yields, reduced quality, high evaporation, reduced water content in the tea, dry weather pests, aggressive weed growth, weeds found in low country appearing in mid and up country poor bud break, bud scorch, stem and collar canker, wood root, leaf and bark desiccation. Excessive rain causes spread of fungal diseases, wet weather pests, and poor drainage in low-lying areas, heavy soil erosion that results in reduced water holding capacity, poor soil nutrients, and poor bud break and shoot development. Increase in extreme weather causes crop damage and failure due to events such as droughts, hail, storms, floods, frost, and landslides. Climate change also reduces productivity of subsistence crops which reduces food security (International Trade Center (ITC) 2014; Prematilake 2014). Due to climate change, the current areas of production are becoming unsuitable for tea production due to the risk of increasing temperature and increasing pests and diseases (ITC 2019; USAID 2018). A study by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) of climate change impacts on tea production in Kenya up to 2050, estimated that with increasing temperatures and rainfall, optimal areas for tea production will decrease, and production will have to shift to higher altitude areas, moving from around 1,500 m to 2,000 m above sea level (Ethical Tea Partnership 2011). A study by TRI indicates that in 2012, almost one-third of the harvest was lost (Omondi 2015). Incidences of severe and damaging frost that are attributed to climate change are becoming more common in Kenya. For example, the 2012 frost resulted in 30% tea crop loss in Nandi County (GoK 2015).

Adaptation and Mitigation Measures by Small-Scale Farmers in the Tea Sector Tea planting is done through the planting of seedlings or more rarely, through the transplanting of a tree plant. Maturation of the tea seedling takes approximately 3 years, after which the tree plant continues production for decades. Adaptation to climate change can therefore not be carried out through adjusting the planting date. Adaptation measures can however be taken through adjusting the timing of tea husbandry activities such as pruning and fertilizer application, to climate change. Toward addressing issues on climate change, TRI is developing new technologies including environmental conservation efforts and development of improved tea varieties. TRI conducts research aimed at improving planting material, husbandry,

2

Adaptation of Small-Scale Tea and Coffee Farmers in Kenya to Climate Change

35

yields, quality, and disease and pests control. It also provides advisory services to the growers on specific problems encountered in tea cultivation. The TRI has developed over 914 improved clones, of which 51 clones have been selected for consistent superiority in yield and quality. Thirteen of these clones yield between 5,000 and 8,000 kg of processed tea per hectare annually. These yield levels are some of the highest in the world and are three times the average yields of unimproved tea varieties. It has also developed a new tea clone – “Purple tea.” According to the Kenya Agriculture and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), the TRI began research on the “Purple Tea” cultivar over 25 years ago, and in 2011, the Tea Directorate began encouraging farmers to plant it. It is drought, frost, disease, and pest resistant. It has wide adaptability and is suitable for all designated tea-growing regions (KALRO 2020). Production of tea varieties such as purple tea, which is more resistant to climate variability than green tea, is a climate adaptation measure with the potential for higher income for tea farmers. Kimtai (2019) did a study aimed at establishing the rate of adoption of purple tea farming, determining the socioeconomic factors that hinders adoption and determining the role of purple tea farming for carbon sequestration. The purple variety had higher production than green tea and fetched higher prices. It was more resistant to drought, frost, hailstone, pests, and diseases. It was therefore highly rated for impacts of climate variability and change. Constraints to farming purple tea included availability of land, extension services were low particularly to farmers with the least acres of land (two acres), lack of training, poor access to credit, and limited market channels. The adoption of purple tea was however positively influenced by factors such as requiring little investment, higher income level, less risk on crop failure, and availability of labor. Further adaption strategies include selection of the most suitable areas for tea growing, no expansion of new planting or replanting in low production areas, crop diversification in low production areas, efficient management of soil and water resources, catchment protection, riverbank protection, soil water conservation, crop insurance, use of drought tolerant cultivars, rainwater harvesting, and establishment of shade trees. Shade management particularly in the low and mid country reduces ambient temperature and prevents sun scorch. Other benefits of shade trees include carbon sequestration, improved net assimilation of tealeaf, reduced weed growth, additional organic matter from leaf litter and minimized wind damage, reduced frost, and reduced soil erosion (Ethical Tea Partnership 2011; Omondi 2015; Prematilake 2014). Tree planting also reduces frost and prevents soil erosion. Several key partnerships enable the tea sector to adapt to and mitigate climate change. KTDA is involved in partnerships geared toward sustainable agriculture including climate change adaptation. One of its key partners has been Unilever, which is a multinational corporation with tea estates in Kenya and is also a major buyer of tea sold by KTDA. Unilever established a Sustainable Agriculture Programme in 1999. In 2007, it launched a partnership with the KTDA to enable Kenya’s small-scale tea farmers acquire the certification standard set by the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN), which is a global coalition of environmental organizations. Factories and the KTDA trained farmers through Farmer Field Schools and Rainforest Alliance certification. Selected smallholder farmers are

36

A. N. Karuri

trained and they in turn instruct other farmers. Each lead farmer reaches an additional 300 farmers to ensure compliance with the SAN Standard required for Rainforest Alliance certification. KTDA in partnership with Unilever and IDH (the Dutch Sustainable Trade Initiative) has certified all the factories to the Sustainable Agriculture Network standards. Both farms and factories must meet the necessary requirements to receive Rainforest Alliance certification. By mid-2016, all of Kenya’s smallholder tea farmers had met the Rainforest Alliance certification standards, and Unilever’s Lipton brand was selling 100%-certified tea. Other major tea brands also began purchasing certified tea (Cameron 2017). The replicability, scale, and local leadership component of this system could serve as a model for developing participatory climate change adaptation plans (Moroge 2012). By March 2019, all 69 KTDA-managed tea factories were Rainforest Alliance certified and 21 tea factories were Fair Trade certified. Other certifications obtained by tea producers and factories included UTZ, Kosher, and Ethical Tea Partnership (ETP) (IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) 2019). This success is attributed to several factors. Key among these is that Unilever, which has a large market share in Kenya, made the decision to purchase only tea that was Rainforest certified. Tea production is linked to global rather than domestic demand, with more than 95% of tea produced in Kenya is exported. Other factors include the strong regulation of the tea sector by the government including the registration and licensing of factories by the Tea Directorate. Kenya’s tea industry is also highly concentrated both geographically and structurally with KTDA accounting for 60% of the market. KTDA’s structure is highly integrated with strong links between farmers and factories (Cameron 2017). Unilever was also part of the development of the Cool Farm Tool, a calculator of GHG emissions that is freely available for use by farmers. In collaboration with the Kenyan government, it has been using it to quantify carbon within its plantations (Ellis et al. 2013). The World Bank (WB) is also a key partner in climate adaptation in the tea sector. It announced during the March 2019 Nairobi Summit that an Emission Reduction Purchase Agreement (ERPA) would be signed between the Carbon Initiative for Development (Ci-Dev) trust fund, with WB acting as trustee, and KTDA Power Company Ltd. (KTDA Power). The contract aims to purchase carbon credits from small hydropower plants that provide power to 350,000 smallholder tea farmers and 39 of their regional tea factories in Kenya (Africa Times 2019). ETP, an alliance of tea packers working toward the sustainability of the tea sector, is another key partner. They started work in Kenya in 2010 and implemented a Climate Change Adaptation Program with GIZ, a German development agency. ETP utilized technology developed by its partners, such as Cafedirect Producers’ Foundation, which developed a tool called WeFarm, an SMS platform for farmers (Budsock 2015). ETP also created a partnership with ITC and other nongovernmental organizations and founded a project to help farmers in climate change adaptation and mitigation. The program trains farmers and tea factory managers in carbon standards compliance, conservation and management of water, soil conservation, and use of biogas instead of wood. A partner factory, Makomboki Tea Factory that was using 2,000 cubic meters of wood per month as fuel for drying tea, changed to alternative energy sources. This

2

Adaptation of Small-Scale Tea and Coffee Farmers in Kenya to Climate Change

37

included sawdust, rice husks, biomass, macadamia, and cashew nut shells and briquettes made from sawdust and rice husk. The new initiative saved more than 30,000 trees while lowering operational costs of that factory by 20% (Omondi 2015). Multilateral partnerships are particularly effective in adaptation strategies. An example is the “Upscaling and Embedding Sustainability for Smallholder Tea Farmers,” which is a collaborative initiative by KTDA Management Services (KTDA-MS), Unilever, and IDH – the Sustainable Trade Initiative. More than 85,000 (about 15% of 560,000 farmers) small-scale farmers had been trained by 2015 on Sustainable Agricultural Practices under a farmer field School (FFS) program (Cameron 2017). Another multilateral collaboration is between Germany, China, and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which was formed with the aim of promoting sustainable agricultural development and combating climate change in Kenya. This is through a project on carbon-neutral tea value chains. Germany through GIZ has been working with the KTDA, the Ethical Tea Partnership (ETP) among others in an integrated development partnership with the private sector to increase energy efficiency in all the factories to save GHG emissions and increase income of the farmers (Sino-German Center for Sustainable Development 2019). KTDA in 2015 signed a loan for Ksh.5.5 billion for the construction of seven small hydropower projects. The loan agreement was with the International Financial Corporation (IFC) which is a member of the World Bank, in partnership with other organizations including the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) the French Development Institution (Proparco, the Netherlands Development Finance Company (FMO)). The expected reduction of reduce Kenya’s carbon footprint from using hydropower is approximately 63,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. On average, tea factories spend approximately Ksh. 30 million to Ksh. 65 million each per year on electricity (KTDA 2015). The hydropower plants have a total installed capacity of 16 megawatts and will provide captive power generation with the excess energy being sold to the state-owned power company. The farmers provided 35% equity on the loan via green leaf delivery, making it perhaps the first initiative in the world in which a farmer-owned institution is undertaking a renewable energy project of such a scale (IFC 2016). KTDA Foundation, a nonprofit charity, also engages in environmental sustainability and climate change. Programs under climate change focus on promoting climate change mitigation, adaptation, and resilience building among smallholder tea farmers. In partnership with factories it has established over 31 indigenous, exotic, and fruit tree nurseries. Over 2.4 million trees have been planted in farms, major water catchment areas, and public forests. It is also undertaking an environmental conservation campaign for schools. Farmers are encouraged to adopt clean, renewable energy through promotion of and access to clean and renewable energy such as energy saving stoves, solar lighting products, and biomass. Adaptation measures include planting tea bushes along hill contours to reduce soil erosion. Seedlings from KTDA nurseries (commonly native species) are distributed throughout the local community for planting along farm boundaries, as buffers for waterways and forests, and to create small forest patches on farms. These native trees store carbon, stabilize the tea microclimate, and increase soil fertility. Planting native trees

38

A. N. Karuri

on steep slopes or degraded lands can also reduce vulnerability to heavy rains or prolonged droughts which creates resiliency to extreme weather. The KTDA is working to secure its own sources of sustainable fuel by acquiring land and encouraging its farmers to grow woodlots. Eucalyptus is commonly planted for fuelwood in the region. However, eucalyptus takes up large amounts of water, and KTDA and Rainforest Alliance are supporting farmers’ efforts to replace eucalyptus in buffer zones with indigenous trees. Although tea is on the “receiving end” of climate change, it also exacerbates it through deforestation. The common processing method of tea used in Kenya is the Cut Tear and Curl method, known as CTC. This involves the tea leaves going through a process of cutting, tearing, and curling, followed by oxidation and drying. The drying is often carried out using wood fuel due to the high price of electricity. Tea manufacturers are, however, gradually utilizing renewable energy alternatives such as electricity generation through micro-hydro plants to reduce energy costs and potentially generate further revenues by selling surplus electricity back to the national grid. Other mitigation measures include the use of biomass waste to power the water boiler systems. Gravity-powered ropeways are used by Finlay’s, a multinational company, in some of its tea plantations. The KTDA also requires factories to acquire open land in order to plant seedlings and grow trees as a sustainable source of firewood. This saves money on the purchase of firewood or alternative fuels and could potentially generate revenues from carbon trading if the planted forests are managed sustainably. Varieties of tea other than Black CTC tea undergo a less emission-intensive process, as the wilting and CTC process are not required. Black CTC tea is manufactured by all 69 factories while only ten process black orthodox tea and four process other specialty tea.

Coffee Sector in Kenya Kenyan coffee is grown on an estimated total area of 115,570 ha in 32 of 47 counties in the country. The sole type of coffee produced in the country is Arabica, which is planted during the rainy season from April to October with two harvest periods, April to June and October to December. Production is enabled by a combination of deep red volcanic soils, high altitude, rainfall, and moderate temperatures. The sole type of coffee grown in Kenya is Arabica. Coffee is grown in the high potential areas between 1,400 and 2,200 m above sea level, with temperature ranging from 15
C to 24
C, in red volcanic soils that are deep and well drained. Over 99% of Kenyan coffee is Arabica, whose main varieties are SL 28, SL 34, K7, Ruiru 11, Batian, and Blue Mountain (ICO 2019a). Coffee is an evergreen shrub and is therefore an important contributor to carbon sequestration, effective in stabilizing soils and permits the preservation of much of the original biodiversity in planted areas (ICO 2019b). The coffee sector contributes annually an average of US$230 million in foreign exchange earnings and is ranked as Kenya’s fourth most important export, after horticulture, tourism, and tea. In 2018 coffee earnings amounted to Ksh. 14.8 billion. The value of coffee as a percentage of all export goods represented 5.5% in

2

Adaptation of Small-Scale Tea and Coffee Farmers in Kenya to Climate Change

39

2017, while its share of GDP was 0.22%. The coffee industry contributes an average of Ksh. 23 billion per year in foreign exchange earnings, ranking fourth after tourism, tea, and horticulture (ICO 2019a). Coffee is grown on 115,600 ha, 90,000 ha by smallholders and 25,000 ha by estates. Production was 41,400MT with 30,000MT from cooperatives and 11,000MT from estates (KNBS 2019). In 2017/18, the major importing countries of Kenyan coffee were Germany, the USA, Belgium, and the Republic of Korea, who imported about 58% of Kenya’s coffee. Thirty-two of the 47 counties in Kenya are coffee producers (ICO 2019a). Kenya has about 700,000 coffee farmers and about 99.63% have less than five acres. All coffee farmers with less than five acres are mandated to cooperative membership. There are between 500 coffee cooperatives (ICO 2019a) and 651 coffee cooperatives (KNBS 2019). Each coffee cooperative has factories where farmers deliver coffee berries for processing. At the factory, the coffee berries undergo pulping, which is a process of washing and drying, which results in “parchment.” Parchment is then delivered to a coffee miller who further processes and grades the coffee, resulting in the “green” or “clean” coffee which is then sold by marketers at the Coffee Exchange through auctioning. Cooperatives also have the option of selling coffee directly to buyers without going through the auction. The Coffee Directorate is mandated to develop, promote, and regulate the coffee industry in Kenya. The Coffee Research Institute (CRI) conducts research in all areas of production, processing, and marketing of coffee. The global organization for coffee is the International Coffee Organization (ICO). It is comprised of member governments who represent 98% of world coffee production and 67% of world consumption. One of its objectives is to encourage members to develop a sustainable coffee sector in economic, social, and environmental terms (ICO 2019b).

Climate Change Challenges in the Coffee Sector It is estimated that half the world’s coffee-producing land will be unsuitable for coffee production by 2050 (Bunn et al. 2015; CIAT 2011). Other estimates indicate that the area unsuitable for production could be as high as 88% in Latin America (Worland 2018). Climate change caused by changing rainfall patterns and rising temperatures is affecting coffee production in several ways: directly through negative effects on the coffee plant and indirectly by altering the population dynamics and incidence of coffee pests and diseases (Jaramillo 2013). Rising temperatures will especially damage the Arabica bean, which accounts for about two-thirds of global coffee production, but whose production is limited to subtropical highlands in Brazil, Central America, and East Africa (Cameron 2017). This narrow region of the tropics is known as the coffee belt, and stretches from Central America to Sub-Saharan Africa to Asia (Worland, 2018). Rising temperatures will bring drought, increase the range of diseases, and kill large swaths of the insects that pollinate coffee plants (Worland 2018). Recent trends indicate that coffee growing is shifting from traditional optimal growing zones to higher altitudes. In traditional growing zones random flowering patterns and differences in berry growth stages has resulted in

40

A. N. Karuri

difficulties in disease and pest management, harvesting, and processing (Daily Nation 2012). The effects of climate change in Kenya include unreliable and erratic rains with shorter seasons (ICO 2019b). Changing rainfall patterns affect the flowering of the coffee plants which impacts the whole production cycle. The altered flowering pattern with coffee berries at different stages of maturity poses a challenge in disease management, insect management, and harvesting (Ethical Tea Partnership 2011; Mugo 2016; Mwaura 2010). Extremely heavy rains lead to higher erosion levels, resulting in loss of soils, leaching of nutrients, and consequent soil infertility. On the other hand, the dynamics of incidence of coffee pests and their management are evolving rapidly due to changing climatic conditions. The changing environment is also posing challenges to patterns of cherry ripening and drying of parchment because of unpredictable rainfall patterns (ICO 2019b). Changing rainfall patterns cause uncertainty regarding the timing of fertilizer application and the drying of parchment. Most coffee growing zones in central Kenya, particularly Kiambu and Murang’a, are no longer suitable for the crop due to rising temperatures (Kamau 2017). Intermittent rainfall in the 2007/08 crop year caused a severe episode of Coffee Berry Disease that cut Kenyan output by 23% to 42,000 MT. This happened because farmers were not able to spray the crop on time (Mwaura 2010). Climate variability and its effects is however not a “new” problem, as evidenced by research shortly after Kenya’s independence. This is illustrated by a 1969 journal article by Nutman and Roberts, titled “Climatic conditions in relation to the spread of coffee berry disease since 1962 in the in the East Rift Districts of Kenya.” (F.J. Nutman & F.M. Roberts 1969)

Adaptation and Mitigation Measures by Small-Scale Farmers in the Coffee Sector The Coffee Directorate in collaboration with stakeholders provides capacity building to the counties’ agricultural staff and other value chain players. The collaborating private agencies include Technoserve, Solidaridad, certification bodies such as UTZ, 4C, and Fairtrade, and management services providers. CRI develops technologies, releases new coffee varieties, and carries out research on disease and pest management, while the Ministry of Agriculture sets policy guidelines (ICO 2019b). The Coffee Research Foundation (currently CRI) started a program in 2012 to help farmers reverse the effects of global warming and boost coffee production. Farmer sensitization clinics were held and farmers were encouraged to plant indigenous trees to provide shade and to practice water harvesting (Daily Nation 2012). The CRI has made various recommendations on approaches toward environmentally sustainable coffee production systems. One approach is integrated farming, in which mulching, conservation agriculture, organic fertilizers, and use of bio-stimulants are recommended. Other measures include the use of suitable shade trees and the adjustment of spraying programs to cope with changing trends in the manifestation of coffee pests and diseases (ICO 2019a). Most Kenyan coffee is grown without

2

Adaptation of Small-Scale Tea and Coffee Farmers in Kenya to Climate Change

41

shade, but shaded coffee is becoming increasingly popular in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, although quantifying the area under shade has not been done. Research is ongoing to determine the appropriate shade trees (ICO 2019a). Research shows that biodiverse shaded coffee is far more resilient and productive than coffee grown in monoculture. Shading coffee therefore improves the resilience of agro-ecosystems. Shade trees protect plants from microclimate variability, the effects of lower precipitation and reduced soil water availability, and reduce high solar radiation. It also improves soil fertility, protects coffee from insect pests, and provides economic benefits for farmers (Jaramillo 2013). The need to develop disease-resistant coffee varieties was felt in early 1971 and breeding programs were initiated whose optimal outcome was the cultivar Ruiru 11 (Njoroge 1991). The CRI currently has developed two improved varieties of coffee – Ruiru11 and Batian. The improved varieties are resistant to Coffee Berry Disease and Leaf Rust Disease, thus lowering the use of agrochemicals and reducing production costs. The CRI estimated that the production cost of the traditional variety is four to five times more than Ruiru 11 and Batian. Over 300,000 farmers are estimated to have planted the new varieties (ICO 2019a). The traditional variety of coffee grown is SL-28. Other Arabica varieties include SL-34, K7, and Blue Mountain. A study of the coffee sector in Nyeri County showed that 50% of farmers in certified coffee cooperatives and 57% in the noncertified cooperatives had only the traditional SL variety of coffee on their farm. An additional 45% in the certified and 39 per in the noncertified had other varieties in addition to the SL (Okech 2019). It therefore means that less than 5% had the disease and drought resistant varieties exclusively on their farms. Incentives therefore need to be provided to encourage planting of new varieties, beyond the step of providing free seedlings. The International Coffee Organization (ICO) has pilot projects in Africa and Latin America to address climate change by assisting coffee farmers use environmentally friendly technologies. These include building the capacity of institutions, improving access to credit and risk management mechanisms, reducing vulnerability to income volatility, and promoting gender equality. It also engages in long- and short-term adaptation strategies as well as mitigation strategies (ICO 2019b). Several organizations including private companies involved in coffee production and marketing have taken the lead in climate change adaptation and mitigation in the coffee sector. The World Coffee Research (WCR), a consortium supported by major coffee retailers, distributors, and exporters, has an $18 million coffee-monitoring program that covers 1,100 farms in 20 countries including Kenya. It conducts farmer training, provides technical assistance, and is testing coffee varieties and adaptive farming methods (Worland 2018). Since 2013 Starbucks has support centers in nine countries and a 10-year, $500 million investment fund that supports sustainability programs, including adaptation training for farmers and the testing of new coffee varieties (Worland 2018). Sangana Commodities Ltd and GIZ implemented a three-year project creating a link between coffee smallholders and carbon markets, and developing a verifiable and voluntary climate change module, which can be integrated into the existing 4C’s standard (ETP 2011).

42

A. N. Karuri

Sustainability standards in the coffee sector are geared toward sustainable agricultural practices, which include adaptation and mitigation measures. Certification in the coffee sector is, however, not as extensive as in the tea sector. In Nyeri County, which is a leading coffee producer, Fairtrade was the most common certification with at least 12 of the 23 cooperatives having received this certification. The earliest reported Fairtrade certification in the cooperatives was from 2006. At least seven cooperatives had obtained Rainforest Alliance certification and four had acquired 4C certification. Benefits of certification included payment of premiums and improved quality and quantity of coffee. Challenges included difficulty of maintaining certification as it was involving and expensive. This is illustrated by the example of an estimated Ksh. 400,000 for certification and renewal, with additional costs of up to Ksh. 1,000,000. Enforcing requirements as well as nonconformity to requirements was also costly. Certification organizations also did not source for markets and the cooperatives therefore used the conventional marketing channels, which were viewed as opaque (Okech 2019).

Recommendations and Conclusion Tea and coffee are essential to farmers and other Kenyans as a source of livelihood, to the government as a contributor to GDP and foreign exchange and to the commodity chain players such as marketers and retailers. Tea and coffee also contribute significantly to climate change mitigation. Climate change, however, threatens to disrupt the production of these crops and by extension the economy of Kenya and the livelihoods of those who depend on it. Continued and increased uptake of climate adaptation and mitigation measures is critical for the sustainable farming of tea and coffee. Climate change can worsen the socioeconomic condition of farmers and conversely fragile socioeconomic conditions can exacerbate climate change. Various measures can be taken to increase the adaptive capacity of smallscale tea and coffee farmers.

Farmer Empowerment Farmers are rational economic actors and farming has to be profitable for adaptation and mitigation measures to be implemented. Climate adaptation and mitigation activities such as uptake of improved crop varieties are carried out in view of perceived economic benefits and particularly for the most vulnerable, in view of immediate economic benefits. Activities such as the adaptation of improved crop varieties can be neglected due to small land size and the resultant “lost” while the new variety matures to the point of harvest. Other measures such as water harvesting may require capital expenditures whereby the capital is either unavailable or the returns to investment are deemed uneconomical. Interventions that deal with commodity chain weaknesses that reduce profitability are critical. Profitability of farming is the largest incentive to adopting sustainable agricultural practices. Increasing the

2

Adaptation of Small-Scale Tea and Coffee Farmers in Kenya to Climate Change

43

adaptive capacity of tea farmers therefore requires farmers’ economic empowerment. It is essential that stakeholders provide incentives for the implementation of measures whose returns are long-term or not tangible. This could include measures such as insurance for climate-related crop losses and a minimum guaranteed price per kilogram. Farmers also need to be politically empowered as decisions in farmer organizations are often made by elected representatives. Civic awareness is therefore an integral component of farmer empowerment. Social empowerment majorly revolves around gender. Men predominantly own land but women provide 60% of the labor on the farms and in the wet mills (ICO 2019b). Women therefore need to be major actors in activities involving climate change adaptation and mitigation. When they are not empowered, especially in terms of access to resources, various adaption and mitigation activities may not be implemented.

Strengthening of Institutions The common features of the tea and coffee sector in Kenya is that both are cash crops, grown majorly for export and production is predominantly by small-scale farmers. Profitable production therefore requires that farmers organize so as to share costs. In the tea sector, the KTDA is the primary agency through which farmers produce process and market their tea. In the coffee sector, coffee cooperatives are the primary and mandated vehicle for production, marketing, and processing. However, there are coffee farmers with more than five acres who choose to remain in cooperatives due to economies of scale. Institutional capacity therefore has a large influence on farmers’ activities, including those related to climate change adaption and mitigation. Lack of institutional capacity in farmer-owned organizations or institutions that support farmers can reduce productivity and profits and therefore constrain farmers’ adaptive capacity. The average age of tea and coffee farmers is over 50 years and this further constrains the availability of alternative livelihoods. Unlike the tea sector where almost all small-scale tea farmers operate within the institutional structure of KTDA, coffee cooperatives are not homogeneous. For example, coffee payments for the 2017/18 year varied from Ksh. 9 to Ksh. 105/kg of coffee cherry (exchange rate in this period was approximately one USD to Ksh. 100–103). While there are climatic and soil-type differences, the differing payments were also within the same region. In Nyeri County, which is a leading coffee producer, the payment range was between Ksh. 12.75 and Ksh. 105. This points to institutional constraints at the cooperative level, although constraints occur across the coffee commodity chain. The challenges facing the coffee sector are well documented. Toward this end, a Coffee Taskforce was created to investigate the challenges and make recommendations for sectoral improvement. The tea sector has also encountered various institutional challenges. In January 2020, the president directed that the KTDA be restructured for the benefit of tea farmers (Cheruiyot 2020). The organizations that farmers engage in and the institutions within which they operate can either facilitate or constrain the activities of farmers, including those pertaining to climate change adaptation and mitigation.

44

A. N. Karuri

Collaborations and Partnerships Climate change adaptation and mitigation requires the long-term involvement of all actors in the commodity chain including the consumers. Stakeholder mapping is necessary, whereby a list of relevant groups, organizations, and people who can collaborate in climate change adaptation and mitigation can be invited to collaborate towards these measures. These stakeholders include the International Coffee Organization, the Tea and Coffee directorates, agricultural institutions and departments, producer organizations, certification organizations, technical support providers, financial institutions, and supply chain actors including processors, marketers, and retailers. Research, information, and best practices on sustainable agricultural practices and on measures to streamline the commodity chain can be enhanced and widely adopted through collaboration.

Certification The 2017 SAN Standard aims to support farmers in advancing sustainable livelihoods, improving farm productivity, and becoming more resilient to climate change. Changes of note include climate-smart agricultural practices. These are built into the standard to help farmers address climate change risks. The effect of irregular rainfall, changing temperatures, and related increased pest and disease attacks can be reduced through soil conservation, water-use efficiency, and the conservation and restoration of natural ecosystems. The Standard is built on principles of sustainable farming including biodiversity conservation, improved livelihoods and human well-being, natural resource conservation, effective planning, and farm management systems (Rainforest Alliance 2019). The SAN Climate Module is an add-on for voluntary verification within the existing Sustainable Agriculture Network certification system. Farmers who achieve compliance with the module will be able to assess the risks posed by climate change to their farms and communities, analyze their practices to quantify and reduce GHG emissions, and increase the carbon levels stored on their farms through the restoration of degraded lands, reforestation, and improved soil conservation while also being able to better adapt to altered growing seasons and other conditions (Sustainable Agriculture Network 2011). Fairtrade aims to help farmers become more resilient to climate change while giving consumers, retailers, and traders the opportunity to reduce their carbon footprint. Farmers can spend the Fairtrade Premium on climate change adaptation projects such as tree planting, irrigation, crop diversification, and clean energy. Farming communities can also benefit from access to carbon finance, which can be used in mitigation or adaptation activities (Fairtrade International 2015). While certification has numerous benefits, acquiring and maintaining of certification by coffee cooperatives and estates requires the collaboration and financial support of stakeholders. Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade are the major certification bodies in the coffee and tea sector in Kenya. Majority of the small-scale tea farmers in Kenya comply with the SAN Standard and have received Rainforest Alliance. This extensive

2

Adaptation of Small-Scale Tea and Coffee Farmers in Kenya to Climate Change

45

certification can be largely attributed to the institutional arrangement of the tea sector. KTDA acts as the management agent for 69 factories, which comprise the vast majority of small-scale tea farmers in Kenya. In the coffee sector, however, more than 700,000 farmers are members of an estimated 500–650 coffee cooperatives. Certification depends on various factors including membership numbers, productivity levels, number of factories, cooperative leadership, and relationships with a multiplicity of commodity chain actors. While some cooperatives are certified by multiple certification bodies, others do not comply with any sustainability standard. Certification ensures the implementation of climate change adaptation and mitigation measures. Acquiring and complying with sustainability standards is therefore key for small-scale farmers.

References Africa Times (2019) World Bank commits $22.5 billion more to Africa for climate change. Africa Times. Retrieved 10 Dec 2019 from https://africatimes.com/2019/03/15/world-bank-commits22-5-billion-more-to-africa-for-climate-change/ Budsock A (2015) Ethical tea partnership – adapting smallholders to climate change. Retrieved 10 Dec 2019 from https://impakter.com/ethical-tea/ Bunn, Laderach, Rivera and Kirschke (2015) A bitter cup: climate change profile of global production of Arabica and Robusta coffee Climate Change 129:89–101 Cameron B (2017) Brewing a sustainable future: certifying Kenya’s smallholder tea farmers, 2007– 2017. Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Innovations for successful societies. Princeton University. Retrieved 10 Dec 2019 Change K (2015) World tea production and trade current and future development, Food and agriculture organization, trade and markets division. FAO, Rome Cheruiyot K (2020) Uhuru orders for KTDA restructuring to save tea farmers. The Star. Retrieved 22 Jan 2020 from https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2020-01-14-uhuru-orders-for-ktdarestructuring-to-save-tea-farmers/ Daily Nation (2012) New plan to help farmers reverse effects of climate change. Daily Nation. Kenya. Retrieved 10 Dec 2019 from https://reliefweb.int/report/kenya/new-plan-help-farmersreverse-effects-climate-change East Africa Tea Trade Association (2020) Tea care and husbandry management. Retrieved from eatta.com Ellis K, Lemma A, Mutimba S, Wanyoike R (2013) Low carbon competitiveness in Kenya. Policy brief, Overseas Development Institute. Retrieved 17 Jan 2020 Ethical Tea Partnership (2011) Climate change adaptation in the Kenyan tea sector. Report from the adaptation workshop held in Kericho on the 16th of May 2011. Retrieved from ethicalpartnership.org Fairtrade International (2015) Climate change. Retrieved 2020 from fairtrade.net: https://www. fairtrade.net/issue/climate-change FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) (2020) Kenya at a glance. Retrieved from www.fao.org: http://www.fao.org/kenya/fao-in-kenya/kenya-at-a-glance/en/ FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2015) Kenya’s tea sector under climate change. An impact assessment and formulation of a climate-smart strategy, by Elbehri A, Cheserek B, Azapagic A, Raes D, Mwale M, Nyengena J, Kiprono P, Ambasa C. Rome, Italy Government of Kenya (2015) Addressing climate change: success stories from Kenya. Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Regional Development Authorities. Government of Kenya. Retrieved 17 Jan 2020

46

A. N. Karuri

Government of Kenya (2010) National climate change response strategy. Executive Brief. Retrieved from environment.go.ke: http://www.environment.go.ke/wp-content/documents/com plete%20nccrs%20executive%20brief.pdf IFC (2016) Kenya’s tea farmers taste benefits of hydropower. International Finance Corporation. Retrieved 9 Mar 2020 from ifc.org: https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/news_ext_content/ ifc_external_corporate_site/news+and+events/news/impact-stories/tea-farmers-taste-the-bene fits-of-hydropower IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) (2019) Sustainability and voluntary certification in the Kenyan tea sector. Developing an action plan to address opportunities and challenges. Report of the Meeting Held in Nairobi, Kenya, March 6, 2019. Retrieved 29 Apr 2020 from iisd.org International Coffee Organization (2019a) Country coffee profile: Kenya. International Coffee Organization. International Coffee Council. Retrieved 17 Jan 2020 from http://www.ico.org/ documents/cy2018-19/icc-124-7e-profile-kenya.pdf International Coffee Organization (2019b) Developing a sustainable coffee economy. Retrieved 17 Jan 2020 from http://www.ico.org/sustaindev_e.asp International Trade Center (2014) Mitigating climate change in the tea sector. ITC, Geneva. Retrieved from: intracen.org on 17 Jan 2020 Jaramillo JSM-O (2013) Climate change or urbanization? Impacts on a traditional coffee production system in East Africa over the last 80 years. (Hart JP, ed). PLoS ONE 8(1). Retrieved 17 Jan 2020 from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id¼10.1371/journal.pone.0051815 KALRO (2020) Purple tea. Retrieved from kalro.org: http://www.kalro.org/tea/?q¼Purple%20Tea Kamau G (2017) Coffee takes beating from rising global temperature. The East African. Retrieved 17 Jan 2020 from https://theeastafrican.co.ke/business/climate-change-effect-on-coffee/25603998982-giionx/index.html Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) (2019) Economic survey 2019. Economic survey, Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 10 Dec 2019 from www.knbs.or.ke Kenya Tea Growers Association (KTGA) (2016) Kenya tea growers association. Retrieved 23 Apr 2020 from Kenya Tea Growers Association: ktga.or.ke Kimtai R (2019) Adoption of purple tea farming as a coping mechanism to climate variability and change. A case study of Kericho County, Kenya. Masters thesis, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Environmental Legislation and Management. Retrieved 17 Jan 2020 KTDA (2015) KTDA Signs Ksh. 5.5 Billion loan agreement to construct seven small hydropower projects. Retrieved 9 Mar 2020 from ktdateas.com: https://www.ktdateas.com/index.php/blogs/ item/49-ktda-signs-ksh-5-5-billion-loan-agreement-to-construct-seven-small-hydropower-pre jects.html Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (2020) Towards sustainable agricultural transformation and food security in Kenya 2019–2029. Government of Kenya. Retrieved 10 Mar 2020 from http://www.kilimo.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ASTGS-Full-Version.pdf Moroge M (2012) In Kenya, tea growers adapt to climate change. Retrieved 10 Mar 2020 from rainforest-alliance.org: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/pictures/kenya-tea-growers Mugo I (2016) Global warming takes its toll on coffee production. Daily Nation. Kenya. Retrieved 10 Dec 2019 from https://www.nation.co.ke/news/Global-warming-takes-its-toll-on-coffee-pro duction/1056-3461704-avbq99z/index.html Mwaura HN (2010) Climate change affecting Kenya’s coffee output. Retrieved 10 Dec 2019 from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kenya-coffee-climate/climate-change-affecting-kenyas-cof fee-output-idUSTRE61A0WA20100211 National Environmental Management Authority (2020) Environmental Act (EMCA). Retrieved from nema.go.ke: http://www.nema.go.ke/index.php?option¼com_content&view¼article& id¼24&Itemid¼163 Ngumo D (2015) My experience in the tea sector. Retrieved from karuspace.karu.ac.ke Njoroge J (1991) Management of hybrid Ruiru 11 [eleven] Arabica coffee – a review. Coffee Research Foundation, Ruiru. Retrieved 10 Dec 2019 from www.kainet.ne.ke/documents/man agement-hybrid-ruiru-11-eleven-arabica-coffee-review-1

2

Adaptation of Small-Scale Tea and Coffee Farmers in Kenya to Climate Change

47

Nutman FJ, Roberts FM (1969) Climatic Conditions in Relation to the Spread of Coffee Berry Disease Since 1962 in the East Rift Districts of Kenya. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 35 (2):118–127 Okech AN (2019) Producer institutional arrangements in Kenya’s coffee sector and their effect on economic benefits to farmers. PhD thesis. Department of Development Studies. Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Juja Omondi D (2015) Climate change bites Kenyan tear farmers. Voices2Paris. Retrieved 10 Dec 2019 Prematilake K (2014) Climate change adaptation strategies for tea plantations. Tea Research Institute of Sri Lanka, Agronomy Division. Retrieved 17 Jan 2020 Rainforest Alliance (2019) What does rainforest alliance certified mean? Retrieved 11 Mar 2020 from rainforest-alliance.org: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/faqs/what-does-rainforest-alli ance-certified-mean Republic of Kenya (2016) The climate change act, 2016. Kenya gazette supplement. Government Printer, Nairobi Republic of Kenya (2018) National climate change action plan 2018–2022. Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Government of Kenya Sino-German Center for Sustainable Development (2019) Carbon-neutral tea value chains – Germany, China and the FAO Join Forces with Kenya. Retrieved 9 Mar 2020 from https://sgcsd.org: https://sg-csd.org/news_events/20190328/ Sustainable Agriculture Network (2011) SAN climate module criteria for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. Retrieved from www.rainforest-alliance.org: https://www.rainforest-alliance. org/lang/sites/default/files/site-documents/climate/documents/SAN-Climate-Module-Januar y2011.pdf UNDP (2020) Climate change adaptation. Kenya. Retrieved from adaptation-undp.org USAID (2018) Climate risk profile Kenya. Retrieved from: climatelinks.org on 17 Jan 2020 Worland J (2018, July 2) Your morning cup of coffee is in danger. Can the industry adapt in time? TIME. Retrieved 17 Jan 2020 from http://time.com/5318245/coffee-industry-climate-change/

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

3

Adaptive Capacity to Mitigate Climate Variability and Food Insecurity of Rural Communities Along River Tana Basin, Kenya David Karienye and Joseph Macharia

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impacts of Climate Variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adaptive Capacity to Mitigate Climate Variability Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impacts and Adaptation Strategies to Climate Variability in Arid and Semiarid Lands: A Case of Garissa and Tana River Counties in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rainfall and Temperature Impacts on Food Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Community Perception on Climate Variability and Its Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adaptations Strategies to Climate Variability in Arid and Semiarid Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50 52 54 54 54 55 57 57 58 58

Abstract

Climate variability is one of the leading natural threats and a root cause of food insecurity in the developing world, more so in Africa. It is a major impediment to the accomplishment of the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Vision 2030 and Big Four agenda in the Kenyan context. The rise in occurrence and brutality of extreme events resulting from variability of climate including prolonged flooding and drought has become more pronounced in the relatively

This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. D. Karienye (*) Department of Geography, Garissa University, Garissa, Kenya J. Macharia Department of Geography, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_57

49

50

D. Karienye and J. Macharia

drier areas. This chapter presents a synthesis about rural communities in Garissa and Tana River Counties, Kenya. The key environmental conditions that face the rural communities in the two counties are prolonged drought and recurrent flooding events. The two conditions have resulted in various challenges facing the communities in these regions through low agricultural production (food and pastures), poor infrastructure, human displacement, and the resultant extreme poverty, overall food insecurity, and tough livelihoods. The problems have been exacerbated by lack of capacity by most of the community members to cushion themselves against these impacts. However, as the conditions continue to manifest themselves, the community members have also identified adaptive mechanisms that are best suited in the region including planting drought-resistant crop varieties, diversifying their livelihoods, embrace sustainable land use, and made efforts to plant trees. We, therefore, conclude that integrated information sharing including early warning alongside affordable and appropriate technologies and crop insurance could be an entry point in cushioning the local communities in the arid and semiarid lands (ASALs) against the extreme weather conditions experienced in the region. Keywords

Adaptive capacity · Africa · Climate variability · Food insecurity · Mitigation · Rural livelihoods

Introduction Climate variability has been on the rise due to increased global atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) comprising mainly of nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and methane (IPCC 2014). Carbon dioxide is the key GHG, while as much as methane and nitrous oxide are emitted in trivial quantities in reference to carbon dioxide, they play a significant role in global warming and their associated global effects. For example, N2O, a potent gas with a high potential to deplete ozone layer, is over 265 more powerful while CH4 is 28 more powerful in their global warming potential relative to carbon dioxide, over 100 years’ time limit (IPCC 2014). These three main GHGs accounts more than 80% to the present global radiative imposing to enhanced global warming and consequently climate variability and its negative resultant effects (Myhre et al. 2013). Climate variability characterizes one of the extreme economic, environmental, and social intimidations facing the earth presently (Nnadi et al. 2019). In emerging countries, climate variability has a substantial influence on the livelihoods and living situations of the rural communities. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is a “vulnerability hot spot” of climate variability influences (Asfaw et al. 2018). SSA challenges on adaptation will raise considerably, even if the global emission gap is maintained lower than 2 °C due to limited adaptive capacity. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment (AR4) demonstrated that Africa’s vulnerability to the effects of climate variability is

3

Adaptive Capacity to Mitigate Climate Variability and Food Insecurity of. . .

51

relatively high due to low adaptive capacity and over-reliance on natural systems for their livelihoods (Mpandeli et al. 2019). Extreme occurrence of droughts is likely to become more rampant and severe in Africa (Schellnhuber et al. 2012). Consequently, climate variability is negatively affecting agricultural production, particularly in SSA where most countries rely heavily on rainfed agriculture as the mainstay of their economies (Abdul-Razak and Kruse 2017). Climate variability related to biophysical stressors is expected to worsen the existing vulnerabilities by dipping the crop yields (González-Orozco et al. 2020). It is postulated that warming more than 3 °C worldwide will see almost all of the current crops such as maize, sorghum, and millet-cultivated regions in Africa becoming unfeasible for present cultivars. Water unavailability, lower feed quality which is inaccessible, and effects of disease and heat stress will negatively affect production in the livestock sector (Schaeffer et al. 2013). According to Huq et al. (2004), climate variability has a direct impact on how humans manage natural resources and which results in food insecurity. The risks associated with climate variability threaten the capacity of livelihoods to meet basic needs, such as food and water. These effects will be more intense in the arid and semiarid lands (ASALs) where the resources are already limited, vulnerable, and could, therefore, suffer the most. To mitigate climate variability, community adaptive capacity must be pursued. According to Levina and Tirpak (2006), the term adaptive capacity has been defined differently by different authors. Different authors have explained the concept of adaptive capacity to simply mean the capacity of a natural system to positively respond to the impacts of climate variability. Policymaker also use the term adaptive capacity to refer to the ability of individual communities to respond and adjust their way of life based on the effects of climate variability and lead to adaptation. Therefore, whenever we use adaptive capacity, society and communities must come up with coping strategies especially when dealing with impacts of climate variability in order to minimize its adverse effects. Communities living in SSA are facing climate variability in a very tough way due to their lack of capacity to respond. The influences include increasing temperatures, more inconsistent rainfall, and increasing incidence of floods and droughts (CARE and ALP 2013). These impacts have severe consequences especially among the rural poor whose livelihoods are directly pegged on the very vulnerable environment. These communities heavily depend on land resources for agricultural production and therefore the impacts of climate variability have a direct impact on their livelihoods. Crop yields will decline transversely in the landmass as ideal growing temperatures are surpassed and growing periods reduced. The areas and timing of cropping activities that were previously suitable for certain crop are anticipated to shift as home-grown climates varies. In Kenya, the adverse effects of climate variability have also been witnessed particularly in the ASALs which forms ~80% of Kenyan land mass (582,646 km2) (Macharia et al. 2020). The main effects of climate variability in Kenya have been demonstrated by prolonged and frequent droughts, floods, resurgence of diseases, pests, and environmental disasters. As a result, agricultural productivity is significantly reduced, resulting to increased food insecurity and threatened livelihoods which in

52

D. Karienye and J. Macharia

most instances leads to human conflicts over scarce land and water resources (Enya et al. 2013). For instance, the La Nina occurring between 1999 and 2001 in SSA was the most prolonged and most severe ever, causing devastating effects especially on human livelihoods. The drought affected over four million people due to crop failure and the resultant reduced yields. Droughts have caused starvation, loss of life, and degradation of the environment as a result of deforestation. Variability in climate poses major threats to environmental sustenance, commercial, and sustainable development in rural areas of the arid regions of Kenya. In particular, the ASAL region of Garissa and Tana River County has been experiencing severe prolonged drought and flooding despite having River Tana traversing the region. This has led to loss of vegetation cover, drying of water catchment areas, rivers, and seasonal streams. This is then followed by heavy lack of pastures and shortage of drinking water resulting to livestock deaths. Recently, in short rains of 2018/2019, Garissa and Tana River counties experienced floods which caused severe havoc resulting to over 50 fatalities, over 15,000 people displaced, and thousands of livestock killed as a result of bursting of River Tana’s banks. In addition, extreme weather events such as flooding has spoiled or destroyed transport and communication networks and affected other nonagricultural portions of the food system badly. This has led the communities to seek alternative ways of meeting their livelihoods such as charcoal burning hence environmental degradation resulting to double tragedy from the loss of their only source of livelihood and land degradation. Against this backdrop, this study aimed to close the gap by identifying possible adaptive capacity of the vulnerable communities in the region for the purpose of coping mechanism. This study was conceived to explore the existing adaptive capacity which is sustainable and viable and which the communities would easily embrace to act as adoptive buffer towards the impacts of climate variability in Garissa and Tana River Counties.

Impacts of Climate Variability Key among the impacts of climate variability includes the following. (a) Drought Drought is a major threat globally and more so in Africa due to low adaptation capacity resulting from limited resources. Drought results in decreased moisture emanating from inadequate and erratic rainfall and high extreme temperatures. As observed by Keya (1997), moisture storage is largely dependent on rainfall received prior to the onset of drought conditions and the permeability of the soil (micro edaphic conditions). Drought has led to loss of pasture for the livestock as well as wildlife, vegetation loss, and food insecurity. This threatens the source of livelihoods of local communities in the arid lands. (b) Loss of biodiversity Ecosystem varieties will hypothetically change rapidly as heating increases with reduced precipitation, and will result to biodiversity loss. Some species may be impotent to adapt to the varying climatic conditions (Schaeffer et al. 2013).

3

Adaptive Capacity to Mitigate Climate Variability and Food Insecurity of. . .

53

High temperatures and lack of precipitation affects distribution and abundance of fauna and flora species. Substantial shifts in climatic situations could result to loss of some standing biomes and the general aesthetic appeal of our environment (Williams et al. 2007). In some instances, the changes in climate may favor the growth of invasive plant species hindering the alien species such as Prosopis Juliflora “Mathenge” a common plant in the northern Kenya. (c) Food insecurity Extreme temperatures above the ideal may have harmful consequences on crop productivity (Wheeler et al. 2000). These changes have a significant effect on the facets of food security since they negatively affect food availability, access, and utilization resulting to unstable and unreliable food systems. Kenya may experience reduced yields with the changing climate (Herrero et al. 2010). Crop yields are drastically reducing in SSA as the optimal temperature increases altering cropping and seasonal calendars (Schaeffer et al. 2013). In Africa and to a large extent, the ASALs region of East African such as Sudan, Ethiopia, and Kenya have in the past experienced hostile climate change. This has hampered crop production leading to acute shortage of food, pastures, and fibers, hence food insecurity. According to Lobell et al. (2011), yields are likely to diminish by ~1% daily for maize crops if such high-temperature regimes are consistent similar with other crops such as cotton and soybeans (Schlenker and Roberts 2009). Similarly, livestock production will be severely affected through quality feed and water availability (Schaeffer et al. 2013). (d) Human health and diseases outbreak Water availability and increased rates of disease outbreak are transformed by climate change (Schaeffer et al. 2013). The impacts of climate variability will be felt through increased infectious diseases which are relatively high in SSA. Extreme weather events may lead to illness and mortality. The level of malfunction may also be on the rise up to between 35% and 80% due to a rise of between 1.2 °C and 1.9 °C (Lloyd et al. 2011). As reported by Patz et al. (2008), flooding results to disease outbreaks including diarrhea, cholera, trachoma, and conjunctivitis. Other diseases like malaria may shift and be felt to areas where they were not felt before due to changes in temperature suitability responsible for pathogen growth. (e) Water resources Change in the hydrological sequence due to climate variability has a direct impact on water timing and circulation (Goulden et al. 2009). With most of the countries in SSA facing challenges with provision and supply of clean usable water, climate change will exacerbate this and lead to more water shortages in the coming years (Schellnhuber et al. 2012). The resultant effect will be increased disease outbreaks due to poor sanitation, low agricultural production, food insecurity, and general influence on livelihoods. Rise in temperature due to global warming would lead to a complex rate of evapotranspiration leading to increased loss from water bodies (Ogolla et al. 1997). (f) Land degradation Population increase combined climate variability impedes good resource management leading to environmental degradation (UNEP 2002b). Climate

54

D. Karienye and J. Macharia

variability is slowly encroaching and engulfing countries thus rendering their land unproductive due to variations in weather patterns and global warming. As human population grows further, the natural distribution of vegetation on earth will be altered. This leads to opening new land for agriculture and cultivation of marginal areas (UNEP 2002a). This has led to loss of natural habitats, reducing vegetation cover and exposing soils to wind and water erosion in many parts of Africa. Soil erosion has increased the rate of siltation in dams and rivers and at the same time reducing the productivity of the land.

Adaptive Capacity to Mitigate Climate Variability Impacts Adaptive capacity calls for strategies to help the communities to adapt to these extreme events such as drought and flooding. Adaptation simply means adjustments made in the existing systems as a response mechanism toward countering the effects of climate variability by the communities and individuals involved. These adjustments are mainly meant to act as a buffer and to assure proper exploitation of the new opportunities that minimize harm and as they present themselves. Therefore understanding the adaptive capacity by farmers is crucial to effective adaptation planning since it assures continuous production crucial to effective planning and guarantees human survival (Chepkoech et al. 2020). With the projected increase in global temperature, likely to result to increase in global warming, it’s thus inevitable for individuals and communities to find adaptive ways which guarantees their survival. Adaptive measures toward climate change are no longer regarded as second measured but should be taken as primary consideration especially by farmers. However, the adaptation capacity in most African countries is low mainly due to lack of capacity to invest in the recent technologies which have been studied and found to promote better survival and livelihoods. Majority of agriculture in SSA is rainfed with only a very small percentage of farmers with a capacity to carry out irrigation which makes it difficult to predict due to climate variability. Further, the challenges are associated with lack of reliable weather data to inform on policy, and therefore most of the countries lack early warning systems that can be used early enough to caution the governments of possible climate-related calamities.

Impacts and Adaptation Strategies to Climate Variability in Arid and Semiarid Lands: A Case of Garissa and Tana River Counties in Kenya Rainfall and Temperature Impacts on Food Security From a data synthesis on annual rainfall and temperature over a period of 20 years for Garissa and Tana River counties indicate that rainfall was characterized with extended dry season occurring between January and February. The long rainy season occurs between March and May (MAM) while prolonged dry season occurs from

3

Adaptive Capacity to Mitigate Climate Variability and Food Insecurity of. . .

55

Fig. 1 Reduced River Tana flow during the month of October. (Courtesy of D. Karienye)

mid-May to mid-October, while short rainy season begins in mid-October to end of December of each year. There are fewer days of more intense rainfall with the rains often starting late but intense which are described as “very unreliable” (that is seasonal failures are common). Similarly, for temperatures, the highest temperature amounts were observed between February and March, which coincides with the same time when rainfall is lowest in the study area. Around September–October, the temperatures are also at highest. Temperature increase has an important impact on water availability, thus aggravating drought conditions. Decreases in rainfall have profound repercussions on river flows leading to declining river discharge (Fig. 1). The months that saw an increased rise in temperature also experienced drought. This can be explained by the high evapotranspiration making the vegetation deficient of moisture leading to crop and pasture failure. However, in trying to escape the droughts, the few well-endowed farmers practiced drip irrigation and greenhouse farming as indicated in Fig. 2. This ensured a reduction in the impact of droughts. This low number of farmers adopting new farming mechanisms, and which is a shift from rainfed agricultural production can be explained by the high cost of the greenhouses’ infrastructures. This represents an innovative technology in response to the changing weather patterns though the adoption rates remain relatively low due to high cost.

Community Perception on Climate Variability and Its Impacts From the interaction with the community, majority of the households were extremely worried about climate variability and identified rainfall to be very unpredictable

56

D. Karienye and J. Macharia

Fig. 2 Farmers practicing greenhouses and drip irrigation. (Courtesy of D. Karienye)

Fig. 3 Land degradation through charcoal burning. (Courtesy of D. Karienye)

stating that there exists a consistently prolonged dry period every now and then. Nevertheless, farmers believe that temperatures have already increased and precipitation has declined or is unpredictable (Karienye et al. 2019). The impact of climate variability has been felt mainly by reduced crop production, extreme cases of flooding, and land degradation as evident by charcoal burning (Fig. 3) and reduced biodiversity. The reduced precipitation coupled with flooding leads to crop failure which destroys the crops that are grown along River Tana. Floods have in the past been responsible for causing disruption in transport systems and displaced residents living in the low-land areas which are prone to flooding (CARE and ALP 2013).

3

Adaptive Capacity to Mitigate Climate Variability and Food Insecurity of. . .

57

Fig. 4 Community-based agro forestry programs. (Courtesy of J. Macharia)

Adaptations Strategies to Climate Variability in Arid and Semiarid Land Based on their own experiences and from sharing information among themselves, most of the households in these ASALS of Kenya have identified several adaptive strategies to cushion them against the extreme conditions. The communities preferred livelihood diversification (business, cropping, and livestock) as an alternative livelihood option, sustainable use of the land including conservation agriculture, mulching, building trenches and ditches around the homesteads and watering crops using cans during dry spell. They have also adopted drought-tolerant and early maturing crop species, changing eating behaviors and afforestation (Fig. 4).

Conclusions From our synthesis, the rainy seasons are no longer predictable thereby prohibiting any farming activities. The impacts of climate variability in the ASALs are mainly through extreme conditions of drought and flooding. The two conditions have resulted to various challenges facing the communities in these regions through low agricultural production (food and pastures), poor infrastructure, population displacement resulting to extreme poverty, overall food insecurity, and tough livelihoods. These challenges are exacerbated further by the inability of the majority of the communities to cushion themselves against the impacts of climate variability and this becomes a cyclic problem year in year out. The better-endowed community members have invested in greenhouses and drip irrigations to ensure continuous

58

D. Karienye and J. Macharia

supply of food particularly for their domestic consumptions. However, efforts by the local communities have been identified where they have, through experience over time, resulted to planting drought-resistant crop varieties, diversified their livelihoods, embraced sustainable land use, and made efforts to plant trees. It’s imperative to note that well-informed, adaptive, and forward-looking decision making is central to adaptive capacity of the host communities. In order for community to respond to expected changes and to participate in adaptive decision-making, they require precise information, knowledge and skills that enable them to actively address climate risks to their livelihoods. Therefore, adaptation energies must aim to ease access to information and the development of the skills and knowledge needed for accurate adaptation targeting. Institutions and agencies responsible for policy formulation should ensure an enabling atmosphere for local adaptation efforts.

Recommendations In order to embrace the adaptive capacity as long-term practical solutions, the following are recommended: • Monitoring daily weather patterns and improving scientific understanding of climate. • The community needs to be trained on affordable and appropriate technologies such as sustainable agriculture. • Promotion of climate-smart crops farming. • Promotion of insurance services against the consequences of catastrophic weather events to mitigate against climate variability. • Provision of early warning systems to the communities. • There is a need to build community-based capacities in planning, coordination, and implementation of climate change adaptation activities and programs. • Intensification of tree planting through community-owned nurseries, establish green zones, and invest in reforestation programs.

References Abdul-Razak M, Kruse S (2017) The adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers to climate change in the Northern Region of Ghana. Clim Risk Manag 17:104–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. crm.2017.06.001 Asfaw A, Simane B, Hassen A, Bantider A (2018) Variability and time series trend analysis of rainfall and temperature in northcentral Ethiopia: a case study in Woleka sub-basin. Weather Clim Extrem 19:29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2017.12.002 CARE, ALP (2013) Climate change vulnerability and adaptive capacity in Garissa County. Care International and Adaptive Learning Program (ALP), p 20. http://www.careclimatechange.org/ files/CVCA_Kenya_Report__Final.pdf Chepkoech W, Mungai NW, Stöber S, Lotze-Campen H (2020) Understanding adaptive capacity of smallholder African indigenous vegetable farmers to climate change in Kenya. Clim Risk Manag 27:100204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2019.100204

3

Adaptive Capacity to Mitigate Climate Variability and Food Insecurity of. . .

59

Enya D, Niversity K, Enya H (2013) National implementing entity – NEMA – Kenya programme, proposal programme title: integrated programme to build resilience to executing entities, October 2013 (Feb) González-Orozco CE, Porcel M, Alzate Velásquez DF, Orduz-Rodríguez JO (2020) Extreme climate variability weakens a major tropical agricultural hub. Ecol Indic 111:106015. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.106015 Goulden M, Conway D, Persechino A (2009) Adaptation to climate change in international river basins in Africa: a review. Hydrol Sci J 54(5):805–828 Herrero M, Ringler C, van de Steeg J, Thornton P, Zhu T, Bryan E, Omolo A, Koo J, Notenbaert A (2010) Climate variability and climate change and their impacts on the agricultural sector. ILRI report to the World Bank for the project “adaptation to climate change of smallholder agriculture in Kenya”. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi Huq S, Reid H, Konate M, Rahman A, Sokona Y, Crick F (2004) Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in least developed countries (LDCs). Clim Pol 4(1):25–43 IPCC (2014) Summary for policymakers. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E (eds) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Karienye D, Nduru G, Kamiri H (2019) Socioeconomics determinants of banana farmers perception to climate change in Nyeri County, Kenya. J Arts Humanit 8(8):89–101 Keya GA (1997) Environmental triggers of germination and phenological events in an arid savannah region of northern Kenya. J Arid Environ 37:91–106 Levina E, Tirpak D (2006) Adaptation to climate change: key terms. OECD, Paris Lloyd SJ, Kovats RS, Chalabi Z (2011) Climate change, crop yields, and under nutrition: development of a model to quantify the impact of climate scenarios on child under nutrition. Environ Health Perspect 119(12):1817–1823 Lobell DB, Schlenker W, Costa-Roberts J (2011) Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science 333(6042):616–620. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204531 Macharia J, Ngetich F, Shisanya C (2020) Comparison of satellite remote sensing derived precipitation estimates and observed data in Kenya. Agric For Meteorol 284:107875. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107875 Mpandeli S, Nhamo L, Moeletsi M, Masupha T, Magidi J, Tshikolomo K, . . . Mabhaudhi T (2019) Assessing climate change and adaptive capacity at local scale using observed and remotely sensed data. Weather Clim Extrem 26:100240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2019.100240 Myhre G, Shindell D, Bréon F-M, Collins W, Fuglestvedt J, Huang J, Koch D, Lamarque J-F, Lee D, Mendoza B, Nakajima T, Robock A, Stephens G, Takemura T, Zhang H (2013) Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp 659–740. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781107415324.018 Nnadi OI, Liwenga ET, Lyimo JG, Madukwe MC (2019) Impacts of variability and change in rainfall on gender of farmers in Anambra, Southeast Nigeria. Heliyon 5(7):e02085. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02085 Ogolla J, Abira M, Awour V (eds) (1997) Potentials impacts of climate change in Kenya. Motif Creative Arts Ltd, Nairobi Patz JA, Olson SH, Uejo CK, Gibbs HK (2008) Disease emergence from global climate and land use change. Med Clin N Am 92:1473–1491 Schaeffer M, Baarsch F, Adams S, de Bruin K, De Marez L, Freitas S, . . . Hare B (2013) Africa’s adaptation gap: technical report. Climate change impacts, adaptation challenges and costs for Africa. United Nations Environment Programme, New York. http://www.unep.org/pdf/ AfricaAdapatationGapreport.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2016 Schellnhuber HJ, Hare W, Serdeczny O, Adams S, Coumou D, Frieler K, . . . Rocha M (2012) Turn down the heat: why a 4°C warmer world must be avoided (no. INIS-FR–14-0299). Sauvons le Climat (SLC), Paris

60

D. Karienye and J. Macharia

Schlenker W, Roberts MJ (2009) Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106(37):15594–15598. Retrieved from: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15594 UNEP (2002a) Global Environment Outlook 3. Earthscan Publication, London UNEP (2002b) Vital climate graphics Africa. UNEP Publication, Nairobi Wheeler T, Craufurd P, Ellis R, Porter J, Vara Prasad P (2000) Temperature variability and the yield of annual crops. Agric Ecosyst Environ 82:159–167 Williams JW, Jackson ST, Kutzbach JE (2007) Projected distributions of novel and disappearing climates by 2100 AD. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(14):5738–5742

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

4

Agricultural Interventions to Enhance Climate Change Adaptation of Underutilized Root and Tuber Crops Joseph P. Gweyi-Onyango, Michael Ajanja Sakha, and Joyce Jefwa

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major Roots and Tuber Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cassava . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sweet Potatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irish Potato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cocoyams (Arrow Roots) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Root and Tuber Crop Production in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agricultural Interventions for Adaptation to Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bio Fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organic Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tie-Ridging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Improved Seed Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Management of Community Seed Banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cropping Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irrigation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exploiting Abandoned Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agroforestry Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clean Seed Production Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62 65 65 65 66 66 67 67 69 69 72 74 75 75 76 77 78 79 79 80 81 81

This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. J. P. Gweyi-Onyango Department of Agricultural Science and Technology, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya M. A. Sakha (*) · J. Jefwa Botany Department, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_40

61

62

J. P. Gweyi-Onyango et al.

Abstract

Agricultural intensification worldwide is increasingly relying on a narrow range of crops such as rice, wheat, and maize. The reliability on this relatively small numbers of food diversities raises a very serious concern about the sustainability managing our nutrition today and in the future. We conducted a scoping review using online databases to identify various agricultural interventions that can be utilized for enhancement of underutilized root and tuber crops adaptability under the current observable effects of climate change. This is because reports of underutilized crops’ adaptability to climate change continues to remain anecdotal with limited research capacity to support them. The results mooted a wide range of crop production techniques that can be utilized in production of root and tuber crops. They includes biofertilizers, tied ridging method, improved seed varieties, management of community seed banks, cropping systems, irrigation methods, exploiting abandoned lands, agroforestry practice, clean seed production technologies, and nutrient use efficiency. Based on the findings, each of these interventions plays different roles in management of the negative impacts brought up by climate change and thus they would be useful when adopted in combination since package adoption would enable farmers to benefit from the positive synergy of the selected interventions. The interventions are therefore recommended not only for sustainability but also for profitable production to meet feed, food, energy, and fiber needs and foster economic growth in the ever changing world. Therefore this chapter contributes immensely towards the development of innovative mechanisms for strengthening the resilience of root and tuber crop. Keywords

Agricultural intensification · Sustainability · Adaptability

Introduction The root and tuber crops are group of plants which yields tubers, starchy roots, corms, stems, and rhizomes. Okigbo (1989) defined while tuber crops as crops with edible carbohydrate-rich storage organs developing wholly or partly from underground stems while root crops as edible crops with energy-rich underground plant structures developing from modified roots. Major tropical root and tuber crops are: cassava (Manihot esculenta); potato (Solanum spp.); sweet potato (Ipomea batata); yam (Dioscorea spp.); aroids like elephant foot yam [Amorphophallus paeoniifolius (Dennst.) Nicolson]; taro [Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott.], and tannia [Xanthosoma sagittifolium (L.) Schott.]. Additionally, there are minor tubers such as Chinese potato [Plectranthus rotundifolius (Poir.) J.K. Morton.]; yam bean [(Pachyrhizus erosus (L.) Urban], and arrowroot [Maranta arundinacea (L.)]. These crops are vegetatively propagated and plays major roles in food sector

4

Agricultural Interventions to Enhance Climate Change Adaptation of. . .

63

especially by managing the well-being of people in developing countries. According to FAO (2009), these crops are produced in approximately 53.93 million hectares globally and this produce about 736.747million tonnes annually. In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), many people highly depend on root and tuber crops but not all as a contributory if not the primary source of their food and nutrition. This is also because of the role they play in food security, their ability to resist drought, as well as their capacity for commercial processing in Kenya. Actually they were ranked as the second most important food crop in 2019 by the ministry of agriculture after cereals (MoALF 2019). At the moment, the Kenya is producing 3.68 M MT of Irish potatoes, cassava, sweet potatoes, yam, and cocoyams. However, their yield is below average which is much way below country’s potential. For instance Irish potatoes stands at 7MT per ha compared to the potential of 25 MT achieved under optimal husbandry practices (MoALF 2019). Root and tuber crops are considered to be resilient because they are more adaptable to marginal areas. This areas are characterized by edaphic and climatic conditions that may not be favorable to the non-native materials. These crops are tolerant to poor soils and drought stress. They also grow very well on welldrained soils, with good organic matter, and especially those with loose and friable fertile clay loam or loam. Moreover, the optimal conditions for their growth are: annual rainfall ranging between 1000 and 2000 mm, temperature of 18–35 °C, and a soil pH ranging between 5 and 7.5. Nevertheless their planting differs from another case in point Coleus potato, tuberous rhizomes, or seed tubers are normally planted about 5 cm in depth on raised beds and are spaced at 15–20 cm while in Amora; they are planted at about 15 cm deep and a distance of 30–40 cm (Codd 1985). These crops are also well known to serve as important components of subsistence farming system in their native areas and have played crucial, if not weighty roles income generation and in household food security of the rural areas. As food crops these crops are very rich in carbohydrates and on that account they play a paramount role as part of our daily diet, accounting for over 50% of the total staple food. In terms of energy requirements for global population, they contribute 3.9% energy that is sweet potato 1.5%, cassava 1.9%, yams and other root and tuber crops 0.3%. Along with this potatoes produce additional protein and dry matter per hectare than key cereals (Birch et al. 2012). Monneveux et al. (2013) also reported that potatoes have higher water generative capacity than cereals and are considered among the most energy productive crops, producing 5,600 kcal/m3 of water, compared to 3860 in maize, 2300 in wheat, and 2000 in rice. Other root and tuber crops such as taro, yautia, and yam, also have notable energy values and inconsistent nutritional properties, including vitamin C, dietary fiber, and carotenoids (Asiedu and Sartie 2010). At the same time these crop plays a meaningful role as cash crops. They literally hold strong economic potential and can be financially rewarding to the agricultural economies. Finally these crops are progressively being used as a source of raw material for industrial use and for feeding the livestock. In comparison to other staple food crops, they provide comparatively

64

J. P. Gweyi-Onyango et al.

huge amounts of nutrition and energy per unit area and time, they require lessintensive management systems even under risky environmental conditions. Consequently, these crops are very important in fighting famine caused by floods, droughts, civil strife, and other climatic catastrophe such as pests and diseases which seems to be unending in some countries. Climate change is a menace posing extreme stress to the environment and also to the humans. Deschenes and Greenstone (2006) reported that it has an adverse effect on humans and their income-generating activities especially agriculture owing to its dependence on nature, largely temperature and precipitation. In addition climate change influences soil functions both directly and indirectly. The direct influence include soil process, namely, changes in organic matter and nutrient cycling and this is through adjusting temperature and moisture regimes or through increased soil erosion rates caused by increased frequency of intense rainfall occurrence. This causes severely effects on agriculture especially on the crops being grown. As a matter of fact, Africa is one of the riskiest continents to the ongoing climate variability causing robust negative economic impacts. This vulnerability is accentuated by development challenges specifically ecosystem degradation and endemic poverty which are supported by limited access to capital, infrastructure, markets, and technology (IPCC 2007). Small-scale farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, who are the majority, have historically been confronted with high climate variability. Some of its negative effects on farm include decreased soil fertility and limited plant growth (Dhankher and Foyer 2018). Despite smallholder farming systems having proven to be resilient and being viable in risk-prone environments, climate change is likely to outpace their current coping capabilities (Morton 2007), if effective measures are not implemented. Specifically, low levels of income and technology, coupled with isolation from markets and lack of institutional support, are common characteristics of smallholder farming systems that make them particularly vulnerable to changes in external conditions (Morton 2007). This is worsened by the fact that food security and livelihood programs mostly stress on grain crops such as maize, rice, and wheat. In support of this, Atakos (2018) reported that only one or two studies have looked into the future potential of root tuber crops and their possible importance even with climate change. Our dependence on this relatively small number of food species therefore elevates serious concerns of feeding the whole world sustainably. In such context, investment in sustainable agricultural technologies and practices becomes crucial for adaption to sustain crop productivity to be able to feed the growing populations. In particular to able to reduce the negative effects of climate change on the agri-food system, Sombroek and Gommes (1997) proposed that populations and economic systems must be able adapt to future climatic conditions. Since root and tuber crops play a great role as source of nutrition, and on the other hand, researchers are advocating for mitigation and adaptation as possible options to combat the adverse effects of climate change on agriculture, this chapter therefore focus on agricultural interventions that can enhance climate change adaptation of underutilized root and tuber crops.

4

Agricultural Interventions to Enhance Climate Change Adaptation of. . .

65

Major Roots and Tuber Crops Cassava Cassava (Manihot esculenta) is a perennial woody shrub which grows as an annual crop. It is also referred as manioc, mandioca, or yuca, which is in the spurge family (Euphorbiaceae) (Hillocks et al. 2002). This crop is also known as the “king of tropical tuber crops” and has a significant position in the global agricultural economies. According Bennett (2015), the crop is ranked as the second most important food source in Africa with regard to calories consumed per capita. Cassava is native to South America (Allem 2002) but it is grown all over tropics and subtropics. It is largely produced in Brazil followed by Thailand, Nigeria, DR Congo, and Indonesia, even though about half of the global production is in Africa. The crop is grown in about forty African countries where it is recognized as an important food crop particularly in Nigeria, DR Congo, Ghana, Mozambique, Uganda, Cameroon, Madagascar, Angola, Côte d’Ivoire, Tanzania, Benin, and Kenya. FAO 2000 revealed that about 70% of Africa’s cassava production is obtained in Nigeria, Tanzania, and DR. Congo. It has been proposed that cassava could potentially be hardy to climate change than other staple crops (Jarvis et al. 2012). Likewise Nweke et al. (2002) revealed that cassava can grow well in marginal lands, and that it requires low farm inputs. The average cassava root yield is about 11.6 t/h worldwide (FAO 2018) which is exceedingly lower than its potential yield of 60 t/ha under better farming practices which was reported in some parts of Africa (Kintché et al. 2017). Even though FAOSTAT (2014) reported that world production of cassava storage roots improved tremendously from 176 to 277 million Mg between 2000 and 2013. Major limiting factors for cassava production are low soil fertility and pests and diseases.

Sweet Potatoes Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam) is a herbaceous dicotyledonous plant belonging to Convolvulaceae family (Purseglove 1972). The plant has creeping, perennial vines and adventitious roots (Purseglove 1972). It is grown for its green leaves and storage roots which are very useful for human consumption, feeding animal, and to a certain extent, for industrial purpose (Woolfe 1992). For that reasons, according to Motsa et al. (2015), the crop plays a critical role for food security and income generation for many households. Consequently, the crop is extensively cultivated in tropical, subtropical, and frost-free temperate climatic areas of the world (Onwueme and Sinha 1991). Sweet potato is ranked as the seventh most important food crop globally because it contributes majorly in terms of energy and nutrition (Marques 2015). The crop also matures at a very short time on marginal lands and play an important role in the economy of poor households (Nath et al. 2007). As stated by Ukom et al. (2009), the crop is important for its storage roots which can either be baked, cooked, fried, or

66

J. P. Gweyi-Onyango et al.

roasted for human consumption. Its storage roots can also be processed into flour for baking bread, making noodles, as well as for alcohol production. In addition, the storage roots are very good source of vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin B6, dietary fiber, manganese, copper, potassium, and iron (Baybutt et al. 2000). Even though the crop has a high storage root yield potential ranging between 20 and 50 t/ha (Kivuva et al. 2014), in Sub-Saharan Africa, this is yet to be realized since its production is still less than 10 t/ha (FAOSTAT 2017).

Yam Yams (Dioscorea spp.) are tropical plants with large food reserve in their underground tubers and comprise of various species that originated from Southeast Asia, West Africa, East Africa, Brazil, and Guyana. The main species are Dioscorea alata (greater or water yam), Dioscorea cayenensis (yellow guinea yam), Dioscorea esculenta (lesser yam), and Dioscorea rotundata (white guinea yam) (Arnau et al. 2010), and this comprises both annual and perennial species. They cultivated all over the tropics and in some parts of subtropics and temperate areas. FAO (2000) reported that up to 95% of the world’s production is realized in West Africa. The tubers are very important and constitute stored wealth since they can be sold all-year-round by farmers because they can be stored for relatively longer period of time in comparison with other tropical fresh produce (Aidoo 2009). The tubers also provide a substantial amount of vitamins (vitamin B1 and C), potassium, and iron (Rudrappa 2013). Most essentially many of the yam species have high content of steroidal saponins which make them suitable for industrial use as corticosteroids precursors and anti-cancer bioactive compounds. Besides being staple food that is consumed by about 155 million people in the world, yams are grown as cash crop, as medicinal plant, and have high cultural value for the groups cultivating it (Coursey 1981). Major hindrance for intensifying yam productivity is low soil fertility (both in terms of macro- and micronutrient deficiency) (O’Sullivan and Ernest 2007). This is because Dioscorea spp. are high-nutrient-demanding crops (Carsky et al. 2010). Therefore, yams still remains being categorized as orphan crop (Naylor et al. 2004).

Irish Potato Irish potato (Solanum tuberesum L.) is indigenous to South America near the present border of Peru and Bolivia but not Ireland (Spooner et al. 2005). According to Robert and Cartwhight (2006), it belongs to the family solanaceae, and is named after Ireland country because it is associated with the Irish potato famine, also known as the Great Hunger. This was a historic famine caused by Phytophthora infestans which infected Irish potato crop. This crop plays a crucial role in the economy and is ranked number one non-grain food commodity (Rykaczewska 2013). Globally it is ranked third most important food crop in consumption after rice and

4

Agricultural Interventions to Enhance Climate Change Adaptation of. . .

67

wheat (Birch et al. 2012). It has a worldwide cultivation exceeding 19.34 million hectare in more than 158 countries, with an approximate yearly production of 364 million tons (FAOSTAT 2014). According to Tshisola (2014) in Africa, it is regarded as one of the most important food crops. Practically the crop contains all the requisite dietary components such as protein, vitamins, carbohydrates, essential nutrients, and minerals (Sriom et al. 2017). Additionally it is a source income and employment opportunity in developing countries. Unfortunately, limiting factors to its production include short day lengths, low light intensities, high temperatures, and most importantly low soil fertility (Jones and Wendt 1994).

Cocoyams (Arrow Roots) Cocoyam (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott.) is a member of Araceae family (Purseglove 1975) and is a subsistence and emergency food source globally (IFA 1992). It is an important starchy tuberous herbaceous perennial plant (Purseglove 1975). The crop has different varieties and commonly produced varieties are Colocasia esculenta (Taro) and Xanthosoma sagittifolium (Tannia). They also occur in all tropics and have been domesticated in most communities in Oceania, Africa, and Asia (Ramanatha et al. 2010). The crop is cultivated for its edible cormels, corms, and leaves as well as other traditional uses (Pinto and Onwueme 2000). As food for consumption, it is essentially a source of calories obtained from underground corm and cormel (Davies et al. 2008). Their leaves which resemble spinach are nutritious and are source mineral and vitamin (Sefa-Dedeh and Kofi-Agyir 2002). Primarily, fresh cocoyam hold about 70–80% water, 20–75% carbohydrate, and 1.5–3.0% protein (Udo et al. 2005). It actually contains over 80% and 240% higher digestible crude protein than yam and cassava, respectively. Therefore this crop is high-ranking nutritionally than cassava and yam in terms of protein and other elements such as vitamin and mineral content. However, the crop still remains to be underexploited food resource (Onyeka 2014).

Root and Tuber Crop Production in Kenya Ministry of agriculture, livestock, and fisheries of Kenya report indicate that roots and tuber crops production stagnated for a period of 3 years (2012 to 2015) with an average cultivated zone of about 240,000 ha, which gave a total production level of 3.3 million MT although these reduced to 2.4 MT in 2016 (MoALF 2019). This elicited the national government to draft a strategy (the national root and tuber crops development strategy 2019–2022) to help in upscaling their production. This was an initiative of the national government of Kenya, but it was being supported by other key stakeholders such as the European Union, and by organizations like Self Help Africa (Table 1).

Source: MoALF 2019

Commodity Year Irish potato Sweet potato Cassava Cocoyams Yams Total

Area (Ha) 2012 99,475 66,971 73,144 2,869 874 245,345

2013 104,560 58,509 65,634 3,654 998 235,368

2014 115,604 61,067 63,7265 2,155 1210 245,775

Production (MT) 2012 1,436,718 859,549 930,922 26,716 10,143 3,266,060

Table 1 Production trends of roots and tuber crops in Kenya (2012–2016) 2013 1,667,690 729,645 935,089 45,346 13,569 3,393,352

2014 1,626,027 763,643 858,461 27,619 20,028 3,297,792

2015 1,172,262 1,232,332 709,926 – – 3,114,520

2016 1,150,112 697,324 571,845 – – 2,419,281

68 J. P. Gweyi-Onyango et al.

Agricultural Interventions to Enhance Climate Change Adaptation of. . .

Fig. 1 Forecast sustained per capita demand for roots and tubers to 2050. (Source: Wiebe 2015). WLD ¼ World; EAP ¼ East Asia and Pacific; EUR ¼ Europe; FSU ¼ Former Soviet Union; LAC ¼ Latin America and Caribbean; MEN ¼ Middle East and North Africa; NAM ¼ North America; SAS ¼ South Asia; SSA ¼ sub-Saharan Africa

69

Roots & tubers

180 160 140

kg/cap/year

4

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 WLD

EAP

EUR 2010

FSU

LAC

2030

MEN NAM

SAS

SSA

2050

In sub-Saharan African counties, there are noticeable cultural preferences for root and tuber crops, and using the Impact General Equilibrium Model, a 2015 analysis the International Food Policy Research Institute revealed that per capita consumption of these crops continues to rise (Fig. 1). Therefore, because of its low productivity brought by the effects of climate change and which cannot meet their demand, there is need to enhance their resilience to climate change using innovative ways.

Agricultural Interventions for Adaptation to Climate Change Farmers, especially small-scale farmers, still use indigenous farming practices which lead up to ultimately low yields. This is coupled to farmer’s nonadoption of better crop production strategies and lack of improved and high-yielding varieties. Moreover, these farmers on their own do have other alternatives that can help them bear and share loses or modifies threats. On the other hand, climate change adaptation should be built on sound and a working ecosystems, as it provides a variety of benefits and services on which agricultural production systems and rural livelihoods depend. Therefore, this calls for adoption of new technologies while producing these crop to help us throughout this challenging times. To this end, this chapter provide the suitable technologies available that can be exploited to increase root tuber crops adaptability to climate change. The technologies include:

Bio Fertilizers By definition, bio fertilizers are products containing natural occurring microorganisms that are artificially multiplied for ameliorating soil fertility. Each and every type of crops grown in different agro-ecological zones can benefit from their

70

J. P. Gweyi-Onyango et al.

use, since they are valuable to the environment. This is because they are enabling farmers to minimize the use of modern chemical fertilizers in crop production. In particular, they are designed to improve nutrient availability or reduce pest pressure. According to Malik et al. (2011), constant use of microbial-based bio-fertilizers enables microbial population to persist in the soil which helps in soil fertility conservation (Table 2). Phosphate-Solubilizing Microorganisms (PSM): They are a group of beneficial microorganisms that capable of hydrolyzing inorganic and organic insoluble phosphorus compounds to soluble phosphorus form that can easily be absorbed by plants. They include various soil fungi and bacteria, and important species are Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Penicillium, and Aspergillus. Hikmatullah and K. Nugroho (1994) reported that their abilities of phosphate solubilization from organic materials differs due to their differences in their capacity to produce organic acids that play a key role in releasing phosphorus bound by aluminum, iron, and calcium ions. Specifically, this is because organic acids released by microorganisms are different in quantity and quality (Jha et al. 2013). Some of the organic acids released that are capable of freeing AI-P bond include Malic acid, malonic, tartaric, oxalic, and citric (Marbun et al. 2015). These organic acids decrease the soil pH in their locality to cause the dissolution of bound phosphates in soil. Khan et al. (2009) reported that 1 g of fertile soil can hold 101 to 1010 bacteria, and their live weight may exceed 2,000 kg ha1. Similarly Chen et al. (2006) outlined that among the whole microbial community in soil, phosphate solubilizing bacteria comprise 1–50% while phosphate solubilizing fungi comprise 0.1–0.5% of the total respective community. Therefore, microbial-based biofertilizers can be utilized to boost soil microbial population whenever they are low and when cultivating root and tuber crops. With high density of PSMs, it is expected that microbial phosphate solubilization can compete effectively with other microorganisms in the soil. Phosphorus Mobilizing Fungi: This group comprise of the arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi (AM fungi) that belongs to the phylum Glomeromycota (Schüßler et al. 2001). The fungi form a mutualistic relationship with most terrestrial plants. In the association, the plants benefit through various ways such as water and essential Table 2 Types of biofertilizers for root and tuber crops Phosphorus-solubilizing microoganisms 1) Bacteria Bacillus megaterium var. phosphaticum, Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus circulans, Pseudomonas striata 2) Fungi Penicillium sp, Aspergillus awamori Phosphorus mobilizing fungi 1) Arbuscular Glomus sp., Gigaspora sp., Acaulospora sp., Scutellospora sp. & mycorrhiza fungi Sclerocystis sp. Micro nutrients solubilizers 1) Silicate solubilizers Bacillus sp. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria 1) Pseudomonas Pseudomonas fluorescens Source: (Kumar et al. 2017)

4

Agricultural Interventions to Enhance Climate Change Adaptation of. . .

71

nutrients uptake, and also by enhancing plant tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses (Augé et al. 2015). This multifunctional ability and diversity of AM fungi has led to the development of mycorrhizal inoculants for use as biofertilizers in agriculture. Actually, most land plants are facultative symbionts such that they gain from AM fungi, yet they can also live without them, although at reasonable fitness cost. However, some plant species are obligate parasites on the fungus such that they are fully dependent on fungal nutrition (mycoheterotrophs) and have lost photosynthetic capacity (Graham et al. 2017). Since mycorrhizal inoculations has been used for decades to stimulate plant growth for several crop, root and tuber crops which are highly mycorrhizal could also profit from the numerous services offered by this fungi not only in increasing their resilience to climate change but also their productivity. For instance, according to a report by Sieverding (1991) AM fungi inoculation of cassava increased its fresh roots weight by up to 5 t/ha. Micronutrients Solubilizers: Such as Silicate solubilizing bacteria (SSB) are microorganisms that are able to degrade silicates and aluminum silicates in soil. These microorganisms such as Collimonas, Janthinobacterium, Proteobacteria, Aminobacter, Burkholderia, Dyella, and Frateuria are reported to solubilize the biotite which hold substantial amounts of silicate minerals (Uroz et al. 2009). During their metabolism, various organic acids are released which plays double roles in silicate weathering. These species supply hydrogen ions to the media which encourages hydrolysis. As well the organic acids let out such as oxalic acid, Keto acids, citric and hydroxyl carbolic acids form complexes with cations, which foster their removal and retention in the media in a dissolved state. Since phosphorus and potassium are crucial macro elements for plant growth and development, P and K chemical fertilizers are regularly applied to replace the removed minerals in soil for yield optimization; SSB also plays an efficient role not only in solubilizing insoluble forms of silicates but also potassium and phosphates, hence this microorganisms when applied would increase the soil fertility, thereby enhancing root and tuber crops productivity. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR): Also referred as yield improving bacteria (YIB) are a group of bacteria that are known to increases plant growth and yield by-way-of several plant growth promoting substances as well as bio fertilizers. They are distinguished as free-living soil microorganisms colonizing plant roots and brings into play a beneficial effect on plant development and/or subdue plant pathogens. The microorganisms include; Alcaligenes, Agrobacterium, Bacillus, Bradyrhizobium, Burkholderia, Enterobacter, Frankia, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, Arthrobacter, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Rhizobium, and Serratia. The genera enclose most PGPR with well-known benefits on different crop species (Tailor and Joshi 2014). There are numerous mechanisms through which the bacteria helps the plants including: inducement of increased nutrient uptake (termed Bio fertilizers), provision of nutrients by way of nitrogen fixation and phosphate solubilization, better plant growth promotion through the production of phytohormones (termed Bio stimulants), and the suppression of plant pathogens or the induction of systemic

72

J. P. Gweyi-Onyango et al.

resistance to diseases (termed Bio protectants) (Vessey 2003). Also species of Pseudomonas and Bacillus produce plant growth regulators that stimulate crops to produce many fine roots which increases the surface area over which plant roots absorb water and nutrients. Due to their multiple roles, research on these growth regulators has been rising and a number of experiments (both in vivo and in vitro) have been tested on different crops including root and tuber crops. For example, Bacillus and Pseudomonas sp. have been tried on potatoes and they have helped in improving phosphorus uptake, promoting indole acetic acid (IAA) production, and for biocontrol (Hunziker et al. 2015). Therefore, these microorganism can be very useful in fostering the growth and yield of root and tuber crops, with minor inputs of agrochemicals.

Organic Agriculture Organic agriculture can be defined as a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems, and people. This management system helps in mitigating climate change by diminishing the emissions of greenhouse gases and by sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Organic agriculture is reported to be the most sustainable approach in food production. This is because it highly emphasizes on recycling practices and use of low external input for realization of high output. In addition, its principles dwell on increasing soil fertility, its diversity at all levels, and mitigating soil erosion. Some management options of organic agriculture are generally considered to have both mitigation and adaptation benefits since they increase soil carbon. Ciais et al. (2013) stated that soil carbon provides a mitigation benefit by storing carbon taken out of the atmosphere by plants during photosynthesis. Soils with higher amounts of carbon are associated with greater water holding capacity, increased nutrient availability, and higher yield potentials, which could prove adaptive in a future climate (Stokes and Howden 2010). Organic agriculture practices are innovative way that can be used to increase these crops adaptability to climate change.

Soil Organic Matter Management Soil organic matter (SOM) is a major measure of agricultural productivity and general soil health. Mean annual temperature and precipitation are major climatic drivers of SOM levels and dynamics. Long-term field trials and farm comparison show that organically managed soils have notably higher organic matter content. According to Foereid and Høgh-Jensen (2004), it was evaluated that under Northern European conditions, changing from conventional to organic agriculture resulted in enhanced SOM ranging from 100 to 400 kgha1 yearly during the first 50 years. Therefore, after a hundred years of organic agriculture, it is estimated that a steady state of stable level of SOM would be realized. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that composting 1 ton of organic matter gave a net storage of about 600 pounds of carbon dioxide (EPA 2006). Even though all kinds of agriculture poses the capability of sequestering carbon, essentially organic agriculture can sequestrate remarkably more carbon than conventional

4

Agricultural Interventions to Enhance Climate Change Adaptation of. . .

73

systems (Don 2007). This is because organic agriculture restrains the use of chemical fertilizer and pesticide and integrates use of cover crops especially from leguminous plants, and place in order increasing soil organic matter as the first step. Therefore, to sequester more carbon as possibly brought up by climate change, it is necessary to incorporate SOM management practices when producing root and tuber crops.

Mulching Mulching is a traditional practice which involves the covering of soil surface with organic material which plays a vital role in soil and plant protection. Mulches are capable of changing the environment around the plants and control weed sand annual grasses, soil erosion and runoff, and soil-borne diseases. Besides, they decrease moisture evaporation, increase water absorption and retention, and boost root growth. Organic or natural mulches such as compost provide many favorable and fertilizer-like effects for root and tuber crops production by supplying abundant plant nutrients, during their decaying process. Owing to climate change that has resulted in land slide, high temperature and flashfloods, mulching is necessary since several types of mulching practices have exhibited reduction in soil erosion by more than 90% compared to bare soil (Mostaghimi et al. 1994). Unger (1994) argued that mulches with low carbon to nitrogen ratio decompose rapidly providing nutrients for crop growth at a faster rate. Furthermore, studies in Latin America and Papua New Guinea revealed the benefits of mulching cassava and sweet potato plants for yield stabilization (Ossom et al. 2001). To support this, Coling (1997) reported that mulches of plastic film enhanced dry matter accumulation, plant height, leaf area index, and tuber yield of potatoes. Similarly Sarma et al. (1999) after planting potato cv. Kufrimegha on ridges and flat seedbeds in combination with mulches and earthing up, he confirmed that mulching with black plastic film resulted in enhanced tuber yield which was greater than the normal cultivating method. This is because plastic mulch literally conserved the soil moisture which helped in better crop growth and tuber yield. Similarly, mulching the soil has been positively correlated with plant species richness. As a normal practice, root and tuber crops are usually cultivated on ridges where soil erosion and weeds can be a menace. Therefore, for their effective production mulching is important since it is a valuable practice that can be used to control weeds. This is because mulching prevents weed growth and development by blocking light from reaching the soil surface where their seeds lie. In root and tuber crops, mulching could assume an important function of lowering soil temperatures in addition to soil moisture conservation (Sangakkara et al. 2004). Zero Tillage Zero tillage which is also referred as direct drill or no till is an agricultural practice of cultivating crops or pasture without disturbing the soil surface through tillage. Its aim is to conserve soil and moisture through nondisturbance of the soil surface and also by ensuring that 30% or more of crop residues are conserved on the surface (Erenstein and Laxmi 2008). According to Fernández et al. (2010), the practice has been documented widely for its benefits including protecting the soil against erosion

74

J. P. Gweyi-Onyango et al.

Table 3 Area under zero tillage by continent Continent South America North America Australia and New Zealand Asia Europe Africa World total

Area (ha) 49,579,000 40,074,000 17,162,000 2,530,000 1,150,000 368,000 115,863,000

Percentage of total (%) 46.8 37.8 11.5 2.3 1.1 0.3 100

Source: Derpsch et al. (2010)

and managing soil structure. Also, this practice increases carbon sequestration and activities of the microorganisms (Helgason et al. 2010) (Table 3). Studies show that practices that reduce soil disturbance and intensify cropping have the potential of increasing soil organic matter (SOM) and improving soil health. For instance, soil disturbance with tillage generally promotes loss of SOM by facilitating microbial degradation of SOM, promoting crop-residue-soil contact, and placing residues into more favorable subsurface moisture regimes as compared to surface placement under no-tillage (Halvorson et al. 2002). By adopting no till practices in root and tuber crops production, soil conservation would be improved greatly, water and wind erosion would be considerably reduced, while the crops would yield more since they would protect from pests and external environment.

Tie-Ridging Tie-ridges are soil and moisture conservation structures that involves the construction of small basins that are rectangular shaped. This basins are formed within the furrow of cultivated fields mainly to enhance the storage of rain water and for allowing more time for water to percolate in the soil (Wiyo et al. 1999). Belachew and Abera (2010) reported that the stored water can accessed by plants for a longer period of time better than it can be used when there is run off. Ridging across slope is highly recommended in dry areas for soil and water conservation in crop production (Kumwenda 1999). Mechanized ridging is achieved either by animal-drawn ridgers, as it is commonly practiced in African for cassava and other food crops production, or by tractor-mounted ridgers which is a major practice for cassava production in Asian countries (Suyamto and Howeler 2001). The purpose of mechanization is to reduce hard work and in the process increase the scale of production crops. Although when using tie-ridging the optimum height of the ridge depends on the soil type and the cultivar being grown. Benefits of tie-riding reported include: increased number of roots per plant which is identified as a major contributory factor to the higher yields on ridges (Suyamto and Howeler 2001). In particular, ridging has been shown to increase sweet potato yields by 38% (Ennin et al. 2003) over mounding, mainly as a result of increased

4

Agricultural Interventions to Enhance Climate Change Adaptation of. . .

75

plant population density and better weed suppression on ridges. Shetto (1999) reported that many farmers find weeding of cassava to be easier on ridges than on mounds; it is also effective in soil erosion management and results in high yields. Ennin et al. (2009) recommended the cultivation of cassava, yams, and other tuber crops on tie-ridges for realization of economizing the available planting space and thus increase on the planting density. Ridging is also responsive to improved farming practices such as herbicide application, fertilization, and yam staking, and this is due to the regular spacing of crops obtained under the systems. The concept behind creation of tie-ridges is to optimize water infiltration, improvement of soil-water management, enhancement of root growth and nutrient uptake, and enhancement of rooting depth which is also supported by FAO (2000). Therefore, tie-ridge would play a significant role in production of root and tuber crops.

Improved Seed Varieties Unlike the other true seed crops, root and tuber crops are propagated vegetatively. The benefits of improved seed varieties for root and tuber crops can only be realized through breeding and addressing the challenges in their seed value chain. This can be achieved through having a functioning seed systems and directly linking of the systems as a key tool of addressing the issue of improved seeds. This can further be linked in addressing the issues of climate change. To this effect, the International potato center (CIP) has fostered and expedited their breeding schemes that shortens the time it takes in developing and releasing new varieties of root and tuber crops actually from 8 to 4 years. To this effect, their breeders have released potato varieties that are tolerant to heat, salinity, and drought. Some of the varieties are Tacna and Unica which were developed and tested in Peru; Raniag variety in Philippines; and Kinga, Kiningi, and Meva developed in Africa (Atakos et al. 2018). Further variety Tacna was released in the Republic of China under the name Jizhangshu 8, and had covered 20,000 ha by 2008. Recently work has been going on to develop climate change resilient potatoes that have the characteristics of drought and salinity tolerance, and according to Atakos et al. (2018), variety Sarnav has been released in Central Asia (Uzbekistan and Tajikistan), while heat and salinity tolerant BARI Alu-72 has been released in Bangladesh. With minimal precipitation being realized ranging between 15% and 20% and new experiences in temperature increase of 2–3 °C due to the effects of climate change, these clones have shown a high degree of tolerance to these effects (CIP 2017). On that account, such efficient breeding practices that delivers improved seed varieties of root and tuber crops should be supported especially in the area of improving their resilient to climate change.

Management of Community Seed Banks Community seed banks are entities that are governed locally and they are managed in an informal manner by institutions whose core function is to maintain seeds for

76

J. P. Gweyi-Onyango et al.

local use (Development Fund 2011). Vernooy et al. (2014) reported that the community seed banks were founded by Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) now known as ETC Group or Action Group on Erosion, Technology, and Concentration. The three key functions of the community seed banks are: (i) to conserve the plant genetic resources; (ii) to make the availability and accessibility of diverse seeds and planting materials according to farmers’ needs and interests easier; and (iii) facilitating seed and food sovereignty (Vernooy et al. 2014). Community seed banks are globally located in Guatemala, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, USA, Honduras, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Bangladesh, China, Costa Rica, Nepal, Trinidad and Tobago, Rwanda, Uganda, Mali, Burundi, Norway, Zimbabwe, and South Africa. Recently it was launched in Kenya in Nyando in smallholder farmer areas by the Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR) research program on climate change agriculture and food security (CCAFS) in sub-Saharan Africa which works in partnership with Bioversity International to establish community seed banks in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. The idea behind is that when you take one seed you return two, if you take five, you return ten. This protocol aids in their sustainability. The idea of community is excellent; however, the existing community seed banks are focused on cereal crops neglecting the root tuber crops. Although the International Potato Center (CIP) researchers are promoting innovative ways that allows storage of seeds of root and tuber crops. Specifically sweet potatoes farmers are encouraged to mass-produce their own vines during planting time. The system is known as Triple S (for storing vines in sand to make them sprout). It involves storing the vines in dry sand following harvest, and thereafter planting them in seedbeds 6–8 weeks before the rainy season, and watering them to produce enough vines to plant when the rains begin. The practice results in increased vines, earlier harvests, which provides food and income at a time. In addition in order to maintain disease free planting materials, the farmers in high virus pressure zones are advised to use net tunnels systems to protect against insects such as whiteflies and aphids which are known in spreading viruses. This practice is effective in suppressing the infection rate by sweet potato virus disease thus supporting the availability of clean planting materials. According to Atakos et al. (2018), such tunnels also have contributed in moisture retention by reducing the amount of water required for irrigation. The major benefits derived from community seed banks that can be exploited for production of root and tuber crop seeds are pest and disease reduction, increased production of seeds, and climate stress buffering.

Cropping Systems Cropping systems plays important roles in crops adaptability to climate change since the practice encompasses on farm adaptation of improved farming technologies and in this case planting more than two crops with different maturity periods. This system has various advantages including: better utilization of the environment,

4

Agricultural Interventions to Enhance Climate Change Adaptation of. . .

77

greater food yield, increased return per unit area, and insurance against crop failure. Therefore, root and tuber crops which have great flexibility can be part of such a system. This is because they can be intercropped with plantation crop such as areca nut, coconuts, coffee, rubber, and fruit crops like mangos, bananas, and litchi as these crops are adapted to the same ecological conditions (Nayar and Suja 2004). In this system, the principal crop provides cash while root intercrops provide as highenergy secondary staple to the farm family and feeds for farm animals, behave as insurance crop against risk and natural calamities, ensure food security, enhance resource use efficiency, augment net income, and increase employment opportunities. To support this, cultivation of root and tuber such as yam, cassava, sweet potatoes, and edible aroids in the interspaces of perennial plantations such as rubber, coffee, coconut, and banana is common in tropical countries. Crops such as elephant foot yam and yam grow as intercrops horticultural and planation crops. Also intercropping maize and yam is believed to be productive and compatible mainly because maize is a short season crop (3–4 months), while yams are long are long duration (7–12 months) crops. Sagoe (2006) also revealed that yams and cocoyams are usually cultivated in association with cocoa and furthermore new innovations propose use of cassava trees in cocoa production. Davis et al. (1986) reported that sweet potato are grown as intercrop and in rotation systems with crops like soybean, bean, sorghum, maize, and cassava. In India, cassava, yams, and edible aroids are intercropped with rubber plantations during their immature phase whereas in Malaysia cassava is grown as intercrop in Rubber estates (Leihner 1983). The cropping system also includes practices such as adjusting the planting dates, irrigation applications, and fertilizer application (Sagoe 2006). This examples suggests that when managed appropriately, cropping systems can enhance the adaptability of these crops to climate change especially when the right crops are chosen for the system.

Irrigation Method Climate change causes in drought which is a major abiotic factor that limit crop production. On the other hand, global warming causes rainfall fluctuations increasing the risk of plant exposure to repeated drought (Miyashita et al. 2005). Other factors ever berating the drought situation include limited fresh water bodies which cause serious issues globally, particularly in arid and semiarid regions. These fresh water bodies are also decreasing due to population pressure, comping demands from the industries, low rainfall, agricultural and urban development. Furthermore drought is considered one of the major constraints for root and tuber crop production. Root and tuber crops have much capacity in terms of their water use efficiency and nutrient use just like other food crops. Additionally, these crops have a unique growth characteristics and functionality. Therefore a suitable irrigation method must be selected while cultivating these crops such as: an irrigation method that releases the exact amount of water required, and time and method of water application. To this end, sprinkle and trickle irrigation methods therefore becomes the best option for

78

J. P. Gweyi-Onyango et al.

these crops. This is because they save irrigation water by up 30% and 50%, respectively, as compared with surface irrigation (Al-Jamal et al. 2001). Amer (2011) revealed that in small-scale farming using gated pipes and double planting row beds, with partially wetted furrow irrigation, water saving is achieved just as in trickle irrigation. Even though partially wetted irrigation can be very useful especially because it decreases installation cost compared to trickle and sprinkle systems, in this case it is important to consider the right method for climate change adaptation. Considering this, trickle irrigation becomes the best method for theses crops under the prevailing climatic conditions since it conserves water, prevents nitrogen leaching, allows deep water percolation, and reduces soil erosion. Also it gives famers an opportunity to apply water at the right time.

Exploiting Abandoned Lands In this chapter, land abandonment concept is used on a land where traditional or recently agricultural activities have stopped due to their marginal characteristics. Lands are classified as abandoned when their productivity level is situated close to the margin beyond which management expenses are not compensated by the profits obtained after harvesting. To this effect, cropland abandonment has become a common occurrence globally due to the improper agricultural practices being used. To reclaim this types of lands and to increase the arable lands, alternative crop productions (in intensive form) should be used. This is because the remaining arable land is being lost to urban and industrial uses, deforestation, rural development, such as afforestation, and land fragmentation into smaller units. According to FAO (2011), many efforts to revamp land productivity have continued over the years since the abandoned lands represents a valuable resource for crop production. Such efforts are supported by the farmers desire to pass productive farmlands onto the future generation in just a good condition as when they inherited them (Greenland et al. 1998). Root and tuber crops can therefore be very useful for use in reclaiming these abandoned lands. This is because of their agronomic advantage such that these crops are adapted to diverse soil, environmental conditions, and a variety of farming methods with minimum agricultural input. Also, variations in the growth pattern and adopting cultural practices make them specific in production systems. In addition, these crops are relatively easy to grow since they are highly adaptable in growing at a wide range of altitudes, on both flat and sloping lands, and on both sandy and clay soils where other crops are not well adapted. Finally, the variety to choose from for these crops is very high. All these characteristics indicates that root and tuber crops have a comparative advantage for cultivation in marginal lands than other crops since they can be selected to resist stress conditions and in contributing to sustainable crop production with low input cost. Similarly, IPGRI (2000) reported that these crops contributes to the food crops diversity and hence exploits fully the abilities of agro-ecosystems. Under this scenario of large abandoned land, root and tuber crop can be produced effectively on these lands, and after years of their production, the lands can be

4

Agricultural Interventions to Enhance Climate Change Adaptation of. . .

79

returned for production of other agricultural crops production. In return this would lead to reduced clearing of additional forests and grassland for farming purposes.

Agroforestry Practice Agroforestry is an interaction of agriculture and trees, including the agricultural use of trees. This encompass trees on farms and in agricultural landscapes; farming in forests and along forest margins and tree-crop production including coffee and cocoa. It ranges from traditional swidden agriculture to elaborate systems of fruits trees and vines in spatial complementarity. Examples of useful agroforestry trees include; Acacia albida, Leucaena leucocephala, Prosopis juliflora, Acacia scorpioides, and Euphorbia spp. Others include green manure crops such as Tephrosia spp, Desmodium spp, Dolichos spp, and Indogofera spp. Some of the most promising agroforestry techniques for root and tuber crops include: (a) Scattered farm trees, this simply involves the increase in number of trees in the middle of crops and alongside the farm boundaries. The trees might have greater value than the crops they displace. Alternatively, the trees might actually increase the productivity of these crops by replenishing the soil and helping reduction of soil erosion. (b) Improved fallows, which involves fallows being enriched with fast-growing trees, vines, or shrubs. This is required by the fact that the fallow periods in many areas needs to be shortened considerably. (c) Buffer strips, which are areas of land maintained in permanent vegetation that helps control soil, air, and water quality. Root and tuber crops can therefore serve as buffers against soil erosion when planted along contour lines of slopes. In complicated systems, these root and tuber crops buffer strips can include other crop, such as grasses, trees, shrubs, and fodder legumes.

Clean Seed Production Technologies Policy makers acknowledges that seed security is pivotal for global food security. This is because seeds serves as the primary farm input in crop production and is also a means for conveying agricultural innovations to the farmers. Forasmuch as seeds are among the main factors that impediment crop production, these seeds must therefore be in good quality by the time they are distributed to the farmers. Actually availability, accessibility, and use of quality seeds that are adapted are of essence in increasing agricultural productivity and improving farmers livelihoods. For clean seed production of root and tuber crops, cases reviewed encouraged seed stakeholders to emerge as permanent seed producers (Bentley et al. 2018). This would enable clean seed to flow through the value chain constantly. Methods of clean seed production include: (a) Commercial farms being contracted for one season, even though the method has demonstrated that it is labor intensive, it is susceptible to pests and diseases, and it is time consuming.

80

J. P. Gweyi-Onyango et al.

(b) Tissue culture, which is the growth of tissues of plants or animal in an artificial medium separate from the parent organism. This method is very important for plant propagation for example the use of this method in seed production has ensued in mass production of clean potato seeds within a short period of time. In support of this, Pruski (2001) revealed that the method is characterized by its flexibility in terms of the rapid multiplication of seedlings. This method has been adopted in several countries like Vietnam where it revolutionized production of potato seeds. The method is now well understood and has been used in propagation of several plant species across the globe. (c) Aeroponic method: which is the process of cultivating plants in an air or mist environment without the use of soil or media. It is considered as one of the safest and ecological friendly method for producing natural and healthy crops. The multiplication of potatoes using this method of more advantage than other available systems. CIP (2018) reported that the method is ten times more successful than convectional techniques, hydroponics, and tissue cultures which takes much time and are more labor intensive. The method utilizes nutrient solution recirculation, thus water is not wasted and the available nutrients are used effectively. Therefore this system comparatively offers lower energy and water inputs per growing area. This system can therefore be utilized for rapid production of root and tuber crops seeds.

Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE) Nutrient use efficiency indicates the ability of crops to take up and utilize nutrients for yield. The concept entails three major processes in plants: uptake, assimilation, and utilization of nutrients. The nutrient uptake and fertilizer recommendation of important root and tuber crops are presented in Table 4. This is an indicator that root and tuber crops have a higher NUE. This is support by Nieto, C. O. (2016) who

Table 4 Nutrient uptake and fertilizer recommendation of important root and tuber crops

Crop Cassava Sweet potato Elephant foot yam Yams Taro Tannia Coleus Arrow root

Tuber yield (t/ha) 30 14 36

Uptake (kg/ha) N P K 180 22 160 34 6 47 122 31 176

Farmyard manure (t/ha) 12.5 5 25

Recommended dose (kg/ha) N P K 100 50 100 50 25 50 100 50 150

25 17 20 26 24

163 119 125 106 194

10 12.5 25 10 10

80 80 80 60 50

Source: Mohan Kumar et al. (2000)

24 18 37 13 31

127 157 187 107 292

60 25 50 60 25

80 80 150 100 75

4

Agricultural Interventions to Enhance Climate Change Adaptation of. . .

81

reported that NUE of potatoes under low nitrogen input was higher than under high nitrogen input, and higher for late cultivars than for early cultivars.

Conclusion There is an urgent need to broaden the food basket of the Sub-Saharan Africa by supporting root and tuber crops cultivation through boosting their capacity to adapt to climate change. Even though these crops have been neglected, there is evidence that the crops have greater adaptability to extreme climatic conditions and that they are more resilient to both biotic and abiotic stresses. Therefore, the suggested innovations and/or adaptation measures will help in enhancing their adaptability to climate change and also to enable them to produce more harvestable yields where major crops have failed.

References Aidoo R (2009) An analysis of yam consumption patterns in Ghanaian urban communities. The School of Graduate Studies, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi. PhD Thesis. Access date 03 July 2017 Al-Jamal MS, Ball S, Sammis TW (2001) Comparison of sprinkler, trickle and furrow irrigation efficiencies for onion production. Agric Water Manag 46(3):253–266 Allem C (2002) The origins and taxonomy of cassava. In: Hillocks RJ, Thresh JM, Bellotti AC (eds) Cassava: biology, production and utilization. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 1–16 Amer H (2011) Effect of irrigation method and quantity on squash yield and quality. Agric Water Manag 98:1197–1206 Arnau G, Abraham K, Sheela M, Chair H, Sartie A, Asiedu R (2010) Yams, in root and tuber crops. In: Bradshaw J (ed) Handbook of plant breeding, vol 7. Springer Science + Business Media, New York, pp 127–148 Asiedu R, Sartie A (2010) Crops that feed the world 1. Yams. Food Secur 2:305–315 Atakos V (2018) Next generation technologies: tackling climate change in agriculture. Retrieved from: https://cipotato.org/blog/next-generation-technologiestackling-climate-change-inagriculture/ Atakos V, Thiele G, Campos H, Friedmann M, Holmes H, Dudenhoefer D (2018) Next generation technologies: tackling climate change in agriculture. CIP. December 5, 2018 Augé M, Toler D, Saxton M (2015) Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis alters stomatal conductance of host plants more under drought than under amply watered conditions: a meta-analysis. Mycorrhiza 25:13–24 Baybutt C, Hu L, Molteni A (2000) Vitamin A deficiency injures lung and liver parenchyma and impairs function of rat type II pneumocytes. J Nutr 130(5):1159–1165 Belachew T, Abera Y (2010) Response of maize (Zea mays L.) to tied ridges and planting methods at Goro, South eastern Ethiopia. Am Eur J Agron 3:21–24 Bennett B (2015) Smallholder cassava production and the cassava processing sector in Africa. Food Chain 5:1–3 Bentley JW, Andrade-Piedra J, Demo P, Dzomeku B, Jacobsen K, Kikulwe E, Ogero K (2018) Understanding root, tuber, and banana seed systems and coordination breakdown: a multistakeholder framework. J Crop Improv 32(5):599–621

82

J. P. Gweyi-Onyango et al.

Birch J, Bryan G, Fenton B, Gilroy E, Hein I, Jones T, Prashar A, Taylor A, Torrance L, Toth K (2012) Crops that feed the world. Potato: are the trends of increased global production sustainable? Food Secur 4:477–508 Carsky J, Asiedu R, Cornet D (2010) Review of soil fertility management for yam-based systems in West Africa. Afr J Root Tuber Crops 8:1–17 Chen P, Rekha D, Arun B, Shen T, Lai A, Young C (2006) Phosphate solubilizing bacteria from subtropical soil and their tricalcium phosphate solubilizing abilities. Appl Soil Ecol 34(1):33–41 Ciais P, Sabine C, Bala G, Bopp L, Brovkin V, Canadell J, Chhabra A, DeFries R, Galloway J, Heimann M, Jones C, Quéré L, Myneni B, Piao S, Thornton P (2013) Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013. The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York, pp 465–570 CIP (2017) Seed potato for Africa, [Accessed on April 12 2017] and available at http://cipotato.org/ seed-potato-for-africa/ CIP (2018) Potato minituber boom in Sub-Saharan Africa: tenfold increase in ten years – International Potato Center Codd E (1985) Lamiaceae (Labiatae). In: Leistner OA (ed) Flora of Southern Africa. Volume 28, Part 4. Botanical Research Institute, Pretoria. 247pp Coling C (1997) Effect of plastic film mulching on increasing potato yield: effect of plastic film mulching on increasing potato yield. Acta Agric Zhojangensis 9:83–86 Coursey G (1981) The interactions of yam and man. J Agric Tradit Bot Appl 1:5–21 Davies M, Labuschagne T, Koen E, Benesi M, Saka K (2008) Some properties of starches from cocoyam in Malawi. Afr J Food Sci 2:102–111 Davis C, Wolley N, Moreno A (1986) Multiple cropping with legumes starchy roots. Macmillan Publishing, New York, pp 133–160 Derpsch R, Friedrich T, Kassam A, Hongwen L (2010) Current status of adoption of no-till farming in the world and some of its main benefits. Int J Agric Biol Eng 3(1):1–25 Deschenes O, Greenstone M (2006) The economic impacts of climate change: evidence from agricultural output and random fluctuations in weather. Am Econ Rev 97:354–385 Development Fund (2011) Banking for the future: savings, security and seeds. Development Fund, Oslo. Accessed 29 Jan 2016 Dhankher OP, Foyer CH (2018) Climate resilient crops for improving global food security and safety. Plant Cell Environ 41(5):877–884 Don C (2007) No shortcuts in checking soil health. Agric Res. July 2007, at 4. Available at http:// www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jul07/soil0707.pdf. Last visited 13 Nov 2008 Ennin A, Dapaah K, Asafu-Agyei N (2003) Land preparation for increased sweet potato production in Ghana. Paper presented at the 13th symposium of the international society for tropical root crops (ISTRC-World Branch). Held from 10th–14th November, 2003, Arusha, 14pp Ennin SA, Otoo E, Tetteh FM (2009) Ridging, a mechanized alternative to mounding for yam and cassavaproduction. West Afr J Appl Ecol 15:1–8 EPA (2006) Solid waste management and greenhouse gases: a life-cycle assessment of emissions and sinks. 55 Erenstein O, Laxmi V (2008) Zero tillage impacts in India’s rice–wheat systems: a review. Soil Tillage Res 100:1–14 FAO (2000) The state of food insecurity in the world 2000. ISBN 92-5-104479-1 Job No. X8200/E. 36pp FAO (2009) FAOSTAT statistical database. Rome (available at http://faostat.fao.org) FAO (2011) The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW). Managing systems at risk. FAO, Rome FAO. FAOSTAT (2018) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. http://www.fao.org/faostat/

4

Agricultural Interventions to Enhance Climate Change Adaptation of. . .

83

FAOSTAT (2017) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome. http://apps. fao.org FAOSTAT (Food and Agriculture Organization Data of Statistics) (2014) Food and Agriculture Organization Data of Statistics. One hundred fifty eight countries data base. http://faostat.fao. org/site/567/ Fernández R, Quiroga A, Zorati C, Noellemeyer E (2010) Carbon contents and respiration rates of aggregate size fractions under no-till and conventional tillage. Soil Tillage Res 109:103–109 Foereid B, Høgh-Jensen H (2004) Carbon sequestration potential of organic agriculture in northern Europe – a modelling approach. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 68(1):13–24 Graham W, Lam Y, Merckx V (2017) Plastomes on the edge: the evolutionary breakdown of mycoheterotroph plastid genomes. New Phytol 214:48–55 Greenland J, Gregory J, Nye H (1998) Land resources: on the edge of the Malthusian precipice. CAB International, Wallingford Halvorson D, Weinhold J, Black L (2002) Tillage, nitrogen, and cropping system effects on soil carbon sequestration. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:906–912 Helgason L, Walley L, Germida J (2010) No-till soil management increases microbial biomass and alters community profiles in soil aggregates. Appl Soil Ecol 46:390–397 Hillocks J, Thresh M, Bellotti C (2002) Cassava biology, production and utilization. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, p 2002 Hunziker L, Bönisch D, Groenhagen U, Bailly A, Schulz S, Weisskopf L (2015) Pseudomonas strains naturally associated with potato plants produce volatiles with high potential for inhibition of phytophthora infestans. Appl Environ Microbiol 81:821–830 IFA (1992) World fertilizer use manual. Publication of International Fertilizer Industry Association, Paris, pp 148–160 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate change. In: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 976pp International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, (IPGRI) (2000) Enhancing the contribution of neglected and under-utilized species to food security, and to incomes of the rural poor. IPGRI, Rome Jarvis A, Ramirez-Villegas J, Campo H, Navarro-Racines C (2012) Is cassava the answer to African climate change adaptation? Trop Plant Biol 5:9–29 Jha A, Saxena J, Sharma V (2013) Investigation on phosphate solubilization potential of agricultural soil bacteria as affected by different phosphorus sources, temperature, salt and pH. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 44:2443–2458 Jones B, Wendt W (1994) Contribution of soil fertility research to improved maize production by smallholders in eastern and southern Africa. In: Proceedings of the fourth Eastern and Southern Africa regional maize conference 2–14 Khan MS, Zaidi A, Wani PA (2009) Role of phosphate solubilizing microorganisms in sustainable agriculture-a review. In: Sustainable agriculture (pp. 551–570). Springer, Dordrecht Kintché K, Hauser S, Mahungu M, Ndonda A, Lukombo S, Nhamo N (2017) Cassava yield loss in farmer fields was mainly caused by low soil fertility and suboptimal management practices in two provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Eur J Agron 89:107–123 Kivuva M, Yencho G, Sibiya J, Musembi G (2014) Assessment of production constraints and farmers’ preferences for sweet potato genotypes. J Plant Breed Genet 02(01):15–29 Kumar A, Maurya BR, Raghuwanshi R, Meena VS, Islam MT (2017) Co-inoculation with Enterobacter and Rhizobacteria on yield and nutrient uptake by wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in the alluvial soil under indo-gangetic plain of India. J Plant Growth Regul 36(3):608–617 Kumwenda F (1999) The role of animal traction in soil water conservation tillage practices among smallholder farmers in Malawi. In: Kaumbutho PG, Simalenga TE (eds) Conservation tillage with animal traction. A resource book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA), Harare. 173pp Leihner D (1983) Management and evaluation of intercropping systems with cassava. CIAT, Cali

84

J. P. Gweyi-Onyango et al.

Malik A, Sanghmitra S, Javed A (2011) Chemical vs. organic cultivation of medicinal and aromatic plants: the choice is clear. Int J Med Arom Plants 1(1):5–13 Marbun S, Sembiring M, Bintang (2015) Phosphate solubilizing microbe and organic matter application to increase P uptake and potatos growth at andisol impacted Sinabung Mountain Eruption. J Agroekoteknol 4:1651–1658. (In Indonesian) Marques M (2015) Bacterial endophytes of sweet potato tuberous roots affected by the plant genotype and growth stage. J Appl Microbiol 96:273–281 Miyashita K, Tanakamaru S, Maitani T, Kimura K (2005) Recovery responses of photosynthesis, transpiration and stomatal conductance in kidney bean following drought stress. Environ Exp Bot 53:205–214 MoALF (2019) National root and tuber crops development strategy 2019–2022. Retrieved 12 November 2020, from https://www.kilimo.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Roots-andTuber-Crops-Strategy-2019-2022.pdf Mohan Kumar CR, Nair M, George J, Ravindran S, Ravi V (2000) Production technology of tuber crops. Central Tuber Crops Research Institute, Thiruvananthapuram, p 174 Monneveux P, Ramírez A, Pino T (2013) Drought tolerance in potato (S. tuberosum L.): can we learn from drought tolerance research in cereals? Plant Sci 205:76–86 Morton F (2007) The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(50):19680–19685 Mostaghimi S, Gidley M, Dillaha TA, Cooke A (1994) Effectiveness of different approaches for controlling sediment and nutrient losses from eroded land. J Soil Water Conserv 49(6):615–620 Motsa NM, Modi T, Mabhaudhi T (2015) Sweet Potato (ipomoea Batatas L.) As a Drought Tolerant and Food Security Crop. S Afr J Sci 111(11/12):8. Art. #2014–0252 Nath R, Chattopadhyay A, Kundu CK, Majumder A, Islam Sk J, Gunri S (2007) Production potential of sweet potato in the Red and Laterite ecosystem of West Bengal. J Root Crops 33:97–103 Nayar R, Suja G (2004) Production potential of root and tubers in multiple cropping systems involving plantation crops. J Root Crops 30(2):93–100 Naylor L, Falcon P, Goodman M, Jahn M, Sengooba T, Tefera H (2004) Biotechnology in the developing world: a case for increased investments in orphan crops. Food Policy 29:15–44 Nieto CO (2016) Nitrogen use efficiency in potato: an integrated agronomic, physiological and genetic approach. Doctoral dissertation, Wageningen University Nugroho W (1994) Klasifikasidan Pemetaan Semi Detail Tanah Berkembangdari Abu Volkanikberdasarkan Sistem Taksonomi Tanah di Desa Candikuning, Baturiti, Tabanan. Skripsi. Jurusan Tanah, Fakultas Pertanian Universitas Udayana. pp 75 Nweke FI, Spencer DSC, Lynam JK (2002) The cassava transformation: Africa’s best kept secret, Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, USA. pp 273 O’Sullivan N, Ernest J (2007) Nutrient deficiencies in lesser yam (Dioscorea esculenta) characterized using constant-water table sand culture. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 170(2):273–282 Okigbo N (1989) New crops for food industry: the roots and tuber in tropical Africa. In: New crops for food industry. G.E. Weekens et al, Chapman and Wall/London, pp 123–134 Onwueme C, Sinha D (1991) Field crop production in tropical Africa: principles and practice. Technical Centre for Agriculture and Rural Cooperation, Ede. ISBN-13: 9789290810865, pp 267–275 Onyeka J (2014) Status of cocoyam (Colocasia esculenta and Xanthosoma spp.) in west and central Africa: production, household importance and the threat from leaf blight. CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB) Ossom M, Pace F, Rhykerd L, Rhykerd L (2001) Effect of mulch on weed infestation, soil temperature, nutrient concentration and tuber yield in Ipomoea batatas in Papua New Guinea. Trop Agric 78:144–151 Pinto J, Onwueme B (2000) Food values of breadfruit, taro leaves, coconut and sugar cane. FAO. Plant production and protection paper 126. FAO, Rome Pruski (2001) Micropropagation technology in early phases of commercial seed potato production. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, p 166 Purseglove W (1972) Monocotyledons (tropical crops S). London: Longman Group Ltd

4

Agricultural Interventions to Enhance Climate Change Adaptation of. . .

85

Purseglove W (1975) Tropical crop monocotyledonous. Longman Group, Britain Ramanatha V, Matthews J, Eyzaguirre B, Hunter D (2010) The global diversity of taro: ethnobotany and conservation. Biodiversity International, Rome Robert W, Cartwhight B (2006) Potato production. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Stillwater Rudrappa U (2013) Yams nutrition facts and health benefits. http://www.nutrition-and you.com/ yams.html Rykaczewska K (2013) The impact of high temperature during growing season on potato cultivars with different response to environmental stresses. Am J Plant Sci 04:2386–2393. https://doi.org/ 10.4236/ajps.2013.412295 Sagoe R (2006) Climate change and root crop production in Ghana. Crops Research Institute, Kumasi Sangakkara R, Attanayake B, Gajanayake N, Bandaranayake R (2004) Impact of mulches on growth and yields of cassava and sweet potato in tropical Asia. In: Proceedings of the 4th international crop science congress, Brisbane, 26 September–1 October 2004 Sarma A, Dutta T, Sarma A (1999) Effect of mulching technique with black plastic film (25 u) on potato crop under rainfed condition. Crop Res 18:383–386 Schüßler H, Gehrig H, Schwarzott D, Walker C (2001) Analysis of partial Glomales SSU rRNA gene sequences: implications for primer design and phylogeny. Mycol Res 105:5–15 Sefa-Dedeh S, Kofi-Agyir E (2002) Starch structure and some properties of cocoyam (Xanthosoma sagittifolium and Colocacia esculentum) starch and raphides. Food Chem 79:435–444 Shetto M (1999) Tillage practices and soil conservation measures in Tanzania. http://www.fao.org/ ag/ages/3ero/Harare/partii/19Sheto.htm Sieverding E (1991) Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza management in tropical agrosystems. Deutche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn. 371p Sombroek WG, Gommes LR (1997) Changement de climat – Agriculture. In: FAO (ed) Changements du Climat et Production Agricole. FAO, Rome, p 472 Spooner DM, McLean K, Ramsay G (2005) A single domestication for potato based on multi-locus amplified fragment length polymorphism genotyping. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102:14694–14699 Sriom S, Mishra P, Rajbhar P, Singh D, Singh K, Mishra K (2017) Effect of different levels of nitrogen on growth and yield in potato (Solanum Tuberosum L.) Cv. Kufri Khyati. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 6:1456–1460. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.608.428 Stokes C, Howden M (2010) Adapting agriculture to climate change: preparing australian agriculture, forestry, and fisheries for the future. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood Suyamto, Howeler H (2001) Cultural practices for soil erosion control in cassava-based cropping systems in Indonesia. In: Barker DH, Watson A, Sombatpanit S, Northcutt B, Maglinao AR (eds) In International Erosion Control Association, Ground and water Bioengineering for the Asia-Pacific Region. Science Publishers, Enfield, New Hampshire Tailor J, Joshi H (2014) Harnessing plant growth promoting rhizobacteria beyond nature: a review. J Plant Nutr 37:1534–1571 Tshisola N (2014) Improved potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) seed production through aeroponics. MSc thesis, Stellenbosch University Udo J, Ndon A, Asuquo E, Ndaeyo U (2005) Crop production techniques for the tropics. Concept Publications, Lagos Ukom N, Ojimelukwe C, Okpara A (2009) Nutrient composition of selected sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam) varieties as influenced by different levels of nitrogen fertilizer application. Pak J Nutr 8(11):1791–1795 Unger W (1994) Managing agricultural residues. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. 448pp Uroz S, Calvaruso C, Turpault P, Frey-Klett P (2009) Mineral weathering by bacteria: ecology, actors and mechanisms. Trends Microbiol 17:378–387 Vernooy R, Sthapit B, Galluzzi G, Shrestha P (2014) The multiple functions and Services of Community Seedbanks. Resources 4(3):636–656 Vessey K (2003) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizers. Plant Soil 255:571–586 Wiebe K (2015) Strategic foresight: long-term projections from IFPRI, GFSF and AgMIP. Presented at the 12th Meeting of the Independent Science & Partnership Council held in Rome, 16 September 2015

86

J. P. Gweyi-Onyango et al.

Wiyo A, Kasomekerab M, Feyen J (1999) Effect of tied-ridging on soil water status of a maize crop under Malawi conditions. Agric Water Manag 45(2000):101–121 Woolfe A (1992) Sweet potato, an untapped food resource. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

5

Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Africa: Small-Scale Farmers in Cameroon Nyong Princely Awazi, Martin Ngankam Tchamba, Lucie Felicite Temgoua, and Marie-Louise Tientcheu-Avana

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceptions of Climate Change by Small-Scale Farmers in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adverse Effects of Climate Change on Africa’s Small-Scale Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drivers of Small-Scale Farmers’ Vulnerability to Climate Change in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adaptation Options Implemented by Small-Scale Farmers in Africa Confronted with Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Determinants of Small-Scale Farmers’ Choice of Adaptive Measures Confronted with Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barriers to Adaptation for Small-Scale Farmers in Africa Confronted with Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effectiveness of Small-Scale Farmers’ Adaptation Measures in Enhancing Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of Study Area and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89 89 90 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 97 97

This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. N. P. Awazi (*) · M. N. Tchamba · L. F. Temgoua · M.-L. Tientcheu-Avana Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agronomy and Agricultural Sciences, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_9

87

88

N. P. Awazi et al.

Data Sources and Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dependent and Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variations and Changes in Climate Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adaptive Choices of Small-Scale Farmers Confronted with Climate Change Adversities . . . Farmer Perceived Factors Influencing Adaptive Capacity to Adverse Climatic Variations and Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farmers’ Capacity to Adapt to Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Factors Affecting Small-Scale Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variations in Climate Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adaptive Choices of Small-Scale Farmers Confronted with Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceived Factors Affecting Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Cause-Effect and Cause-Effect Relationship Between Small-Scale Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change and Independent/Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97 98 98 98 98 99 100 101 103 106 106 106 107 107 108 109

Abstract

Small-scale farmers’ limited adaptive capacity confronted with the adversities of climate change is a major call for concern considering that small-scale farms feed over half of the world’s population. In this light, small-scale farmers’ adaptive choices and adaptive capacity to climate change were assessed. Data were collected from primary and secondary sources using a mixed research approach. Findings revealed that extreme weather events have been recurrent and small-scale farmers perceived access to land, household income, and the planting of trees/shrubs on farms (agroforestry) as the main factors influencing their capacity to adapt to climate change. Agroforestry and monoculture practices were the main adaptive choices of small-scale farmers confronted with climate change. T-test and chi-square test statistics revealed a strong non-causeeffect relationship ( p < 0.001) between small-scale farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change and different socio-economic, institutional, and environmental variables. Parameter estimates of the binomial logistic regression model indicated the existence of a strong direct cause-effect relationship ( p < 0.05) between small-scale farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change and access to credit, household income, number of farms, access to information, and access to land, indicating that these variables enhance small-scale farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change. It is recommended that policy makers examine the adaptive choices and determinants of farmers’ adaptive capacity unearthed in this chapter when formulating policies geared towards enhancing small-scale farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change. Keywords

Climate change · Small-scale · Farmers · Adaptive capacity · Africa · Cameroon

5

Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Africa: Small-Scale. . .

89

Introduction Background of the Study The fight against climate change features prominently among the seventeen (17) United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – 2030 Agenda, demonstrating the desire of the global policy making community to tackle climate change, one of the foremost existential threats facing humanity today, head-on (IPCC 2018; Chanana-Nag and Aggarwal 2018; Niles and Salerno 2018). This comes in the wake of unprecedented levels of global warming caused mainly by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere (Aggarwal et al. 2015; IPCC 2018). Anthropogenic activities especially excessive fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and degradation of tropical forests have been singled out as the principal causes of the increasing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (Biermann 2007; IPCC 2007; The Royal Society 2010; NAS and RS 2014). With the present climatic variations and changes, humanity has just two choices: adaptation and/or mitigation. With mitigation being a long-term option, adaptation becomes incumbent for different sectors of economic life especially the agricultural sector (Adger et al. 2007; Challinor and Wheeler 2008; Challinor 2009; World Bank 2013; FAO et al. 2018). With the most vulnerable actors in the agricultural sector being small-scale farmers, there is absolute necessity to promote measures that foster adaptation and enhance adaptive capacity to the adversities of climate change. The FAO (2011) indicated that climate change will seriously threaten the livelihood of small-scale farmers. In 2016, studies demonstrated that small-scale farmers will be adversely affected by changes in climate patterns owing to their limited adaptive capacity (FAO 2016). Small-scale farmers’ limited adaptive capacity when confronted with the adversities of climate change is a major call for concern considering that small-scale farmers – who in the majority are found in developing countries – contribute to the nourishment of over half of the world’s population (FAO 2016). It is estimated that the developing world has roughly 500 million smallscale farms supporting about two billion people, and these small farms produce about 80% of the food consumed in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (IFAD 2012). With the number of small-scale farms across the developing world rising (FAO 2010a, b; IPCC 2014; FAO et al. 2018), it becomes necessary to examine the capacity of smallscale farmers to adapt to climate change adversities and to examine the factors influencing the capacity of small-scale farmers to adapt to the negative effects of climate change. Cameroon like other developing countries is dominated by food-based agricultural systems. These food-based farming systems owned in the majority by smallscale farmers (who constitute over 90% of the farming population) have been adversely affected by climate change (Molua 2006, 2008; Tingem et al. 2009; Azibo and Kimengsi 2015; Awazi 2018). Small-scale farmers’ capacity to adapt to

90

N. P. Awazi et al.

climate change could be enhanced if human, material, logistic, and financial resources are placed at their disposal (Molua 2008; Azibo et al. 2016; Innocent et al. 2016). From this perspective, this chapter sought to assess small-scale farmers’ adaptive choices and the determinants of small-scale farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change, in the hope that the findings will go a long way to influence policy and alleviate the plight of small-scale farmers.

Review of Literature Perceptions of Climate Change by Small-Scale Farmers in Africa Africa’s small-scale farmers are increasingly perceptive of climate change, although their perceptions vary on a country-by-country basis as shown by different studies carried out in Africa. In a study carried out by Belaineh et al. (2013) in the Doba District, West Hararghe, Ethiopia, it was found that all male-headed and femaleheaded households perceived the occurrence of climate change. Boissière et al. (2013) on the contrary, in a study carried out in Indonesia – the tropical forests of Papua – found that the local population’s perceptions of adverse climatic variations and changes differed significantly across the studied villages. They concluded that these differences in perception of climate change could be due to the different agroecological conditions of the villages. Mtambanengwe et al. (2012) on their part found respondents unanimous that the total quantity of rainfall had declined. The findings of Mtambanengwe et al. (2012) corroborate those of De Wit (2006) and Anderson (2007) who revealed that Southern Africa is becoming increasingly drier, threatening agricultural sustainability, as rainfall distribution within the season fluctuates tremendously. Maddison (2006), however, found that Zimbabwe’s small-scale farmers’ perception of climate change varied with respect to the number of years of experience in farming. According to Maddison, small-scale farmers with more than 20 years of experience in farming were more likely to notice significant changes in normal weather patterns compared to their less experienced counterparts. This is corroborated by Mtambanengwe et al. (2012) who also found that 3–4% of small-scale farmers who claimed not to have noticed any shift in climate in the two communities studied in Zimbabwe were young farmers or farmers mostly involved in off-farm activities. In a study undertaken in South Africa, Benhin (2006) found that about 72% of farmers sampled were of the opinion that climate change has been occurring over the years, with delays in the timing of the rain, a drastic drop in the quantity of rain, and higher temperatures. The farmers’ perceptions, however, varied slightly across the nine provinces in which the study was carried out. In the semiarid areas of Tanzania, Mary and Majule (2009) found that 63.8% of farmers sampled in Kamenyanga village and 73.8% of farmers sampled in Kintinku village perceived an increase in temperature. Farmers reported that the months of September to December were becoming extremely hot and the nights were generally becoming very cold. It was

5

Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Africa: Small-Scale. . .

91

also found that most of the farmers sampled perceived a decrease in precipitation and changes in onset of rains as well as an increase in drought frequency in Kamenyanga and Kintinku districts, respectively. Most of the farmers stated that the onset of rainfall has changed because crops were usually planted in the months of October/ November but lately crops are being planted in the months of December/January. In a study undertaken in eleven (11) African countries, Maddison (2006) found that a large majority of farmers believed that precipitation is declining and temperature is on the rise. Majule et al. (2008) also reported similar findings. Tessema et al. (2013) in a study undertaken in the East Hararghe zone of Ethiopia found that farmers’ perceptions differ with respect to changes in precipitation and temperature. A large majority (91.2%) of the farmers perceived a rise in temperature, whereas 3.5% and 5.3% of the farmers perceived a decrease in temperature and no change, respectively. Most of the farmers (90.3%) perceived a drop in the quantity of precipitation; meanwhile 2.6% and 6.2% of the farmers perceived an increase in the quantity of precipitation and no change, respectively. Only a small percentage (0.9%) of the farmers indicated that precipitation is variable rather than agreeing either on an increase or decrease in the quantity of rainfall. In the same line of thought, studies undertaken across different parts of Africa have shown that small-scale farmers perceive climate change through variations in climate elements. Studies undertaken by Ishaya and Abaje (2008) in Kaduna state, Nigeria; Gbetibouo (2009) in the Limpopo Basin of South Africa; Mertz et al. (2009) in the Rural Sahel; Deressa et al. (2011) in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia; Nyanga et al. (2011) in Zambia; Nzeadibe et al. (2012) in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria; Tambo and Abdoulaye (2012) in Nigeria; Yaro (2013) in Ghana; Juana et al. (2013) in sub-Saharan Africa (synthesis of empirical studies); Temesgen et al. (2014) in Ethiopia; Mulenga and Wineman (2014) in Zambia; and Aggarwal et al. (2015) in the Kullu District of the western Himalayan region all found that small-scale farmers were increasingly perceptive of climate change. Based on the findings of all these studies, a conclusion could be drawn to the effect that small-scale farmers’ perceptions of climate change are quasi-unanimous across Africa.

Adverse Effects of Climate Change on Africa’s Small-Scale Farmers Africa’s small-scale farmers are increasingly being affected by climate change. Scholarship indicates that climate change has mainly adverse effects on Africa’s small-scale farming communities. In a study carried out in Kenya, Herrero et al. (2010) found that climate change adversely affected small-scale farmers through recurrent droughts. Mary and Majule (2009) carried out a study in Tanzania, revealing that the recurrence of extreme climate events (changing rainfall and temperature patterns) led to increased risk of crop failure owing to the washing away of seeds and crops, stunted growth, poor seed germination, and withering of crops. It was equally found that, in the case of livestock, variations in rainfall patterns (decreased rainfall–drought and increased rainfall–floods) led to a decrease in pasture and an increase in parasites and diseases. Similar findings have been

92

N. P. Awazi et al.

reported by other studies carried out in Africa. Mortimore and Adams (2001), for example, found that the timing of the onset of the first rains and other intra-seasonal factors such as the effectiveness of the rains in each precipitation, and the distribution and length of the period of rain during the growing season, seriously affect cropplanting regimes as well as the effectiveness and success of farming. According to the IPCC (2007), changes in rainfall patterns and the quantity of rainfall affect soil moisture and the rate soil erosion, both prerequisites for crop growth and crop yields. All these negatively affect small-scale farmers. In a study assessing the economic impact of climate change on agriculture in Cameroon, Molua and Lambi (2006) found that as temperature increases, and precipitation decreases, net revenue dropped across all the surveyed farms. The study equally revealed that an increase in temperature by 2.5 °C will lead to a drop in net revenues from agriculture in Cameroon by $0.5 billion. A 5 °C increase in temperature on its part will lead to a drop in net revenues by $1.7 billion. A 7% decrease in precipitation will lead to a drop in net revenues by $1.96 billion, and a 14% decrease in precipitation will lead to a drop in net revenues from crops by $3.8 billion. The study, however, found that increases in precipitation will lead to an increase in net revenues. Based on these findings, small-scale farmers in Cameroon will be adversely affected by climate change through a fall in farm revenue. On their part, Tabi et al. (2012), in a study carried out in the Volta region of Ghana, found that climate change adversely affects rice farmers. These adverse effects were death of animals, loss of farming capital, heat stress, increase in social vices, shortage of water, slow development, and increased poverty and food insecurity. From these findings and those of other studies aforementioned, it could be said that climate change has mainly adverse or negative effects on small-scale farmers in Africa.

Drivers of Small-Scale Farmers’ Vulnerability to Climate Change in Africa In the face of climate change adversities, small-scale farmers in Africa are the most vulnerable actors involved in the agricultural sector (Rurinda 2014). Small-scale farmers’ vulnerability to climate change adversities could be attributed to several factors. In a study carried out to examine the vulnerability of small-scale farming systems of Zimbabwe to climate change, Rurinda (2014) and Rurinda et al. (2014) found that the main causes or sources of vulnerability of small-scale farmers to climate change were lack of knowledge, lack of draught power, increased rainfall variability, lack of seed, lack of fertilizer, and declining soil fertility. Following Rurinda’s findings, the single most important source or cause of small-scale farmers’ vulnerability to climate change was increasing variability in rainfall. In a study assessing rice farming in the Volta region of Ghana, Tabi et al. (2012) showed that the main sources or causes of rice farmers’ vulnerability to climate change were low price of rice in the local market, difficult land tenure system, limited or no access to credit facilities, few farmers engaged in off-farm activities, poor soils, and lack of insurance in times of crop failure.

5

Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Africa: Small-Scale. . .

93

The CDCCP (2009), in a study undertaken in the Chiredzi district of Zimbabwe, found that the main causes of small-scale farmers’ vulnerability to climate change were as follows: poor farming practices, high frequency of drought, inherent dryness, limited use of climate early warning systems, over-dependence on monocropping especially maize, high incidence of poverty, population pressure, skewed ownership and access to drylands’ livelihood assets such as livestock and wildlife, lack of drought preparedness plans, limited alternative livelihood options outside agriculture, and low access to technology (irrigation, seed), markets, institutions, and infrastructure (poor roads, bridges, modern energy, dams and water conveyance). These findings therefore demonstrate that small-scale farmers in Africa are highly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.

Adaptation Options Implemented by Small-Scale Farmers in Africa Confronted with Climate Change In Africa, small-scale farmers have adopted different adaptive options in order to improve their adaptive capacity confronted with climate change. Tabi et al. (2012) while assessing rice farming in the Volta region of Ghana found that rain-fed lowland rice farmers practiced different adaptive choices among which were the application of fertilizers, water management control practices, alternation of planting dates, herbicide use, and the use of high-yielding and disease-resistant varieties. On their part, Kuwornu et al. (2013) in a study carried out in northern Ghana found that smallscale farmers adopted both indigenous and introduced (modern) adaptive options to improve their adaptive capacity to climate change. Molua and Lambi (2006), in a study undertaken in Cameroon, found that the main indigenous adaptation strategies implemented by small-scale farmers in the face of climate change were changing timing of farming operations, increasing planting space, undertaking traditional and religious ceremonies, change of crops, varying area cultivated, and cultivation of short season local varieties. The FAO (2006) found that the major indigenous adaptation strategies practiced by small-scale farmers were reducing food intake, change of crops, reducing personal expenditures, mortgaging land, homestead gardening, disposing of productive harvests, and re-sowing or replanting. Different authors have carried out studies across Africa with varying findings as far as indigenous adaptive choices implemented by small-scale farmers confronted with climate change adversities are concerned. For example, studies carried out by Hassan and Nhemachena (2008), the FAO (2008, 2009b), Gbetibouo (2009), and Deressa et al. (2010) showed that diversification of crops is a major indigenous strategy practiced by small-scale farmers confronted with climate change adversities. Studies carried out by Easterling et al. (2007), Boko et al. (2007), Gbetibouo (2009), the FAO (2009a, 2010c), and Deressa et al. (2010) showed that the integration of livestock to crop production is a key indigenous strategy practiced by small-scale farmers confronted with climate change. Studies undertaken by Molua and Lambi (2006), Easterling et al. (2007), Boko et al. (2007), Hassan and

94

N. P. Awazi et al.

Nhemachena (2008), Gbetibouo (2009), and the FAO (2009b) revealed that changing the timing of farm operations is one of the most important indigenous strategies adopted by small-scale farmers in the face of climate change. The FAO (2006, 2009b), Molua and Lambi (2006), and Gbetibouo (2009) found that changing of crops was a major adaptation strategy used by small-scale farmers to adapt to climate change. The FAO (2006) and Altieri and Koohafkan (2008) found that home gardening was a major indigenous strategy practiced by smallscale farmers confronted with climate change adversities. The FAO (2010a), Thorlakson (2011), Rao et al. (2011), Mbow et al. (2013), Bishaw et al. (2013), Mbow et al. (2014), Kabir et al. (2015) and Awazi and Tchamba (2019), found that agroforestry practices like scattered trees on croplands, improved fallows, home gardens, and cocoa, coffee, and banana agroforests were sustainable and climate-smart adaptive choices practiced by small-scale farmers across Africa in the face of climate change. From the foregoing, small-scale farmers are adopting both indigenous and introduced adaptive measures to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change across Africa. However, very little has been done to assess the adaptive capacity of smallscale farmers in the face of climate change.

Determinants of Small-Scale Farmers’ Choice of Adaptive Measures Confronted with Climate Change Small-scale farmers’ choice of adaptive measures confronted with climate change was influenced by several factors. Tabi et al. (2012), in a study carried out to assess the different adaptive choices of small-scale rice farmers in Ghana, found that the main variables influencing the different adaptive options of small-scale farmers were distance to farm and market, labor, advice from extension agents, gender, length of stay in rice farm, age, farm size, number of farms, credits, household size, and education. Deressa et al. (2008) and Atinkut and Mebrat (2016) on their part found that different infrastructural and institutional factors as well as household and farm characteristics influenced the adaptive choices of small-scale farmers confronted with adverse climatic changes. Through marginal analysis, Deressa et al. (2008), in a study carried out in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia, found that institutional factors (availability of information), social capital, household variables, agro-ecological features, and wealth attributes influenced small-scale farmers’ adaptive choices confronted with climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Studies carried out by Maddison 2006 and Nhemachena and Hassan (2007) showed that the most common household attributes influencing small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change adversities were wealth, marital status, farming experience, age, education, and gender of the head of household; common farm attributes influencing small-scale farmers’ adaptive choices to climate change included fertility, slope, and farm size; common institutional factors affecting adaptive choices of small-scale farmers to adverse climatic changes included credit accessibility and access to extension services; and the common infrastructural factor

5

Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Africa: Small-Scale. . .

95

influencing small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change was distance to input and output markets. Across Africa, different studies have been carried out assessing the impact of climate change and factors affecting small-scale farmers’ adaptive choices in crop, livestock, and mixed crop-livestock production systems confronted with climate change adversities (Maddison 2006; Hassan and Nhemachena 2008; Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn 2007). However, Zivanomoyo and Mukarati (2012) assessed the factors affecting small-scale farmers’ choice of crop varieties confronted with climate change adversities. The study sought to examine how farmers’ choice of different crop varieties contributed to improve their adaptive capacity to climate change. Findings revealed that the use of more disease-resistant and hybrid varieties contributed in a major way towards enhancing the adaptive capacity of small-scale farmers to climate change. From the foregoing, the factors influencing the adaptive choices of small-scale farmers confronted with climate change adversities could be broadly classified into institutional, environmental, and socio-economic factors. Although the factors influencing the adaptive choices of small-scale farmers confronted with climate change have been examined by different studies across Africa, little has been done to assess the small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change.

Barriers to Adaptation for Small-Scale Farmers in Africa Confronted with Climate Change In Africa, small-scale farmers have increasingly faced difficulties adapting to the adverse effects of climate change because of different factors. Tabi et al. (2012), in a study carried out on small-scale rice farmers in the Upper Volta region of Ghana, found that the main barriers to small-scale farmers’ adoption of different adaptive options confronted with climate change were lack of equipment for quick and appropriate land preparation, lack of farm inputs, inadequate or no irrigation facilities, inadequate or no weather forecast, and limited access to credits. Deressa et al. (2008) in a study carried out in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia found that five major constraints affected small-scale farmers’ adaptation choices to climate change. These barriers were shortage of land, shortage of labor, poor potential for irrigation, lack of money, and lack of information. The study however found that most of the constraints to small-scale farmers’ adaptation to climate change could be largely attributed to poverty. Deressa et al. (2009, 2011), in studies undertaken in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia, equally demonstrated that poverty is a major barrier to small-scale farmers’ adaptation to climate change, because lack of money makes it difficult for small-scale farmers to get the required resources and technologies that ease adaptation to climate change. In a study carried out in the coastal regions of Bangladesh, Kabir et al. (2015) found that the main constraints to climate change adaptation for small-scale farmers were lack of information, lack of credit, unpredicted weather, shortage of land, shortage of farm inputs, and lack of water. Tessema et al. (2013), in a study carried out in the Eastern Hararghe Zone of Ethiopia, discovered that the major constraints

96

N. P. Awazi et al.

to climate change adaptation for small-scale farmers were shortage of land, lack of seed, shortage of labor, limited market access, lack of money, lack of water, lack of fertilizer, lack of oxen, insecure land tenure, and lack of information. In different parts of Ethiopia, studies have shown that small-scale farmers face several difficulties in their drive to adapt to climate change (Maddison 2007; Deressa et al. 2009, 2011; Bryan et al. 2009; Mersha and Laerhoven 2016). The aforementioned studies indicate that, small-scale farmers’ inability to adapt to climate change is largely due to different barriers. However, limited work has been done to examine the adaptive capacity of small-scale farmers confronted with climate change and the barriers to small-scale farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change.

Effectiveness of Small-Scale Farmers’ Adaptation Measures in Enhancing Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change In Africa, the effectiveness of small-scale farmers’ adaptive choices confronted with climate change varies tremendously. Kuwornu et al. (2013) carried out a study to assess the adaptive options of small-scale farmers confronted with climate change adversities and the effectiveness of these adaptive options. They found that among the different indigenous strategies used by small-scale farmers to adapt to the adversities of climate change, the strategies comprising of timing of rainfall and early or late planting were ranked by small-scale farmers in northern Ghana as the most effective strategy used in adapting to adverse climate change while soil-related strategies were ranked as the least effective indigenous strategy used by small-scale farmers. Kuwornu et al. (2013) equally found that among the introduced adaptation strategies (adaptation strategies introduced by research), soil and plant health strategies were ranked by small-scale farmers as the most effective introduced strategy enhancing adaptation to climate change, while non-adoption of any of the introduced strategies was quasi-unanimously ranked by small-scale farmers as the least effective way of adapting to the adverse effects of changing climatic conditions. Hadgu et al. (2015) in a study undertaken in the Tigray region of northern Ethiopia found that changing of crop variety/type was ranked by small-scale farmers as the most effective adaptation strategy to climate change while the “No” adaptation strategy was the least effective way to adapt to the adversities of changing climatic conditions. The review of previous literature enabled the authors of this chapter to understand what had been done on the African continent in general and Cameroon in particular as far as small-scale farmers’ adaptation and adaptive capacity to climate change were concerned. It equally afforded the authors the opportunity to identify some independent variables used in the chapter. However, it was found that while many authors had undertaken studies which revealed that small-scale farmers adopt different adaptive choices in the face of climate change, little had been done to examine small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change. This work was therefore initiated in a bid to fill the knowledge gap.

5

Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Africa: Small-Scale. . .

97

Description of Study Area and Methodology Description of the Study Area The study was carried out in the north-west region of Cameroon. The north-west region of Cameroon lies between longitude 9°300 E to 11°150 E and latitude 5°40 N to 7°150 N. The north-west region of Cameroon covers a total surface area of about 17,812 km2 and hosts a population of over 1,840,500 inhabitants, which gives a population density of roughly 103 inhabitants/km2 making it one of the most densely populated regions in Cameroon. The climate is tropical, and the vegetation is mostly made up of savannah grassland, interspersed with some forest patches. The topography is rolling and characterized by mountains like Mount Oku and plains like the Ndop and Mbaw plains.

Research Methods Study Site Selection and Sampling Methods The multiphase sampling procedure was employed. At the first phase, the area of study (the north-west region of Cameroon) was selected purposively owing to the presence of mainly small-scale farmers and the high levels of vulnerability of these small-scale farmers to climate change. At the second phase, ten villages were randomly selected from the different sub-districts found in the north-west region of Cameroon, taking into cognizance the agro-ecological, socio-economic, and environmental attributes of the different sub-districts. This was done with the help of agricultural extension agents working in the area. The third phase involved focus group discussions with small-scale farmers and key informant interviews with resource persons. This was done in order to get general information on the adaptive capacity of small-scale farmers and to triangulate this information with that gotten from small-scale farmers during household surveys. In the fourth and last phase, household surveys were conducted in the ten villages using the simple random sampling approach. With the use of semi-structured questionnaires, a total of 350 small-scale farmer household heads were sampled in the ten villages.

Data Sources and Collection Both secondary and primary data were collected. Secondary data were collected primarily through the review of relevant literature from previous scientific studies as well as climate data from meteorological stations in the study area. Primary data were collected through a survey of 350 small-scale farmer household heads, complemented with focus group discussions, key informant interviews with resource persons, and overt observations. Through the use of five-point Likert scale-style questions during household surveys, farmers were asked to rank their adaptive capacity to climate change

98

N. P. Awazi et al.

based on their livelihood capital assets. These livelihood capital assets were natural, human, social, financial, and physical. These different capital assets constituted the independent variables of the study. It was on the basis of these capital assets that farmers ranked their adaptive capacity to climate change to be high, low, or no adaptive capacity.

Analysis of Data Primary data collected on the field was coded and imputed into Microsoft Excel 2007 and SPSS 20.0 statistical packages for descriptive and inferential statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics computed were charts and percentage indices, while inferential statistics computed were t-test statistic, chi-square test, and logistic regression. The independent samples t-test and chi-square (X2) test statistics were used to identify the non-cause-effect relationship between small-scale farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change and independent variables. The binary logistic (BNL) regression model on its part was used to examine the cause-effect relationship between small-scale farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change and independent variables. The binary logistic regression model predicts the log ODDS of having made one decision or the other. This model permits the analysis of decisions across two categories (Di Falcao et al. 2011; Awazi and Tchamba 2018).

Dependent and Independent Variables Both dependent and independent variables were used. The dependent variable was adaptive capacity (binary, i.e., adaptive/not adaptive), while the independent or independent variables (different capital assets) were age of household head, household size, number of farms, income of household, educational level, gender of household head, practice of agroforestry, vulnerability to climate change, information accessibility, credit accessibility, land accessibility, and access to extension services. Because the dependent and independent variables were mainly qualitative in nature, the statistical analyses were done using non-parametric tests and the discrete regression model (binomial logistic regression).

Findings Variations and Changes in Climate Elements The analysis of over five decades of climate data revealed significant variations in climate parameters (Figs. 1, 2, and 3). In the past 58 years (1961–2018), temperature fluctuations were high, and most of the years experienced above mean temperature, implying that temperature is becoming higher than usual. Meanwhile the total

5

Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Africa: Small-Scale. . .

99

Fig. 1 Temperature variation 1961–2018

quantity of rainfall and number of rainy days equally experienced marked levels of fluctuation, with most of the years experiencing a decrease in amount of rainfall and fewer rainy days. This indicates that the amount of rainfall has been scanty while the number of rainy days has been erratic. These high levels of fluctuation in climate parameters within the past 58 years could therefore be seen as an indicator of climatic variations and changes. In the face of climatic variations and changes, the relationship between the different climate parameters varied. Scatter plots indicated the existence of an insignificant negative correlation between rainfall and temperature, and rainy days and temperature. Meanwhile a relatively strong positive correlation was found to exist between rainfall and rainy days.

Adaptive Choices of Small-Scale Farmers Confronted with Climate Change Adversities An analysis of small-scale farmers’ adaptive choices confronted with climate change showed that a majority of the small-scale farmers (74%) were practicing agroforestry on their farm plots (Table 1). Among the agroforestry practices most patronized by

100

N. P. Awazi et al.

Fig. 2 Variation in rainfall 1961–2018

small-scale farmers confronted with adverse climatic variations and changes were home gardens with livestock (13%), home garden (11%), trees on croplands (11%), live fences/hedges (11%), and coffee-based agroforestry (9%) (Table 1). Equally, some small-scale farmers confronted with adverse climatic variations and changes practiced monoculture (Table 1). The most common monoculture and mono-livestock practices of small-scale farmers confronted with adverse climatic variations and changes were market gardening monoculture (8%), cash crop monoculture (7%), and food crops monoculture (9%).

Farmer Perceived Factors Influencing Adaptive Capacity to Adverse Climatic Variations and Changes Assessing small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to adverse climatic variations and changes (Fig. 4), it was found that all the small-scale farmers perceived land accessibility (100%) and income of household (100%) as being the main factors influencing adaptive capacity to climate change. Agroforestry (82%), accessibility to markets (77%), credit accessibility (72%), information accessibility (65%), and access to extension services (55%) were

5

Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Africa: Small-Scale. . .

101

Fig. 3 Variation in rainy days 1961–2018

equally perceived by small-scale farmers as being among the key factors affecting adaptive capacity to climate change. Other least perceived factors influencing adaptive capacity to climate change were irrigation (31%) and others (14%) like road network and topography. However, it is worth mentioning that the main factors influencing small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change were land accessibility, income of household, agroforestry, accessibility to markets, credit accessibility, and information accessibility (Fig. 4).

Farmers’ Capacity to Adapt to Climate Change Concerning the adaptive capacity of small-scale farmers to climate change (Fig. 5), most small-scale farmers perceived that on the basis of their livelihood capital assets, they were not adaptive (58%). Meanwhile 14%, 20%, and 4% of small-scale farmers perceived that, on the basis of their livelihood capital assets, they were adaptive, less adaptive, and much less adaptive, respectively, to climate change. Only 4% of small-scale farmers perceived that, on the basis of their livelihood capital assets, they were highly adaptive to climate change. From these perceptions, it was noticed that most small-scale farmers had a limited capacity to adapt to climate change (Fig. 5).

102

N. P. Awazi et al.

Table 1 Small-scale farmers’ adaptive choices confronted with the adverse effects of climate change Farmers’ adaptive choice confronted with climate change adversity 1. Agroforestry practices a. Home garden with livestock b. Home garden c. Trees on croplands d. Live fences/hedges e. Taungya f. Trees on grazing lands g. Improved fallows h. Coffee-based agroforestry i. Others (entomoforestry, aquaforestry) Total 2. Monoculture and mono-livestock practices a. Market gardening crops only b. Cash crops only c. Food crops only d. Livestock only Total N

Frequency (n)

Percent (%)

35 30 30 30 20 15 10 25 5 200

13 11 11 11 7 6 4 9 2 74

20 20 25 5 70 270

8 7 9 2 26 100

Farmer perceived factors affecting adaptive capacity to climate change

Source: Adapted from Awazi et al. 2020

Others

14

Irrigation

31

Access to extension services

55

Information accessibility

65

Credit accessibility

72

Accessibility to markets

77

Agroforestry

82

Household income

100

Land accessibility

100 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Farmer perceived factors affecting adaptive capacity

Fig. 4 Factors influencing adaptive capacity to climate change perceived by small-scale farmers

Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Africa: Small-Scale. . .

5

103

70 60

Percent (%)

50 40 30

58

20 10

20 14

0

4

4

Highly adaptive

Adaptive

Less adaptive

Much less adaptive

Not adaptive

Farmer perceived adaptive capacity to climate change Fig. 5 Adaptive capacity to climate change perceived by small-scale farmers Table 2 Non-cause-effect relationship between small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change and four continuous independent variables Independent variable Number of farms Household size Age of household head Income of household (in FCFA)

T-test for equality of means t df 10.776 170.493 7.552 195.262 8.224 209.441 9.062 179.442

p-level 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000***

Mean diff. 2.940 1.590 5.192 179415.9

***

Significant at 1% probability level

Factors Affecting Small-Scale Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change Non-Cause-Effect Relationship Between Small-Scale Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity and Continuous Independent Variables T-test statistics showed that there was a significant non-cause-effect relationship between small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity and four continuous independent variables (Table 2). The continuous independent variables (number of farms (t ¼ 10.776, p < 0.001), size of household (t ¼ 7.552, p < 0.001), age of household head (t ¼ 8.224, p < 0.001), and income of household (t ¼ 9.062, p < 0.001)) all had a significant non-cause-effect relationship with small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change. This demonstrates that the number of farms owned, size of household, age of

104

N. P. Awazi et al.

household head, and income of household play an important role in influencing the adaptive capacity of small-scale farmers confronted with climate change.

Non-Cause-Effect Relationship Between Small-Scale Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity and Qualitative Independent Variables Chi-square test statistics showed that there was a significant non-cause-effect relationship between small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change and seven (07) qualitative independent variables (Table 3). The qualitative independent variables (level of education of household head (X2 ¼ 123.10, p < 0.001), gender of household head (X2 ¼ 24.95, p < 0.001), practice of agroforestry (X2 ¼ 64.50, p < 0.001), information accessibility (X2 ¼ 44.70, p < 0.001), credit accessibility (X2 ¼ 90.88, p < 0.001), land accessibility (X2 ¼ 52.50, p < 0.001), and access to agricultural extension services (X2 ¼ 21.54, p < 0.001)) all had a significant non-cause-effect relationship with small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change. This confirms that the level of education of household head, gender of household head, practice of agroforestry, access to information, access to credit, access to land, and access to

Table 3 Non-cause-effect relationship between small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity and qualitative independent variables Qualitative independent variable Educational level of household head

Gender of household head Practice agroforestry Information accessibility Credit accessibility Land accessibility Access to extension

Description No formal edu. Primary Secondary High school Tertiary Male Female Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Frequency (n) N. A. A. 11 21

Percentage (%) A. 3.14

N.A. 6

62 10 34

180 0 1

17.71 2.86 9.71

51.43 0 2.86

30 104 43

1 89 114

8.57 29.71 12.28

2.86 25.43 32.57

147 0 42 105 64 83 51 96 45 102

132 71 7 196 5 198 10 193 22 181

42 0 12 30 18.28 23.71 14.57 27.43 12.86 29.14

37.71 20.28 2 56 1.43 56.57 2.86 55.14 6.29 51.71

Chisquare 123.10

L.R. 141.69

p-level 0.000***

24.95

25.47

0.000***

64.50

90.23

0.000***

44.70

46.69

0.000***

90.88

99.25

0.000***

52.50

54.33

0.000***

21.54

21.41

0.000***

Significant at 1% probability level; A. ¼ adaptive; N.A. ¼ not adaptive; L.R. ¼ likelihood ratio

***

5

Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Africa: Small-Scale. . .

105

agricultural extension services influence small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change.

Binary Logistic Regression Model Predicting Small-Scale Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climatic Change from Independent Variables The parameter estimates of the binary logistic regression model revealed that five main independent variables played a statistically significant role in influencing small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate changes (Table 4). From the parameter estimates of the binary logistic regression model, the number of farms (β ¼ 0.271, p < 0.05), information accessibility (β ¼ 0.937, p < 0.1), credit accessibility (β ¼ 1.596, p < 0.05), income of household (β ¼ 1.821, p < 0.01), and land accessibility (β ¼ 1.029, p < 0.05) all had a significant direct cause-effect relationship with small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change. This implies that as the number of farms, information accessibility, credit accessibility, household income, and land accessibility increase, small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change also increases. It is important to note that the parameter estimates of this model were valid looking at the likelihood ratio X2, the number of cases correctly classified, and the Nagelkerke R2. The likelihood ratio X2 (5, n ¼ 350 ¼ 145.835, p < 0.01) indicated that the model was statistically significant and had a strong explanatory power. The model correctly classified up to 80% of the factors influencing small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change. Looking at the Nagelkerke R2 (Pseudo R2) of the model which stood at 0.648, it revealed that up to 64.8% of the changes in smallscale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change could be explained by changes in the continuous and qualitative independent variables of the model. Hence, from the values of the likelihood ratio X2, the number of cases correctly classified, and the Nagelkerke R2, it could be said that the predictions of the model were very much

Table 4 Logistic regression showing influence of independent variables on the adaptive capacity of small-scale farmers to climate change Independent variables Constant Number of farms Income of household Information accessibility Credit accessibility Land accessibility Log likelihood Likelihood ratio X2 Nagelkerke R2 Number of cases correctly classified *, **, ***

Coefficients (β) 1.961*** 0.271** 1.821*** 0.937* 1.596** 1.029** 330.37 145.84*** 0.648 80%

plevel 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.087 0.006 0.027

Std error 0.294 0.092 0.614 0.548 0.582 0.465

Wald 44.426 8.690 9.064 2.929 7.526 4.891

0.000

Significant at 10%, 5%, and 1% probability levels, respectively

df 1 1 1 1 1 1

Odds ratio (Exp β) 0.141 1.311 5.134 2.553 4.931 2.798

106

N. P. Awazi et al.

valid as far as determining the factors influencing small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change was concerned.

Discussion Variations in Climate Elements Extreme levels of variation in climate parameters (rainfall, temperature, and rainy days) have been recurrent in the north-west region of Cameroon in the past five decades which attests to climate variations and changes. Although other studies have shown the occurrence of climate variability in the north-west region of Cameroon (Innocent et al. 2016; Awazi 2018; Awazi and Tchamba 2018; Awazi et al. 2019), few studies in Cameroon have examined climatic variations using over five decades of climate data. The chapter equally assessed the non-cause-effect and cause-effect relationship existing between climate parameters (temperature, rainy days, and rainfall) in the face of adverse climatic variations and changes. It was found that there is a very limited inverse relationship between rainfall and temperature as well as rainy days and temperature. Meanwhile a relatively strong direct relationship exists between rainfall and rainy days. This indicated that an interdependent relationship exists between rainfall and rainy days in the face of climate change. Studies carried out in other parts of the world by Chen and Wang (1995), Buishand and Brandsma (1999), Seleshi and Zanke (2004), Cong and Brady (2012), Berg et al. (2013), Olsson et al. (2015), Nkuna and Odiyo (2016), and Weng et al. (2017) have equally proven the existence of an interdependent relationship between climate parameters, although not in the context of climate change. By examining the relationship between climate parameters in the face of climate change, this chapter has filled a major knowledge gap.

Adaptive Choices of Small-Scale Farmers Confronted with Climate Change It was found that most small-scale farmers practice agroforestry to enhance their adaptive capacity to climate change. Agroforestry practices therefore constitute a major adaptive choice for small-scale farmers. Most studies carried out in Africa (Easterling et al. 2007; Boko et al. 2007; Hassan and Nhemachena 2008; Gbetibouo 2009; FAO 2009b, 2010; Deressa et al. 2010) have merely shown that small-scale farmers adopt indigenous and non-indigenous adaptation strategies to combat the adversities of climate change. This chapter revealed that most small-scale farmers adopt agro-ecological farming practices like agroforestry to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change, thereby filling the knowledge gap.

5

Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Africa: Small-Scale. . .

107

Perceived Factors Affecting Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change Small-scale farmers perceived several factors influencing their adaptive capacity. Among these factors, land accessibility, income of household, and the practice of agroforestry were perceived by small-scale farmers as the most important factors affecting their adaptive capacity to climate change. As reported by other scientific studies, small-scale farmers usually perceive a combination of factors influencing their adaptation to climate variations and changes. Most studies have assessed the different adaptation choices practiced by small-scale farmers to enhance adaptive capacity to climate change (McCarthy et al. 2004; Gbetibouo and Ringler 2009; Folke et al. 2010; World Bank 2013), with very limited literature dwelling on the adaptive capacity of small-scale farmers confronted with climate change. By examining small-scale farmers’ perceptions of their adaptive capacity to climate change, this chapter has filled the knowledge gap. Although some studies (Gordon 2009; Gbetibouo 2009; Thorlakson 2011) have used conceptual and theoretical approaches to assess adaptive capacity to climate change, this chapter by applying the inferential statistical approach to examine small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change adversities has filled a major knowledge gap.

Non-Cause-Effect and Cause-Effect Relationship Between Small-Scale Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change and Independent/ Independent Variables A non-cause-effect relationship was found to exist between small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity and independent variables (institutional, environmental, and socioeconomic variables) like number of farms, household size, age of household head, income of household, level of education, gender, practice of agroforestry, information accessibility, credit accessibility, land accessibility, and access to extension services. Most studies undertaken across Africa and different parts of the world (McCarthy et al. 2004; Gbetibouo and Ringler 2009; Gordon 2009; Gbetibouo 2009; Folke et al. 2010; Thorlakson 2011; World Bank 2013; Awazi 2018; Awazi et al. 2019) mainly examined the non-cause-effect relationship existing between independent variables and small-scale farmers’ adaptation choices to climate change. By unraveling the existence of a non-cause-effect relationship between adaptive capacity and different independent variables (institutional, environmental, and socioeconomic variables), this chapter has therefore filled a knowledge gap. A direct cause-effect relationship was found to exist between small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity and five main independent variables (credit accessibility, information accessibility, income of household, number of farms, and land accessibility). These five independent variables could therefore be considered as very important in enhancing small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change.

108

N. P. Awazi et al.

Thus, small-scale farmers with many farms are more adaptive to climate change which could be attributed to more yields obtained from these many farms which are consumed by the household and the excess sold to buy farm inputs. It could equally be that these farmers have more access to social and financial resources and/or better education which allows them to control more land and therefore enhanced adaptive capacity. In the same light, small-scale farmers with better information accessibility are more adaptive to climate change than their counterparts with limited or no access which could be attributed to the fact that small-scale farmers with easy access to information are able to make plans into the future which helps them to adopt best practices. Equally, small-scale farmers with more access to credit are more adaptive to climate change adversities than their fellow farmers with limited or no access to credit. This could be due to the fact that small-scale farmers with easy access to credit facilities are able to buy better farm inputs and can easily switch to best practices which act as a buffer to the adverse effects of climate change. Meanwhile small-scale farmers with little or no access to credit facilities are unable to buy good farm inputs and cannot switch to best practices on time which renders them weak and vulnerable in the face of climatic extremes. Similarly, small-scale farmers with more access to land are better adaptive to climate change than their counterparts with limited or no land which can be attributed to the fact that land is an indispensable asset to any farmer, for it is the most important fixed asset, and without it, no farming activity can take place. Some authors like Mccarthy et al. (2004), Gbetibouo (2009), Thorlakson (2011), and Awazi et al. (2019) have found the existence of cause-effect relationship between small-scale farmers’ adaptation choices to climate change and different independent variables. Through the use of inferential statistics to examine the causeeffect relationship between adaptive capacity and different independent variables (institutional, socio-economic, and environmental factors), this chapter fills a major knowledge gap.

Conclusion and Policy Implications Based on the findings of this chapter, it is clearly noticed that institutional, socioeconomic, and environmental factors are key determinants of small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change. The existence of a statistically significant direct cause-effect relationship between small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity and independent variables such as credit accessibility, information accessibility, land accessibility, income of household, and number of farms is testament to the vital role these livelihood capital assets play towards enhancing small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change. Thus, it is recommended that policy makers seeking to alleviate the plight of vulnerable small-scale farmers take these determinants of small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity into consideration when

5

Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Africa: Small-Scale. . .

109

formulating policies geared towards enhancing small-scale farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change.

References Adger WN, Agrawala S, Mirza MMQ, Conde C, O’Brien K, Puhlin J, Pulwarty R, Smit B, Takahashi K (2007) Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment of the IPCC, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hansen CE (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR4/website/17.pdf Aggarwal VRK, Mahajan PK, Negi YS, Bhardwaj SK (2015) Trend analysis of weather parameters and people perception in Kullu District of Western Himalayan region. Environ Ecol Res 3 (1):24–33. https://doi.org/10.13189/eer.2015.030104 Altieri MA, Koohafkan P (2008) Enduring farms: climate change, small-scales and traditional farming communities. Environment and development series 6. Third world network. Penang, Malaysia. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/docs/enduring_farms.pdf Anderson J (2007) How much did property rights matter? Understanding food insecurity in Zimbabwe: a critique of Richardson. Afr Aff 106(425):681–690. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/ adm064.pdf Atinkut B, Mebrat A (2016) Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation to climate variability in Dera Woreda, South Gondar Zone, Ethiopia. Environ Syst Res 5:6. http://link.springer.com/ content/pdf/10.1186%2Fs40068-015-0046-x.pdf Awazi NP (2018) Adaptation options enhancing farmers’ resilience to climate change. LAP LAMBERT Academic, 132 p. ISBN-10: 3330027940; ISBN-13: 978-3330027947 Awazi NP, Tchamba NM (2018) Determinants of small-scale farmers’ adaptation decision to climate variability and change in the north-west region of Cameroon. Afr J Agric Res 13:534–543 Awazi NP, Tchamba NM (2019) Enhancing agricultural sustainability and productivity under changing climate conditions through improved agroforestry practices in small-scale farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Afr J Agric Res 14(7):379–388 Awazi NP, Tchamba NM, Tabi FO (2019) An assessment of adaptation options enhancing smallscale farmers’ resilience to climate variability and change: case of Mbengwi Central subDivision, the north-west region of Cameroon. Afr J Agric Res 14(6):321–334 Awazi NP, Tchamba NM, Temgoua LF (2020) Enhancement of resilience to climate variability and change through agroforestry practices in smallholder farming systems in Cameroon. Agrofor Syst 94:687–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00435-y Azibo BR, Kimengsi JN (2015) Building an indigenous agro-pastoral adaptation framework to climate change in sub-Saharan Africa: experiences from the the north-west region of Cameroon. Procedia Environ Sci 29:126–127 Azibo BR, Kimengsi JN, Buchenrieder G (2016) Understanding and building on indigenous agropastoral adaptation strategies for climate change in sub-Saharan Africa: experiences from rural Cameroon. J Adv Agric 6(1):833–840. https://doi.org/10.24297/jaa.v6i1.5391 Belaineh L, Ayele Y, Bewket W (2013) Smallholder farmers’ perceptions and adaptation to climate variability and change in Doba District, West Hararghe, Ethiopia. Asian J Empir Res 3(3):251– 265. http://www.aessweb.com/download.php?id¼1838.pdf Benhin J (2006) Climate change and South African agriculture: impacts and adaptation options. CEEPA discussion paper no 21, July 2006. https://www.weadapt.org/sites/weadapt.org/files/ legacy-new/knowledge-base/files/5370f181a5657504721bd5c21csouth-african-agriculture.pdf Berg P, Moseley C, Haerter JO (2013) Strong increase in convective precipitation in response to higher temperatures. Nat Geosci 6:181–185

110

N. P. Awazi et al.

Biermann F (2007) Earth system governance as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environ Chang 17(2007):326–337. http://www.glogov.org/images/doc/Biermann% 202007%20GEC%20Earth%20System%20Governance.pdf Bishaw B, Neufeldt H, Mowo J, Abdelkadir A, Muriuki J, Dalle G, Assefa T, Guillozet K, Kassa H, Dawson IK, Luedeling E, Mbow C (2013) Farmers’ strategies for adapting to and mitigating climate variability and change through agroforestry in Ethiopia and Kenya. Davis CM, Bernart B, Dmitriev A (eds). Forestry Communications Group, Oregon State University, Corvallis. http://international.oregonstate.edu/files/final_report_agroforestry_synthesis_paper_3_14_ 2013.pdf Boissière M, Locatelli B, Sheil D, Padmanaba M, Sadjudin E (2013) Local perceptions of climate variability and change in tropical forests of Papua, Indonesia. Ecol Soc 18(4):13 Boko M, Niang I, Nyong A, Vogel C, Githeko A, Medany M, Osman-Elasha B, Tabo R, Yanda P (2007) Africa. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 433–467. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/ wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter9.pdf Bryan E, Deressa TT, Gbetibouo GA, Ringler C (2009) Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: options and constraints. Environ Sci Policy 12:413–426. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/222015072.pdf Buishand TA, Brandsma T (1999) Dependence of precipitation on temperature at Florence and Livorno (Italy). Clim Res 12:53–63 CDCCP Synthesis Report (2009) Coping with drought and climate change project: case of the Chiredzi district of Zimbabwe. http://adaptation-undp.org/sites/default/files/downloads/cwd_ va_synthesis_report.pdf Challinor AJ (2009) Developing adaptation options using climate and crop yield forecasting at seasonal to multi-decadal timescales. Environ Sci Policy 12(4):453–465. ISSN 0168-1923 Challinor AJ, Wheeler TR (2008) Crop yield reduction in the tropics under climate change: processes and uncertainties. Agric For Meteorol 148:343–356 Chanana-Nag N, Aggarwal PK (2018) Woman in agriculture, and climate risks: hotspots for development. Clim Chang. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2233-z Chen Y-L, Wang J-J (1995) The effects of precipitation on the surface temperature and airflow over the island of Hawaii. Am Meteorol Soc 123:681–694 Cong R-G, Brady M (2012) The interdependence between rainfall and temperature: copula analyses. Sci World J 2012:405675, 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/405675 De Wit M (2006) Measuring the economic impacts of climate change on crop farming in Africa. Climate change and African agriculture policy note no 8. CEEPA, University of Pretoria, Pretoria Deressa T, Hassan RM, Alemu T, Yesuf M, Ringler C (2008) Analyzing the determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods and perceptions of climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. IFPRI discussion paper 00798. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 26 p. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6337745.pdf Deressa TT, Hassan RM, Ringler C, Alemu T, Yesuf M (2009) Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Glob Environ Chang 19:248–255. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378009000156.pdf Deressa TT, Ringler C, Hassan RM (2010) Factors affecting the choices of coping strategies for climate extremes: the case of farmers in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. IFPRI discussion paper no. 01032. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 25 pp. http://ebrary.ifpri. org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/5198.pdf Deressa TT, Hassan RM, Ringler C (2011) Perception of and adaptation to climate change by farmers in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. J Agric Sci 149:23–31 Di Falco S, Veronesi M, Yesuf M (2011) Does adaptation to climate change provide food security? A micro-perspective from Ethiopia, am. J Agric Econ 93(3):829–846. https://doi.org/10.1093/ ajae/aar006

5

Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Africa: Small-Scale. . .

111

Easterling WE, Aggarwal PK, Batima P, Brander KM, Erda L, Howden SMA, Kirilenko A, Morton J, Soussana JF, Schmidhuber J, Tubiello FN (2007) Food, fibre and forest products. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 273–313. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2chapter5.pdf FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO (2018) The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2018. Building climate resilience for food security and nutrition. FAO, Rome. Licence: CC BYNC-SA 3.0 IGO Folke C, Carpenter SR, Walker B, Scheffer M, Chapin T, Rockström J (2010) Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol Soc 15(4):20. [Online]. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2006) Livelihood Adaptation to climate variability and change in drought-prone areas of Bangladesh, Rome, p 97. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/ a0820e/a0820e.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2008) Climate change adaptation and mitigation in the food and agriculture sector. High Level Conference on World Food Security – background paper HLC/08/BAK/1. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/013/ai782e.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2009a) Profile for climate change, Rome, 28 pp. ftp:// ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i1323e/i1323e00.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2009b) Climate change and agriculture policies; How to mainstream climate change adaptation and mitigation into agriculture policies, Rome, 76 pp. http:// www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ex_act/pdf/Climate_change_and_agriculture_policies_EN.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2010a) Homestead gardens in Bangladesh. Technology for agriculture. Proven technologies for small holders. http://www.fao.org/teca/content/ homestead-gardens-bangladesh.pdf. Accessed 26 October 2014 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2010b) Incorporation of tree management into land management in Jamaica – guinea grass mulching. Technology for agriculture. Proven technologies for small holders. http://www.fao.org/teca/content/incorporation-tree-management-landmanagement-jamaica-%C2%BF-guinea-grass-mulching.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2010c) Collaborative change; a communication framework for climate change adaptation and food security, Rome, 47 pp. http://www.fao.org/docrep/ 012/i1533e/i1533e00.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2011) Framework programme on climate change adaptation, Fao-Adapt. http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2316e/i2316e00.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2016) Climate change and food security: risks and responses. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5188e.pdf Gbetibouo AG (2009) Understanding farmers’ perceptions and adaptations to climate change and variability: the case of the Limpopo Basin, South Africa. IFPRI discussion paper no. 00849. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 36 pp. http://www.ifpri.org/ publication/understanding-farmers-perceptions-and-adaptations-climate-change-and-variability.pdf Gbetibouo GA, Ringler C (2009) Mapping South African farming sector vulnerability to climate change and variability; a sub national assessment. IFPRI discussion paper 00885. http://www. ifpri.org/publication/mapping-south-african-farming-sector-vulnerability-climate-change-andvariability.pdf Gordon CR (2009) The science of climate change in Africa: impacts and adaptation, Grantham Institute for Climate Change, discussion paper NO 1. Imperial College London, https:// workspace.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange/public/pdfs/discussion_papers/Grantham_Institue_-_ The_science_of_climate_change_in_Africa.pdf Hadgu G, Tesfaye K, Mamo G, Kassa B (2015) Farmers’ climate change adaptation options and their determinants in the Tigray region, northern Ethiopia. Afr J Agric Res 10(9):956–964. http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/AJAR/article-full-text/9A1563251045.pdf

112

N. P. Awazi et al.

Hassan R, Nhemachena C (2008) Determinants of African farmers’ strategies for adapting to climate change: multinomial choice analysis. Afr J Agric Resour Econ 2(1):83–104. http:// ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/56969/2/0201%20Nhemachena%20%26%20Hassan%20-% 2026%20may.pdf Herrero M, Ringler C, van de Steeg J, Thornton P, Zhu T, Bryan E, Omolo A, Koo J, Notenbaert A (2010) Climate variability and climate change: impacts on Kenyan agriculture. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/ 10568/3840/climateVariability.pdf Innocent NM, Bitondo D, Azibo BR (2016) Climate variability and change in the Bamenda highlands of the north-west region of Cameroon: perceptions, impacts and coping mechanisms. Br J Appl Sci Technol 12(5):1–18 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Summary for policymakers, IPCC AR4 WGII. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) (2012) Sustainable small-scale agriculture: feeding the world, protecting the planet. Proceedings of the Governing Council Events. In conjunction with the thirty-fifth session of IFAD’s Governing Council, February 2012. https:// www.ifad.org/documents/10180/6d13a7a0-8c57-42ec-9b01-856f0e994054.pdf IPCC, (2014). Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds)]. IPCC, Geneva, 151 pp. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf IPCC (2018) Summary for policymakers. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner HO, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, Pirani A, Moufouma-Okia W, Péan C, Pidcock R, Connors S, Matthews JBR, Chen Y, Zhou X, Gomis MI, Lonnoy E, Maycock T, Tignor M, Waterfield T (eds) Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, 32 pp Ishaya S, Abaje IB (2008) Indigenous people’s perception on climate change and adaptation strategies in Jema’a local government area of Kaduna state. Nigeria J Geogr Reg Plann 1 (8):138–143 Juana JS, Zibanani K, Okurut FN (2013) Farmers’ perceptions and adaptations to climate change in sub-Sahara Africa: a synthesis of empirical studies and implications for public policy in African agriculture. J Agric Sci 5:121–135 Kabir KH, Billah MM, Sarker MA, Miah MAM (2015) Adaptation of farming practices by smallscale farmers in response to climate change. J Agric Ext Rural Dev 7(2):33–40. http://www. academicjournals.org/journal/JAERD/article-full-text/EB533A551012 Kurukulasuriya P, Mendelsohn R (2007) Crop selection: adapting to climate change in Africa. World Bank policy research working paper 4307, Sustainable Rural and Urban Development Team. http://library1.nida.ac.th/worldbankf/fulltext/wps04307.pdf Kuwornu MKJ, Hassan MR, Etwire MP, Osei-Owusu Y (2013) Determinants of choice of indigenous climate related strategies by small-scale farmers in northern Ghana. British Journal of Environment and Climate Change 3(2):172–187. http://www.sciencedomain.org/reviewhistory.php?iid¼251&id¼10&aid¼1785.pdf Maddison D (2006) The perception of and adaptation to climate change in Africa. Centre for Applied Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa (CEEPA). Discussion paper no 10. CEEPA, University of Pretoria, Pretoria. http://www.ceepa.co.za/uploads/files/CDP10.pdf Maddison D (2007) Perception and adaptation to climate change in Africa. Policy research working paper, 4308 Majule AE, Ngongondo C, Kallanda-Sabola M, Lamboll R, Stathers T, Liwenga E, Ngana OJ (2008) Strengthening local agricultural innovation systems in less and more favoured areas of Tanzania and Malawi to adapt to climate change and variability: perceptions. Impacts,

5

Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Africa: Small-Scale. . .

113

vulnerability and adaptation. Res. Abstracts. Issue Number 3: Sokoine University of Agric.: ISBN: 9987-38-9 Mary AL, Majule AE (2009) Impacts of climate change, variability and adaptation strategies on agriculture in semi arid areas of Tanzania: the case of Manyoni District in Singida region, Tanzania. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 3(8):206–218 Mbow C, Smith P, Skole D, Duguma L, Bustamante M (2013) Achieving mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry practices in Africa. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 6:8–14. 2014. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877343513001255/1-s2.0-S1877343513001255-main. p d f ? _ t i d ¼8 4 b c e 8 a 4 - e a 3 2 - 11 e 5 - a b 6 e - 0 0 0 0 0 a a b 0 f 6 b & a c d n a t ¼1 4 5 7 9 9 4 0 2 0 _ 73ea11926686e4ef3ccb03abe1829c42 Mbow C, Noordwijk MV, Luedeling E, Neufeldt H, Minang PA, Kowero G (2014) Agroforestry solutions to address food security and climate change challenges in Africa. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 6:61–67. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877343513001449/1-s2.0-S1877343513001449main.pdf?_tid¼45e8adc0-ea32-11e5-9b7f-00000aacb35f&acdnat¼1457993914_ 1fcfbc75960e7afcce80d0f1082f300e McCarthy J, Martello J, Marybeth L (2004) Climate change in the context of multiple stressors and resilience. ACIA scientific report. Cambridge University Press, pp 945–983. www.acia.uaf.edu/ PDFs/ACIA_Science_Chapters_Final/ACIA_Ch17_Final.pdf Mersha AA, Laerhoven FV (2016) A gender approach to understanding the differentiated impact of barriers to adaptation: responses to climate change in rural Ethiopia. Reg Environ Chang. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0921-z Mertz O, Mbow C, Reenberg A, Diouf A (2009) Farmers’ perceptions of climate change and agricultural adaptation strategies in rural Sahel. Environ Manag 43(5):804–816 Molua EL (2006) Climate trends in Cameroon: implications for agricultural management. Clim Res 30:255–262 Molua EL (2008) Turning up the heat on African agriculture: the impact of climate change on Cameroon’s agriculture. AfJARE 2(1):–20. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/56967/2/ 0201%20si%20malua%20-%2026%20may.pdf Molua EL, Lambi CM (2006) The economic impact of climate change on agriculture in Cameroon. In CEEPA discussion paper no. 17 Mortimore MJ, Adams WM (2001) Farmer adaptation, change and crisis in the Sahel. Glob Environ Chang 11:49–57 Mtambanengwe F, Mapfumo P, Chikowo R, Chamboko T (2012) Climate change and variability: small-scale farming communities in Zimbabwe portray a varied understanding. African Crop Science Journal 20(Suppl 2):227–241. http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?cs12041pdf Mulenga BP, Wineman A (2014) Climate trends and farmers’ perceptions of climate change in Zambia. Working paper no. 86 September 2014. Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI) Lusaka, Zambia. http://fsg.afre.msu.edu/zambia/wp86_rev.pdf National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Royal Society (RS) (2014) Climate change, evidence and causes. An overview from the Royal Society and an the United States Academy of Sciences. http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf Nhemachena C, Hassan R (2007) Micro-level analysis of farmers’ adaptation to climate change in southern Africa. IFPRI discussion paper no. 00714. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 30 pp. https://ipcc-wg2.gov/njlite_download2.php?id¼8035pdf Niles MT, Salerno JD (2018) A cross-country analysis of climate shocks and small-scale food insecurity. PLoS One 13(2):e0192928. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192928 Nkuna TR, Odiyo JO (2016) The relationship between temperature and rainfall variability in the Levubu sub-catchment, South Africa. Int J Environ Sci 1:66–75. http://iaras.org/iaras/journals/ijes Nyanga PH, Johnsen FH, Aune JB, Kalinda TH (2011) Small-scale farmers’ perceptions of climate change and conservation agriculture: evidence from Zambia. J Sustain Dev 4(4):73–85 Nzeadibe TC, Egbule CL, Chukwuone NA, Agwu AE, Agu VC (2012) Indigenous innovations for climate change adaptation in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. Environ Dev Sustain 14(6):901–914

114

N. P. Awazi et al.

Olsson T, Jakkila J, Veijalainen N, Backman L, Kaurola J, Vehviläinen B (2015) Impacts of climate change on temperature, precipitation and hydrology in Finland – studies using bias corrected Regional Climate Model data. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19:3217–3238. https://doi.org/10.5194/ hess-19-3217-2015 Rao KPC, Ndegwa WG, Kizito K, Oyoo A (2011) Climate variability and change: farmer perceptions and understanding of intra-seasonal variability in rainfall and associated risk in semi-arid Kenya. Exp Agric 47:267–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479710000918 Rurinda JP (2014) Vulnerability and adaptation to climate variability and change in small-scale farming systems in Zimbabwe. Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor at Wageningen University, and publicly defended on Tuesday 10 June 2014 at 11 a.m. in the Aula. http://edepot.wur.nl/305159pdf Rurinda JP, Mapfumo P, Van Wijk MT, Mtambanengwe F, Rufino MC, Chikowo R, Giller KE (2014) Sources of vulnerability to a variable and changing climate among small-scale households in Zimbabwe: a participatory analysis. Clim Risk Manag 3:65–78 Seleshi Y, Zanke U (2004) Recent changes in rainfall and rainy days in Ethiopia. Int J Climatol 24:973–983 Tabi FO, Adiku SGK, Kwadwo O, Nhamo N, Omoko M, Atika E, Mayebi A (2012) Perceptions of rain-fed lowland rice farmers on climate change, their vulnerability, and adaptation strategies in the Volta region of Ghana. Technol Innov Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0268-8_12 Tambo JA, Abdoulaye T (2012) Climate change and agricultural technology adoption: the case of drought tolerant maize in rural Nigeria. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 17:277–292. http:// link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11027-011-9325-7htlm Temesgen D, Yehualashet H, Rajan DS (2014) Climate change adaptation of small-scale farmers in south eastern Ethiopia. J Agric Ext Rural Dev 6(11):354–366 Tessema YA, Aweke CS, Endris GS (2013) Understanding the process of adaptation to climate change by small-scale farmers: the case of East Hararghe zone, Ethiopia. Agric Food Econ 1:13. http://agrifoodecon.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-7532-1-13 The Royal Society (2010). Climate change: a summary of the science, September 2010. https:// royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf Thorlakson T (2011) Reducing subsistence farmers’ vulnerability to climate change: the potential contributions of agroforestry in western Kenya, occasional paper 16. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/OP11183. pdf Tingem M, Rivington M, Bellocchi G (2009) Adaptation assessments for crop production in response to climate change in Cameroon. Agron Sustain Dev 29(2):247–256. Springer Verlag (Germany), 2009. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1051%2Fagro%3A2008053 Weng F, Zhang W, Wu X, Xu X, Ding Y, Li G, Liu Z, Wang S (2017) Impact of low-temperature, overcast and rainy weather during the reproductive growth stage on lodging resistance of rice. Sci Rep 7:1–9 World Bank (2013) Turn down the heat: climate extremes, regional impacts, and the case for resilience. A report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics. World Bank, Washington, DC. License: Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial–NoDerivatives3.0 Unported license (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). http://www. worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Full_Report_Vol_2_Turn_Down_The_ Heat_%20Climate_Extremes_Regional_Impacts_Case_for_Resilience_Print%20version_ FINAL.pdf Yaro JW (2013) The perception of and adaptation to climate variability/change in Ghana by smallscale and commercial farmers. Reg Environ Chang 13(6):1259–1272 Zivanomoyo J, Mukarati J (2012) Determinants of choice of crop variety as climate change adaptation option in arid regions of Zimbabwe. Russ J Agric Socio-Econ Sci 3(15). http:// www.rjoas.com/issue-2013-03/i015_article_2013_08.pdf

5

Farmers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Africa: Small-Scale. . .

115

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

6

Assessment of Farmers’ Indigenous Technology Adoptions for Climate Change Adaptation in Nigeria Idowu Ologeh, Francis Adesina, and Victor Sobanke

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Issue Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Techniques and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Devastating Effects of Climate Change on Smallholder Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indigenous Adaptation Techniques in Use in Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Constraints to the Development of Indigenous Adaptation Techniques in Nigeria . . . . . . . . Indigenous Adaptation Techniques Contributing Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

118 120 120 122 122 125 126 128 128

Abstract

Agriculture has shown a considerable capacity to adapt to climate change. Many adaptations occur autonomously without the need for conscious response by farmers and agricultural planners. However, it is likely that the rate and magnitude of climate change may exceed that of normal change in agriculture that specific technologies and management styles may need to be adopted to avoid the

This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. I. Ologeh (*) Department of Environmental Management and Toxicology, Lead City University, Ibadan, Nigeria e-mail: [email protected] F. Adesina Department of Geography, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria V. Sobanke Research and Planning Department, National Centre for Technology Management, South West Office, Lagos, Nigeria © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_28

117

118

I. Ologeh et al.

most serious of effects. Thus areas likely to be most vulnerable to climate variability can be spared from its impacts through implementation of appropriate adaptation measures such as development of indigenous technologies. Six hundred farmers from the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria were surveyed and they all possess different indigenous adaptation strategies ranging from swamp farming (Oyo State), application of neem seed (Kaduna State), soil erosion control (Enugu State), rainwater harvesting (Taraba State), land improvement (Cross River State) to farmland management (Benue State). They all have simple but profound technologies driving these schemes with much success. These indigenous adaptation techniques are majorly constrained by inadequate financial resources. Indigenous technology adoption is affordable with high revenue potential. Keywords

Indigenous technology · Climate change adaptation · Farmers · Nigeria

Introduction Historically, agriculture has shown a considerable capacity to adapt to changing climatic conditions. If climate change is gradual, the adaptation may go widely unobserved and the adjustment process largely independent (Parry et al. 2004). In the field of climate change, vulnerability has been described as the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes (Marrewijk 2011). Thus the need for climate change adaptation/mitigation measures to combat vulnerability. The major task of climate change adaptation and mitigation in agriculture is to produce more food efficiently and with clear reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) releases from food manufacturing and marketing. “Adaptation” can be defined as societal or ecosystems efforts to prepare for or cope with future climate change. The coping methods can be defensive (i.e., being protective against adverse impacts of climate change), or adaptable (i.e., seizing the benefits of any advantageous effects of climate change) (USEPA 2014). Nigeria along with other developing countries under UNFCCC is to focus on adaptation to make them able to cope with the new extremes in climatic regimes; they are also to concentrate on environmentally and economically sustainable development (Adesina and Odekunle 2011a). The argument is, the developing countries’ growth is being impaired by climate change effect and these countries produce only a small fraction of the GHG that is causing climate change. They also have fragile adaptive capability because their economies are still growing, thus they are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Climate change adaptation is not novel; history has told how human societies whether by migration, improved crop varieties, or diversifying housing types have repeatedly proven strong capacities for adapting to different climates and environmental changes (Adger et al. 2007). However, the current rate of global climate change is unusually high compared to past changes that society has experienced and

6

Assessment of Farmers’ Indigenous Technology Adoptions for Climate Change. . .

119

thus new innovations are necessary to combat the challenge. In this era that the world is getting increasingly interdependent, adverse effects of climate change on one community or economic sector can have aftermaths around the world (United States Global Change Research Programme – USGCRP 2009). Adaptation is globally important because climate change will not become history soon. Many greenhouse gases linger in the atmosphere for 100 years or more after their emission and because of their long-lasting effects, they will continue to warm Earth in the twenty-first century, even if additional greenhouse gases emission were to stop today. Therefore, steps must be taken now to prepare for, and respond to, the impacts of climate change that are already occurring, and those that are projected to occur in the years ahead (USCGRP 2009). There is need for continuous actions to mitigate climate because there are limits to the ability to adapt. Adaptation alone on long-term basis may not be sufficient to cope with all the projected impacts of climate change, thus it will need to be continuously coupled with actions to lower greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC 2007). Adaptation is based on the level of socioeconomic development of a country; the resilience and adaptive capacity of a country is dependent on its level of development with respect to economy and political stability. To improve adaptation strategies, a clear understanding of local susceptibilities to climate change and critical thresholds must be established. Adaptation strategies should be adequately flexible in order to accommodate future possible changes in climatic parameters which may be responsible for quick review of plans; the plan should be reviewed periodically. A myriad of possible adaptation strategies for agriculture are available; some of the most prominent in Nigeria are innovative indigenous technology options ranging from improved crop varieties, composting of organic waste, recycling and waste minimization, improved cultivation techniques, and cover cropping (Eze and Osahon 2015). Reactive adaptations are those which occur after the impacts of climate change have been experienced, while anticipatory adaptations are proactive, undertaken before the impacts are fully felt. Planned adaptations are generally anticipatory, but can also be reactive (i.e., climate change effects are experienced). Farmers have access to various adaptations depending on their local environments and the specific farming system. Some impact studies have suggested “adaptations” involving reductions and expansions of agricultural zones. This implies that some farmers would relocate, or others would completely change their type of farming while others would stop operations in some locations. Also, in other locations, there would be new farmers and some existing landowners would try new types of farming (Adesina and Odekunle 2011b). Although adaptations can be strategic at the farm level, the term “planned adaptation” is commonly used to describe actions taken by governments as a conscious policy response. Probable governments’ planned adaptations include reinforcement of technological adaptations, such as crop development and early warning systems, promotion of land and water use options, changes in diversification or intensity of production aid, transformed financial support in established programs, and impromptu compensation.

120

I. Ologeh et al.

Issue Description Smallholder farmers were facing a lot of climate change-induced challenges on their farms of which flooding, pest and disease invasion, high temperature, and low crop yield are the most prominent. The Nigerian government has promoted various adaptation measures as its effort to curtail these challenges. These include provision of improved crop varieties, fertilizers, irrigation schemes, and geodata (Adefolalu 2007). Wisner et al. (2004) report that farmers’ vulnerability is not determined by the nature and magnitude of climate change as such, but by the interplay of the societal capacity to adapt and/or recuperate from environmental change. The adaptation capacity and degree of exposure is connected to environmental changes and also to changes in societal aspects such as land use and cultural practices. Most studies on climate change and agriculture in Africa have concentrated on actual and projected impacts as well as farmers’ coping/adaptation strategies (Adejuwon 2004). There has been little or no work in the area of local/indigenous adaptation technologies and their challenges or success. This chapter will therefore attempt, through a questionnaire survey, Focus Group Discussions, and review of relevant literature, to fill this gap. The objective of this chapter is to assess indigenous technology adaptation options being used by smallholder farmers in Nigeria.

Research Techniques and Findings The survey area is Nigeria; for ease of data collection, the major food-producing state of each geopolitical zone in the country is sampled for the survey. After relevant literature and National Bureau of Statistics consultation, the following six states were selected for the survey: North-Central Zone – Benue State North East Zone – Kaduna State North-West Zone – Taraba State South-East Zone – Enugu State South-South Zone – Cross River South-West Zone – Oyo State It is very important to assess the various indigenous technology adaptations in use by smallholder farmers in Nigeria so as to know which can be fully developed for national adoption. To achieve this objective, 600 questionnaires were administered to smallholder farmers in the six states to survey their various indigenously designed adaptation options to climate change. The questionnaires were designed to collect information on farmers’ biometric data, years of experience and skills, farm size, types of crops cultivated, educational level, experiences on climate change effects, and indigenous adaptation techniques. Secondary data was obtained from NBS and the Agricultural Development Agencies of each of the States. The retrieved

6

Assessment of Farmers’ Indigenous Technology Adoptions for Climate Change. . .

121

questionnaires were imputed and analyzed using Microsoft Excel spreadsheet 2016 and the results are presented in frequencies and percentages. A total of six hundred questionnaires were administered to smallholder farmers in the six states, and all were retrieved through the assistance of agricultural extension workers who administered them, the results are presented in Table 1. In order to obtain realistic data, matured farmers are targeted, the average age is 53 years old. Majority (86%) of the farmers have more than 30 years of experience in farming with 60% of them owning more than one hectares of land. Female farm owners (42%) are mostly found in Southern Nigeria while men majorly own farmland in the north, and employ numerous women laborers. The most grown crops across Nigeria as detected in the data are cassava, maize, yam, rice, and vegetables. Almost all the farmers (97%) complained of the various losses they have incurred due to devastation effects of climate change ranging from drought encroachment in the north to flooding in the south. The totality of the respondent farmers have poor knowledge of the scientific explanations behind climate change, but experience taught them that nature (weather) is no longer their friend and they have to devise strategies to make it work in their favor. Their understanding is that nature (or the gods) is fighting them through the massive attack of pests and diseases, flooding, erratic rainfall, high temperature, and low yield. As a result, they devise different techniques to adapt to climate change effects including sacrificing to the gods. These indigenous adaptation techniques vary from zone to zone, depending on the Table 1 Socioeconomic characteristics of sampled smallholder farmers Variables

Categories

Sex

Male Female  40 41–50 51–60 61–70 Single Married Widowed Informal Primary Secondary 1 2–5 Above 5  30 31–40 Above 41

Age(years)

Marital Status Levels of Educational Attainment Farm Size(ha) Farming Experience (years)

Source: Fieldwork

Benue Freq/% 67 33 2 39 54 5 3 97 0 61 32 07 25 57 18 13 60 27

Cross River Freq/% 41 59 3 37 51 9 2 96 2 14 52 34 63 26 11 19 55 26

Enugu Freq/% 46 54 0 30 59 11 4 91 5 17 32 51 67 29 4 18 53 29

Kaduna Freq/% 72 28 1 26 58 15 0 99 1 48 38 14 31 42 27 11 58 31

Oyo Freq/% 52 48 0 29 61 10 7 89 4 12 23 65 33 55 12 17 56 27

Taraba Freq/% 66 34 4 29 59 8 0 98 2 68 30 02 21 56 23 6 62 32

122

I. Ologeh et al.

prevalent climate change effect in the area. Swamp farming was devised in Oyo State, discovery, and application of neem seed to enhance soil fertility in Kaduna State, improved soil erosion control in Enugu State, rainwater harvesting in Taraba State, intentional cover cropping in Cross River State to farmland management (organic manure) in Benue State. They all have simple but profound technologies driving these schemes which will be discussed in details. This finding harmonized with that of Eze and Osahon (2015) who listed adaptation strategies as improved crop varieties, composting of organic waste, recycling, and waste minimization, improved cultivation techniques, and cover cropping.

Devastating Effects of Climate Change on Smallholder Farmers All the smallholder farmers surveyed have in their more than 30 years of experience suffered different adverse effects of climate change. The prominent effect in Northern Nigeria is erratic rainfall and unusual heat (heatwave). They are also faced with desert encroachment advancing into Nigeria from Niger republic and pest invasion. Their counterparts in the South are majorly faced with flooding, infertility, increase in temperature, and pest invasion. The major effect in North Central is the increase in temperature, soil infertility, and pest invasion. The finding is in agreement with the work of Lybbert and Sumner (2010) that temperature increase is an indication of climate change, and also the work of Adegoke et al. (2014), who stated that weeds, pests, and fungi thrive under warmer temperatures, wetter climates, and increased carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. The different climate change effects being experienced in different zones in Nigeria dictate the corresponding indigenous adaptation techniques, and these are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

Indigenous Adaptation Techniques in Use in Nigeria North-Central Zone – Benue State Benue State is the food basket of Nigeria, the state is popular for large-scale food and fruit production including yam, cassava, sweet potato, beans, maize, millet, guinea corn, vegetables, soybeans, rice, and citrus. The smallholder farmers in Benue State are faced with climate change impacts such as soil infertility, increase in temperature, pests and diseases invasion, crop failure, and increased weed. To mitigate/adapt to these effects, the adaptation strategies common to smallholder farmers in the state are mixed cropping, growing pest/disease-resistant crop varieties, use of cover crops, and making bigger ridges. The prominent indigenous adaptation practice in the state is local farmland management. The Benue farmers devised a farmland management practice to adapt to climate change. The practice entails conscious efforts to reduce temperature on farmlands and is very similar to organic agriculture. It is a complete management system with high organic matter content (mulching), soil cover (cover crops/tree

6

Assessment of Farmers’ Indigenous Technology Adoptions for Climate Change. . .

123

Table 2 Devastating effects of climate change on smallholder farmers Variables Mean max 5 Soil infertility Increase in temperature Pest invasion Crop failure Increased weed Drought Land degradation Flooding Access to water Decrease in soil moisture Erosion

Benue Mean (M) 4.2 4.3

Cross river Mean (M) 2.1 4.0

Enugu Mean (M) 1.9 4.3

Kaduna Mean (M) 4.4 4.2

Oyo Mean (M) 2.7 4.4

Taraba Mean (M) 3.0 4.1

4.6 3.6 3.9 1.2 2.3 3.2 2.4 3.1

4.7 4.2 3.8 0.8 2.8 3.8 0.5 1.5

4.5 3.9 3.1 1.5 2.5 4.1 1.5 2.4

4.4 4.0 2.8 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.2

4.5 3.5 3.4 1.1 3.1 3.9 1.2 2.1

4.4 3.7 4.2 3.7 3.2 2.9 3.4 3.7

3.4

3.2

3.9

3.1

3.8

2.9

Source: Fieldwork

planting), and high soil fertility (crop rotation, organic manures, and legume planting) thus retaining nutrient and water, building more floods, drought, and land degradation resilient soils.

North West Zone – Kaduna State Kaduna is a state in which 80% of the people are actively engaged in farming. They produce crops ranging from yam, maize, beans, guinea corn, millet, rice, and cassava. The prevalent climate change impacts in the state are drought, pests and diseases invasion, crop failure, land degradation, increase in temperature, flooding, access to water and soil infertility. The widely adopted adaptation practices are mixed farming, mixed cropping, growing drought-resistant crop varieties, growing pest-resistant crop varieties, crop rotation, irrigation, roof water harvesting, and making bigger ridges. The unique indigenous adaptation method in use in the State is the application of neem seed for pest control (used as fumigant, pesticide), compost (used as fertilizer, manure), and soil fertility (used as soil conditioner and urea coating agent). North-East Zone – Taraba State Taraba State just as his North-West counterpart is 80% agrarian. They produce crops ranging from maize, millet, sorghum, rice, yam, cassava, and sweet potatoes. They experience climate change effects such as high rate of weeds, drought, decrease in soil moisture, increase in temperature, decrease in crop yields, and high rate of pests and disease incidence. The adaptation measures generally in use in the State are growing drought-resistant crop varieties, crop rotation, irrigation, integration of livestock farming system, changing crop varieties, mulching, and intercropping.

124

I. Ologeh et al.

Table 3 General adaptation techniques in use in Nigeria Variables Mean max 5 Mixed cropping Growing pest/disease resistant crop varieties Use of cover crops Making bigger ridges Mixed farming Growing drought resistant crop varieties Mulching Crop rotation Irrigation Roof water harvesting Integration of livestock farming system Changing crop varieties Intercropping Use of pesticides/herbicides Construction of drainage systems Contour cropping Diversification in crop planting Ridge construction Crop substitution Changing planting dates

Benue Mean (M) 3.7 3.9

Cross river Mean (M)

Enugu Mean (M)

3.7

3.6 3.5 3.2 3.1

Oyo Mean (M)

Taraba Mean (M)

3.7

Kaduna Mean (M) 3.8 4.1

4.4

3.4

3.7 3.3 2.7 2.1

2.9 3.3 2.8 2.8

3.3 3.7 4.4 3.6

3.4 3.4 3.1 2.8

3.1 3.3 3.4 3.5

3.1 3.4 3.4 3.1 2.3

4.2 2.1 3.3 2.7 1.2

3.3 2.4 3.4 2.8 1.8

3.2 3.7 4.0 3.7 3.3

3.9 2.7 4.2 2.5 2.9

4.4 4.1 4.1 3.1 3.6

2.6 3.2 2.4 1.2

2.2 2.3 2.5 3.7

2.4 2.8 3.9 4.2

3.1 3.1 2.7 2.2

3.3 3.3 4.2 2.9

3.6 3.8 3.1 2.8

2.1 2.4 2.8 3.4 3.1

2.0 3.6 2.7 2.1 3.1

3.9 3.8 3.3 2.8 3.0

3.1 2.8 3.4 3.3 3.3

3.4 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.2

3.1 3.0 3.5 3.7 3.5

Source: Fieldwork

The indigenous adaptation practice unique to Taraba State is rain harvesting. Access to water is an issue in the state and thus the need for irrigation. Rain harvesting is used to augment the water used for irrigation. The most common is roof water harvesting which is channeled into catchment tanks or concrete reservoirs.

South-East Zone – Enugu State Enugu State has a diversified economy dominated by agriculture. Major crops produced in the State are yam, cassava, maize, rice, cowpea, sweet potatoes, and plantain. Their crop production is impaired by climate change effects such as increase in temperature, flood, soil erosion, pests and diseases invasion, and crop failure. Adaptation practices widely in use in the State include planting pest/diseaseresistant crop varieties, use of pesticides/herbicides, construction of drainage systems, contour cropping, and diversification in crop planting. Soil erosion is the major problem affecting smallholder farmers in Enugu State, and its volume was aggravated by the effects of climate change. Their key indigenous adaptation strategy is soil erosion control using stone and sandbags to divert

6

Assessment of Farmers’ Indigenous Technology Adoptions for Climate Change. . .

125

erosion away from the farms, ridging, and use of wrapped weeds or grasses to cover planted heaps. Stems from previous harvests are also arranged or scattered on the soil in bands to reduce soil erosion. Tree planting on the borders of the farm also prevents soil erosion as the trees shield the farm from direct impact of rainfall.

South-South Zone – Cross River Cross River State famously known for tourism and fishing is also fully involved in agriculture. The crops mainly cultivated in the State are cassava, yam, plantain, rice, and maize. Although it is a coastal state, they also have their share of climate change effects. They are affected by increased weeds, pests and diseases invasion, increase in temperature, crop failure, and flooding. They adapt by planting pest-resistant crop varieties, diversification of crops, planting cover crops, mulching, and construction of drainage systems. Indigenous land improvement methods are the key indigenous adaptation practice in Cross River State. These methods include organic addition to the land (mulching, compost, and manure), cover tree planting, planting of legume crops (mixed cropping), and polyculture. Water harvesting from runoffs also helps to maintain soil moisture during dry season. South-West Zone – Oyo State Oyo State is an industrialized state with many educational institutions. It also enjoys diversified economy with agriculture as the major occupation. Smallholder farmers in Oyo State are faced with climate change effects like their counterparts in other states, this includes flooding, pests and diseases invasion, soil erosion, crop failure, and increased temperature. Their general adaptation methods are ridge construction, use of pesticides and pest-resistant crop variety, irrigation, crop substitution, and changing planting dates. The major captivating indigenous adaptation method practiced by the smallholder farmers in Oyo State is swamp farming. There are lots of swamp areas in Oyo State, where smallholders resort to when there is prolonged delay in rainfall season. This initiative allows early and late farming as there is constant access to water. Some farmers in Oke Ogun area of the state channel their domestic wastewater to wet their vegetable farms all year round. These findings are in agreement with that of Adger et al. (2007) that listed adaptation strategies as migration, improved crop varieties, or building different types of shelter, while Anríquez and Stamoulis (2007) list include changing the timing of operations, adoption of conservation tillage practices, and diversification in production systems, improvement of irrigation schemes, modification of farm support programs, and development of new plant varieties.

Constraints to the Development of Indigenous Adaptation Techniques in Nigeria The various indigenous adaptation strategies assessed have developmental constraints. The major is inadequate financial resources; adaptation practices are cost-

126

I. Ologeh et al.

intensive and these smallholder farmers cannot afford elaborate adaptation strategies. Even the indigenous methods need funding to develop, e.g., the planting and processing of neem seed in Kaduna State and soil erosion control in Enugu State. Other constraints include inadequate farm labor due to express increase in ruralurban migration; poor extension services, insufficient drought-resistant varieties, and strict adherence to local varieties (see Table 4).

Indigenous Adaptation Techniques Contributing Factors The results of the partial least squares (Ringle et al. 2005) are presented in Fig. 1, and showed the factor loadings for all observed variables, R2 value of the unobserved endogenous (dependent) variable as well as regression coefficients between exogenous and endogenous unobserved variables. Nine (9) observed variables

Table 4 Constraints to the development of indigenous adaptation techniques in Nigeria Variables

Finance Farm labor Poor extension services Insufficient drought-resistant varieties Strict adherence to local varieties

Benue Freq /% 93 34 23 76

Cross river Freq /% 92 62 42 84

Enugu Freq /% 88 57 38 63

Kaduna Freq /% 95 37 31 67

Oyo Freq /% 91 48 54 66

Taraba Freq /% 86 33 48 52

62

33

28

56

14

51

Source: Fieldwork

Fig. 1 Structural model of indigenous technology adoption

6

Assessment of Farmers’ Indigenous Technology Adoptions for Climate Change. . .

127

with high loadings were retained for further analysis, while items with low factor loadings were removed. The R2 value of 0.412 indicates that about 41% variance observed in the choice of indigenous adaptation techniques employed by farmers can be explained by farmers’ perceived effect of climate change, need for crop yield increase, and perception of changing weather. Reliability and validity of unobserved variables is presented in Table 5. The results show that composite reliability (CR) which indicates the convergent validity in all the constructs is adequate and above 0.7 the minimum threshold (Hair et al. 2010). The average variance extracted (AVE) which is a more conservative method of measuring convergent validity than CR (Malhotra and Dash 2011) is also within the recommended threshold (>0.5). On the contrary, only the value of Cronbach’s alpha for perceived effects was below the recommended threshold (0.7). The results of the T-statistics showing the significant level of regression coefficients are presented in Table 6. This result showed that indigenous adaptation techniques by respondents is influenced by their perceived changes (2.703; p < 0.05) and yield increase (6.665; p < 0.05). The result suggest that respondent’s choice of indigenous adaptation techniques depends on the aspect of perceived changes in climatic parameters as well as the usefulness of climatic information. Table 5 Reliability and validity of unobserved variables

Indigenous technology Perceived changes Perceived effects Yield increase

AVE 0.617

Composite reliability 0.828

Cronbach’s alpha 0.700

Communality 0.617

0.942

0.970

0.938

0.942

0.589 0.807

0.737 0.893

0.317 0.761

0.589 0.807

Redundancy 0.056

Table 6 Path analysis

Perceived changes > indigenous technology Perceived effects > indigenous technology Yield increase > indigenous technology

Standard deviation (STDEV) 0.072

Standard error (STERR) 0.072

T-statistics (|O/ STERR|) 2.703

0.156

0.081

0.081

1.782

0.519

0.077

0.077

6.665

Original sample (O) 0.196

Sample mean (M) 0.198

0.145

0.516

128

I. Ologeh et al.

Conclusion The chapter examined the various climate change effects affecting smallholder farmers across Nigeria. The general adaptation techniques adopted in each geopolitical zone of the nation were assessed as well as peculiar indigenous adaptation techniques initiated and in use in each zone. The constraints to the development of the indigenous adaptation techniques were also investigated. Going forward, these indigenous techniques need to be developed and commercialized; the state and federal government agricultural schemes and agencies can fund this project and support the efforts of the smallholder farmers. It is also essential for a functional link to be established between the farmers’ indigenous innovation and the academia to foster research and development.

References Adefolalu DO (2007) Climate change and economic sustainability in Nigeria. In: Paper presented at the international conference on climate change and economic sustainability held at Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria. 12–14 June 2007 Adegoke J, Araba A, Ibe C (2014) National agricultural resilience framework. Federal ministry of agriculture and rural development, Abuja Adejuwon SA (2004) Impacts of climate variability and climate change on crop yield in Nigeria. In: Paper presented at the stakeholder’s workshop on assessment of impacts and adaptation to climate change, conference centre, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife 20–21 September 2004 Adesina FA, Odekunle TO (2011a) Climate change and adaptation in Nigeria: some background to Nigeria’s response – part I. 2011. International conference on environmental and agriculture engineering IPCBEE vol.15 (2011). IACSIT Press, Singapore Adesina FA, Odekunle TO (2011b) Climate change and adaptation in Nigeria: some background to nigeria’s response – part III. 2011. International conference on environmental and agriculture engineering IPCBEE vol.15 (2011). IACSIT Press, Singapore Adger WN, Agrawala S, Mirza MMQ, Conde C, O’Brien K, Pulhin J, Pulwarty R, Smit B, Takahashi K (2007) Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity in climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Eze and Osahon; AJAEES 6(1):45–55, 2015; Article no.AJAEES.2015.061 Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology 6(1):45–55, 2015; Article no.AJAEES.2015.061 ISSN: 2320– 7027 Anríquez G, Stamoulis S (2007) Rural development and poverty reduction: is agriculture still the key? Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics 4(1):5–46 Eze S and Osahon E (2015) Indigenous mitigation and adaptation to climate change among small holder farmers in arochukwu area of Abia State, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology 6(1): 45–55. Article no. AJAEES.2015.061 ISSN: 23207027 Feenstra JF, Burton I, Smith JB, Tol RS (eds.) (1998) Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies. United Nations Environment Programme; Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. 8–1 – 8–39 Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate data analysis: international version. Pearson, New Jersey

6

Assessment of Farmers’ Indigenous Technology Adoptions for Climate Change. . .

129

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change- IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers, in climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 17 Lybbert T, Sumner D (2010) Agricultural technologies for climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries: policy options for innovation and technology diffusion. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Geneva Malhotra NK, Dash S (2011) Marketing research an applied orientation. Pearson Publishing, London Marrewijk L (2011) Climate smart agriculture in the Mutale Basin, South Africa. Sustain Livelihoods Biodivers Dev Countries 4(2):5–6 Parry ML, Rosenzweig Cynthia, Iglesias Ana, Livermore M, Fischer Günther (2004) Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emission and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environmental Change 14:53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.008 Ringle CM, Wende S, Will A (2005) SmartPLS 2.0.M3. SmartPLS, Hamburg, https://www. smartpls.com/smartpls2 United States Environmental Protection Agency -USEPA (2014) Climate change impacts and adapting to change. Retrieved March 31, 2015, from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ impacts-adaptation/ United States Global Change Research Program -USGCRP (2009) Global climate change impacts in the United States. In: Karl TR, Melillo JM, Peterson TC (eds) United States global change research program. Cambridge University Press, New York Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk: natural hazards; people’s vulnerability and disasters. 2nd Edition. London: Routledge

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

7

Case for Climate Smart Agriculture in Addressing the Threat of Climate Change John Saviour Yaw Eleblu, Eugene Tenkorang Darko, and Eric Yirenkyi Danquah

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate Change and Food Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate Smart Agriculture Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Breeding and Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Efficient Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integrated Renewable Energy Technologies of Farming Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource Conserving Technologies (RCTs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land Use Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cropping Season Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crop Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Efficient Pest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GIS Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

132 132 133 135 135 137 139 140 140 140 141 142 142 143 143

Abstract

Climate smart agriculture (CSA) embodies a blend of innovations, practices, systems, and investment programmes that are used to mitigate against the adverse effects of climate change and variability on agriculture for sustained food

This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. J. S. Y. Eleblu (*) · E. Y. Danquah West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement, University of Ghana, College of Basic and Applied Sciences, Accra, Ghana E. T. Darko Geography and Resource Development, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_32

131

132

J. S. Y. Eleblu et al.

production. Food crop production under various climate change scenarios requires the use of improved technologies that are called climate smart agriculture to ensure increased productivity under adverse conditions of increased global temperatures, frequent and more intense storms, floods and drought stresses. This chapter summarizes available information on climate change and climate smart agriculture technologies. It is important to evaluate each climate change scenario and provide technologies that farmers, research scientists, and policy drivers can use to create the desired climate smart agriculture given the array of tools and resources available. Keywords

Climate change · Climate · Climate smart agriculture · Food security · Breeding approaches

Introduction Background Climate describes the weather conditions of a region such as its temperature (hot, warm, or cold) which is due to amounts or intensity of sunshine, rainfall (dry or wetness) and its pattern, air pressure, humidity, cloudiness, and wind, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. “Climate change” as a terminology was suggested by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1966 to represent climate variations over long periods of time often from decades to millennia, irrespective of the causative agents (Hulme 2017). The term has been widely accepted and has fast become a household name for climatic variations which are often not favorable for man’s survival. Climate change has largely been associated with anthropogenic global warming; however, it is indeed larger and encompasses all vagaries in climatic conditions which occur over decades. Also human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0 °C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8 °C to 1.2 °C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5 °C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate (IPCC 2018). In today’s world, the term climate change has evolved from being a technical jargon for describing vagaries in climatic pattern into a global issue agent which requires the intervention of man to prevent future disastrous outcomes being predicted. It should be noted that this book chapter will cover very limited information on climate change as the objective is to guide the reader to appreciate the need for a response that adopts innovations to accelerate the development of climate smart agriculture technologies as mitigation efforts against climate change. With that understanding we shall proceed to attempt to cover the breadth of knowledge in a summary of what is known with regards to the expected impact of climate change on crop production and food security, an overview of climate smart agriculture technologies and what is possible given current trends in technology and innovation. Even though mitigation and adaptation responses compete with each other due to potential negative trade-offs across spatial, temporal, institution (Smith and Olesen

7

Case for Climate Smart Agriculture in Addressing the Threat of Climate. . .

133

2010), economic scales (Wilbanks and Sathaye 2007). While mitigation measures aim to reduce emissions on a global scale, adaptive measures are specific to microenvironments and address various local impacts of climate change. As a result of the interconnection between the environment and socio-economic risks, the agriculture sector offers opportunities for complementary actions through the implementation of ecosystem sensitive approaches known as the CSA. This new approach is to bridge the growing divide between the two discourses and foster long-term resilient development in the agriculture sector. CSA is defined by FAO as “agriculture that sustainably increases productivity, resilience (adaptation), reduces/removes GHG’s (mitigation) and enhances achievement of national food security and development goals’ (FAO 2010). Therefore, adaptation, mitigation, and food security are the three key pillars of CSA (Lipper et al. 2014). Climate smart agriculture (CSA) is a way to achieve sustainable development as well as green economy goals. It intends towards food availability and takes part to conserve natural assets and is closely associated with perception of improved growth, as FAO develops it for crop yield (FAO 2011). There is a high need for climate smart agriculture because agricultural production systems are expected to produce food for a global population of about 9.1 billion people in 2050 and over 10 billion by the end of the century (UNFPA 2011). This, however, has necessitated the development of CSA strategies and policies at different levels of governance (Zougmore et al. 2016). Therefore, it is highly imperative to sustain livelihoods which are predominantly agrarian in these regions.

Climate Change and Food Security Climate change has the potential to threaten food production and, consequently, food security especially in vulnerable regions. One major area where the impact of climate change is expected to be very significant in threatening the very existence of humanity is the estimated effect of climate change on agriculture. Agriculture is the major source of income and livelihood for an estimated 70% of the poor and vulnerable people who live in rural areas with limited resources oftentimes without access to basic technologies (World Bank 2016b). However, the production of food is being affected by climate change, it is therefore important to study the influence of this global climate change to meet the requirements of people and is estimated that by 2100, the world population will reach about 10 billion (Boogaard et al. 2014). The climate change and variability will adversely impact on food security and agriculture livelihoods of the poorest farmers, fisher folks and forest dwellers. Even though sub Saharan Africa contributes less than 5% of the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the region is vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change due to the fact that the region’s development prospects are closely linked to the climate due to the great reliance on rainfall (Tol 2018). Added to other nonclimatic stresses (poverty, inequality, and market shocks), the impact of climate change will make negatively impede the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on livelihoods, food security, poverty reduction, health, and access to clean water in vulnerable communities (IPCC 2014a). However, the use of

134

J. S. Y. Eleblu et al.

climate change predictions based on theories and past data accrued over centuries is difficult to use in projecting the expected impact of changing climates on food security. Since the institution of climate change as a body or a field of study, many academic and scientific publications have emerged. The first scientific work by Katz, published in the first issue of the first journal on climate change titled “Climate Change” on the effect of climate change on food production clearly questioned the accuracy of any such predictions and warned that the predicted impacts at the time were estimates should be acknowledged as such. A direct quote from Katz follows: “Attempts to assess the impact of a hypothetical climatic change on food production have relied on the use of statistical models which predict crop yields using various climatic variables. It is emphasized that the coefficients of these models are not universal constants, but rather statistical estimates subject to several sources of error. Thus, any statement regarding the estimated impact of climatic change on food production must be qualified appropriately” (Katz 1977). The aforementioned challenges have been addressed by leading investigators recently where climate change impact has been modelled based on quick countrylevel measurement of vulnerability to food insecurity under a range of climate change and adaptation investment scenarios (Richardson et al. 2018). The findings have been made accessible through their publication and an online interactive portal that is user friendly for policymakers (Met Office 2015). The interactive graphically displayed model predicts that food insecurity vulnerability is anticipated to worsen rapidly under all simulations of GHG emissions, and the re-distribution of vulnerable geographic regions remains very similar to present-day conditions where subSaharan Africa and South Asia remain the most severely affected. By the year 2050, an additional 2.4 billion people expected to be living in developing countries with much concentration in South Asia and sub-Saharan African, where agriculture is an important sector and major employment source, but currently more than 20% of the population is on average food insecure (Wheeler and von Braun 2013). About 75% of the global poor live in rural areas, and agriculture is their most important source of income (International Fund for Agricultural Development 2011). High levels of adaptation is seen to be able to decrease vulnerability across affected areas; however, the only scenario with the highest level of mitigation combined with high levels of adaptation shows appreciable levels of reduction in vulnerability compared to the present-day prevailing conditions (Smith and Olesen 2010). As agriculture is directly affected by climate change, adaptation strategies are becoming increasingly important issues for promoting development (Clements et al. 2011). Therefore, adaptation strategies in the context of climate change are all those practices that are employed by smallholder farmers to either get used to or minimize the effects of climate change and variability. According to the IPCC, adaptation is the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects that in human systems, adaptation seeks to moderate or avoid harm or exploit beneficial opportunities (IPCC 2014). The strategies for adapting to climate change and variability can be grouped into two; namely, autonomous and planned adaptation strategies. The autonomous adaptation strategies involve actions taken by non-state agencies such as farmers, communities, or organizations and/or firms in response to climatic

7

Case for Climate Smart Agriculture in Addressing the Threat of Climate. . .

135

shocks while planned adaptation involves actions taken by local, regional, and or national government to provide infrastructure and institutions to reduce the negative impact of climate change. However, the planned adaptation which measures or results from deliberate policy decisions and awareness from farm to global levels and are discussed in literature as key to reducing present and future vulnerability and climate impacts on livelihoods (IPCC 2014). However, there are limitations to planned adaptation measures under severe conditions. As a result, more systematic changes in adaptive capacity and resource allocation are being considered. So in this discussion we shall look at the various climate smart agriculture practices that can help mitigate the climate change effects on agriculture. Therefore, the effects of climate change can be solved by climate smart agriculture practices such as climate smart crop (breeding), improved pasture and animal rearing, amelioration of degraded lands, rehabilitation of polluted water bodies, and management of sustainable systems such as agroforestry, livestock management, and manure management. Also, the promotion of sustainable land management practices which are also part of CSA practices (Branca et al. 2011) have influenced paradigms shift from the traditional practices. Most of these technologies can help mitigate greenhouse gasses (GHG) emissions. Food security and improving food productivity can also reduce human vulnerability to climate impacts and the need for additional land conversion to agriculture, which represents almost as much as GHG emissions and those directly generated from agriculture activities (IPCC 2014), but food production and security measures may conflict with climate smart and conservation objectives, especially intensifying agriculture and producing more food for a growing population (Matocha et al. 2012).

Climate Smart Agriculture Technologies The climate smart agriculture technologies will focus on describing some of the approaches which include breeding (climate smart crop), efficient resource management, integrated renewable energy technologies for farming systems, resource conserving technologies, land use management, cropping season variation, efficient pest management, forecasting, and geographic information system (GIS) mapping.

Breeding and Climate Change Agriculture was born about 13,000 years ago when man gradually transitioned from hunting and gathering lifestyle into domestication of wild plants and animals. Food production systems since the invention of Agriculture which remains heavily dependent on the availability of rainfall has been evolving progressively to match-up to the growing demands of the human population. It is noteworthy that the art of breeding which emerged through domestication which involved selecting plants and animals that were acceptable with good qualities for the consumption/utilization by man. Breeding which begun as selection has seen many advancements; notable are

136

J. S. Y. Eleblu et al.

hybridization techniques, matting designs and schemes, genetics enhanced hybridization programs, tissue culture and mutagenesis aided systems, genetic engineering using recombinant DNA technologies, and Genomics- and other Omics-assisted breeding and the latest being genome editing. A summary of the resources and tools available for breeders in this day and age is presented in Box 1 below. As breeding has evolved based on man’s knowledge and the development of tools to aid the development of new variants, climate and the rate of climate change has rapidly outpaced and outstripped the worlds production systems especially in areas of greatest vulnerability where new technologies remain inaccessible. The dry areas and flood prone areas are of the greatest concern where extreme weather conditions can prevail and persist for long periods disrupting the natural seasons and cycles of production that farmers are used to. These concerns can mostly be addressed if all tools available to breeders are widely accepted and utilized to aid in the development of climate smart crops that are designed to adapt to harsh and extreme weather conditions producing higher yields compared to currently available varieties that do poorly under such conditions. Box 1 Array of Tools and Resources Available to Breeders

Genetic Resources

Genetic Resource Characterization

Gene Banks

Microscopy

Mutants

Basic Phenotyping

Core Collections

Genotype-by Environment Studies

Diverse Panels

Screen houses & Greenhouses

1st Generation Breeding Tools

Domestication/ Selection

Bi-Parental QTL

In vitro propagation techniques

Molecular Biology Tools

Organogenesis and Embryo rescue

QTL Mapping

In situ conservation

Live imaging

MAGIC

Advanced phenotyping platforms

Training Populations

Satellite-Aided Phenotyping

Vegetative Propagation Techniques

In vivo dissection and analysis

Next Generation Sequencing

Epigenomics Transcriptomics

Somaclonal variations

Environment Simulation

4th Generation Breeding Tools

Genomics Aided Breeding

Marker Assisted Breeding

Hybridization techniques

Aeroponics

Nested Association Mapping Population

3rd Generation Breeding Tools

Anther culture Hydroponics

Recombinant Inbred Lines

2nd Generation Breeding Tools

Gene Expression Regulation Metabolomics

Sequencing

Targeting nduced Local Lesions in Genomes

Proteomics Genome Editing Comparative Genomics

The myriad of available resources range from genetic resources available that are conserved in situ, ex situ, or in vitro; gene banks, core and representative collections not forgetting diverse panels in national, international, and regional research Centres as well as the Bi-parental, Recombinant Inbred Lines (RILs), Nested Association

7

Case for Climate Smart Agriculture in Addressing the Threat of Climate. . .

137

Mapping, Multi-parent Advanced Generation Inter-cross (MAGIC) & Training populations in the hands of researchers and Scientists who originated and curated them. These genetic resources are sources of alleles of great agronomic importance required in the development of climate smart crops or animal breeds that can withstand and yield highly under changing climatic conditions. These are therefore the first range of arsenals of breeders in the fight against dwindling productivity under climate change conditions. The next in the array of tools are those that can be used to characterize, evaluate, detect, select, and then release these climate adaptable varieties to farmers and businesses for increasing productivity under prevailing circumstances. These tools have evolved from first generation to the current cutting edge fourth generation tools that are available for breeders to use in the development of new and improved varieties with better adaptation to the changing environmental conditions. The first-generation tools mainly encompass discoveries of basic principles of domestication/selection, the knowledge and use of pollination to make self and crosses as well as means of vegetative propagation such as grafting, corms, bulbs etc. Second generation array of tools are mainly based on advances in biology that allow for cell, tissue and organ culture which allow for more advanced technologies in the crop and animal improvement by breeders. Third and fourth generation tools such as represented in Box 1 that have been developed add speed and precision to the array of tools that are currently available for quick development of improved climate smart crops. It is important to evaluate each climate change scenario and provide strategies breeders can use to create the desired climate smart crops given the array of tools and resources available. The various climate change scenarios, potential impact and climate smart breeding approaches are delineated in Table 1. For instance, climate change is greatly impacting agriculture currently in the tropics and other arid areas with erratic rainfalls that no longer follow the patterns or established seasons known to farmers that heavily depend on rain-fed crop production systems. This scenario has the potential impact of poor yields as a consequence of untimely start of the farming activities and crop failure. For adaptability to such scenarios, climate smart crops with adaptability to different types of droughts or erratic rains could be developed using a combination of tools and resources described in Box 1 and made available to farmers. Such climate smart crops are required in vulnerable areas threatened by climate change in order to avert the worsening food insecurity problem and ensure the achievement of sustainable development goals 1 (no poverty) and 2 (no hunger).

Efficient Resource Management Another approach that can be of relevance in achieving the objectives of climate smart agriculture is efficient management of resources. This approach is an important part of CSA and the future environment. In the food production chain, from the farmer to the customer or final consumer, almost one third part of the food is lost due

138

J. S. Y. Eleblu et al.

Table 1 Climate change scenarios, potential impact, and climate smart breeding approaches Climate change scenarios Erratic rainfall

Prolonged droughts in arid areas and New Droughts prone areas Increased floods

Intense rain and wind storms Rise in sea levels

Loss of soil cover

Increased global temperatures

Potential impact Farmers plant too late or too early leading to yield losses Crop losses, Famine and loss of lives Damage to crops and animals; loss of lives and property, displacement of people Damage to crops and animals Increase in salt stress on crops, loss of arable lands to toxic levels of salts, low or no yields Soil erosion, loss of soil fertility, loss of microbes in the soil

Reduced yields, new pests and disease emergence and damage to crops and animals

Climate smart approaches Climate smart crops with adaptability to different types of droughts or erratic rains. Drought resistant crops that perform well under water limited conditions Development of water loving crops as well as crops resistant to lodging None Salt resistant or tolerant crops

Planting of trees and plants that will rehabilitate the soils. Introduction of bioengineered microbes that encourage soil health. Improved heat adaptable crops

to the improper management of resources (Hartter et al. 2017). On yearly basis, for instance, the total energy consumption in the global food losses are almost 38% of all the energies utilized by the food chain. Critical areas in the food chain processes which serve as good avenues for improving energy efficiency includes: transportation, conservation, processing, cooking, and consumption (FAO 2011). In Africa, a majority of wood removed is used for manufacturing household articles as well as cooking. However, cooking in stoves helps save energy thereby decreasing deforestation in the long run. For instance, this technique of managing resources and climate change projects has helped in supporting sustainable intensification through a number of initiatives including the establishment of an agriculture information and the decision support system and the preparation of soil management plans. Since this approach was adopted in 2014, climate smart agriculture was adopted on 2,946,000 hectares and has provided for a carbon sequestration potential of up to 9 million tons carbon dioxide annually, (https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climate-smart-agri culture). Additionally pastoralists are also enjoying some benefits from climate smart agriculture in the Sahel, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Senegal, and Niger. The application of rangeland management is boosting productivity and resilience. This approach is also helping to reduce emissions.

7

Case for Climate Smart Agriculture in Addressing the Threat of Climate. . .

139

Integrated Renewable Energy Technologies of Farming Systems The Integrated Renewable Energy Technologies is the application of suitable energy technologies, tools, and different farming services which are relevant in creating the stable change to energy smart proficient food systems. These technologies are governed by conditions of nature. These technologies are very useful because in the long run there will be a reduction in GHG’s emissions. For instance, mid-season aeration can be promoted through short term drainage. Some of the technologies in the energy smart food system are the windmills, solar panels, wind generators, photovoltaic lights, biogas, and conversion of hydrothermal tools, bio energy and water pumping machines, information and communication technological innovation, and other similar approaches (Bochtis et al. 2014; Basche 2015). This technology has been applied in Morocco through the Morocco inclusive project Green Growth project, through the supply of agrometeorological information and the facilitation of the resilience building technology such as direct seeders. The pumps used can be both fuel and electric water pumps which are mostly used on irrigation farming (deep well and submersible pumps). Stakeholders in the agricultural industry should appreciate this modern technological innovation due to the benefits of increasing the value of production in the farming business. Most times, these technologies are linked on the farm from an integrated food energy system as shown in Fig. 1 below.

Fig. 1 Integrated renewable energy technologies for farming systems. (Source: Amin et al. 2016)

140

J. S. Y. Eleblu et al.

Resource Conserving Technologies (RCTs) This technology consists of methods that enhance efficiency in the management of inputs. When these resource technologies are implemented, it comes with its own merits which includes low cost of productivity, limited use of fuel, labor, water, and early planting of crops which results in improved yields in the long run. For instance, the zero tillage system, which happens to be one of the resource conserving technologies, is a type of cultivation system in which the seeds are directly sowed into a virgin (uncultivated) soil. The zero-tillage system, however, involves the cultivation of crops into untilled soil by aeration of thin channels with adequate depth-width so as to attain suitable seed coverage. The soil remaining is left as if tillage has never been done on it before (Derpsch et al. 2010). In some parts of the globe, the zero tillage permits farmers to grow wheat very soon after the rice harvest. This allows the head of the crops to appear and the filling of the grains before the warm weather, pre-monsoon set off. Therefore, as the average temperature of the globe in certain parts rises, early planting will be more relevant for the production of wheat (Pathak 2009).

Land Use Management Land use management involves the proper planning of land and its usage. The proper planning includes fixing the location of plants and livestock production, changing the concentration of the application of plant foods and bug sprays can reduce global warming on agricultural activities (Ahmad et al. 2014). Other land use practices involve shifting production out of marginal areas, changing the role of applying cartilage and pesticides. However, it must be noted that capital and labor can minimize the risks from Climate change on agriculture production. The farmers can regulate the duration of the growing season by changing the time at which the farming fields are sown. Other adaptation mechanisms can be in the form of changing the times of irrigation and use of fertilizer. Figure 2 elucidates Cropland Expansion Potential for different continents.

Cropping Season Variation The planting dates can be set to reduce the infertility that is caused by increasing temperatures; this may prevent the flowering period from meeting with the hot period (Arslan et al. 2015). The effects of the increased climatic variations which normally happens in both the semiarid and arid regions sometimes take advantage of the wet period by changing the planting times/dates. However, this approach is usually to avoid intense weather events in the growing season. This system of cultivation promotes the development of strong cultivars thereby leading to the production of different crops. The planting dates can be set to reduce the infertility that is caused by increasing temperature; this may prevent the flowering period from

7

Case for Climate Smart Agriculture in Addressing the Threat of Climate. . .

141

Fig. 2 Land use management. (Source: Burnisma 2009)

meeting with the hot period. The effects of the increased climatic variations which normally happens in both the semiarid and arid regions sometimes take advantage of the wet period by changing the planting times/dates. However, this approach is usually to avoid intense weather events in the growing season. This system of cultivation promotes the development of strong cultivars thereby leading to the production of different crops. The farmers will, therefore, need to ensure that they adopt the changing crop rotation system in the various hydrological cycles (Pathak et al. 2012).

Crop Relocation This approach involves the grouping and sorting of the plants and the varieties with respect to its sensitivity to the weather condition of a place. Crop relocation helps the crops to perform well according to the sensitivity of the climate during the vegetative and productive stages (Shames et al. 2012). There are several factors which affect agricultural production as a result of climatic change. These include increase in temperature, carbon dioxide (Co2) levels, and increase in drought and floods. These impacts vary across the various regions in the world as well as the different cultures. Other factors such as daylight, temperature, and humidity are very necessary for the vegetative and reproductive growth of the crops. Additionally the period for harvesting should be properly done so as to minimize losses during the period (Baba et al. 2017). However, it is therefore important to differentiate regions and crops that are highly susceptible to climate change. For instance, it is obvious that temperature increases affect the quality of many important crops. Some of these crops with respect to the discussion include basmati rice and tea.

142

J. S. Y. Eleblu et al.

Efficient Pest Management The normal agriculture pest and insect management on farms poses a threat to the environment. The usage of chemicals to destroy and kill pests is very harmful for farmers and also living organisms in the soil. Even chemicals such as insecticide, herbicides for plant diseases have been banned by some governments of certain countries, as the situation exists now, there is no botanical or environmental friendly chemical available. Due to this, farmers still use the chemicals for controlling pests on their farms. So, basically this technique provides an opportunity to employ environmentally friendly measures for pest control. The difference in the climatic factors such as the fall and rise in temperature unpredictably influences pest and disease incidence thereby impacting on major crops. Therefore, the change in climate will affect the relationship of pest and weed and the host populations. However, some of the adaptation strategies in this pest management approach includes; (i) Improvement in different breeding types that are resistant to pest and disease. (ii) Strong pest adaptation mechanism with more relevant control for both biological and cultural practices. (iii) Adoption of techniques such as crop substitution with regards to places resistant to pest and hazards.

GIS Mapping This approach is used in analysis and mapping. It is a system which is designed to capture, store, manipulate, analyze, manage, and present geographical data.

Fig. 3 Risk Assessment and mapping. (Source: Amin et al. 2016)

7

Case for Climate Smart Agriculture in Addressing the Threat of Climate. . .

143

However, it helps in the estimation and computation of storm causes and flooding that is related to hot cyclones. The study in using GIS mapping considers factors such as property allocation, infrastructure facilities among other resources. The photograph and images (Fig. 3) were used in the experimentation of seashore due to rising sea levels and hot cyclones. The figure below shows risk which can be explained by the cumulative study of emerging threat and the existing patterns of vulnerability. The technique enables the creation of hazards and risk maps at many different possible scales or dimensions to show the threat allocation across different geographical spaces within the globe. Some of the geographical places can be site specific, municipal (administrative areas) and other natural landscapes in river basins, coastlines, and lakes. Figure 3 portrays Mapping and Risk Assessment.

Conclusion Climate change is a great threat to agriculture and as such there is the need to tackle this adverse impact by adopting new innovative techniques in climate smart agriculture. This chapter has dealt with some of the climate smart agriculture techniques that can help reduce the impacts of climate change on agriculture and increase food crop production. To achieve food security and agriculture development goals, adaptation to climate change will be required to lower emission intensities per output. Thus improving food protection by moderate climate change, sustainable use of the natural resources, using all products more competently, have less inconsistency and greater constancy in their outputs. More fruitful and more flexible agriculture requires a paramount change in the usage of resources such as land, water, soil nutrients, and genetic resources management by climate smart agriculture approaches.

References Ahmad MI, Ali MA, Khan SR, Hassan SW, Javed MM (2014) Use of crop growth models in agriculture: a review. Sci Int 26(1):331–334, Lahore Amin A, Mubeen MHM, Nasim W (2016) Climate Smart agriculture: an approach for sustainable food security. Agriculture Research Communications 3:13–21 Arslan A, Mccarthy N, Lipper L, Asfaw S, Cattaneo A, Kokwe M (2015) Climate smart agriculture? Assessing the adaptation implications in Zambia. J Agric Econ 66(3):753–780 Baba RA, Owiyo T, Barbie B, Denton F, Rutabingwa F, Kiema A (2017) Advancing climate-smart agriculture in developing drylands: joint analysis of adoption of multiple on-farm soil and water conservation technologies in West African Sahel. Land Use Policy 61(2):196–207 Basche AD (2015) Climate –smart agriculture in Midwest cropping systems: evaluating the benefits and trade-offs of cover crops. PhD Dissertation, Iowa State University Bochtis DD, Sorensen CGC, Busato P (2014) Advances in agricultural machinery management: a review. Biosyst Eng 126(10):669–681 Boogaard H, De Wit A, Te Roller J, Van Diepen C (2014) Wofost control centre; users guide for the Wofost control centre and the crop growth simulation model Wofost 7. Alterra, Wageningen

144

J. S. Y. Eleblu et al.

Branca G, Mccarthy N, Lipper L, Jolejole MC (2011) Climate smart agriculture: a synthesis of empirical evidence of food security and mitigation benefits from improved cropland management. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/climatechange/297640aa5796a4fb093b6cfdf05558. pdf. Burnisma J (2009) The resource outlook to 2050: By how much to land, water use and crop yields need to increase by 2050. Expert meeting on how to feed the world in 2050. FAO and ESDD, Rome, p 33 Clements R, Haggar J, Quezada A, Torres J (2011) In: Zhu X (ed) Technologies for climate change adaptation-adaptation sector. UNEP Riso Centre, Roskilde Derpsch R, Friedrich T, Kassam A, Li H (2010) Current status of adoption of no till farming in the world and some of its main benefits. Int J Agric Biol Eng 3:1–25 FAO (2010) Climate- smart agriculture: policies, practices and financing for food security, adaptation and mitigation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome FAO (2011) The state of food and agriculture 2010–11. In: Women in agriculture: closing the gender-gap for development. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome Hartter J, Hamilton LC, Boag AE, Stevens FR, Ducey MJ, Christo ND, Palace MW (2017) Does it matter if people think climate change is human caused? Clim Serv 10(4):53 Hulme M (2017) Climate change, concept of. Int Encycl Geogr People Earth Environ Technol 16. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0343 IPCC (2014a) Climate change: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report for the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York IPCC (2014b) Chapter 7: Food security and food production systems. In: Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. IPCC working group II contribution to AR5. IPCC Secretariat, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva. Available: http://ipccwg2.gov/ images/uploads/WGIIARS5-Cha IPCC (2018) Summary for policymakers. In: Global warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Pean, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Mathews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, Waterfield (eds)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, 32p Katz RW (1977) Assessing the impact of climatic change on food production. Clim Chang 1:85–96 Lipper L, Thornton P, Campbell BM, Baedeker T, Braimoh A, Bwalya M, Torquebiau EF et al (2014) Climate- smart agriculture for food security. Nat Clim Chang 4:1068–1072. https://doi. org/10.1038/nclimate2437 Matocha J, Schroth G, Hills T, Hole D (2012) Integrating climate change adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry and ecosystem conservation. In: Nair PKR, Garrity D (eds) Agroforestry-the future of global land use. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 105–126 Met Office (2015) Food insecurity and climate change model spread. Retrieved from http://www. metoffice.gov.uk/food-insecurity-index Pathak H (2009) Agriculture and environment. In: Handbook of agriculture. Directorate of Information and Publication Agriculture, ICAR, New Delhi, pp 62–92 Pathak H, Aggarwal PK, Singh SD (eds) (2012) Climate change impact, adaptation and mitigation in agriculture: methodology for assessment and applications. Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, p 302 Richardson KJ et al (2018) Food security outcomes under a changing climate: impacts of mitigation and adaptation on vulnerability to food insecurity. Clim Chang. https://doi.org/10.1007/s105840182137-y Rural Poverty Report (2011) International fund for agriculture development Shames S, Wollenberg E, Buck LE, Kristjanson P, Masiga M, Biryahaho B (2012) Insitutional innovations in Africa smallholder carbon projects. CCAFS Report No. 8. Copenhagen, CCAFS

7

Case for Climate Smart Agriculture in Addressing the Threat of Climate. . .

145

Smith P, Olesen J (2010) Synergies between the mitigation of, and adaptation to climate change in agriculture. J Agric Sci 148:54–552. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859610000341 Tol RSJ (2018) The economic impacts of climate change. Rev Environ Econ Policy 12:4–25 UNFPA (2011) Annual Report: Delivering Results in a World of 7 billion, New York WB (2016a) World Data Bank –agriculture indicators. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Assessed 05 June 2020 WB (2016b) World Data Bank-agriculture indicators. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Accessed 05 June 2018 Wheeler T, von Braun J (2013) Climate change impacts on global food security. Science 341:508–513 Wilbanks T, Sathaye J (2007) Integrating mitigation and adaptations responses to climate change: a synthesis. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 12(5):957962. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s110270079108*3 Zougmore R, Partey S, Ouedraogo M, Omitoyin B, Thomas T et al (2016) Toward climate-smart agriculture in West Africa:a review of climate change impacts, adaptation strategies and policy developments for the livestock, fishery and crop production sectors. Agriculture and Food Security 5(1):26

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

8

Sorghum Farmers’ Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in the Semiarid Region of Cameroon Sale´ Abou, Madi Ali, Anselme Wakponou, and Armel Sambo

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Sorghum Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate Hazards and Sorghum Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sahelian Farmers Adaptation Strategies’ Typologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First Category of Typologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second Category of Typologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Third Category of Typologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characterization of Sorghum Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

148 149 149 153 154 156 157 157 163 164

Abstract

This chapter deals with the problem of sorghum farmers’ adaptation to climate change in the semiarid region of Cameroon. Its general objective is to compare the various adaptation strategies’ typologies and to characterize the sorghum farmers’ adaptation strategies on the basis of the suitable one. The stratified This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. S. Abou (*) · M. Ali National Advanced School of Engineering of Maroua (ENSPM), The University of Maroua, Maroua, Cameroon A. Wakponou Faculty of Arts, Letters and Human Sciences (FALSH), The University of Ngaoundéré, Ngaoundéré, Cameroon A. Sambo Faculty of Arts, Letters and Human Sciences (FALSH), The University of Maroua, Maroua, Cameroon © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_41

147

148

S. Abou et al.

random sampling method was used to select the sites, which consist of twenty (20) villages, and the sample, which consists of six hundred (600) farm household heads. After conducting focus-groups in ten villages and interviews with resource persons, the primary data were collected using a semi-open survey questionnaire. It appears that the poor spatiotemporal distribution of rains and the drought constitute, respectively, the main climate hazard and the main water risk that farmers are dealing with; the farmers are vulnerable to climate change because the adaptation strategies used are mostly traditional, their adoption rates are very low, and the use of efficient adaptation strategies (irrigation, improved crop varieties) is almost unknown. The characterization of the adaptation strategies used shows that they are more complex than most authors who have established the typologies thought. It comes out that improving the resilience of these sorghum farmers absolutely requires the improvement of their basic socioeconomic conditions. Keywords

Semiarid region · Sorghum farmers · Climate change · Climate hazard · Water risk · Adaptation strategies

Introduction Farmers in the semiarid regions of Africa, to which belongs the Diamaré division in the Far North Cameroon, are among the most vulnerable to water constraints caused by climate variability during the 1960s and 1970s. This vulnerability has its origin in their essentially rain-fed agriculture, their unfavorable socioeconomic characteristics, and their very fragile ecosystem. According to Borton and Nicholds (1994), of all-natural hazards, droughts are the ones with the greatest economic impact, and affecting the greatest number of people. In the Diamaré division, as in the whole semiarid zone of Cameroon, water constraints, particularly droughts and floods, have had a negative impact on cereals’ production, especially sorghums, which constitute the basic food of the population. According to L’hôte (2000), the period called “Drought in the Sahel” was an agronomic disaster for the entire region. Similarly, the results of the simulations carried out by Blanc (2012), compared to a reference without climate change, indicate that sorghum yields could decrease by around –47% to –7% by 2,100 in this region. Faced with this situation, a wide variety of adaptation strategies emanating from both farmers and agricultural research has been made available to sorghum farmers, but adoption rate remains low as everywhere else in the African semiarid zones (Yesuf et al. 2008; Leary Kulkarmi and Seipt 2007). In order to better understand the main orientations of these various adaptation strategies, a variety of typologies has been previously established by some authors (Dingkuhn 2009; Nhemachena and Hassan 2007; Jouve 2010; then Fabre 2010); but a comparison between adaptation strategies on the basis of these typologies remains difficult because of the diversity of analysis’ angles used by the authors. For this reason, it seems better to identify the main similarities and differences between the

8

Sorghum Farmers’ Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in the Semiarid. . .

149

various typologies, and then to characterize the sorghum farmers’ adaptation strategies on the basis of the most suitable typology. The sorghum farmers’ adaptation strategies’ characterization could allow researchers as well as policy-makers to better reorient research priorities and policies in order to improve farmers’ resilience. The Diamaré division located in the Far-North region of Cameroon (Fig. 1), between 10° and 11° North latitude (10°300 0000 ) and 14° and 15° East longitude (14° 300 0000 ), constituted the focus area. The climate is Sudano-Sahelian in its southern part and Sahelo-Sudanian in its northern part, all characterized by a long dry season (7–9 months), and a short rainy season. Agriculture (rainy season, dry season), animal husbandry, fishing, trade, and crafts are the main activities of these populations. The information has been collected through directed interviews with some resource people (researchers, patriarchs, heads of technical services), and then focus groups and a survey questionnaire submitted to six hundred (600) household heads. The descriptive and inferential statistics (frequencies, percentages, Principal Component Analysis, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin/KMO test) from the SPSS statistical software have been used to analyze the information gathered.

Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Sorghum Farmers In general, agriculture and livestock are the main activities of the farmers, and the Diamaré division is one of the three divisions most exposed to food insecurity in the region. Priority is given to cereals in terms of land mobilization and work (CEDC 2010), and sorghum (rainy and dry seasons) constitute the staple food of the populations. This agriculture is essentially characterized by the practice of polyculture (93.80%) and self-consumption agriculture (79%), the small size of the sown areas (100%49%) of the total variation of the adaptation strategies, in accordance with the KMO rule (Fig. 2 and Table 4). Loading these adaptation strategies according to the two main factors gave the results mentioned in Table 5. Factor 1 brings together the adaptation strategies “sowing of early matured varieties,” “diversification of crop varieties,” “change of crops or crop varieties,” “labor of plots and mounding of plants,” “temporary or permanent transfer of crops,” “organic or mineral fertilizer input,” and “sowing of melted seed holes or dried plants.” This factor can be called “Adaptation to climate hazards through efficient management of natural resources (soil, water, crops).” This factor can be interpreted as the decision-making by farmers to continue to carry out agricultural activities despite the risks, and corresponds in fact to the adaptation strategy by “confronting climate hazards and water risks” suggested by the first category of typologies. Factor 2 groups together the adaptation strategies “sowing or transplanting early,” “sowing of drought resistant crops varieties,” “making of racks,” “diversification of income-generating activities,” “crop diversification,” and “multiplication of weeding.” This factor brings together adaptation strategies whose main objective is to avoid water risks. It therefore corresponds to all the activities carried out by farmers with the aim of minimizing climate hazards and water risks and their impacts; and for that, it corresponds well to the adaptation strategy by “eviction or minimization a priori of climate hazards and water risks” suggested by the first category of typologies. It finally emerges from this analysis that all the rainy season sorghum farmers’ adaptation strategies correspond very well to the typology proposed by the first category of typologies’ authors, namely adaptation by “confronting water risks” and adaptation by “a priori eviction or minimization of water risks”.

8

Sorghum Farmers’ Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in the Semiarid. . .

159

Fig. 2 Percentage explanations of variables by factors F1 and F2 Table 4 Variability explained by factor

Factors F1 F2

Variation 4.928 2.045

% 37.908 15.731

Cumulative % 37.908 53.64

The test of the adequacy of the dry season sorghum farmers’ adaptation strategies using the KMO test gave the results mentioned in Table 6. All the KMO values taken by the adaptation strategies are greater than 0.49, except that of the “late transplanting” strategy, which will not be used in the KMO test. The eigenvalues of the different factors from the PCA results reveal the existence of five (5) main factors, which explain 53.612% (>49%) of the total variation of the adaptation strategies, in accordance with the KMO rule. (Fig. 3 and Table 7). Loading the adaptation strategies of the dry season sorghum farmers according to the five (5) main factors gave the results mentioned in Table 8.

160

S. Abou et al.

Table 5 Results of the loading of the rainy season sorghum farmers’ adaptation strategies by factor Adaptation strategies Sowing early matured varieties Sowing or transplanting early Sowing of drought resistant crops varieties Diversification of crops varieties Change of crops or crops varieties Ploughing of plots and mounding of plants Temporary or permanent transfer of crops Making of racks Organic or mineral fertilizer input Diversification of income-generating activities Crops’ diversification Multiplication of weeding Sowing of melted seed holes or dried plants

Factor 1 0.570 0.444 0.267 0.712 0.582 0.862 0.540 0.572 0.554 0.127 0.133 00.77 03.65

Factor 2 0.067 0.511 0.513 0.292 0.475 0.217 0.424 0.456 0.052 0.697 0.163 0.690 0.735

Table 6 Results of the KMO sample adequacy test applied to the dry season sorghum farmers’ adaptation strategies Adaptation strategies Sowing of early matured varieties Sowing or transplanting early Sowing of drought resistant crops varieties Diversification of crops varieties Change of crops or crops varieties Ploughing of plots and mounding of plants Temporary or permanent transfer of crops Making of racks or bunds Crops organic or inorganic fertilizer input Diversification of income-generating activities Crops diversification Multiplication of weeding Sowing of molten seed holes or dried plants Late transplanting Deepening piles Purchase or request of nurseries Scaling of nurseries over the time Organic or inorganic fertilization of nurseries Cleaning and deepening of ponds Water research over long distances Fertilization of transplanting water

Codes SEVARPRE SEMISSEC SEMVARES DIVARCUL CHASPVA LABBUTPL MUTEDECU CONFCAS FUMORGA DIVACGER DIVERCUL MULTSARC RESREPIQ SREPITAR APROFPI ACHATPE ECHELPEP FEORMIPE CURAMAE RECHEAGD FERTEARE

KMO values 0.817 0.577 0.743 0.782 0.522 0.801 0.540 0.771 0.773 0.731 0.500 0.687 0.621 0,444 0.555 0.663 0.780 0.568 0.753 0.739 0.585

Factor 1 groups together the adaptation strategies “sowing of early matured varieties”, “sowing of drought-tolerant varieties”, “diversification of crop varieties”, “ploughing of plots and mounding of plants”, “making of racks or bunds”, and

8

Sorghum Farmers’ Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in the Semiarid. . .

161

Fig. 3 Percentage of explanations of variables by factors F1 and F2 Table 7 Variability explained by factor

Factors F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

Variation 3.690 2.581 2.132 1.561 1.295

% 17.571 12.292 10.151 7.434 6.165

Cumulative % 17.571 29.863 40.014 47.447 53.612

“diversification of income-generating activities”. This factor brings together all of the farmers’ adaptation strategies which aim to avoid or minimize water risks and their impacts, and in fact corresponds to the adaptation strategy by “a priori eviction or minimization of water risks” suggested by the first category of typologies. Factor 2 groups together the adaptation strategies “multiplication of weeding”, “sowing of melted seed holes or dried plants”, “deepening of piles”, “scaling of nurseries over the time”, “cleaning and deepening of ponds”, “water research over

162

S. Abou et al.

Table 8 Results of the loading of the dry season sorghum farmers’ adaptation strategies by factor Adaptation strategies Sowing of early matured varieties Sowing or transplanting early Sowing of drought resistant crops varieties Diversification of crops varieties Change of crops or crops varieties Ploughing of plots and mounding of plants Temporary or permanent transfer of crops Making of racks or bunds Crops organic or inorganic fertilizer input Diversification of income-generating activities Crops diversification Multiplication of weeding Sowing of melted seed holes or dried plants Deepening of piles Purchase or request of nurseries Scaling of nurseries over the time Organic or mineral fertilization of nurseries Cleaning and deepening of ponds Water research over long distances Fertilization of transplanting water

Factor 1 0.663 0.459 0.777

Factor 2 0.219 0.219 0.277

Factor 3 0.100 0.168 0.307

Factor 4 0.194 0.163 0.124

Factor 5 0.149 0.596 0.240

0.813 0.052 0.613

0.213 0.165 0.224

0.246 0.052 0.352

0.075 0.487 0.070

0.160 0.248 0.107

0.176

0.170

0.243

0.035

0.391

0.743 0.367

0.152 0.416

0.349 0.445

0.055 0.029

0.171 0.140

0.443

0.133

0.428

0.158

0.387

0.120 0.039 0.061

0.077 0.535 0.633

0.220 0.410 0.464

0.222 0.154 0.312

0.194 0.272 0.019

0.139 0.172 0.357 0.215

0.392 0.236 0.438 0.253

0.287 0.245 0.386 0.262

0.033 0.469 0.007 0.418

0.222 0.297 0.084 0.245

0.337 0.251 0.026

0.477 0.471 0.657

0.359 0.049 0.498

0.023 0.389 0.401

0.038 0.143 0.016

long distances”, and “fertilization of transplanting water”. This factor brings together all the adaptation strategies aimed at the sustainable management of water resources, and can be called “Adaptation to water risks by efficient management of water resources”. Factor 3 contains the “crops organic or inorganic fertilizer input” strategy. It brings together strategies aimed at sustainable soil management, and can be called “Adaptation to water risks through efficient soil management”. Factor 4 groups together the strategies “change of crops or crop varieties”, “crops diversification”, “purchase or request of nurseries”, and “organic or mineral fertilization of nurseries”. It brings together strategies aimed at the sustainable management of crops, and can be called “Adaptation to water risks through sustainable management of crops”. Factor 5 groups together the strategies “sowing or transplanting early” and “temporary or permanent transfer of crops”, which aim to avoid water risks, and can be called “Adaptation by a priori eviction of water risks”.

8

Sorghum Farmers’ Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in the Semiarid. . .

163

Analysis of all the five factors reveals that factors 1 and 5 correspond to the farmers’ adaptation to climate change by “eviction or a priori minimization of water risks”, while factors 2, 3, and 4 correspond to their adaptation by “confronting water risks”; and therefore, it could be said that the dry season sorghum farmers’ adaptation strategies corresponds very well to the typology proposed by the authors of the first category of typologies, namely, adaptation by “confrontation with the water risks” and adaptation by “a priori eviction or minimization of the water risks.” That said, depending on the results of the characterization of the sorghum farmers’ adaptation strategies using PCA and KMO test, their whole adaptation process can be explained through a set of two actions: 1. The agro-pastoral natural resources management by “confrontation with the climate hazards and water risks” or by “eviction of the climate hazards and water risks”. 2. The intense spatiotemporal diversification of the practices (agro-pastoral natural resources management, income generating activities). Finally, it can be said that the characterization of the sorghum farmers’ adaptation strategies shows that they are more complex than most authors who have established the typologies thought, because of the spatiotemporal diversification of the practices.

Conclusion At the end of this chapter, we could draw the following conclusions: • The poor spatiotemporal distribution of rains and the drought respectively constitute the main climate hazard and the main water risk faced by sorghum farmers in particular, and farmers in general in the semi-arid region of Cameroon. • The sorghum farmers are highly vulnerable to climate change, and that could be perceived through the coexistence of all the three forms of drought (meteorological, agricultural, hydrological), the permanent food insecurity, the mostly traditional adaptation strategies used and their very low adoption rates, the underuse or absence of efficient adaptation strategies (irrigation, improved crop varieties), and their socioeconomic characteristics (the practice of self-consumption agriculture, the small size of the sown areas, the low quantity of agricultural inputs used, the poor access to agricultural extension and to credits, the multiplication of incomegenerating activities, and the weak school enrollment rate). • The characterization of the adaptation strategies used shows that they are more complex than most authors who have established the typologies thought because the whole adaptation process used by sorghum farmers can be explained through a set of two actions: the agro-pastoral natural resources management by “confrontation with the climate hazards and water risks” or by “eviction of the climate hazards and water risks”; and the intense spatiotemporal diversification of the

164

S. Abou et al.

practices (agro-pastoral natural resources management, income generating activities). • Insofar, as the farmers are very vulnerable to the climate change, it seems given their poor socioeconomic conditions that a real improvement in their resilience depends absolutely on a real and deep improvement of these socioeconomic conditions.

References Agossou DSM, Tossou CR, Vissoh VP, Agbossou KE (2012) Perception des perturbations climatiques, savoirs locaux et stratégies d’adaptation des producteurs agricoles béninois. Afr Crop Sci J 20(2):565–588 Arodokoun UA (2011) Socioeconomic impact of the use of NICTs in adaptation strategies to climate change in rural areas: the case of cotton farmers in Center-Benin. Thesis for the Diploma of Agricultural Engineer, University of Abomey-Calavi, Abomey Batterbury SPJ, Forsyth T (1999) Fighting back: human adaptations in marginal environments. Environment 41(11):25–29 Batterbury SPJ, Mortimore MJ (2013) Adapting to drought in the west African Sahel. In: Boultner S, Palutikov J, Karoly D, Guitart D (eds) Symposium on natural disasters and adaptation to climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Blanc E (2012) The impact of climate change on crop yields in sub-Saharan Africa. Am J Clim Chang 1:1–13 Borton J, Nicholds N (1994) Drought and Famine. London, England: FAO CEDC (2010) Regional master plan for land management and use planning. Technical report. MINPLADAT, Yaoundé Chédé F (2012) Vulnérabilité et stratégies d’adaptation au changement climatique des paysans du Département des Collines au Bénin: cas de la Commune de Savè. Mémoire de fin d’études pour l’obtention du diplôme de Mastère en Changement climatique et développement durable. Centre Regional AGRHYMET de Niamey, Niger Diarra A (2008) Adaptation of Sahelian agriculture to climate change: an approach using stochastic modeling. Results of research presented at meetings of the International Institute for Water and Environment Engineering, Ouagadougou Dingkuhn M (2009) Adaptation des plantes cultivées au changement climatique. In: Caron P (ed) Changement climatique et agriculture: l’environnement et la sécurité alimentaire en jeu. CIRAD, Paris Fabre C (2010) The adaptation of food farmers in Senegal to climate change: the case of the rural community of Sessène, Thiès region. Master thesis in Geography, University of Montreal, Montreal FAO (2009) Food production: the determining role of water. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome FAO, NDMC (2008) A review of drought occurrence and monitoring and planning activities in the Near East Region. FAO, Rome Gnanglé PC, Egah J, Baco MN, Gbemavo CDSJ, Kakai RG, Sokpon N (2012) Perceptions locales du changement climatique et mesures d’adaptation dans la gestion des parcs à karité au Nord-Benin. Int J Biol Chem Sci 6(1):136–149 IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014 Synthesis report: headline statements from the summary for policymakers. Technical report. IPCC, Geneva Jouve P (2010) Practices and strategies for adapting farmers to climatic hazards in sub-Saharan Africa. Grain de sel 49:15–16 L’Hôte Y (2000) Climatology. In: Seignobos C, Iyébi-Mandjeck O (eds) Atlas of the province of far North Cameroon (Plate 2). IRD, Paris

8

Sorghum Farmers’ Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in the Semiarid. . .

165

Leary N, Kulkarmi J, Seipt C (2007) Assessments of impacts and adaptation to climate change: summary of the final report of the AIACC project. Technical report. START, Washington, DC Mortimore MJ, Adams WM (2000) Farmer adaptation, change and crisis in the Sahel. Glob Environ Chang 11:49–57 Ngigi NS (2009) Climate change adaptation strategies: water resources management options for smallholder farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Synthesis report. MDG Centre for East and Southern Africa, Nairobi Nhemachena C, Hassan R (2007) Micro-level analysis of farmers’ adaptation to climate change in southern Africa. IFPRI discussion paper 00714. IFPRI, Washington, DC OECD (2010) Gestion durable des ressources en eau dans le secteur agricole. OCDE, Paris Sissoko K, Van Keulen H, Verhagen J, Tekken V, Battaglini A (2010) Agriculture, livelihoods and climate change in the West African Sahel. Reg Environ Change 3:25–37 Yesuf M, Di Falco S, Deressa T, Ringler C, Kohlin G (2008) The impact of climate change and adaptation on food production in low-income countries: evidence from the Nile Basin (Ethiopia). IFPRI discussion paper 00828. IFPRI, Addis Ababa

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

9

Attaining Food Security in the Wake of Climatic Risks: Lessons from the Delta State of Nigeria Eromose E. Ebhuoma

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Livelihood Vulnerability to Climatic Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assets and Food Production Nexus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Households Still Living Below the Global Poverty Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

168 169 171 171 172 174 176 177 178

Abstract

Climate variability and change have undermined the poor rural households’ ability in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) to engage in food production effectively – which comprises their primary source of livelihood – partly because it is predominantly rain-fed. Notwithstanding, the rural poor are not docile victims to climatic risks. They actively seek innovative ways to utilize their bundle of assets to reduce the negative effects of climatic risks to ensure household food security. Bundle of assets comprise the financial, human, physical, social, and natural assets owned by, or easily accessible to, an individual. Drawing on primary data obtained qualitatively in the Delta State of Nigeria, this chapter analyzes

This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. E. E. Ebhuoma (*) College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa (UNISA), Johannesburg, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_15

167

168

E. E. Ebhuoma

how Indigenous farmers utilize their bundle of assets to grow their food in the face of a rapidly changing climate. The results indicate that human and social assets played crucial roles in facilitating household food security. Also, social assets facilitated the procurement of other assets necessary to ensure continuity in food production, albeit farmers continue to live under the global poverty line. This chapter critically discusses the implications of these findings in relation to the attainment of both the first and second Sustainable Development Goals (no poverty and zero hunger) by 2030 in the Delta State. Keywords

Assets · Climate change · Adaptation · Food security · Indigenous farmers; Nigeria

Introduction Climate variability and change have adversely affected various sectors of the global economy including health (Ebhuoma and Gebreslasie 2016), transportation (Jaroszweski et al. 2010), and tourism (Fitchett et al. 2017). However, no sector has been severely affected like agriculture, especially in the developing world (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014). This is primary because the agricultural practices embarked upon by poor rural households are extensively dependent on rainfall (Conway and Schipper 2011). Consequently, the slightest deviation of weather patterns from the normal can subject most of the rural poor in developing countries to excruciating poverty and misery due to their inability to obtain their livelihood from food production (IPCC 2014). Furthermore, the vulnerability of the rural poor to climatic risks is exacerbated by weak institutions and agricultural policies, deficiency of social safety nets, inability to purchase farm insurance, and low levels of education (Perez et al. 2015). In Nigeria, for example, agriculture contributes about 20% to its gross domestic product (GDP), making it next in line to the country’s mainstay after crude oil (National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) 2014). In the last two decades, however, climate variability and change have wreaked havoc in various farming communities, especially in the Delta State where 90% of rural households are actively engaged in food production (Ifeanyi-obi et al. 2012). Climatic risks have become a huge cause for concern among the rural poor due to growing uncertainty regarding anticipated food productivity and outputs (Mavhura et al. 2013; Nelson et al. 2014). Despite the increased climatic risks that the rural poor in the Delta State and other parts of subSaharan Africa (SSA) are besieged by, they are not docile victims to these threats. The poor, as Moser (2011) argue, are actively and consistently seeking innovative ways to utilize, modify, and adapt their bundle of assets or capital to reduce the negative effects of climatic risks on their livelihood. Bundle of assets comprises the financial, human, physical, social, and natural assets (Table 1) owned by or easily accessible to an individual. The focus on assets is crucial to facilitating the

9

Attaining Food Security in the Wake of Climatic Risks: Lessons from the. . .

169

Table 1 Definition of bundle of assets Asset or capital Physical

Financial

Human

Social Natural

Definition This includes equipment, infrastructures such as road networks, and other productive resources owned by individuals, households, communities, or the country itself This refers to financial resources available and easily accessible to individuals, which includes loan, access to credits and savings in a bank or any other financial institutions This refers to the level of education, skills, health status, and nutrition of individuals. Labor is closely associated with human capital investments. Health statuses of individuals impact either positively or negatively on their ability to work, while skill and level of education is crucial because it influences individuals return from labor This refers to the norms, rules, obligations, mutuality, and trust embedded in social relations, social structures, and societies’ institutional disposition This refers to the atmosphere, land, minerals, forests, water, and wetlands. For the rural poor, land is an essential asset.

Sources: Bebbington (1999); Moser and Satterthwaite (2008); Moser (2011)

identification of entry points to inject tailored policy interventions that are necessary to build and fortify the adaptive capacity and resilience of the rural poor (Moser 2011; Moser and Stein 2011). As documented by Moser (2011), individuals are not docile victims but possess resources that they can draw upon in times of crisis. Thus, identifying and strengthening these resources is crucial for the poor to be able to hold their own in times of crisis such as climate variability and change by deploying their available resources to ensure food security. In the wake of a rapidly changing climate, the injection of tailored policy interventions is desperately needed to scale up food production in SSA and facilitate the actualization of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 1 and 2 (no poverty and zero hunger) by 2030. Against this background, this chapter analyzes the ways in which Indigenous farmers in Igbide, Uzere, and Olomoro communities in the Delta State of Nigeria utilize their bundle of assets to grow their food in the face of a rapidly changing climate. Indigenous, in this context, refers to people that possess a peculiar culture and knowledge distinct to their community that have been examined with real-life scenarios (Ebhuoma 2020).

Research Methodology The chapter is based on primary data obtained in Olomoro, Igbide, and Uzere communities situated in Isoko south local government area (ISLGA) of the Delta State in Nigeria (Fig. 1). The mean annual rainfall in the Delta State is between 2500 to 3000 mm (Adejuwon 2011). Both Igbide and Uzere are low-lying, while Olomoro comprises both high- and low-lying areas. Due to annual heavy rainfall events, the low-lying farmlands are submerged from June to the last week in October.

170

E. E. Ebhuoma

Fig. 1 Map of the study areas. (Source: Cartographic Unit, Wits University, South Africa (2016))

Omohode’s (2012) documentation, following the 2012 flood disaster that severely affected most States in Nigeria, influenced the choice of these communities. He highlighted that most low-lying communities in ISLGA were completely submerged, making the area resemble emergency oceans when viewed from a distance. Thus, unpacking the ways in which Indigenous farmers in these communities engage with their bundle of assets will provide valuable insights regarding how vulnerable people grow their food in the face of climatic risks. The communities are homogeneous in nature. For instance, Isoko, an Indigenous language, is the local dialect spoken. Also, small-scale farming is the major economic driver of these three communities, with the women at the helm of the practice. While some men assist their wives to produce food, they are mostly involved in fishing. In terms of food production, cassava and groundnut are the predominant staples cultivated annually. Cassava makes up approximately 65% of the total caloric intake in each community. Other cultivated crops include cocoyam, potato, pepper,

9

Attaining Food Security in the Wake of Climatic Risks: Lessons from the. . .

171

and plantain. With the exception of cassava which requires a minimum of 6 months to reach maturity, the other crops can be harvested 3 months after planting. Focus group discussions (FGDs) and semi-structured interviews were used to obtain primary data. Thirty-five FGDs and four one-to-one, semi-structured interviews (two in Olomoro, one in Igbide and Uzere) were conducted between June and October 2015. Of the 35 focus groups, 24 were made up of female respondents; five comprised male respondents, while six were made of both male and female respondents. Respondents in each FGD varied between 3 and 12 respondents aged between 20 and 85. Respondents were identified using purposive sampling based on age, gender, those who have been farming in the study areas for a minimum of 10 years, those whose household assets and livelihoods were severely affected by the 2012 flood disaster, and those that grow their food on low-lying farmlands. Key informants who have lived in each community for over 40 years and an agricultural extension worker facilitated the recruitment of eligible respondents. Primary data retrieved were analyzed using the thematic analysis technique.

Findings Livelihood Vulnerability to Climatic Risks Respondents pinpointed heavy rainfall events – which resulted in seasonal flooding of low-lying farmlands annually – as the worst weather conditions that undermined effective food production through farmers’ inability to maximize their natural capital. In this regard, a respondent from Uzere, in his 80s, stated: We are constrained to practice seasonal planting due to flooding which must occur on our farmland annually. Consequently, we must harvest all our cultivated cassava before our farmland gets inundated. This usually worsens food insecurity in times of poor harvest. . .. This is the advantage farmers in neighboring communities who cultivate on high ground have over us. They do not lack garri (processed cassava) throughout the year.

Seasonal flooding restricts farming for 8 months annually, which has implications for the amount of food farmers are able to produce annually. The second weather conditions that adversely impacted food production are rising temperatures, especially between February and April. On the one hand, respondents aged 40 years and below revealed that the weather has become warmer in the last decade. On the other hand, the elderly respondents (50 years and above) argued that the rise in temperature began in the early 1980s. Both groups unanimously acknowledged that in the last 5 years, temperatures between February and April have become abnormally high in the afternoons. This has undermined their ability to work effectively on their farmlands. From the respondents’ viewpoint, the adverse effects of the rising temperature are evident in groundnut production as they now harvest empty pods more frequently than in previous times. A respondent from Igbide, in her 50s, asserted:

172

E. E. Ebhuoma

The sunlight during the months of February and March is really terrible and planting during those months is very difficult. Groundnut is the crop that is seriously affected because it is does not require intense sunlight for optimal productivity.

Approximately two-thirds of the respondents stated that the change in weather conditions is due to God’s making and supernatural forces. When probed about the role of humans in contributing to climate change, most debunked the claim. To concretize this viewpoint, female respondents in a FGD in Igbide unanimously agreed that the change in weather, humans have nothing to do with it; it is solely the making of God. However, the youths attributed the vagaries of weather to the increased rate of deforestation carried out by farmers to obtain firewood. Also, few elderly respondents revealed that the rising temperatures are due to continuous gas flaring activities by Shell’s crude oil exploration activities for over 40 years. These three communities have about 62 oil wells that Shell drilled oil from before selling all its oil wells in these communities to the Integrated Data Services Limited (IDSL), a subsidiary of Nigerian national petroleum corporation (NNPC), in 2014. In this light, a male respondent from Uzere, in his 50s, commented: This community is particularly known for farming. But since the early 1980s, the quality of both cassava and groundnut produced has reduced significantly. This is due to Shell’s oil exploration activities. Most of the youths now engage in off-farm activities because farming can no longer foot their bills.

Most elderly respondents attributed the poor starch content of the garri (processed cassava) they produce to crude oil exploration activities. They lamented that the oil exploration had compromised their soil’s nutrients, which in turn has affected the nutritional value of the garri produced, especially when compared to the produce harvested in the 1980s. However, only a few respondents highlighted farmers’ inability to engage in bush fallowing, due to increased demand for land stemming from sporadic population growth, as an added factor that has facilitated the reduction in quality of food produced.

Assets and Food Production Nexus Due to the annual seasonal floods, farmers employ their human capital to produce cassava on their low-lying farmland through an Indigenous strategy referred to as elelame (follow the water). The other cultivated crops – cocoyam, potato, pepper, and plantain – are produced using the early rains, which usually begins between February and March and last till the end of May. The water strategy commences as soon as the floodwater starts to recede the farmland, usually in November. The farmers’ plant their cassava stems on the part of the soil that is visible and moist. They replicate this process until the floodwaters have completely dried up from their farmland. The planting process usually ends between the second and third week in December.

9

Attaining Food Security in the Wake of Climatic Risks: Lessons from the. . .

173

The following year, between June and August, when the rain is heavy and continues to fall consistently, they start harvesting their produce. The decision regarding where to commence harvesting is hinged on their human capital informed by their Indigenous knowledge, as they know the precise portion of their farmland that will be submerged at the earliest. Thus, they do not harvest all their farm produce simultaneously. The crop closest to where the inundation will commence are harvested first. The reason for not harvesting all the produce at the same time is because the longer cassava remains in the soil, the bulkier they get. Also, labor shortage is another factor that contributes to adopting this harvesting strategy. Thereafter, usually within a week, they would return – pending on the consistency of rainfall – to their farmland to employ a similar process to harvest the other produce. After harvesting all their produce, they preserve the cassava stems on their inundated farmland by constructing temporary structures to use them for food production in the next planting season (Fig. 2). To ensure they have garri to eat all year round, they utilize their human capital to process the harvested cassava as well as store it properly. Respondents explained that after the necessary procedures have been implemented, which entail peeling, soaking the cassava in water for several hours, drying the soaked tubers and blending into powdered form, it is fried with little palm oil to an overly dried state. After cooling down, the garri is preserved in airtight sack bags. Thereafter, a wooden structure is constructed and the sack bags placed on top of it. The fundamental reason for suspending the sack bags from the ground is to prevent the garri from going bad through mold formation.

Fig. 2 Indigenous technique used to preserve cassava stem on low-lying farmland. (Photograph: John Ayiko (2015))

174

E. E. Ebhuoma

It is noteworthy to mention that some farmers rent farmland, a natural capital, to grow their food. Because most farmers lack financial capital during the planting season, social capital plays a vital role in this regard only for trustworthy individuals. As a respondent from Uzere, in her 40s, highlighted: Most farmers lack finances during the planting season. Consequently, only trustworthy individuals are privileged to get farm plots leased to them without having to pay the agreed sum upfront. Often times, they pay the landowners after harvesting and traded some of the produce.

Also, some farmers – due to a shortage of household labor and lack of capacity to hire laborers – drew on their social capital to acquire human capital to facilitate the harvesting of farm produce before the occurrence of the seasonal flooding. Specifically, some farmers depend on neighbors, relatives, and friends to accelerate the harvesting process to avert the possibility of some of the produced cassava from decaying. Furthermore, social capital catalyzed the procurement of financial capital. This is particularly useful as most farmers have been unable to benefit from several loan schemes afforded by the Delta State government against the backdrop of the farm loans being disbursed consistently for over 10 years (United Nations Development Program (UNDP) 2014). Some highlighted that they only hear of farm loans after the application process had closed, a state of affairs which was largely attributed to nepotism. Although microfinance banks (MFB) in the Delta State have been given directives to provide the rural poor with farm loans, the inability to provide collateral matching the value of the loan sought after or a guarantor with valuable assets has hampered farmers’ ability to secure such loans. As respondents in a female-only FGD in Olomoro bemoaned: Loans exist that could reduce some of the challenges we undergo as farmers, but due to the fact that there is nobody to stand as a guarantor [lack of social capital], they have not been able to harness such opportunities.

Since farmers’ annual earnings from food production (between 137 USD to 219 USD) are inadequate to secure their livelihood objectives, they utilize their social capital to temper the financial drought. This is achieved by some community members coming together to form a small group where the prior agreed monetary contributions are made weekly to a trustworthy individual. At the end of each month, the total sum is given to a group member, hinged on prearrangement. This scheme, referred to as Osusu, is useful in ensuring that farmers can purchase items necessary for food production.

Households Still Living Below the Global Poverty Line Despite farmers’ skillful utilization of their meager bundle of assets at their disposal to ensure continuity in food production, the majority still live under the global

9

Attaining Food Security in the Wake of Climatic Risks: Lessons from the. . .

175

poverty line of less than $US 1.90 a day (Livingston et al. 2011). A fundamental reason for this is due to the low financial gains made from the sale of garri underpinned by its inferior quality when compared with those produced in neighboring communities’ void of oil exploration activities. Thus, they are “forced” to market their produce at a much-reduced price. Another factor that impeded farmers from transcending living above the global poverty line is due to the exorbitant interest rate money is borrowed from unregulated bodies such as informal meeting groups and money lenders. Respondents highlighted that not knowing influential people, underpinned by lack of social capital, to act as guarantors to co-sign the credit agreement to access farm loans from MFB is a pull factor toward securing loans from unregulated sources. As some respondents explain, this is prevalent during the planting season as farmers often run out of money having addressed other pressing issues such as paying for both children’s tuition fees and levies attached to social responsibility. Thus, farmers are left with no feasible alternative but to obtain loans from “financial predators” as their requirements are less demanding. While the loan obtained enables farmers to produce their food, it proved counterproductive in terms of evading the poverty maze. For example, if a farmer borrows 50 USD for 6 months, the farmer is required to refund the loan with a whopping 40% interest. This is testament to the fact that the drive to become food secure pushes farmers to do anything within their powers to achieve the objective, regardless of the long-term consequences. The financial predators are well knowledgeable on the importance of farm loans in ensuring household food security. As a result, they are unwilling to water down their terms and conditions. In this regard, a farmer from Igbide, in his 50s, explained: Without loans, some farmers cannot grow food. After these farmers secure loan from nongovernment bodies, grow their food and sold some of the produce to refund the loan, most of the time, they are left with little or nothing for the next planting season. The only choice they have is to go back to secure loans from the group that lend them money previously. This is the survival tactic of some farmers in this community.

In fact, the inability to access loan is a catalyst that has made some farmers to engage in off-farm activities. Another factor that compromised effective food production was the lack of physical capital, especially for farmers with access to large hectares of land enough to engage in commercial farming. For example, farmers’ inability to access farm machinery dampened their fight to transcend the boundaries of a subsistence farmer. A male respondent in Uzere stated that while the Delta State government usually provides farm equipment for farmers, “it never gets to them.” Instead, the equipment is “always hijacked” by influential politicians and close associates of key politicians in the Delta State. In addition, the unavailability of rice milling machines has prevented farmers from producing rice. Few elderly respondents (50 years and above) in Igbide revealed: In the 1960s, they were actively involved in rice production because of the swampy nature of their farmlands, and rice milling machines provided by the government. But since the 1970s till date, no provision has been made to provide rice milling machines for farmers. As a result, rice cultivation has been abandoned.

176

E. E. Ebhuoma

Finally, the farmers lamented bitterly that despite the enormous contributions their communities have made to the nation’s foreign revenue for over four decades, their communities have remained shockingly underdeveloped. The lack of good road networks within each community, for example, erodes the financial capital of some farmers, albeit insidiously. To illustrate, during the rainy seasons, it can be challenging for motorists to navigate their way through their community due to countless potholes. This makes accessibility to markets where they have to sell some of their farm produce an exasperating venture.

Discussion The adverse effects of climatic risks are palpable in Igbide, Uzere, and Olomoro communities in the Delta State of Nigeria. They have manifested in the form of heavy rainfall events (Ifeanyi-obi et al. 2012), which leads to seasonal flooding of low-lying farmlands, and rising temperatures (Ike and Ezeafulukwe 2015). While these climatic variables have undermined food production, oil exploration activities have aggravated farmers’ woes. By significantly degrading soil’s nutrients, oil exploration activities have adversely compromised the quality of food produced. This assertion is corroborated by research findings that have also emerged from the Delta State (Ererobe 2009; Elum et al. 2016). Nonetheless, the findings can be disaggregated into two key points. First, farmers’ perception of climate change is underpinned by religious framing. Similar findings have been recorded in Botswana (Spear et al. 2019), Mali (Bell 2014), Nigeria (Jellason et al. 2020), South Africa (Okem and Bracking 2019), and Zimbabwe (Moyo et al. 2012), respectively. Attributing the cause of climate change to oil exploration activities, God and other supernatural forces as well as disentangling their lifestyle activity – deforestation – as a contributing factor seems the logical way for people to continue with the state of affairs without any ill feelings. Accepting how their lifestyle choices may be contributing to climate change, no matter how insignificant it may seem in comparison to gas flaring, for example, will doubtlessly require behavioral changes. In contrast to studies that show that people highly vulnerable to climate change may be more willing to adopt behavioral changes (Akerlof et al. 2013; Azadi et al. 2019), this may not be feasible for farmers in the Delta State due to their quest to obtain their livelihood by any means necessary. For instance, to rely on kerosene or gas-fueled stoves for cooking may have substantial financial implications in comparison to firewood. In this light, therefore, the need to sensitize farmers on how their actions are contributing to climate change, including the possible future implications for household food security, is essential. This is primarily because rural households in SSA are expected to be adversely affected by the impacts of future climate change (IPCC 2014). Also, it is necessary to involve religious clergies as key stakeholders in the discourse around climate change mitigation as their beliefs and values have the potential to influence the behaviors of their congregation.

9

Attaining Food Security in the Wake of Climatic Risks: Lessons from the. . .

177

Second, farmers have carved out unique strategies to maximize their meager asset portfolios to produce food despite the increasing threats from climatic risks. The systematic ways in which farmers utilize their human capital to grow food on their low-lying farmlands indicate that farmers are not helpless victims to climatic risks. This is corroborated by findings in Bangladesh (Al Mamun and Al Pavel 2014), Botswana (Motsumi et al. 2012), and Zimbabwe (Mavhura et al. 2013). With the right support and interventions such as providing easy access to loans, machinery, and good road networks, the likelihood that farmers will successfully transcend living above the global poverty line is extremely high. As several studies show (Kochar 1997; Akoijam 2012; Ibrahim and Aliero 2012; Assogba et al. 2017), easy access to government loans remain a major challenge for rural farmers in developing countries. It is documented that the flourishing of exploitative money lenders is due to low priority given to rural credit (Akoijam 2012). Thus, to ensure farmers access farm loans, robust broadcasting of any program through mediums utilized by households to receive vital information are crucial. Otherwise, the persistent dependence on financial predators will continue to flourish, to the detriment of farmers in the Delta State achieving the first SDG. It should be emphasized that the skillful utilization of social capital to acquire human capital (assistance with cassava harvesting), financial capital (Osusu), and natural capital (not paying the rental before cultivating on farmland) indicates that climate adaptation interventions that may cause fragmentation of households should be avoided. For example, suppose the government wants to provide farmlands on higher grounds to farmers to ensure they can produce food all year round. In that case, farmers in the same community should be given land close to one another. This is crucial for the strengthening of social capital, which is essential to facilitating household food security and ensuring that the country is on the trajectory toward achieving the first (no poverty) and second (zero hunger) SDGs by 2030. As Joshi and Aoki (2014) argue, strong social networks influence household’s ability to recover from a disaster.

Final Remarks Climatic risks are making life difficult for the farmers cultivating on the low-lying farmlands in Olomoro, Uzere, and Igbide communities. In responding to these threats, Indigenous farmers skillfully employ their limited bundle of assets to continue producing their food. Specifically, this chapter illustrated how human capital plays a pivotal role in ensuring the production of cassava in the low-lying farmlands, which experiences seasonal flooding annually, through an Indigenous strategy referred to as elelame (follow the water). Also, social capital is a crucial asset in farmers’ portfolio through its ability to facilitating the procurement of financial capital through a local scheme called Osusu. Further, it enabled the acquisition of natural capital by allowing trustworthy individuals to renting farmlands and only paying the fee after harvesting and selling some of the produce. Since social capital is overwhelmingly fundamental to the achievement of food security,

178

E. E. Ebhuoma

any scheme meant to assist farmers to adapt more effectively to climatic risks to produce more food must ensure it creates an avenue for strengthening ties among farmers. This chapter also finds that despite farmers’ ability to attain household food security every year, they still live below the global poverty line. A key factor fuelling this state of affairs is primarily due to the inaccessibility of government loans. Consequently, financially strapped farmers are constrained to secure loans from unregulated sources. While it provides a leeway to continue in food production, it is counterproductive due to the high-interest rates attached to the loans. Perhaps, easing the loan acquisition process from MFB may successfully combat this menace. Otherwise, farmers will be unable to weave their way out of poverty. To conclude, until interventions are geared toward ensuring the protection, strengthening, and making the acquisition of assets that play a fundamental role in food production, chances of successfully achieving the first and second SDGs will be slim.

References Adejuwon JO (2011) A spectral analysis of rainfall in Edo and Delta states (formerly mid-western region), Nigeria. Int J Climatol 31:2365–2370 Akerlof K, Maibach EW, Fitzgerald D, Cedeno AY, Neuman A (2013) Do people ‘personally experience’ global warming, and if so how, and does it matter? Glob Environ Chang 23(1):81– 91 Akoijam SLS (2012) Rural credit: a source of sustainable livelihood of rural India. Int J Soc Econ 40:83–97 Al Mamun MA, Al Pavel MA (2014) Climate change adaptation strategies through indigenous knowledge system: aspect on agro-crop production in the flood prone areas of Bangladesh. Asian J Agric Rural Dev 4(1):42–58 Assogba PN, Kokoye SEH, Yegbemey RN, Djenontin AJ (2017) Determinants of credit access by smallholder farmers in North-East Benin. J Dev Agric Econ 9(8):210–216 Azadi Y, Yazdanpanah M, Mahmoudi H (2019) Understanding smallholder farmers’ adaptation behaviours through climate change beliefs, risk perception, trust, and psychological distance: evidence from wheat growers in Iran. J Environ Manag 250:109456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2019.109456 Bebbington A (1999) Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Dev 27:2021–2044 Bell D (2014) Understanding a “broken world”: Islam, ritual, and climate change in Mali, West Africa. J Study Relig Nat Cult 8(3):287–306 Conway D, Schipper ELF (2011) Adaptation to climate change in Africa: challenges and opportunities identified from Ethiopia. Glob Environ Chang 21:227–237 Ebhuoma E (2020) A framework for integrating scientific forecasts with indigenous systems of weather forecasting in southern Nigeria. Dev Pract 30:472–484 Ebhuoma O, Gebreslasie M (2016) Remote sensing-driven climatic/environmental variables for modelling malaria transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13 (6):584. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13060584 Elum ZA, Mopipi K, Henri-Ukoha A (2016) Oil exploitation and its socioeconomic effects on the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:12880–12889 Ererobe M (2009) FG, multinationals and Isoko nation. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2009/08/fgmultinationals-and-isoko-nation/. Accessed 3 Apr 2020 Fitchett JM, Robinson D, Hoogendoorn G (2017) Climate suitability for tourism in South Africa. J Sustain Tour 25(6):851–867

9

Attaining Food Security in the Wake of Climatic Risks: Lessons from the. . .

179

Ibrahim SS, Aliero HM (2012) An analysis of farmers’ access to formal credit in the rural areas of Nigeria. Afr J Agric Res 7:6249–6253 Ifeanyi-obi C, Etuk U, Jike-wai O (2012) Climate change, effects and adaptation strategies: implication for agricultural extension system in Nigeria. Greener J Agric Sci 2:53–60 Ike PC, Ezeafulukwe LC (2015) Analysis of coping strategies adopted against climate change by small scale farmers in Delta state, Nigeria. J Nat Sci Res 5:15–24 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014) Africa. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap22_ FINAL.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2020 Jaroszweski D, Chapman L, Petts J (2010) Assessing the potential impact of climate change on transportation: the need for an interdisciplinary approach. J Transp Geogr 18:331–335 Jellason NP, Conway JS, Baines RN (2020) Exploring smallholders’ cultural beliefs and their implication for adaptation to climate change in North-Western Nigeria. Soc Sci J. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03623319.2020.1774720 Joshi A, Aoki M (2014) The role of social capital and public policy in disaster recovery: a case study of Tamil Nadu state, India. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 7:100–108 Kochar A (1997) An empirical investigation of rationing constraints in rural credit markets in India. J Dev Econ 53:339–371 Livingston G, Schonberger S, Delaney S (2011) Sub-Saharan Africa: the state of smallholders in agriculture. http://www.ifad.org/documents/10180/78d97354-8d30-466e-b75c-9406bf47779c. Accessed 12 June 2015 Mavhura E, Manyena SB, Collins AE, Manatsa D (2013) Indigenous knowledge, coping strategies and resilience to floods in Muzarabani, Zimbabwe. Int J Disaster Risk Reduc 5:38–48 Moser C (2011) A conceptual and operational framework for pro-poor asset adaptation to urban climate change. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/ 336387-1256566800920/6505269-1268260567624/Moser.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2020 Moser C, Satterthwaite D (2008) Towards pro-poor adaptation to climate change in the urban centers of low- and middle-income countries. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/10564IIED.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2020 Moser C, Stein A (2011) Implementing urban participatory climate change adaptation appraisals: a methodological guideline. Environ Urban 23:463–485 Motsumi S, Magole L, Kgathi D (2012) Indigenous knowledge and land use policy: implications for livelihoods of flood recession farming communities in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Phys Chem Earth A/B/C 50–52:185–195 Moyo M, Mvumi BM, Kunzekweguta M, Mazvimavi K, Craufurd P, Dorward P (2012) Farmer perception of climate change and variability in the semi-arid Zimbabwe in relation to climatology evidence. Afr Crop Sci J 20:371–333 National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) (2014) Delta state information. http://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/ information/details/Delta. Accessed 22 Dec 2015 Nelson G, Rosegrant MW, Koo J, Robertson R, Sulser T, Zhu T (2014) Climate change impact on agriculture and costs of adaptation. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/pr21. pdf. Accessed 11 July 2015 Okem AE, Bracking S (2019) The poverty reduction co-benefits of climate change-related projects in eThekwini Municipality, South Africa. In: Cobbinah P, Addaney M (eds) The geography of climate change adaptation in urban Africa. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-04873-0_10 Omohode R (2012) How massive flood swept away 50 Isoko communities, rendered thousands homeless. http://www.urhobotimes.com/individual_news.php?itemid¼820. Accessed 6 Apr 2015 Perez C, Jones EM, Kristjanson P, Cramer L, Thornton PK, Förch W, Barahona C (2015) How resilient are farming households and communities to a changing climate in Africa? A genderbased perspective. Glob Environ Chang 34:95–107 Spear D, Selato JC, Mosime B, Nyamwanza AM (2019) Harnessing diverse knowledge and belief systems to adapt to climate change in semi-arid rural Africa. Clim Serv 14:31–36 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2014) Delta State development performance: agricultural sector report, 1991–2014. http://www.undp.org/content/dam/nigeria/docs/ IclusiveGrwth/UNDP_NG_DeltaState_Agric_2015.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2015

180

E. E. Ebhuoma

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Tied Ridges and Better Cotton Breeds for Climate Change Adaptation

10

R. Mandumbu, C. Nyawenze, J. T. Rugare, G. Nyamadzawo, C. Parwada, and H. Tibugari

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of Cotton Growing Areas in Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crop Genetic Diversity and Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Status of Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In-Field Moisture Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tied Ridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Planting Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mulch Ripping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

182 185 185 186 188 188 188 189

This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. R. Mandumbu (*) Crop Science Department, Bindura University of Science Education, Bindura, Zimbabwe e-mail: [email protected] C. Nyawenze Cotton Company of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe J. T. Rugare Department of Crop Science, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe G. Nyamadzawo Department of Environmental Science, Bindura University of Science Education, Bindura, Zimbabwe C. Parwada Department of Horticulture, Women’s University in Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe H. Tibugari Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Gwanda State University, Gwanda, Zimbabwe © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_23

181

182

R. Mandumbu et al.

Cotton Production Under Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Effects of Water Harvesting on Soil Moisture Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Abstract

Climate change and variability is already reducing agricultural productivity and opportunities for employment, pushing up food prices and affecting food availability and production of formerly adapted crop types. Such is the case in cotton production in Zimbabwe, where it was the only viable commercial crop in marginal areas. As a form of adaptation, there is need for African farmers to have a range of agricultural techniques as coping strategies and tactics to enable sustainable production of crops and deal with extreme events. Such techniques include water conservation and introduction of new adapted crop genetics to cope with the new environment. The emerging trends in climate change will force farmers to adopt new crops and varieties and forms of agricultural production technologies. The objective of this study is to determine the contribution of combining in-field water harvesting and early maturing cotton varieties in curbing drought in cotton in semiarid Zimbabwe. The results show that both water harvesting in form of planting basins significantly (P |z| 0.001*** 0.064 0.139 0.004*** 0.006** 0.000

95% Conf. Interval 3.993 0.050 3.411 0.298 0.022 2002.8

15.580 0.001 0.476 0.055 0.004 1956.3

51 Retracing Economic Impact of Climate Change Disasters in Africa: Case. . . 1023

1024

M. Nthambi and U. D. Ijioma

Pesticide use has a positive coefficient of variation and significant relationship with drought events. Increasing drought episodes means increased use of pesticides to control disease causing pests and vectors. During drought events, soil moisture reduces the level of pesticide uptake. Moisture-deficient crops attract insects as such crops are unable to produce metabolites that prevent them from being susceptible to pest attacks (Yihdego et al. 2018). The annual growth percent of GDP is negative and statistically significant to drought events. Drought decreases food availability leading to decline in agriculture value added %. During drought events, farmers’ ability to borrow money to support agricultural inputs declines as collateral for loans in form of farm assets becomes less available and valuable.

Identified Climate Change Adaptation Measures in Makueni County Autonomous Climate Change Adaptation Measures Makueni county has pilot private ponds already in place that are owned by a few households (Fig. 11a, b). Water accumulates in the ponds during the rainy season, and the farmers use it to irrigate the farm and/or fish farming. A standard water pond

Fig. 11 Water ponds for harvesting during rainwater (a) dry season and (b) filled pond in the rainy season (Photos taken by Mary)

Fig. 12 An example of a household owned water pond for irrigating a kales/vegetable garden showing (b) drip and (c) furrow irrigation (Photos taken by Mary)

51

Retracing Economic Impact of Climate Change Disasters in Africa: Case. . .

1025

holds a minimum of 200,000 L of water and can be used by an individual farmer to farm an acre of maize and vegetables for approximately three seasons (Fig. 12). However, the disadvantage of this adaptation measure is that most farmers are unable to purchase the polythene sheet used as an inner lining of the water pond because it is costly (KES 70,000 exchange rate @ 103.2270 KES ¼ 1 USD as at June 2015). The plastic layer is used to prevent the harvested rainwater from permeating into the groundwater. However, these water ponds can be a health hazard and that can lead to the drowning of livestock and children if not well guarded, as well as act as a breeding ground for malaria-causing mosquitoes.

Anticipatory Climate Change Adaptation Measures Anticipatory climate change adaptation coping strategies to climate change are those public adaptation measures provided to the rural communities through the support of organized groups such as the farmer networks/groups, NGOs, and government institutions. These measures are in most cases capital intensive and might require highly skilled technical input to put them in place. A universal set of communitybased water projects suggested include boreholes, earth dams, shallow wells, water tanks, subsurface, and sand storage dams. The communities chose a sand storage dam as the best option because of the following reasons; (1) it is the world’s cheapest way of providing rainwater to communities in arid and semi-arid areas, (2), a sand storage dam creates an indigenous, reliable, clean water supply up to about 1000 people, (3), water sinks through the sand to the bedrock preventing it from evaporation and pollution as compared to water in shallow wells, and (4) it saves farmers a lot of stress regarding land disputes since it is constructed along seasonal rivers which are owned by the government and (5) sand storage dam reduces the risk of flooding and increases chances of water availability during the dry seasons. A sand dam is constructed across a shallow riverbed such as an ephemeral stream and water is extracted using pumps. An example of sand dam is shown in the following photograph (Fig. 13). A subsurface sand dam is an underground facility that can be used as an alternative to the surface dams. It has some advantages over the conventional surface Fig. 13 A sand storage dam construction in Makueni County during the dry season (Photo taken by Mary)

1026

M. Nthambi and U. D. Ijioma

Fig. 14 Cross-section of water extraction from a sand-storage dam (modified from Hanson and Nilsson 1986)

dam because it prevents excessive loss of water through evaporation and does not support the breeding of vectors such as malaria-causing mosquitoes on it. However, the subsurface dam is constructed below the ground level to tap from the flowing groundwater in the natural aquifers. It also has enhanced surface permeability to cause faster infiltration of rainwater to the groundwater during the rainy season. The sand-storage dam stores water in the sand which accumulates naturally behind a dam wall (Onder and Yilmaz 2005). The wall constructed across the seasonal river should be tight and stable to withstand the pressure of running water downstream. The riverbanks of the sand storage dam ought to be protected from erosion on sloppy areas and the dam bottom (Nilsson 1988). According to Hanson and Nilsson (1986), the extraction of the water from the sand storage dam can either be through pumping or gravity. The use of gravity means a drain is placed at the reservoir bottom in the upstream direction of the sand storage dam or a pipe downstream as shown in Fig. 14. The construction of a sand storage dam has four stages: the first stage deals with the capacity of the dam. It is described by the height of the dam wall to be constructed and the quantity of water it is expected to hold. The second stage involves a careful selection of a proper water pumping mechanism and how to incorporate it into the sand storage dam design. The third step involves the protection of the dam banks through the planting of trees on the sloppy areas both downstream and upstream of the river where the sand storage dam is constructed. The fourth stage involves a careful selection of the donor (management structure) to support the construction of the wall and one that would organize the farmers who will be involved in the construction process. The loss of benefit accruing from the choice of management structure in the area has been fully documented in Nthambi et al. (2021). Farmers should be involved in the four phases and the actual construction process of the selected climate adaptation measure. Other forms of participation can be accounted through contribution of labor time or cash for the purchase of raw materials.

51

Retracing Economic Impact of Climate Change Disasters in Africa: Case. . .

1027

Conclusions The frequent severe drought events in SSA region have heavily affected the growth of the agriculture sector, forcing crop and livestock farmers to work under very dry conditions in countries such as Kenya. In this chapter, the impacts of drought on the economy of Kenya were discussed, and a possible climate change adaptation measures demonstrated using a case study area in one of the counties. The findings can be summarized in three main ways. First, the analyzed climate indicators revealed frequent drought episodes, which have led to direct and indirect economic impacts on the agriculture sector and the economy. The analysis shows drought events have a positive relationship with pesticide use and negative relationship with credit resources, producer prices, number of undernourished people, and annual percentage growth of gross domestic product (GDP). Again, drought events negatively affect the number of undernourished people as the quantities of crop yields, for example, maize as the staple food crop in Kenya reduces. During the years of drought events, the agriculture value added % growth declines reducing the annual GDP. Producers and households’ access to credit resources reduce during drought episodes. The amount of water from renewable water resources also declines due to decreasing rainfall amounts causing water scarcity. Second, farmers and households can adapt to the negative impacts of drought using either autonomous or anticipatory climate adaptation measures. The major concern is the dryness that comes with drought events, and given the arid and semiarid nature in most parts of Kenya, rainwater harvesting in sand dams would be the most suitable adaptation measure to reduce the impact of drought. Generally, farmers in the area prefer a sand dam over water ponds or boreholes. However, the lack of financial support hamper farmers’ desire to execute this type of anticipatory climate change adaptation measure. Third, from a methodological perspective, the use of available secondary data to avail important literature required for climate change research in SSA region was promoted. It demonstrates a simple way of relating climate variables with economic indicators using existing qualitative and quantitative approaches. In terms of determining suitable climate change adaptation measures, we consulted stakeholders to suggest the adaptation measures and propose a practical approach to implement them. Two main recommendations were suggested in this chapter. First, the Kenya National Adaptation Plan (NCCAP) 2015–2030 highlights financing as one of the limitations in the mainstream of climate change adaptation in the water sector. The country is keen on providing adequate water management strategies that can ameliorate the water scarcity problem caused by drought events. We established the involvement of stakeholders to participate in constructing sand dams to harvest rainwater across seasonal rivers. Thus, the NCCAP, 2015–2030 should integrate community participation strategy to provide local materials such as water, sand, and stones or cash when possible, as a way for farmers to partially finance the provision of adaptation measures for sustainable water harvesting techniques. A bottom-top approach to adaptation measure is necessary to understanding farmers’ willingness

1028

M. Nthambi and U. D. Ijioma

to take part in adaptation projects such as the construction of a sand dam in the SSA region. The National Drought Management Authority (NDMA) in Kenya, charged with the responsibility to identify risks, end drought emergencies, and ensure adaptation for sustainable livelihoods, should encourage farmers to form community-based organizations. NDMA should also encourage farmers to form farmer networks/ groups and register them under the Self-help Association Bill (2015) to provide legal protection to farmers who wish to participate in sand storage dam construction. Membership of community-based organization would encourage collective action efforts that enhance trust among farmers thus strengthening stakeholders’ participation in community adaptation projects. Government institutions and non-governmental organizations should work with farmer networks to ensure adaptation measures are implemented in a way that is acceptable to the communities that benefit from them.

References Adams MR, Hurd BH, Lenhart S, Leary N (1998) Effects of global climate change on agriculture: an interpretative review. Clim Res:19–30 Alemayehu A, Bewket W (2017) Determinants of smallholder farmers’ choice of coping and adaptation strategies to climate change and variability in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Environ Dev:77–85 Amdu B (2010) Analysis of farmers’ perception and adaptation to climate change and variability: the case of Choke Mountain, east Gojjam., Available via http://docplayer.net/60845560-Analy sis-of-farmers-perception-and-adaptation-to-climate-change-and-variability-the-case-of-chokemountain-east-gojjam.html. Accessed 21 Jan 2018 American Meteorological Society (1997) American meteorological society policy statement: meteorological drought bulletin. Am Meteorological Soc 78:847–849 Amjath-Babu TS, Krupnik TJ, Kaechele H, Aravindakshan S, Sietz D (2016) Transitioning to groundwater irrigated intensified agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: an indicator-based assessment. Agri Wat Manag 168:125–135 Bera B, Saha S, Bhattacharjee S (2020) Forest cover dynamics (1998 to 2019) and prediction of deforestation probability using binary logistic regression (BLR) model of Silabati watershed, India. Trees, Forests and People 2:100034 Bloszies C, Forman SL (2015) Potential relation between equatorial sea surface temperatures and historic water level variability for Lake Turkana, Kenya. J Hydrol 520:489–501 Böhme B, Becker M, Diekkrüger B, Förch G (2016) How is water availability related to the land use and morphology of an inland valley wetland in Kenya? Phy Chem Earth, Parts A/B/C 93:84–95 Bryan E, Ringler C, Okoba B, Roncoli C, Silvestri S, Herrero M (2013) Adapting agriculture to climate change in Kenya: household strategies and determinants. J Env Manag 114:26–35 Calzadilla A, Zhu T, Rehdanz K, Tol RSJ, Ringler C (2013) Economywide impacts of climate change on agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Ecol Econ 93:150–165 Craft KE, Mahmood R, King SA, Goodrich G, Yan J (2017) Droughts of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries: influences on the production of beef and forage in Kentucky, USA. Sci Total Environ 577:122–135 Deressa T, Hassan RM, Alemu T, Yesuf M, Ringler C (2009) Analyzing the determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods and perceptions of climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Glob Environ Chang 19:248–255

51

Retracing Economic Impact of Climate Change Disasters in Africa: Case. . .

1029

Deressa TT, Hassan, RM, Ringler C (2011) Perception of and adaptation to climate change by farmers in the Nile basin of Ethiopia. J Agr Sci 149 (1):23–31 Dinar A, Hassan R, Mendelsohn R, Benhin J (2008) Climate change and agriculture in Africa: impact assessment and adaptation strategies. EarthScan London series FAO (1998) Global information and early warning system on food and agriculture, special report. http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/w7832e/w7832e00.htm. Accessed 10 Jul 2017 FAO (2016) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: In Statistics. http://www.fao. org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/index.html?lang¼en. Accessed 19 Sep 2017 Faostat (2017) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: In Statistics http://www. fao.org/faostat/en/ Accessed 25 Jul 2017 Faostat (2019) Credit to agriculture. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/IC. Accessed 10 Dec 2019 Francisco A, Fredrik C, Maria AN (2010) Farmers’ adaptation to climate change. A framed field experiment. Environ for Dev Discussion paper series http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/ WorkImages/Download/EfD-DP-09-18-REV.pdf. Accessed 20 Sep 2017 Freire-González J, Decker C, Hall JW (2017) Methodological and ideological options. The economic impacts of droughts: a framework for analysis. J. Ecol Econ 132:196–204 Gebrehiwot T, van der Veen A (2013) Climate change vulnerability in Ethiopia: disaggregation of Tigray region. J E Afr Studies 7(4):607–629 GoK (2010) Constitution of Kenya. http://www.kenyalaw.org/lex/actview.xql?actid¼Const2010. Accessed 18 Mar 2017 GoK (2013) Makueni County Annual Development plan 2013–14. http://makueni.go.ke/sites/ default/files/2013%20Annual%20Development%20Plan.pdf. Accessed 19 Mar 2017 Hanson G, Nilsson A (1986) Ground-water dams for rural-water supplies in developing countries. Groundwater 24(4):497–506 Hasson R, Löfgren Å, Visser M (2010) Climate change in a public goods game: investment decision in mitigation versus adaptation. J. Ecol Econ 70:331–338 IPCC (2007) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm. Accessed 6 Apr 2018 Kabubo-Mariara J (2009) Global warming and livestock husbandry in Kenya: impacts and adaptations. J Ecol Econ 68:1915–1924 Kirschbaum MUF (1995) The temperature dependence of soil organic matter decomposition and the effect of global warming on soil organic C storage. Soil Bio Biochem 27(6):753–760 Kogan F, Adamenko T, Guo W (2013) Global and regional drought dynamics in the climate warming era. Rem Sen Letters 4(4):364–372 Kusangaya S, Warburton ML, Garderen EMV, Jewitt GPG (2014) Impacts of climate change on water resources in southern Africa: a review. Phys Chem Earth 67-69:47–54 Land Portal (2018) Average value of food production (constant I$ per person) (3-year average). https://landportal.org/book/indicator/fao-21011-612. Accessed 10 Aug 2017 Lavoro ND (2010) Adapting and mitigating to climate change: balancing the Choice under uncertainty. Sustainable dev Series: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. http://www.feem.it. Accessed 29 July 2015 Li Y, Ye W, Wang M, Yan X (2009) Climate change and drought: a risk assessment of crop-yield impacts. Clim Res 39(1):31–46 Linke AM, O’Loughlin J, McCabe TJ, Tir T, Witmer FDW (2015) Rainfall variability and violence in rural Kenya: investigating the effects of drought and the role of local institutions with survey data. Glob Environ Chang 34:35–47 Loewenberg S (2014) Breaking the cycle: drought and hunger in Kenya, special report. Lancet 383 (9922):1025–1028 Lumbroso D (2017) How can policymakers in sub-Saharan Africa make early warning systems more effective? The case of Uganda. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 27:530–540 Maity R, Suman M, Verma NK (2016) Drought prediction using a wavelet-based approach to model the temporal consequences of different types of droughts. J Hydrol 539:417–428

1030

M. Nthambi and U. D. Ijioma

MALF (Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries) (2017) Economic Review of Agriculture (ERA). http://www.kilimo.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Economic-Review-of-Agricul ture_2015-6.pdf. Accessed 27 Mar 2017 Martin R, Linstädter A, Frank K, Müller B (2016) Livelihood security in face of drought – assessing the vulnerability of pastoral households. Environ Model Softw 75:414–423 Mishra AK (2014) Climate change and challenges of water and food security. Int J Sustainable Built Environ 3:153–165 Mishra AK, Singh VP (2011) Drought modelling – a review. J Hydrol 403(1-2):157–175 Muller JCY (2014) Adapting to climate change and addressing drought-learning from the red cross red crescent experiences in the horn of Africa. Weather Climate Extremes 3:31–36 Muriuki G, Seabrook L, Seabrook L, McAlpine C, Jacobson C, Price B, Baxter G (2011) Land cover change under unplanned human settlements: a study of the Chyulu Hills squatters, Kenya. Landsc Urban Plan 99(2):154–165 Ng’ang’a KS, Bulte EH, Giller KE, Mclntire JM, Rufino MC (2016) Migration and self-protection against climate change: a case study of Samburu County, Kenya. World Dev 84(2016):55–68 Nilsson A (1988) Groundwater dams for small-scale water supply. IT publications, London Nthambi M, Markova-Nenova N, Wätzold F (2021) Quantifying Loss of Benefits from Poor Governance of Climate Change Adaptation Projects: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Farmers in Kenya. Ecol Econ 179:106831 Ochieng J, Kirimi L, Mathenge M (2016) Effects of climate variability and change on agricultural production: the case of small-scale farmers in Kenya. NJAS –Wageningen J Life Sci 77:71–78 Ombis GO (2013) Study of climate change impacts using disaster risk reduction interventions to enhance community resilience, case of Makueni County. http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/ handle/11295/71725/Ombis_Study%20of%20climate%20change%20impacts%20using%20disas ter%20risk%20reduction%20interventions%20to%20enhance%20community%20resilience.% 20Case%20of%20Makueni%20county..pdf?sequence¼4. Accessed 15 Apr 2018 Onder H, Yilmaz M (2005) Underground dams. A tool of sustainable development and management of groundwater resources. Eur Wat 11(12):35–45 Reliefweb (2017) Kenya: drought – 2014–2018. http://reliefweb.int/disaster/dr-2014-000131-ken. Accessed 15 Feb 2017 Rosenzweig C, Strzepek KM, Major DC, Iglesias A, Yates DN, McCluskey A, Hillel D (2004) Water resources for agriculture in a changing climate: international case studies. Global Environ Chang 14:345–360 SACRED AFRICA (2011) Sorghum marketing baseline survey for Nakuru and Makueni Counties for the KAPAP project technical report, Kenya Agricultural Productivity Programme [Unpublished report] Shadeed S, Lange J (2010) Rainwater harvesting to alleviate water scarcity in dry conditions: a case study in Faria catchment, Palestine. Wat Sci Eng 3(2):32–143 Tessema Y, Aweke C, Endris G (2013) Understanding the process of adaptation to climate change by small-holder farmers: the case of east Hararghe zone, Ethiopia. Agri Food Econ 1(1):13 Tian Q, Yang S (2017) Regional climatic response to global warming: trends in temperature and precipitation in the yellow, Yangtze and Pearl River basins since the 1950s. Quat Int 440:1–11 Tubiello FN, Soussana JF, Howden SM (2007) Crop and pasture response to climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(50):19686–19690 Uexkull NV (2014) Sustained drought, vulnerability and civil conflict in sub-Saharan Africa. Pol Geog 43:16–26 UNFCCC (2015) Adoption of the Paris agreement. UNFCCC, Paris (2015) https://unfccc.int/ resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf. Accessed 22 Sep 2017 Wang Q, Wu J, Lei THB, Wu Z, Liu M, Mo X, Geng GLX, Zhou H, Liu D (2014) Temporal-spatial characteristics of severe drought events and their impact on agriculture on a global scale. Quat Int 349:10–21 World Bank (2008) World development report 2008: agriculture for development. World Bank Washington, DC. https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/WDR_00_ book.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2018

51

Retracing Economic Impact of Climate Change Disasters in Africa: Case. . .

1031

World Bank (2017) Climate Knowledge Portal for Development Practitioners and Policymakers. retrieved from http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page¼downscaled_data_ download&menu¼historical. Accessed 13 Jun 2017 World Hunger Education Service (2016) World hunger and poverty facts and statistics 2016. https:// www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/. Accessed 10 Oct 2017 Yihdego Y, Salem SH, Muhammed HH (2018) Agricultural pest management policies during drought: case studies in Australia and the state of Palestine. Nat Hazards Rev 20(1):05018010 Yin Y, Zhang X, Lin D, Yu H, Wang J, Shi P (2014) GEPIC-V-R model: a GIS-based tool for regional crop drought risk assessment. Agri Wat Manag 144:107–119

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Rural Farmers’ Approach to Drought Adaptation: Lessons from Crop Farmers in Ghana

52

Hillary Dumba, Jones Abrefa Danquah, and Ari Pappinen

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection and Sampling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Processing and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farm Household Characteristics and Adaptation Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Constraints to Drought Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Determinants of Adoption of Drought Adaptation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1034 1035 1036 1037 1037 1037 1039 1041 1048 1048

Abstract

Sub-Saharan Africa is considered to be highly vulnerable to climate changerelated disasters particularly drought. Farmers in Ghana have learnt to co-exist with it by resorting to various approaches. This study sheds light on farmers’ adaptation to drought in Ghana. The cross-sectional survey design was used to This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. H. Dumba Institute of Education, College of Education Studies, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana J. A. Danquah (*) Department of Geography and Regional Planning, Faculty of Social Sciences, College of Humanities and Legal Studies, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana e-mail: [email protected] A. Pappinen School of Forest Sciences, Faculty of Science and Forestry, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_29

1033

1034

H. Dumba et al.

collect data from a random sample of 326 farmers and six purposively selected lead farmers from six farming communities. Questionnaire and in-depth interviews were used for data collection. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The study revealed a significant variation between locations and use of drought adaptation approaches. The study showed that the most common drought adaptation measures comprise locating farms on riverine areas, drought monitoring, formation of farm-based organizations for dissemination of climate information, application of agro-chemicals, changing planting dates, cultivating different crops, integrating crop and livestock production, changing the location of crops, diversifying from farm to non-farm incomegenerating activities, and cultivation of early maturing crops. Therefore, it was recommended, among other things, that Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) should assist the government to construct small-scale irrigation facilities and provide drought-resistant crops to further boost the capacity of farming communities in Ghana. Keywords

Rural Communities · Subsistence Farmers · Drought · Adaptive Capacity

Introduction Climate change has occurred and still occurring. Among all climate change-induced disasters, drought is the costliest and most devastating climatic disaster that imposes untold adverse consequences on human activities. Its recurrent occurrence is associated with high level of vulnerability among farming households (Makoka 2008; United Nations 2010). It severely affects agriculture in rural areas as well as trade and food security in both developed and developing economies of the world. Drought is particularly hazardous to communities which depend on agriculture for livelihood (Diaz et al. 2016). Incidence of drought is prevalent in Ghana, with the 1983 being the severest and most destructive in the history of the country (Owusu and Waylen 2009). Drought conditions impose consequences on crop yield and food security (Van de Giesen et al. 2010). Previous report indicated that persistent drought conditions affected all investments in the agricultural sector in the country. Unreliable rainfall, prolonged droughts, coupled with high temperatures have severely affected sustainable agriculture in the country (Armah et al. 2011; Dietz et al. 2013). Ajzen’s (1985) theory of planned behavior argues that individuals perform certain planned actions known as behaviors in response to the achievement of a target. Given the serious problems posed by drought to agriculture in Ghana, farmers practice adaptation to overcome or reduce the resultant vulnerability. Families whose livelihoods depend on farming activities need a variety of adaptation strategies to mitigate the harmful impacts of climate change and. This

52

Rural Farmers’ Approach to Drought Adaptation: Lessons from Crop Farmers. . .

1035

will help them to maintain their livelihoods (Uddin et al. 2014). Adaptation serves as the means to mitigate a system’s vulnerability to hazardous events. Adaptation reflects farmer’s adaptive capacity. It is a process through which a society makes better adjustments and changes in order to adapt to an unforeseen situation in the future (Smit and Wandel 2006; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2011). Adaptation refers to the process of adjustment to the actual or expected climate, its variability, and concomitant effects (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014; Quandt and Kimathi 2016). It is a means to build a system’s capacity, resilience, and to adjust to the impact of climate change with the ultimate aim of reducing vulnerability. It is a process through which a society makes better adjustments and changes in order to cope with an unforeseen situation in the future (Smit and Wandel 2006). It may involve adjustments in technologies, lifestyles, infrastructure, ecosystem-based approaches, basic public health measures, and livelihood diversifications to reduce vulnerability (IPCC 2014). It may also serve as means to optimizing the potential benefits of climate change. Numerous studies have examined farmers’ adaptation to climate change in different locations and contexts (Mabe et al. 2014; Obayelu et al. 2014; Shongwe et al. 2014). However, these studies are not only predominantly quantitative but also based broadly on farmers’ adaptation to climate change. Farmers’ adaptation to climate change is dependent upon specific climate change events and hence, may differ from one climatic event to another. The measures that farmers employ to adapt to other climate change events may differ from strategies employed to adapt to drought. Therefore, a clear understanding of farmers’ adaptation to drought is desirable for designing and implementing appropriate drought adaptation strategies to enhance sustainable agriculture in Ghana. The study will expand theoretical knowledge and understanding of drought adaptation planning. Specifically, the study will shed more light on farmers’ planned behavior towards drought. This will provide the necessary information and reference material for other researchers and drought management policy-makers. The study also explored only farmers’ views on the use of both on-farms and off-farm measures to combat drought.

Study Areas Three agro-ecological locations, namely, Wa West (Savannah zone), Nkoranza North (Transitional zone), and Wassa East (Forest zone) of Ghana were chosen as the sites for this study (Fig. 1). Evidence indicates that rain-fed agriculture constitutes the main livelihood activity in the selected agro-ecological locations. For instance, crop farming (96.1%) is the major activity undertaken by households in the Wassa East District while most households (97.2%) in the Wa West District are engaged in crop farming as the main economic activity. Similarly, almost all agricultural households (98.5%) in the Nkoranza North District are involved in crop farming (Ghana Statistical Service 2013, 2014).

1036

H. Dumba et al.

Fig. 1 Map of selected agro-ecological locations

Data Collection and Sampling Procedure The study employed cross-sectional survey design because it has some practical advantages over longitudinal and experimental designs. Cross-sectional design helps to capture large factual numeric and descriptive data from a large sample that represents a wide target population on a one-shot basis (Bhattacherjee 2012). Out of a total population of 1765 household farmers, 326 participants were randomly selected using Yamane’s (1967) formula. In generally, farming is a male-dominated

52

Rural Farmers’ Approach to Drought Adaptation: Lessons from Crop Farmers. . .

1037

activity in Ghana (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2012). However, harvesting, processing, and marketing is usually done by the female. Traditionally, the head of each household in these study areas is a male. However, in the absence of a male head the de facto female heads or de jure household heads were interviewed (See, Danquah 2015). Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected using structured questionnaire and in-depth interview guide.

Data Processing and Analysis The first step in the process of analyzing qualitative data was data transcription. The tape recordings were listened to several times so as to get a complete sense of the data. All the transcribed data was categorized into patterns by following the guidelines prescribed by Miles and Huberman (1994) (cited in Cohen et al. 2011). Five points scale Likert estimation was used to assess or rate farmers’ perception to sets of constraints to drought adaptation. The Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree (5)” to “Strongly Agree (1)”. We also employed Pearson Chi-Square Test Statistic Tool in the analyses. This helped to compare farmers’ adaptation practices across the three selected agro-ecological zones. In addition, Phi and Crammer’s V were generated as measures of contingency coefficient to explore the strength of the association between the agro-ecological zones and farmers’ adaptation strategies (Prematunga 2012). Problem Confrontation Index (PCI) was used as modified procedure adopted from Elias (2015) and Talukder (2014), and was computed as follows: PCI ¼ ½5ðPSA Þ þ 4ðPA Þ þ 3ðPN Þ þ 2ðPD Þ þ ðPSD Þ Where: PSD ¼ Frequency of farmers who rated the problem as strongly disagree PD ¼ Frequency of farmers who rated the problem as disagree PN ¼ Frequency of farmers who rated the problem as not sure PA ¼ Frequency of farmers who rated the problem as agree PSA ¼ Frequency of farmers who rate the problem as strongly agree

Results and Discussion Farm Household Characteristics and Adaptation Capacity We asked participants to indicate their level of formal education, age, years of schooling, farming experience, farm size, landholding, household size, and dependents (Fig. 2). The proportion of farmers in the Forest agro-ecological zone who obtained middle school education (9.51%.) is less than the proportion of farmers in Transitional agro-ecological zone with middle school education (13.80%). This

1038

H. Dumba et al.

Fig. 2 Farmers’ level of education across agro-ecological zones

implies that most farmers in the Forest and Transitional zones had completed middle school compared to their farming counterparts in the Savannah zone where majority (12.88%) had no education. The educational background of farmers presupposes that these farmers would have knowledge and understanding of climatic events as well as climate change adaptation. According to Apata, (2011), education among farmers can promote climate change adaptation. Similarly, other empirical evidence from a study conducted by Abdul-Razak and Kruse (2017) indicated that farmers with formal education had high adaptive capacity while farmers without formal education had low adaptive capacity to cope with climate change and variabilities The minimum age of the farmers was 18 years while the maximum age was 87 years (Table 1). The mean age of the farmers was 43.9 years (Mean ¼ 43.99, SD ¼ 14.12). Similarly, the result as shown in Table 1 is indicative that the participants have been farming for almost 19 years (Mean ¼ 18.96, SD ¼ 13.45). Thus, the average farming experience is 18.96 years while the minimum and maximum years of farming experience are 1 year and 76 years, respectively. Farming experience contribute to the level of knowledge on climate change adaptation and risk management (Montle and Teweldemedhin 2014). It is also clear from the results that the selected farmers had an average of 6.83 acres (Mean ¼ 6.83, SD ¼ 6.80).

52

Rural Farmers’ Approach to Drought Adaptation: Lessons from Crop Farmers. . .

1039

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of farm household characteristics Variable Age (in years) Years of schooling Farming experience (in years) Farm size (in acres) Landholding size (in acres) Household size Number of dependents

N 326 326 326 326 326 326 326

Min 18.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

Max 87.00 22.00 76.00 55.00 250.00 25.00 10.00

Mean 43.99 6.89 18.96 6.83 13.77 6.37 2.83

SD 14.12 4.79 13.45 6.80 16.66 3.56 2.08

Moreover, farmers had 1.0 acre and 55.0 acres as minimum and maximum farm size, respectively. It was revealed that most of the farmers who had large farms cultivated both cash and food crops. For instance, most farmers in the Forest zone planted vast acres of cocoa whereas some farmers in the Transitional zone cultivated cashew plants on large scale. The results show that farmers’ farm estate landholding ranged from at least 2.0 acres to a maximum of 250 acres, with average landholding of 13.77 acres. This implies that access to land to undertake agricultural activities may not constitute a problem to the rural farmers (see, e.g., Kassaga and Kotey 2001). The minimum and maximum household size were 1 and 25 persons, respectively. The average household size was found to be six (Mean ¼ 6.37, SD ¼ 3.56) and the number of dependents in households ranged from zero to a maximum of 10. Households had about three dependents on the average (Mean ¼ 2.83, SD ¼ 2.08). Household size constitutes labor endowment of the farm household and it is an integration part of on-farm labor provision in smallholder farming systems (Deressa et al. 2009).

Constraints to Drought Adaptation Farmers may have knowledge and information on drought adaptation. However, these farmers may not be capable of adapting to drought because certain factors that can hinder their adaptation behavior (see, e.g., Ajzen 1987, 2006). The results highlight that there are several challenges that confront farmers. It is evident from the results shown in Table 2 that a majority of 261 farmers (85.3%) agreed that shortage of water for irrigation is problem that confronts their capacity to cope with the impacts of drought on their farming activities. The associated PCI indicates that shortage of water for irrigation ranks first among all the problems that farmers face. This situation can be attributed to the absence of major water sources coupled with reduced precipitation in the selected agro-ecological zones (Owusu and Waylen 2009). The shortage of water poses a challenge to farmers who would have otherwise wished to irrigate their farms during episodes of drought. This confirms results of a study by Abid et al. (2015) that shortage of water for irrigation is challenge that limits farmers adaptation to drought. Furthermore, the results indicate that out of the

NB: aProblem Confrontation Index (PCI)

Constraints to adaptation Shortage of water for irrigation Unavailability of financial resources High cost of agricultural inputs Inadequate labor force Inadequate knowledge Inadequate access to extension services Inadequate time for planning Inadequate access to weather information Inadequate landholding

Farmers’ responses (N ¼ 326) Strongly disagree n % 15 4.6 25 7.7 14 4.3 30 9.2 16 4.9 45 13.8 21 6.4 70 21.5 82 25.2

Table 2 Constraints to farmers adaptation to drought Disagree N % 30 9.2 38 11.0 49 15.0 107 32.8 143 43.9 109 33.4 173 53.1 131 40.2 138 42.3

Not sure n % 3 0.9 3 0.9 3 0.9 7 2.1 7 2.1 3 0.9 7 2.1 4 1.2 4 1.2

Agree N 162 127 159 127 112 116 82 68 67 % 49.7 40.0 48.8 39.0 34.4 35.6 25.2 20.9 20.6

Strongly agree n % 116 35.6 134 41.2 101 31.0 55 16.9 48 14.7 53 16.3 43 13.2 53 16.3 35 10.7

PCI 1312 1288 1262 1048 1011 1001 931 881 813

a

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1040 H. Dumba et al.

52

Rural Farmers’ Approach to Drought Adaptation: Lessons from Crop Farmers. . .

1041

326 respondents, a majority of 85.3% farmers agreed that unavailability of financial resources serve as a constraint to their effort to adapt to drought (Table 2). This was ranked as the 2nd problem that confronts their capacity to adapt to drought. Lack of finance has been cited as the common problem that considerably hampers most farmers from adopting improved varieties of seed to combat drought (Fisher et al. 2015; Pardoe et al. 2016). High cost of agricultural inputs was rated or ranked 3rd and Inadequate labor force 4th by the farm household heads within the three ecological zones the study was conducted. However, farmers were least concern about access to land for their farming activities. This was ranked 9th on the list of factors influencing farm household ability to adapt to drought in the study area. Invariable, it was expected that extension education and information to weather forecast should feature prominently on top of the ranking, but turned out otherwise. Lack of agriculture extension services and climate base information in the form of weather forecast have been cited as the policy constraints to adaptation strategies of smallholder farmer in the tropics, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa including Ghana (Naab et al. 2019).

Determinants of Adoption of Drought Adaptation Measures This section focuses on the presentation and discussion of main results on farmers’ adoption or non-adoption of various drought adaptation measures. It also discusses farmers’ socio-demographic factors as determinants of drought adaptation strategies. Table 3 presents the results with respect to farmers’ drought adaptation across the three agro-ecological locations in Ghana. The application of agro-chemicals as a drought adaptation measure is significantly associated with agro-ecological locations as shown by the (χ2 ¼ 43.98: DF ¼ 2, N ¼ 326), p < 0.001). It is indicative from the results that majority of farmers (90.7%) in Nkoranza North in the Transitional zone applied agro-chemical compared to farmers in the Daboase and Wechaiu (54.5% and 63.2%, respectively) who adapted to drought through the application of agrochemicals. Most crop farmers in Daboase in the Transitional zone adopted the application of agro-chemicals compared to other farmers in the Forest zone because the Forest oxysol soil has higher moisture holding capacity and fertility and therefore more capable of supporting crop production. On the whole, the study reveals that most farmers (72.1%) in the selected study areas adopted application of agrochemicals as measure to adapt to drought. This finding is consistent with results of previous studies that applying both organic and inorganic fertilizer on farmlands is a method of mitigating low crop yield associated with unreliable rainfall pattern and prolonged dry spell (Kurothe et al. 2014; Kloos and Renaud 2014; Pardoe et al. 2016). The results as shown in Table 3 indicate that majority of farmers in Daboase in the Forest zone do not resort to migration as a drought adaptation measure. Out of the 110 farmers in the Forest zone who participated in the survey, an overwhelming majority of 101 (91.8%) did not employ migration while only nine farmers (8.2%) resorted to migration as a measure to reduce their vulnerability to drought.

Cultivation of early maturing crops

Cultivation of drought-tolerant crops

Soil moisture conservation practices

Changing location of crops

Cultivation of different crops

Migration

Changing planting time

Application of agro-chemicals

Adaptation Measures

Forest(n ¼ 110) A (%) NA (%) 60 50 (54.5) (45.5) 52 58 (47.3) (52.7) 9(8.2) 101 (91.8) 44 60 (40.0) (60.0) 68 42 (61.8) (38.2) 12 98 (10.9) (89.1) 16 94 (14.5) (85.5) 68 42 (61.8) (38.2)

Agroecological Zones Transitional (n ¼ 140) A (%) NA (%) 127 13(9.3) (90.7) 119 21 (85.0) (15.0) 46 94 (32.9) (67.1) 16 124 (11.4) (88.6) 21 119 (15.0) (85.0) 47 93 (33.6) (66.4) 21 119 (15.0) (85.5) 131 9(6.4) (93.6)

Table 3 Adaptation measures across agro-ecological zones (N ¼ 326)

Savannah(n ¼ 76) A (%) NA (%) 48 28 (63.2) (36.8) 63 13 (82.9) (17.1) 48 28 (63.2) (36.8) 5(6.6) 71 (93.4) 62 14 (81.6) (18.4) 28 48 (36.8) (63.2) 16 60 (21.1) (78.1) 65 11 (85.5) (14.5)

264(81.0)

53(16.3)

87(26.7)

223(68.4)

261(80.1)

103(31.6)

234(71.8)

235(72.1)

Over all adoption

41.66

1.68

21.39

70.34

42.58

63.04

49.33

43.98

χ2

0.37 0.39 0.44 0.36 0.47 0.27 0.07 0.36

0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.430NS 0.001***

Phi

0.001***

ρ-value

1042 H. Dumba et al.

41 (37.3)

Drought monitoring

69 (62.7)

62 (56.4) 57 (51.8) 60 (54.5) 91 (82.7) 56(40) 41 (37.3) 91 (70.0)

69 (49.3) 84 (60.0) 48 (34.3) 9(6.4)

71 (50.7) 56 (40.0) 92 (65.7) 131 (93.6) 69 (62.7) 42 (30.0)

45 (59.2) 47 (61.8) 32 (42.1) 19 (25.0) 36 (47.4) 45 (59.2)

NB: * Implies significant, NS implies not significant at 0.05 (2-tailed), A Adopted, NA Not Adopted p < 0.05*, p < 0.01**, p < 0.001***

Changing size of farm land

Water harvesting practices

48 (43.6) 53 (48.2) 50 (45.5) 19 (17.3) 84(60)

Diversifying from farm to non-farm activities Integrating crop with livestock production Home gardening

31 (40.8) 29 (38.2) 44 (57.9) 57 (75.0) 40 (52.6) 31 (40.8) 3.41

130(39.9)

184(56.4)

161(49.4)

27.15

12.89

14.87

4.68

184(56.4)

47(14.4)

4.38

165(50.6)

0.10 0.12 0.10 0.21 0.20 0.30

110NS 0.970NS 0.180NS 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001***

52 Rural Farmers’ Approach to Drought Adaptation: Lessons from Crop Farmers. . . 1043

1044

H. Dumba et al.

Moreover, out of the 140 farmers in Nkoranza North in the Transitional zone that participated in the study, it was found that a greater proportion of farmers (67.1%) did not adopt migration as drought adaptation measure. Thus, migration is not a common drought adaptation strategy in the Forest as well as the Transitional zones of Ghana. This contradicts findings of Yang et al. (2015) that migration is the commonest drought adaptation strategy among farmers in the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region of North-western China. Most farmers in the Forest and Transitional zones of Ghana do not adapt to drought through migration because there are various livelihood options and crop diversification strategies that assist them to adapt to the hardships imposed by drought (Asante et al. 2017). For instance, various artisanal activities, trading or business ventures, seeking employment in craft and cottage industries, and other sources of off-farm income generating abound in the forest belt of Ghana and hence, most farmers in this area do not over dependent on rain-fed agriculture. However, there are more cases of migration among farmers in Wechaiu in the Transitional zone compared to farmers in Daboase in the Forest zone (see Derbile et al. 2016). This is because some farmers in the Forest zone migrated either from the Savannah zone, Transitional zone, or neighboring communities in Cote d’ Ivoire to undertake cocoa cultivation since the rainfall pattern in the Forest is more favorable to farming activities (Jarawura 2013). The results suggest that farmers in the Savannah zone are more likely to adapt to drought and rainfall variability through migration to other places compared to farmers in the Forest and Transitional zones of Ghana. This collaborate the findings Van der Geest (2011) and Jarawura (2013), that rainfall variability and climate change slightly account for the out-migration of farmers from the three northern regions to Brong Regions of Ghana. When there are drought conditions some farmers migrate to other areas to engage in other livelihood activities. There is a statistical highly significant relationship between agro-ecological zones and farmers’ adoption of migration as a drought adaptation measure (χ2 ¼ 63: DF ¼ 2; N ¼ 326; p < 0.001). Migration among farmers is dependent on agro-ecological location. The phi value (0.44) indicates that is a positive significant moderate difference between farmers’ migration patterns and agro-ecological zones. This is because the severity of drought differs from one agro-ecological zone to another (Adepetu and Berthe 2007). The results indicated that out of the 110 farmers interviewed in Daboase in the Forest zone, 89.1% were nonadopters of soil moisture conservation practices as an adaptation strategy. However, relatively small proportion of the farmers (10.9%) in this zone adopted soil conservation practices. Similarly, nonadopters were 66.4% and 63.2% in Transitional and Savannah zones respectively. Collectively, across all the ecological zones studied out of 326 farmers interviewed only 87 farmers employed soil conservation measures. This represents a total of 26.7% farmers. Moreover, it was revealed that only 53 (16.3%) out of the 326 farmers in the three agro-ecological zones cultivated some sort of drought-tolerant crops as drought adaptation measure. The results show that most farmers in the agro-ecological location do not cultivate crops that are drought-resistant. Only a small proportion of farmers in the various agro-ecological zones indicated that they cultivated some

52

Rural Farmers’ Approach to Drought Adaptation: Lessons from Crop Farmers. . .

1045

crops that are resistant to drought conditions. Farmers non-adoption of droughtresistant crop varieties can be attributed to the fact that most farmers in Ghana do not have access to drought-tolerant crops. This contradicts the results of previous works by Udmale et al. (2014) that rural farmers widely cultivate less water intensive and drought tolerant crops as adaptation options to drought. The results show that a majority of 264 farmers (81.0%) out of the 326 farmers in the three agro-ecological zones adopted the cultivation of early maturing crops as a measure to adapt to drought. The adoption of early maturing crops is highly dependent upon agro-ecological zone. Most farmers in the Savannah and Transitional zones cultivate early maturing crops compared to the proportion of farmers in the Forest zone who cultivate early maturing. The results of this current study corroborate the findings of various previous studies (Bawakyillenuo et al. 2016; Pardoe et al. 2016) that farmers resort to the cultivation of early maturing crops as a climate change adaptation strategy. The study also revealed that farmers have been adapting to drought by integrating both farming and non-farming activities as similarly found by a previous study by Balama et al. (2013). From the results out of the 326 farmers, a little over half (50.6%) diversified from farm to non-farm income generating activities in order to adapt to the impact of drought. Majority of farmers (59.2%) who diversified farm to non-farm income generating activities were located in Wechaiu in the Savannah zone. The study further indicated that most farmers (56.4%) integrated livestock production with crop production as drought adaptation measure. This is because farmers seek solace in livestock rearing when their crops fail as a result of drought. Farmers do experience decline in crop productivity as a result of drought. Therefore, they have seen the need to engage in livestock rearing to augment their farming activities. Similarly, Balama et al. (2013) has found that local farmers in Kilombero District of Tanzania integrated crop farming into livestock production as a climate change adaptation strategy. The results in Table 3 indicate that most farmers in Wechaiu in the Savannah zone (61.8%) as well as those in the Transitional zones (60.0%) integrated livestock rearing with crop production compared to farmers in the Forest zone (48.2). This confirms results of a study by Bawakyillenuo et al. (2016) that integrating livestock rearing into crop production is common climate change adaptation method being adopted by farmers in rural Savannah zone of northern Ghana. This is because the vegetation and climatic features within the Savannah and Transitional zones are more favorable to livestock rearing compared to the Forest zone. However, this is not significant (χ2 ¼ 4.68: DF ¼ 2, N ¼ 326; p > 0.05). There is moderate significant association between the proportion of farmers who employed water harvesting practices and agro-ecological zone (χ2 ¼ 14.87; DF ¼ 2; N ¼ 326, p < 0.001). A majority of farmers (93.6%) in the Transitional zone and farmers in Savannah (75.0%) employed water harvesting practices as drought adaption measure compared to number of farmers in the Forest zone (82.7%) who did not employ water harvesting practices to combat drought. Most farmers in the Savannah and Transitional zones experienced severe drought conditions and acute

1046

H. Dumba et al.

water shortage than farmers in the Forest zone (Armah et al. 2011). This in keeping with the fact that farmers in the Savannah and Transitional zones need to harvest rainwater and store it for domestic use and animal consumption as well. However, farmers in the Forest may have unimpeded access to riverine water supply throughout the year due to high level of precipitation (Armah et al. 2011). The results show strong relationship between change in farm sizes and agroecological zones (χ2 ¼ 12.89; DF ¼ 2; N ¼ 326, p < 0.001). Variation in farm size as a drought adaptation strategy is dependent upon agro-ecological location. The proportion of farmers who change their farm sizes as drought adaptation mechanism varies across the agro-ecological zones (sensu, Hansen et al. 2004). The settler farmers in the Transitional zone have fixed portions of land for farming, whereas the native farmers have most of their land occupied by cashew plantation. Hence, such farmers may find it difficult to increase their farm size. Farmers in the Savannah zone may not even change their farm sizes because fertile lands are limited in supply. Hence, farmers are fixated to the same parcel of land. Moreover, the farmers may find it unrewarding and time-consuming to clear new parcel of land for cultivation in the midst of unpredictable and scanty rainfalls. However, majority of farmers 84 (60.0%) in Daboase in the Forest zone stated that they changed their farm sizes in order to deal with the impacts of drought. Finally, the results indicate that out of the 140 farmers in Nkoranza North in the Transitional zone, 70.0% in this zone adopted drought monitoring as drought adaptation strategy, particularly constant listen to weather news on radio and TV stations on daily basis. During an interview in the Transitional zone, a male farmer indicated that: I always listen to ‘weather man’ on FM radio in order to know the on-set of rains before I even begin to prepare for farming. Sometimes before I go to farm, I have to listen to ‘weather man’ to know whether it would rain on that day or not (Male farmer, Transitional zone).

Similarly, a majority of 45 farmers (59.2%) in the Savannah zone indicated that they employed drought monitoring as a tool for preparing for impending drought conditions and to improve their resilience to drought vulnerability. The plurality of radio stations as well as the availability of agricultural extension officers in the study areas provide easy access to weather information. Hence, most farmers continually monitor weather and climatic conditions before they plant their crops. Regarding drought monitoring, a lead farmer in the Savannah zone hinted during an interview schedule that: We do not sow arbitrarily in this area. We usually ‘study’ the weather pattern to predict the arrival of rains before sowing seeds (Male lead farmer, Savannah zone).

However, majority of 69 farmers, representing 62.7% of the 110 farmers who participated in the survey in the Forest zone did not practice drought monitoring. The climatic conditions in this zone is quite conducive for agriculture. The farmers in this zone hardly experience severe drought that lasts long as compared

52

Rural Farmers’ Approach to Drought Adaptation: Lessons from Crop Farmers. . .

1047

to farmers in the Savannah and Transitional zones Moreover, the soil in the Forest zone holds moisture. Hence, farmers in this zone do not really have to monitor the rainfall pattern as farmers in the Savannah and Transitional zones would do. Overall, more than half of farmers (56.4%) practice drought monitoring. This shows that drought monitoring is mostly being practiced by farmers as a method of adapting to drought in the selected agro-ecological zones. This confirms the results of a study by Pardoe et al. (2016) that farmers “follow the rain” until they are well-convinced that the rain would not fail them before they sow their seeds. It is obvious that drought monitoring is highly statistically and significantly related to agro-ecological zones (χ2 ¼ 27.15: DF ¼ 2, N ¼ 326; p < 0.001). This is because various agro-ecological zones have different amount of precipitation and soil moisture content to support farming activities. The phi value (0.30) indicates that there is a moderate significant relationship between drought monitoring and agro-ecological zones. Therefore, the decision of a farmer to monitor and time drought would depend upon a particular zone where he is located. Rather than employing only scientific and orthodox strategies to adapt to drought, the study also revealed that the farmers also employ prayers and supplications as means to adapt to drought conditions. They offer supplications to Him so that He would cause the rain to fall. This could be so because farmers have sociocultural perception about climate change and drought. Some farmers attribute the occurrence of climate and drought to the intention of God and other deities (Jarawura 2013). Hence, farmers combine both spiritual and scientific means to adapt to drought. Traditionally, we usually call on deities to intercede for us to get the rains. We go round the community to pour libation asking the gods of the land to cause rains to fall. And if it rains, we thank them [gods] by making animal sacrifice. (Male farmer, savannah zone). During droughts, we throw a challenge to the gods of the land to let it rain to prove the that they are living gods (Male farmer, Transitional zone).

In conclusion, farmers employed both scientific and unscientific methods to adapt to drought in the selected agro-ecological locations in Ghana. The study reveals that drought adaption measures differ significantly among farmers in the Forest, Transitional and Savannah zones of Ghana. This finding is in harmony with results of various studies (Jarawura 2014; Abid et al. 2015; Bawakyillenuo et al. 2016) that climate and drought adaptation strategies are numerous and their implementation differs from place to place. This is because farmers’ knowledge of drought adaption and their adaptive capacities as well as rainfall and soil properties differ from place to place. Therefore, farmers in various geographical locations would adapt to drought by adopting different mechanisms. However, the most commonly adopted drought adaptation measures comprise application of agro-chemicals, changing of planting date, cultivating different crops, integration of crop and livestock production, changing the location of crop on yearly basis, diversifying from farm to non-farm income generation activities, cultivation of early maturing crops, and drought monitoring.

1048

H. Dumba et al.

Conclusions Farmers’ adaptation to drought differs across various agro-ecological locations in Ghana and they adapt to drought by employing mixed adaptation strategies. The most commonly used drought adaptation strategies include application of agrochemicals, changing planting dates, cultivation of different crops, changing location of crops, cultivation of early maturing crops, diversification to non-farm activities, integrating crops and livestock production, as well as drought monitoring. Moreover, farmers’ choice of specific drought adaptation strategies is a determinant of various factors. Farmers’ ecological location acts as the major significant determinant of their adoption of all the eight drought adaptation measures. Finally, farmers with access to credit facilities and extension services are more likely to adopt farm-based drought adaptation measures and less likely to diversify to non-farming activities. Ministry of Food Agriculture (MoFA) and the National Disaster Management Organization should provide drought relief measures and safety net programs for vulnerable smallholder farmers. This also calls for the introduction and implementation of crop insurance schemes where farmers would be given the opportunity to indemnify their crops against possible loss associated with drought. As a matter of mitigating farmers’ vulnerability to drought, both governmental organizations such as MoFA and National Climate Research Institute, and other non-governmental organizations should help develop, introduce, and implement affordable drought adaptation technologies in farming communities. The introduction and cultivation of drought-resistant crops, water harvesting, and conservative agriculture practices should be promoted among farmers in the country.

References Abdul-Razak M, Kruse S (2017) The adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers to climate change in the northern region of Ghana. Clim Risk Manag 17:104–122 Abid M, Scheffran J, Schneider UA, Ashfaq M (2015) Farmers’ perceptions of and adaptation strategies to climate change and their determinants: the case of Punjab province, Pakistan. Earth Syst Dyn 6:225–243 Adepetu AA, Berthe A (2007) Vulnerability of rural sahelian households to drought: options for adaptation. A final report submitted to assessments of impacts and adaptations to climate change (AIACC), Project No. AF 92. Retrieved from http://www.start.org/Projects/AIACC_Project/ Final Reports/Final Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behaviour. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J (eds) Action-control: from cognition to behaviour. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 11–39 Ajzen I (1987) Attitudes, traits, and actions: dispositional prediction of behaviour in personality and social psychology. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic, New York, pp l–63 Ajzen I (2006) Theory of planned behaviour. Retrieved from http://people.umass.edu/~aizen/tpb. diag.htmlnull-link Apata TG (2011) Factors influencing the perception and choice of adaptation measures to climate change among farmers in Nigeria. Evidence from farm households in Southwest Nigeria. Environ Econ 2(4):74–83

52

Rural Farmers’ Approach to Drought Adaptation: Lessons from Crop Farmers. . .

1049

Armah FA, Odoi JO, Yengoh GT, Obiri S, Yawson DO, Afrifa EKA (2011) Food security and climate change in drought-sensitive savannah zones of Ghana. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 16(3):291–306 Asante WA, Acheampong E, Kyereh E, Kyereh B (2017) Farmers’ perspectives on climate change manifestations in smallholder cocoa farms and shifts in cropping systems in the forest-savannah transitional zone of Ghana. Land Use Policy 66:374–381 Balama C, Augustino S, Eriksen S, Makonda FSB, Amanzi N (2013) Climate change adaptation strategies by local farmers in Kilombero District, Tanzania. Ethiop J Environ Stud Manag 6 (6):724–736 Bawakyillenuo S, Yaro JA, Teye J (2016) Exploring the autonomous adaptation strategies to climate change and climate variability in selected villages in the rural northern savannah zone of Ghana. Local Environ 21(3):361–382 Bhattacherjee A (2012) Social science research: principles, methods, and practices. University of South Florida, Tampa Cohen L, Manion L, Morrision K (2011) Research methods in education, 6th edn. Routledge, New York Danquah JA (2015) Analysis of factors influencing farmers’ voluntary participation in reforestation programmes in Ghana. For Trees Livelihoods. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2015.1025862 Derbile EK, Jarawura FX, Dombo MY (2016) Climate change, local knowledge and climate change adaptation in Ghana. In: Yaro J, Hesselberg J (eds) Adaptation to climate change and variability in rural West Africa. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31499-0_6 Deressa TT, Hassan RM, Ringler C, Alemu T, Yesuf M (2009) Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Glob Environ Chang 19 (2):248–255 Diaz HM, Hurlbert M, Warren J (2016) Final research report of the rural communities’ adaptation to drought. Canadian Plains Research Center, Regina. http://www.parc.ca/vacea/assets/PDF/ rcadrepor Dietz T, van der Geest K, Obeng F (2013) Local perceptions of development and change in Northern Ghana. In: Yaro J (ed) Rural development in Northern Ghana. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 17–36 Elias AZM (2015) Farmers’ problem confrontation in crop diversification at southern region of Bangladesh. J Agroecol Nat Resour Manag 2(3):230–233 Fisher M, Abate T, Lunduka RW, Asnake W, Alemayehu Y, Madulu RB (2015) Drought tolerant maize for farmer adaptation to drought in sub-Saharan Africa: determinants of adoption in eastern and southern Africa. Climate Change 133(2):283–299 Food and Agricultural Organization (2012) Gender inequalities in rural employment in Ghana: an overview. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap090e/.pdf Ghana Statistical Service (2013) Ghana living standard survey. Ghana Statistical Service, Accra Ghana Statistical Service (2014) 2010 population and housing census: district analytical report. Nkoranza North. Ghana Statistical Service, Accra Hansen J, Marx S, Weber E (2004) The role of climate perceptions, expectations, and forecasts in farmer decision making: The Argentine Pampas and South Florida. Final Report of an IRI Seed Grant Project. International Research Institute for Climate Prediction (IRI), The Earth Institute at Columbia University Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: regional aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Jarawura FX (2013) Drought and migration in northern Ghana. Doctoral thesis, University of Ghana, Legon Jarawura FX (2014) Perceptions of drought among rural farmers in the Savelugu district in the northern Savannah of Ghana. Ghana J Geogr 6:102–120 Kassaga K, Kotey NA (2001) Land management in Ghana: building on traditional and modernity. International Institute for Environment and Development, London

1050

H. Dumba et al.

Kloos J, Renaud FG (2014) Organic cotton production as an adaptation option in north west Benin. Outlook Agric 43(2):91–100 Kurothe RS, Kumar G, Singh R (2014) Effect of tillage and cropping systems on runoff, soil loss and crop yields under semiarid rain fed agriculture in India. Soil Tillage Res 140:126–134 Mabe FN, Sienso G, Donkoh S (2014) Determinants of choice of climate change adaptation strategies in northern Ghana. Res Appl Econ 6(4):75–94 Makoka D (2008) The impact of drought on household vulnerability: the case of rural Malawi. Paper presented at the 2008 United Nations University (UNU-EHS) Summer Academy on Environmental Change, Migration and Social Vulnerability. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/15399 Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) An expanded source book: qualitative data analysis, 2nd edn. Sage, London Montle BP, Teweldemedhin MY (2014) Assessment of farmers’ perceptions and the economic impact of climate change in Namibia: case study on small-scale irrigation farmers (SSIFs) of Ndonga Linena Irrigation Project. J Dev Agric Econ 6:443–454 Naab FZ, Abubakarib Z, Ahmed A (2019) The role of climate services in agricultural productivity in Ghana: the perspectives of farmers and institutions. Clim Serv 13:24–32 Obayelu OA, Adepoju AO, Idowu T (2014) Factors influencing farmers’ choices of adaptation to climate change in Ekiti state, Nigeria. J Agric Environ Int Dev 108(1):3–16 Owusu K, Waylen P (2009) Trends in spatio-temporal variability in annual rainfall in Ghana (1951– 2000). Weather 64(5):115–120 Pardoe J, Kloos J, Assogba NP (2016) Seasonal variability: impacts, adaptations and the sustainability challenge. In: Yaro JA, Hesselberg J (eds) Adaptation to climate change and variability in rural West Africa. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 41–57 Prematunga RK (2012) Correlational analysis. Aust Crit Care 25:195–199 Quandt A, Kimathi YA (2016) Adapting livelihoods to floods and droughts in arid Kenya: local perspectives and insights. Afr J Rural Dev 1(1):51–60 Shongwe P, Masuku MB, Manyatsi AB (2014) Factors influencing the choice of climate change adaptation strategies by households: a case of Mpolonjeni Area Development Programme (ADP) in Swaziland. J Agric Stud 2(1):86–98 Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16:282–292 Talukder Md R (2014) Food security assessment in Sylhet Haor area emphasizing homestead productivity and agricultural resource utilization. A thesis submitted to Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University in partial Fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in agronomy. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Bangladesh Uddin MN, Bokelmann W, Entsminger JS (2014) Factors affecting farmers’ adaptation strategies to environmental degradation and climate change effects: a farm level study in Bangladesh. Climate 2:223–241 Udmale P, Ichikawa Y, Manandhar S, Shidaira H, Kiem AS (2014) Farmers’ perception of drought impacts, local adaptation and administrative mitigation measures in Maharashtra State, India. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 10:250–269 United Nations (2010) Natural hazards, unnatural disasters: the economics of effective prevention. World Bank, Washington, DC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2011) Assessing climate change impacts and vulnerability: making informed adaptation decisions. Retrieved from www. unfccc.int/adaptation Van de Giesen K, Liebe J, Jung G (2010) Adapting to climate change in the Volta Basin, West Africa. Curr Sci 98(8):1033–1037 Van der Geest K (2011) The Dagara farmer at home and away. Migration, environment and development in Ghana. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. African Studies Centre, Leiden Yamane T (1967) Statistics: an introductory analysis, 2nd edn. Harper and Row, New York Yang J, Tan C, Wang S, Wang S, Yang Y, Chen H (2015) Drought adaptation in the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, China: actions, planning, pathways and barriers. Sustainability 7:15029–15056

52

Rural Farmers’ Approach to Drought Adaptation: Lessons from Crop Farmers. . .

1051

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Smart Climate Resilient and Efficient Integrated Waste to Clean Energy System in a Developing Country: Industry 4.0

53

Anthony Njuguna Matheri, Belaid Mohamed, and Jane Catherine Ngila

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paris Agreement on Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate-Land-Water-Energy-Food Nexus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy Security and Pursuit of Water, Food, and Earth System Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water Security and Pursuit of Energy, Food, and Earth System Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Security and Pursuit of Water, Energy, and Earth System Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biophysical and Biogeochemical Land-Climate Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nexus Contributions to Job Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carbon Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data-Driven Nexus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Industry 4.0 in Nexus and Climate Resilient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modelling of the Water-Energy-Food-Land-Climate Nexus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adaptation of Climate Change Technology Transfer in Developing Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nexus and Research Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analytics Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nexus Securities and Environmental Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Policy and Governance (Coordination and Collaboration) for Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1054 1055 1056 1058 1061 1062 1063 1064 1064 1065 1065 1066 1068 1069 1069 1072 1073

This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. A. N. Matheri (*) · B. Mohamed Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] J. C. Ngila Department of Chemical Science, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa Academic Affair, Riara University, Nairobi, Kenya e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_69

1053

1054

A. N. Matheri et al.

Equity, Climate Change, and Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Conclusion and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077

Abstract

Climate change impacts a natural and human system on the entire globe. Climaterelated extreme weather such as drought, floods, and heat waves alters the ecosystems that society depends on. Climate, land, energy, and water systems (CLEWS) are a critical aspect of high importance on resource availability, distribution, and interconnection. The nexus provides a set of guidelines to South Africa that aims on creating a level playing field for all sectors while achieving the aims of the SDGs that are cross-sectoral and multilevel approaches to climate change. The nexus expressed three domains that included resources, governance, and security. It integrated a smart climate resilient with inclusion of the governance and involvement of the stakeholders. Recognition of spatial and sector interdependencies should inform policies, investment and institutional for enhancing nexus security and climate change towards making transition green carbon deals. The nexus offers an integrated approach that analyzes the trade-offs and synergies between the different sectors in order to maximize the efficiency of using the resources that adapt institutional and optimum policy arrangements. Economic transformation and creation of employment through green economy is one of the COP26 green deal agendas in curbing the carbon emissions (green house emission, industrial processes, fuel combustion, and fugitive emissions) as mitigation to climate change, which is cost-effective and economically efficient. The future climate change policy in the developing countries is likely to be both promoted by climate technology transfer and public-private cooperation (crosssector partnership) through the technology mechanism of the nexus and inclusion of the gender. Keywords

Adaptation · CLEWS · Climate change · Climate technology · Ecosystem · Green economy · Policy · Resilience · SDGs · Nexus

Introduction Green revolution, disruption of the natural resources and social-economic impact are becoming increasingly in Industry 4.0 (Fourth Industrial Revolution-41R). The is due to enhancement of the adaptive capacity for the complex global challenges in advanced nexus approach to the sustainable management of climate change, land use, water, energy, and food. This serve the paradigmatically that was isolated and understanding of the interrelation of the WEF, human well-being, resilient ecosystem, climate change that coexists within the planetary boundaries. The shift in society disruption legion of unfortunate solution to an environment or development

53

Smart Climate Resilient and Efficient Integrated Waste to Clean Energy. . .

1055

challenges that end up creating new, unforeseen problems and dilemma (Newell et al. 2019; Matheri et al. 2020). The nexus describes the interconnections and interdependencies between the land, water, energy, and food (LWEF) sectors. These interdependencies of the LWEF securities have received growing attention in the past years by researchers and policy-makers. Lack of understanding of the nexus has been described as a major global economic challenge by the World Economic Forum. This put forward the nexus approach as a fundamental shift for sustainable development (Hassan et al. 2018). A review on the LWEF and land utilization needs to be addressed on policy-making and decision-making concerning the nexus framework and climate change. This bridges the gap between science and policy in the implementation of nexus. More importantly, the nexus can also support achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 2030 Agenda, because of its close relation to three SDGs: SDG2 “zero hunger,” SDG6 “clean water and sanitation for all,” SDG7 “affordable and clean energy,” and SDG13 “climate action” (Tashtoush et al. 2012). The nexus is expressed into three domains that include resources, governance, and security. The domain requires inclusion of the policy and institution expertise, natural resources use, environmental science, and engineering expertise for the mutual perspective of multiple decision-making, solution, and resource recovery (Scott et al. 2015, 2018). The priorities areas for climate change include decarbonization of the economy, digitization, decentralization of the production, transition of 100% renewable energy, carbon taxation (tax the polluters not people), access to sustainable finance, assist small island and least developing countries, support people affected by climate change, increase accessibility and availability of the jobs and livelihood, nature-based solutions, stronger commitments by the major emitters, and commitments to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 (United Nation (UN) 2020). The focus is placed on implementation of the nexus concepts with a smart climate resilient on nexus regional dialogue programs by United Nations (UN) bodies, World Bank, GIZ, European Union (EU), Africa Union (AU), Middle East and North Africa (MENA), and World Economic Forum among others.

Paris Agreement on Climate Change Climate change results in disruption of national economies that affect the countries, communities, living standards, and flora and fauna. With likely shift of the climate zones, long-term, changes of the rainfall patterns, and raising of the temperature, climate change shock is expected to increase frequency putting pressure in energy, food, water supply, and competition of land ownership in unaffected areas (Stocker et al. 2013; Carter and Gulati 2014). The historic Paris agreement provides countries with strong global climate change response by keeping the temperature rise below 2–1.5 °C. It encourages parties and stakeholders to reduce the impacts of the climate change (ambition and implementation to ensure highest mitigation and adaptation efforts by all parties with building climate resilience).

1056

A. N. Matheri et al.

The intergovernmental climate change panels have recorded the following: • 1901–2010: Warm oceans and diminishing snows and ice by 1.07 million km2 with rise of the sea levels by 19 cm • 1880–2012: Increase of the temperature by 0.85 °C due to warmer climate • 1990 to date: Global emission of the CO2 that has increased by 50% The agreement solidifies international cooperation on investment of a low-emission economy (green economy) that contains transparency framework, mutual trust, and confidence. Industry 4.0 is overseeing the scalable, affordable solutions that are more resilient to the economy and mostly helping the developing countries toward the low-carbon economy. Major technologies and institutions will see a shift of containing and ensuring that global warming does not exceed the threshold. SDG 13 defines the commitment by strengthening resilience and adaptive capacity; integrating climate change strategies, policies, and planning; creating awareness on adaptation, mitigation, and impact reduction; and implementing meaningful mitigation again and transparency through UNFCCC (United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change) framework and inclusion of the marginalized communities and planning and management (SDGs, UN 2019). The impact of the climate change will be amplified through interdependence and interconnection among the resources, land, water, energy, and food.

Climate-Land-Water-Energy-Food Nexus The global web of mutual interlinkages defines the climate-land-water-energy-food nexus on societal changes that drive growth and demand. The ongoing disruption of the environment is likely to alter the accessibility or availability of land, energy, water, and food that is central to climate change policies and natural resource management (Markantonis et al. 2019). Holistic and integrated approaches to resource planning and management have been largely embraced by decision-makers and stakeholders although the benefits of the nexus approach may appear obvious to its advocates. The nexus is related to integrated management, consumption, economic resources, policy, security, and approach. The nexus concept needs to be approached beyond the research and development domain. The WEF nexus has emerged as a useful disruption in Industry 4.0 in understanding multiple interdependencies that coexist between land use, water, energy, food, and climate change. It is a multidisciplinary that cuts across both state and non-state sectors. The WEF has potential to unlock groundbreaking solutions to complex problems with appropriate models and climate change mitigation. The is expressed as National Development Plans (NDP) and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) that are emerging in the international agenda at the World Economic Forum on understanding the link between use of resources in providing universal basic rights and climate protection (Seeliger et al. 2018). This was welcomed by the Conference of Parties (COP) by the UNFCCC on

53

Smart Climate Resilient and Efficient Integrated Waste to Clean Energy. . .

1057

Fig. 1 The water-energy-food nexus concept. Source: IW: LEARN, Germany 2014

enhancement of climate technologies’ development and knowledge transfer through the technology mechanisms of greater public-private cooperation (cross-sector partnerships). This is through the action on climate and SDGs, climate technology, education, youth, gender, having open-source information and intellectual properties, climate finance, adaptation and resilience, and capacity building (Forsyth 2007; Forsyth 2005; COP25 2019a, b). Figure 1 shows the WEF nexus concept. The nexus can provide technology, innovation, and analytical framework by complementing design principles and new policy perspectives for the CLEWS’ security policy. Building future planned actions on nexus needs advanced research and development (R&D) such as cost action and Horizon 2020. The role of the WEF nexus is gaining increasing attention in the region from developing countries, which is a partner in the Nexus Regional Dialogues Programme (NRDP) with an aim to create an enabling environment that drives implementation and cross-sectoral engagement of nexus investment projects. The intention is to provide decisionmakers with prospects where the theory of the nexus concept has been made operational. The C40 cities program seeks to build and identify opportunities and build evidence benefits of climate action synergies within the climate, water, and energy nexus. C40 cities have built a platform of networks, adaptation, communications, finance, and other programs on taking bold climate actions that are healthier and more sustainable to resilient cities (C40 2020).

1058

A. N. Matheri et al.

Specific to Agenda 2030, 4 of the 17 SDGs are directly related to the food, water, and energy sectors (Tashtoush et al. 2012; United Nation (UN) 2015): • SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): End hunger, achieve improved nutrition and food security, and promote sustainable agriculture. • SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation): Ensure availability and sustainable management of sanitation and water for all. • SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy): Ensure access to reliable, affordable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. • SDG 13 (Climate Action): Taking action to combat climate change and the impacts. Although these four goals directly relate to the individual areas of climate change, water, energy, and food security, progress in 12 of the 17 SDGs is directly related to the sustainable use of resources. Some goals cannot be achieved without a holistic view of the nexus.

Energy Security and Pursuit of Water, Food, and Earth System Resilience Energy security exists where there is uninterrupted availability of energy sources and distribution at an affordable price to the consumers. With frequent power rationing (load shedding) in many African countries that ranges in hours, this remains a dream in achieving adequate energy production, stable tariffs, relax policies on independent power production (IPP), political stability, intelligent distribution of energy, green buildings, smart metering, energy auction, bidding and pricing, self-driving cars, electronic cars, energy storage, smart cars, high-speed trains, next-generation GPS devices, autonomous vehicles, gyroscopic vehicles, smart roads, hyperloops, micromobility, intelligent electric vehicle networks, etc. All of this lies on policies and politics. The food challenges from energy perspectives include increasing food cooling systems; energy-intensive farm operations; local food chains that is minimizing transport energy; extended crop seasons; artificial intelligence and blockchain technology on food tracking systems; use of remote sensing technology (i.e., drone use for mapping, irrigation, and spraying) to monitor food production, spraying and irrigation; use of hydroponic and aeroponics for urban farming; use of drone to monitor crop production and pest controls; use of robotics technology in farming; and use of artificial intelligence in detecting crop diseases at an early state which all needs intensive use of energy and technology literacy. The water challenges from energy perspectives include energy intensive of desalination, water reuse, rising demand for carbon-free energy systems, climate change raises water needs of energy, water allocation to energy generation, water capture from atmosphere (humid ambient air) using solar-powered devices, and

53

Smart Climate Resilient and Efficient Integrated Waste to Clean Energy. . .

1059

Fig. 2 Conceptual framework of the regional water-energy-food nexus action plan

decentralized wastewater treatment (online wastewater treatment and monitoring using sensors). The future of transportation lies on our behavior, culture, taboos, and way of life. How often one drives the vehicles, the mode of transport we take, the types of fuels we use, an investment in public transportation, compensation due to shift and investment on green energy (green funding), congestion charges, and more vehicle-pooling and ride-hailing services justify dependence toward zero emission and thus mitigation to climate change. Figure 2 shows the conceptual framework of the water-energy-food action plan (Nhamo et al. 2018; Chirisa and Bandauko 2015).

Reliable Integrated Waste Management and Nexus The populace development, urbanization, economic advancement, and improvement in expectations for everyday comforts in disruption of Industry 4.0 (4IR) have increased the amount of the waste generation in the cities and reintroduction of the emerging contaminants into waste streams. These wastes pose sanitary, health hazard, and environmental risks. These contaminants end up in water bodies and landfills, prompting to pollution of the entire environment, thus putting a high strain

1060

A. N. Matheri et al.

on social, economic, health sector, and climate change. Tackling integrated waste management disruption and energy security requires stipulated regulation and policies that coordinate waste administration frameworks. The future of digital disruption and transformation of industrial platform, energy-water-food generation lies on the decarbonation, decentralization, electrification, and digitalization (sustainable industrialization and diversification in the digital era). Technologies in the era of digital transformation are becoming commercially viable to the integrated systems and services that enable sustainable management and efficient integrated waste management (IWM), energy production, and use. Reliable IWM and data provide an all-inclusive resource for a critical, comprehensive, and informative evaluation of IWM options in all integrated waste management programs. Optimized programmed operations using predictive analytics (i.e., convectional and AI modelling), big data, blockchain, e-citizens, fintech, and data mining are the fundamental apparatuses generally used to assess the policy impact and technology of savvy arrangements, just as to design the most ideal approaches to move from current to more intelligent urban areas. There are several obstacles confronting municipal solid waste management within the cities. Some of such obstacles are interrelation of urbanization and economic growth; change of living standards that causes complexity of the waste stream; overstretching of the superannuated infrastructure; lack of location and facilities to expedite waste separation at source; Intelligent Network Infrastructure (tracking collectors, IoT bins, automated recycler with incentive to users, available recycle plants); and integrated waste management technologies that are handy and costly compared to landfilling and composting. Detachment of waste at the source and embracing zero waste financial motivation urge a family to diminish squander. The organic waste can be changed over to vitality utilizing waste to vitality elective courses that incorporate transformation, gasification, combustion, pyrolysis and liquefaction, organic procedures, aging, hydrolysis, and anaerobic assimilation for biogas and biomethane creation. An investigation waste quantification to assess the sustainability, characterization to assess the composition, and anaerobic digestion to assess the amount and quality of energy (CH4) generated by the City of Johannesburg were carried by a team of researchers (University of Johannesburg). The outcomes indicated that 1,444,772 tons per annum of local waste were created in the city of six million residents consistently as announced by the City of Johannesburg (CoJ), South Africa Pikitup (2017). Littering alone costs the city 5.7 million dollars every year, while illicit dumping costs another 6.2 million dollars for each annum. Organic waste can be changed over to vitality utilizing waste or vitality elective courses that incorporate transformation, gasification, combustion, pyrolysis and liquefaction, organic procedures, aging, hydrolysis, fermentation, and anaerobic assimilation for biogas and biomethane creation. Recyclable squander (paper/paperboards, plastics, and glass) was the second biggest part 12%, 19%, and 9%, respectively (Matheri et al. 2018a, b; Matheri 2016, 2020; Fig. 3). The generated biomasses had potential of the alternative clean fuel production to meet the energy security and climate change mitigation. The physiochemical properties of the biomass showed the energy value equivalent to natural gas. The generated energy will contribute to a reliable, affordable, carbon-neutral, sustainable

53

Smart Climate Resilient and Efficient Integrated Waste to Clean Energy. . .

Special Care 1%

1061

Others 17% Organics 34%

Construction 0% Textile/Fabrics / Leathers 3% Plastics 19% Metals 5%

Glass 9%

Papers/Paperb oards 12%

Fig. 3 Quantification of waste generated by the City of Johannesburg, South Africa

form of modern energy. This will help in the development of the conservation of biodiversity, waste management, poverty eradication, and adequate waste to energy recovery management strategies and improve living standards of the citizens (Matheri 2016). The energy system disruption will assist to bridge the gap in the implementation of the SDGs and fourth industrial revolution. The high number of plastic calls for the introduction of the bioplastics to protect the flora and fauna. This adds up pressure on the added value recycling and reduction of waste to landfills. The climate change future policy in developing countries is likely to be both promoted by climate technology transfer and public-private cooperation (crosssector partnership) through the technology mechanism of the nexus and inclusion of the gender.

Water Security and Pursuit of Energy, Food, and Earth System Resilience Water is inseparably linked to food and energy production. The interdependence of energy on water is seen in transport, extraction, power generation, irrigation of biofuel crops, processing of fossil fuels, fuel cells, energy storage, etc. (Birol 2012). The emerging issues are cultivated on the regions that are facing adoption of the appropriate water management policies, water scarcity, and approaches fostering the allocation and sustainable use of resources while promoting economic growth. Due to human activities and availability of the water resources, Africa is one of the most vulnerable regions. In order to maximize the efficiency of using the resources, nexus is offering an integrated approach that analyzes the synergies and trade-offs between different sectors whereas adapting optimum institutional and policy arrangements (Markantonis et al. 2019). Lifecycle approaches are widely used by the industry for the assessment of the risk water management. The absence of lifecycle database to complement developing countries’ databases is a challenging

1062

A. N. Matheri et al.

issue that extensively improved the national accounting system. More positive economic opportunities are created in desalination technologies, smart metering, leak detection (prevent water loss), online water treatment, sensor technology in parameters detection, and smart use of ecosystems to collect and store water and carbon. Water security encourages the population to increase capacity of sustainable water access with adequate quality and quantities for human well-being, sustaining livelihoods and socioeconomic development. This ensures the protection against water-borne diseases, emerging contaminants, and water-related disasters by preserving a climate with peaceful ecosystems and political stability (Hassan et al. 2018; Matheri 2020; UN Water 2013). The food challenges from water perspectives include raises irrigation demands, diminishing institutional that influences the irrigation schemes, groundwater pumped variables, production shifts poleward, higher elevation, water and wastewater treatment and reuse of the resources (Scott et al. 2018). The energy challenges from water perspectives include low water footprint solar PV and wind, dry cooled thermogeneration, water footprint of multiple energy portfolios, energy generation degrades water quality, energy generation from water resources (hydropower, fuel cells, anaerobic digestion), and energy storage (Scott et al. 2018). Construction of the decentralized solar-powered desalination systems in the dry areas will be one of the game changer deployments of the sustainable technology solution in disadvantaged communities in developing countries. This helps bring millions of liters and address perennial water shortage and thus reduction of water-borne diseases.

Water Pricing Water pricing currently is often underestimated which is fundamentally of importance in the economic issues that affect the implementation of the nexus on water use. Water pricing is an economic instrument which efficiency depends on the designed and implementation of the WEF nexus framework and investment. This is with regard to the policy choice, economic pursuit, realities, environmental, social, opportunity cost, and cultural cost. Developing countries’ adaptation of the EU members’ states law and policies on water pricing is one of the key goals in sustainable development (Markantonis et al. 2019).

Food Security and Pursuit of Water, Energy, and Earth System Resilience Food production needs energy, productive land, and water to grow crops, process food, and maintain livestock. Organic fraction of waste can also be put into value by converting and generating energy via anaerobic digestion and fermentation processes, while other technologies go more to gasification and direct combustion to generate energy and organic fertilizers (Matheri 2020). Such bidirectional links are complicated by the specific external factors that modify the chemical and physical characteristics and composition of water flows. Food consumption (changing dietary habits) and generation of the food waste have large effects on the nexus. This is yet to

53

Smart Climate Resilient and Efficient Integrated Waste to Clean Energy. . .

1063

be accounted in SDGs and cannot be treated with isolation from one another and alternative in the attainable chosen pathways in the water and food systems. Food security exists when everyone, at all times, has economic and physical access to adequate nutritious, safe, and sufficient food that meets their specific dietary preference and needs for an healthy and active life (Hassan et al. 2018). The water challenges from food perspectives include land degradation (salinization), water use, wastewater use for food production, supplemental irrigation of rainfed land, high water footprint of agriculture, and ensuring water allocation to irrigation. The energy challenges from food perspectives include mitigate hydropower-farming trade-offs, energy intensification of agriculture, energy intensification of the biofuel production and food transport, and competition between energy production and food security. One of the futures of food in climate change is podcast on the plant-based meat change to counteract the intensive use of energy.

Biophysical and Biogeochemical Land-Climate Systems The evidence of the land cover matters and climate systems is on early paleoclimate model studies and impacts on human-induced deforestation at margined regions. Changes from land conditions due to human activities affect the global climate change. This is driven by changes in emission removals of the GHGs (e.g., CH4, CO2, N2O) by biogeochemical effects. Any land redistribution and local changes on the water vapor and energy between the land and atmosphere influence the biophysical effects on regional climate. The terrestrial biosphere interacts with oceans through influx of nutrients, carbon cycle, water, and particles. This interaction affects crop yield, frequency heat waves, intensive heat waves, rainfall, and air quality. Land has net sources of 441% of the CH4 emission between 2006 and 2017. IPCC has established GHG inventories and earth system models (ESM) on deforestation and afforestation as to reduce the anthropogenic CO2 emission. This combines biophysical and biogeochemical processes to the land-climate system processes. IPCC reports that about one-quarter of 2030 mitigation pledges by countries in initial nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under Paris Agreement is expected to come from land-based mitigation (Jia et al. 2019). Some of the mitigation responses have a response option on technical potential for >3 GtCO2-eq year 1 by 2050 through reduction of the carbon dioxide. These technical aspects include afforestation, waste to energy (bioenergy), wastewater recycle, and carbon capture and storage (carbon dioxide removal-CDR). The estimate includes sustainability and cost consideration with social-economic consideration on the climate changes or non-GHG climate forcing. Rising CO2 concentration limits stomatal opening of the moisture content in the soil, thus reducing transpiration (land-based water cycle/ hydrological on climate change). This increases the aerosol levels, declines surface winds, and increases solar radiation to the ground. The impact of the climate-related extremes on land includes the disruption of the water-energy-food production and supply chain, alteration of the ecosystems, hydrological cycle, surface temperature, atmosphere composition, morbidity and mortality, and damages of the infrastructure

1064

A. N. Matheri et al.

and settlements and human health. Advanced knowledge and optimization of the mitigation and adaptation with coordination of the sustainable land use and management across all sectors are required to achieve better livelihood, food security, energy security, and water security and improve human health, biodiversity, quality of the local environment, and equitable sustainable development. This is through the modification of the regional and global climate change, seasonal and annual climate variation, extreme weather, and human activities on the land, e.g., deforestation, afforestation, and forest management. Incorporating land-climate processes into climate projection allows emotional intelligence and artificial intelligence to take shape through understanding land’s response to climate action and better quantify the potential of land-based response options for the mitigation of climate change (Jia et al. 2019).

Nexus Contributions to Job Market When developing or implementing a nexus, approaches with regard to minimization of high transaction costs should be an added value in economic measurement. Furthermore, energy and water generation and distribution have high characteristics of being monopolized in the developing countries. This creates merits and demerits to the end users. In general, the CLEWS’ nexus has great potential to create new job opportunities and improving living standards in the developing countries. There is a higher need to accelerate the process of the WEF management of emergence of new employment opportunities. Investment of the research and development and implementations on nexus approaches could induce a positive economic effect through job creation. Other disrupted sectors should further be redeveloped, attracting additional meaningful investments and producing new employments within a nexus framework of policies and governance, auditing, and monitoring. Governments have the biggest role to play in the nexus implementation either by making relevant policies or providing funding that subsidizes new technologies and contributes to the welfare of society and enrichment of the emerging market gap.

Carbon Tax Developing countries’ economic transformation and creation of employment through green economy and digitalization will be one of the COP26 green deal agendas. This is with the transition of the national development goals (NDG) 2030 and transition of the low-carbon economy and sustainable development goals as per the economic partnership agreement between the European Union (EU) and developing countries. The commitment through policy-making is paramount in the carbon taxation. The carbon tax is levied on carbon content of fuels (energy and transport sector) and carbon emission trading in the form of carbon pricing (CO2 equivalent tax/pollution tax). The tax offers potentially cost-effective means of the reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions by shifting the cost from society to companies that

53

Smart Climate Resilient and Efficient Integrated Waste to Clean Energy. . .

1065

create the emissions (the more the emission, the more the cost). South Africa has spearheaded the developing countries in the carbon tax 2019 (carbon tax act No.15 of 2019) meant to curb the carbon emissions (green house emission, industrial processes, fuel combustion, and fugitive emissions) as mitigation to climate change, which is cost-effective and economically efficient. The cost of the impact of climate change to food pricing, water, infrastructure, health, conflict, and disasters tends to shift to polluters (global economy shifts toward lower carbon economy). The impact of crop disease and rainfall changes, extreme storms and drought, and temperature changes has shift changes in food prices and food security. This has direct impact on the carbon taxation (Republic of South Africa ZA 2019).

Data-Driven Nexus It is a big challenge to relatively obtain national data for the nexus. Small numbers of bodies (e.g., IRENA. World Bank, IEA, UN) share production, transformation, and consumption data. This remains a key challenge in the mitigation of climate change. Examples os data include water evaporations rates from hydro-powers, flood controls or irrigation, water requirement in energy production and food production, mixed SI units on the data presentations, pattern use of water with regard to locations. Data gap is even larger if fully life cycle of the technology is considered (Ferroukhi et al. 2015). Matters concerning the big data in nexus’ availability and accessibility should be of high priority in policy-making. Nexus is based on a holistic environmental and economic perspective, which should use reliable, consistent, and comprehensive data. It is also imperative that data source across the nexus sectors is comparable in terms of resolution and accuracy. Efficiency in implementation of the nexus is dependent on high-accuracy economic databases that support sustainability. Research and development, scientific institutions, and stakeholders can initiate the collection of open data, in order to build a sustainable database for analyzing the nexus. This can add value and be generated only through workable partnerships between the private-public sector, NGOs, knowledge institutes, and local and regional stakeholders (Markantonis et al. 2019).

Industry 4.0 in Nexus and Climate Resilient The nexus pillars of sustainable development need to be explored in the numerical modelling (i.e., economic modelling; kinetic modelling; life cycle assessment (LCA); WEF modelling; multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA); CLEWS’ modelling; resource flow; network analysis; remote sensing, geospatial, and hydrologic models; finance models; climate models; material and energy models; land-use models; institutional analysis; environmental management; indicator models; social science and integration models; system analysis) (Albrecht et al. 2018). The climate change estimation is based on the sparse station coverage, particularly on scrutiny of

1066

A. N. Matheri et al.

Climate Models (GCM)

Water Model (WEAP)

Energy Model (LEAP)

- Energy for fertilizer production - Energy for field preparation (irrigation) - Sugarcane and other biofuel feed stocks production

Land Use Model (AEZ)

CLEWS RESULTS

- Energy for meeting urban water demand - Energy for irrigaiton - Available water for hydropower - Energy for desalination - Water for power plant cooling - Water for (bio-)fuel processing

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy, Water and Cost Balances

- Rainfall Reductions in Climate Change Scenarios

- Water needs for sugarcane (rain fed and irrigated) - Water needs for alternative food and fuel crops (rain fed and irrigated)

Fig. 4 The CLEWS’ framework founded upon the LEAP, WEAP, AEZ, and GCM models

GDP data. Lack of transparency in data sources and collection methods, lack of details on methods of aggression, and lack of metadata have led to differences between GDP estimates, adjustment to historical data, nonrandom errors, and inhomogeneity in time series. Good quality data is paramount to reliable physical and economic modelling of the nexus and climate sector (Conway et al. 2015). Climate, land, energy, and water systems (CLEWS) are integrated. The CLEWS’ resource assessment and interlinkages with new paradigms are presented in Fig. 4 (Howells et al. 2013; Welsch et al. 2014). The CLEWS serve as highlights and dynamics that overlook the system approach to sustainable development. The CLEWS’ framework is developed by integrating the LEAP (energy), WEAP (water), GCM (general circulation model, climate), and AEZ (agroecological zoning, land) to produce the GHG emissions, water, and energy balance. The model outcome exercises policy development and resource assessment approach through linking existing single-resource modelling tools (Howells et al. 2013; World Bank Group (WBG) 2016).

Modelling of the Water-Energy-Food-Land-Climate Nexus The climate-water-energy-food-land are indirectly and directly interlinking. Nexus unique assessment and monitoring is based on indicators and interlinkages to better

53

Smart Climate Resilient and Efficient Integrated Waste to Clean Energy. . .

1067

Fig. 5 FAO component of the nexus assessment

understand the potential synergies and trade-offs. Quantification and characterization are mostly needed in decision-making. Nexus modelling and framework are classified as (Hassan et al. 2018; Bizikova et al. 2013): • Type of models: quantitative analysis models, simulation models, and integrated models • Geographical scale in addressing intercountry levels Figure 5 indicates the components of the nexus assessment (Hassan et al. 2018). For example, assuming change in water (ΔW), reduces freshwater availability and create shift in energy (ΔE) with limiting cooling power that leads to load shedding (power rationing) and water scrubber thus increase shift of climate change (ΔC) and land use. The interlinkages are unique and can go to any directions. The 20 interlinkages are summarized below: • Water: WL, WF, WE, WC • Energy: WL, EF, EC, EW • Land: LF. LW, LC, LE

1068

A. N. Matheri et al.

• Food: FE, FE, FL, FC • Climate: CF, CW, CE, CL The analysis of the interlinkages can be analyzed well by the use of artificial intelligence tools (e.g., artificial neural network, ANN), statistical tools (e.g., multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA)), and conventional modelling concepts. The nexus pathways can be restructured in the first to fourth order. Similar nexus can be constructed with fourth-order interlinkages for the whole nexus making it 120 (Laspidou et al. 2018). The multicentric approach will add complexity with interconnection, trade-offs, and drives on nexus assessments (Simpson and Jewitt 2019).

Adaptation of Climate Change Technology Transfer in Developing Countries Currently, combating anthropogenic climate change in developing countries is carried out through the transfer of environmentally sound technologies (EST). This is a widely recognized priority for global environmental policy. Climate change technology transfer and policy analytics are of high success factors underlying collaboration between private and public sectors in developing countries. Climate change future policies in developing countries are likely to both be promoted by climate technology transfer and public-private cooperation (crosssector partnership) through the technology mechanism of the water-energy-food nexus and inclusion of the gender. Building partnership mechanisms can reduce cost and increase local clean development mechanisms (CDM). The difficulties in achieving the CDM include first a sidelined investment by investors on diversifying a project away from cheap forms of climate change mitigation by increasing cost and broader development outcomes. Second, the technology dividends are uncertain and often reflect on preference of host government or deliberative processes involving the stakeholders. Third, green climate fund shortage or project investment guidelines combine production cost, human capacity, and innovator multidisciplinary. Overcoming the barrier allows the smart climate-resilient and efficient integrated energy-water-food nexus system in a developing country: Industry 4.0 with climate change friendly investment to proceed quicker and implement the development dividend (Forsyth 2007). The costs of climate technology transfer and increase local representation in establishing the development dividend can be reduced by cross-sector partnerships (CSPs). CSPs can comprise of orthodox public-private partnerships, where governments make contracts with a privatesector company in order to provide Intelligent Network Infrastructure or services more efficient than the state (Forsyth 2005, 2007). Climate change policy and technology transfer minimize the transaction costs, strengthen the collaboration, build capacity, increase public trust and accountability, and enhance environmental governance under the climate change convention and application of the CDM (Forsyth 2005; COP25 2019b).

53

Smart Climate Resilient and Efficient Integrated Waste to Clean Energy. . .

1069

Nexus and Research Gap The concept of the nexus has been received in the business, academics, and policy sectors with a few implemented projects on the ground. The major discussion is how to implement and shift from the ideal concept of the theory based on practice and policies. The nexus methodology emphasis on water-food is majorly researched on hydrological, ecological, and agronomic integrated models and analysis with limited focus on the governance issues of the resources. Versatile methodology to quantify the interlinkages between the WEF and climate change is required. Improving the formulating existing methodology and practices is of high priority to advancing the adoption of the nexus approach. Lack of the reliable data (big data/open source) in the digitalization, electrification, decentralization, and decarbonation world (fourth industrial revolution, Industry 4.0) is a major barrier toward implementation of the WEF nexus approach. Lack of the reliable comprehensive analytic tools is another highlighted concern. Development of critical soft skills (sciences/social/business, STEM) in integrated software and online platform is helpful in addressing the potential synergies and trade-offs in the nexus. Convectional models and AI-based models’ development is of a big challenge, and a big question is how nexus and climate change interact and are quantified. In providing important strategies for the SDGs, the integrated models and managements for developing countries is enhanced. Climate change on the WEF is another critical aspect of high importance on resource availability, distribution, and interconnection to the WEF. How does climate change affect the nexus? What are the impacts of climate change to the nexus? Which agent of change needs to be implemented in WEF NEXUS? Is there political good will in the addressing climate change? What are the governance and policy coordination in place? These fundamental aspects can be addressed based on smart climate-resilient and efficient climate change adaptation, international commitment, corporation and stewardship, new and refurbished green infrastructure projects, green funding, reward and awarding the environmental champions, and payment for ecosystem services (Hassan et al. 2018). The methodological challenge, supports, and opportunities that are associated with robust quantification of the WEF nexus are indicated in Fig. 6 (Chang et al. 2016):

Analytics Framework The nexus provides a set of guidelines that aims in creating a great and equal level playing field for all sectors while achieving the aims of the SDGs that are multilevel approach and cross-sectoral to climate change. This comprises of six categories (Hoff et al. 2019): • Nexus framing creates specific understanding on key issues from that which explores the interlinkages between the different sectors and resources.

Fig. 6 Methodological challenge, supports, and opportunities that are associated with robust quantification of the WEF nexus

1070 A. N. Matheri et al.

53

Smart Climate Resilient and Efficient Integrated Waste to Clean Energy. . .

1071

• Nexus opportunities create a category on how to identify a new approach and adding values in context by improving cross resources productivity, reducing resources and environmental degradation, reducing human insecurities/unemployment/poverty, and increasing climate resilience. • Technical and economic nexus (nexus savings) assesses possible potential benefits from implementation of nexus approaches through multifunctioning production systems, cross resources, and cross-sector recycling. • Stakeholders’ involvement specifies different types and levels of stakeholders involved in the nexus, e.g., private-public sectors and civil society in overseeing the implementations. • Conditions’ framework addresses factors such as policies, technical solution, scalability, initialization, bridging mechanisms, integration of SDGs and NDGs, and innovations (start-ups, incubation, and entrepreneurship). • Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) serves as an indicator for the required data for implementation of the nexus. This is because it is dynamic objectives, composition of stakeholders, and processes. The overall methodology of the WEF nexus management approach is performed in three steps (see Fig. 7): (1) overview characterization (identifying and quantifying the connectivity between nexuses), (2) integrated models and analysis (climate-landenergy-water) of the nexus system, and (3) performing future management scenarios to help policy and decision-making (Tashtoush et al. 2012). The nexus framework is seconded by the holistic resources planning showed in Fig. 8 (Kulat et al. 2019).

Fig. 7 Water-energy-food nexus analytics framework

1072

A. N. Matheri et al.

Nexus Securities and Environmental Protection Climate change intensifies high competition and trade-offs between the WEF resources. The potential impact of the climate change is manifested by rise in temperature, more energy demand, and more water demand. Urbanization and population increase (industrialization) account for the 75% of the energy consumption and emission of the 75% of the greenhouse gases (GHGs). This creates high opportunities for the decentralization, decarbonization, and digitalization systems that improve the resource efficiency and implementation of the nexus approached. Suitable adaptation of the climate change demands efficient use of water, energy, and food resources to fight against vulnerability. Figure 9 illustrates the conceptual

Fig. 8 Holistic water-energy-food nexus resources planning Fig. 9 Conceptual framework of the water-foodenergy nexus and climate change integration

53

Smart Climate Resilient and Efficient Integrated Waste to Clean Energy. . .

1073

diagram of the WEF nexus with link between the WEF and climate change integration (Tashtoush et al. 2012). The global emission of carbon dioxide has increased with almost 50% since 1990. The SDGs and NDGs cannot be achieved without addressing the climate emergence (SDGs, UN 2019). The region that is vulnerable to climate change encourages to adapt measures that are implementable and have surety of the WEF security. Enhancing efficiency of small-scale water supply systems and consolidated small services helps reduce vulnerability to climate change of the systems (policy initiative to adapt the climate change in water sector); collaboration in data collection and analysis to mitigation of climate change are key to sustainability of the WEF nexus. Adaptation of the climate change can be improved by building ecological networks that connect ecological to local governments, thus improving decision-making. Spatial equilibrium models seek to optimize resource allocation in various scales, thus providing realistic estimates of the value and into accounting alternative use of the disrupting technology. WEF nexus needs to be integrated to a smart climate resilient with inclusion of the governance and stakeholders. This serves as a comprehensive tool in decision-making toward sustainable resources in climate change (Volk 2014; Daher and Mohtar 2015). Recognition of spatial and sector interdependencies should inform policies, investment, and institutions for enhancing WEF security and climate change (Conway et al. 2015).

Policy and Governance (Coordination and Collaboration) for Climate Change Climate gas (GHG) emissions and climate risks in countries are not only city government’s concerns but also rural government oversight concerns (climate governance). The drivers, consequences, and dynamics of climate change cut across jurisdictional boundaries that require collaboration and coordination of governance across nongovernment and government sectors. Climate change governance is within broader political and social-economic context negotiable with Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC (Romero-Lankao et al. 2018). Strategies, policies, and plans provide guidelines and framework for practical coordination and collaboration on CLEWS. Overarching climate change policies integrate the practical collaboration and giving timeline to the policies and their inclusion of climate changes and nexus. Persistence of these strategies recognized a gap in governance (policies and planning). The emphases on a formal model of contract may disincentivize regular collaboration and not only the barrier to cross-sector collaboration and coordination but budge and financial agreements. The issues of the regional security (power imbalance) are a sector interest overriding the climate change agenda. The integrations of the national-level strategies, planning, policies, and age and gender inclusion encourage action on climate change (Pardoe et al. 2018). Increase policy synergies among transformative investments that require a holistic approach with process innovation that fueled a higher level of nonhuman and human capital. Formation of the transboundary with globalized decision-makers

1074

A. N. Matheri et al.

Fig. 10 Three fundamentals of planning

creates integration and enhances benefits through the climate-land and WEF nexus and equitable distribution. Creation and promotion of the gender equality environment enhances the nexus investments and implementations with enhanced family wealth that widens skills and knowledge (Mishra et al. 2019; RES4 Africa Foundation 2018). Collaborative, informed decision-making and equitable needs in transformation response of the climate change as well as fundamentals of the legal framework, leadership, land-use regime, land ownership, energy use, food production and distribution, public participation, information sharing, financial resources, growth, and ethos shape the climate change governance (Romero-Lankao et al. 2018). The three fundamentals of planning are presented in Fig. 9. It consists of the development conflict, resources, and property with three broad political/social institutions to manage environmental justice, regulation, environmental economics, and social welfare (Campbell 2013; Fig. 10). Despite deficiency, state, government, provinces, municipalities, counties, and nongovernmental and governmental action on addressing climate change the jurisdiction over many dimensions of adaptation and mitigations reside on financial and technical capability and policies that hold greatest potential to create legitimate and effective response strategies (Romero-Lankao et al. 2018).

Equity, Climate Change, and Environmental Justice Major cities are characterized by socioeconomics of different diversifications that are often accompanied with the stratification on gender, race, professional classes, cultures, age, ethnicity, and ability. This gives rise to endure climate stresses and

53

Smart Climate Resilient and Efficient Integrated Waste to Clean Energy. . .

1075

minimize climate risks. Lower social class, disadvantages in the community, hazard prone areas, ethnics, and racial minorities increase their susceptibility to the impact of climate change and reduce their capacity to adapt (Rosenzweig et al. 2015). Climate change vulnerability is driven by (1) resource influence by social characteristics, (2) ineffective planning and absence of community engagement due to governance and institutional weaknesses, (3) failure of the urban developers in providing accessibility to critical infrastructures and services, and (4) occupational health that leads to physical exposure at different levels. As the climate event such as drought in prone areas becomes more frequent and intense, this can increase the scale and depth of poverty overall. Gender inequality is pervasive and cuts across to disability, income, and literacy that in turn contribute to differential consequences of climate change. Mobilization of the resources increases environmental justice, and equity of climate change requires participation of the locals, international bodies in involvement of the nontraditional resources, finance civil society, public-private sector, monitoring and evaluation, and principles of transparency (Reckien et al. 2018). Figure 11 indicates the interconnected benefits and dimensions of inclusive climate action.

Fig. 11 Interconnected benefits and dimensions of inclusive climate action (Reckien et al. 2018)

1076

A. N. Matheri et al.

The primary goal in achieving environmental justice and equity in climate change is for the urban climate policies to foster human beings, economic and sustainable social development, social capital, access to land, security tenure, risk reduction infrastructure, access to CLEWS; integrate community and stakeholders, in decision-making; adjust climate change policies by ensuring resilience and equity goals; and develop a periodic monitoring and evaluation using fair indicators and progress measurement, resilience objective and feasibility, equitable resources, budgetary transparency, resource allocation scheme, and equitable resilience outcomes (Rosenzweig et al. 2015; Reckien et al. 2018).

Conclusion and Recommendations The CLEWS nexus is a concept of integration that accesses the resources such as water, food, and energy that are inextricably dependent and linked to one another and have a strong interaction with the environment and climate change. The interlinkages exist between nexuses that manifest in providing exploring opportunities that explore the disruption, policies, and alternatives for increasing the use of resources and sustainable resources management and minimizing the environmental impacts. The nexus and climate resilience offer great opportunities that integrate and manage the disruptive technology in a more sustainable manner by promoting local and regional cooperation and peace; harmonizing the policies, legislation, and strategies; creating proper resource coordination; improving resilience; and reducing vulnerability to attainment of the region integration in-line with SDGs. The impact of the climate-related extreme on land includes the disruption of the water-energyfood production and supply chain, alteration of the ecosystems, morbidity and mortality, and damages of the infrastructure, settlements, and human health. Advanced knowledge and optimization of the mitigation and adaptation with coordination of the sustainable land use and management across all sectors are required to achieve better livelihood, food security, energy security, and water security improve human health, biodiversity, quality of the local environment, and equitable sustainable development. Climate action future policy in developing countries is likely to be promoted by climate technology transfer and public-private cooperation (cross-sector partnership) through the technology mechanism of the water-energyfood nexus and inclusion of the gender. Building partnership mechanisms can reduce cost and increase local clean development mechanisms (CDM). Agenda 2030 sustainable development, Paris agreement, and national development policies are alignments to advance climate-resilient development and green deal that enhance stainable future. Recommendations arising include: 1. Great investments into nexus with strong collaboration of the multidisciplinary. 2. Governments should work together to achieve green circular economy with smart and intelligent novel solutions. 3. SDGs 17 need to be widely explored and policies clarified.

53

Smart Climate Resilient and Efficient Integrated Waste to Clean Energy. . .

1077

4. Development of new tools to investigate the interconnection of the WEF nexus with land and climate change. 5. Research and development should be enhanced before decision-makings on sustainability and efficiency. 6. Better understanding is required of the trade-offs between nexus and ecosystems. 7. It is important to take action of the spatial reach of intersectoral interdependencies (pricing, control instruments, and command) and effects in the multilevel governance systems to ensure appropriate participation by affected sectors and stakeholders. 8. Data shortages should be reduced by encouraging open-source digitalized systems with capacity building support on sustainable monitoring and data management systems. 9. Introduction and enhancement of the existing free trade movement on the borders will enhance reaching the SGDs more than expected. 10. Use of the artificial intelligence solutions (nexus and climate change digitalization) on WEF and land and climate change applicability in decision support management, i.e., machine/deep learning, blockchain, remote sensing, IoT, big data, etc. 11. Introduction of the climate change coding (code for climate change and nexus) will enhance early data analytics and action (action toward digitalization, digital earth). 12. Enhanced, efficiency and accessibility of the green climate funding will enable preparation, implementation, and strategic workstreams of national determined contributors and adaptation-related elements of the Paris Agreement. The mechanism will minimize and address loss and damages associated with climate change impacts of developing countries’ parties. Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the South Africa Water Research Commission (WRC), Project No. K5/2563 for funding; University of Johannesburg (UJ); Enel Foundation; European Union Institute; Process, Energy, Environmental Technology Station (PEETS) funded by Technology Innovation Agency (TIA) through the Department of Science and Technology (DST); SANEDI; City of Johannesburg (CoJ); Gladtech International, Kenya; South Africa’s wastewater treatment plants; Innovation Hub; and water utilities, managements, and staffs for capacity building and knowledge transfer.

References Albrecht TR, Crootof A, Scott CA (2018) The water-energy-food Nexus: a systematic review of methods for nexus assessment. Environ Res Lett 13(4):043002 Birol F (2012) World energy outlook 2012. International Energy Agency, Paris, p 633 Bizikova L, Roy D, Swanson D, Venema HD, McCandless M (2013) The water-energy-food security nexus: towards a practical planning and decision-support framework for landscape investment and risk management. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg C40 (2020) https://www.c40.org/cities. Accessed June 2020

1078

A. N. Matheri et al.

Campbell SD (2013) Sustainable development and social justice: conflicting urgencies and the search for common ground in urban and regional planning. Mich J Sustain 1 Carter S, Gulati M (2014) Climate change, the food energy water Nexus and food security in South Africa. Understanding the Food Energy Water Nexus, WWF-SA Chang Y, Li G, Yao Y, Zhang L, Yu C (2016) Quantifying the water-energy-food nexus: current status and trends. Energies 9(2):65 Chirisa I, Bandauko E (2015) African cities and the water-food-climate-energy nexus: an agenda for sustainability and resilience at a local level. In: Urban forum 26(4):391–404. Springer, Netherlands Conway D, Van Garderen EA, Deryng D, Dorling S, Krueger T, Landman W, Lankford B, Lebek K, Osborn T, Ringler C (2015) Climate and southern Africa’s water–energy–food nexus. Nat Clim Chang 5(9):837–846 COP25 (2019a) Enhanced Lima work programme on gender and its gender action plan. https:// unfccc.int/resource/cop25/cop25_auv_13gender.pdf. Accessed June 2020 COP25 (2019b) Enhancing climate technology development and transfer through the technology mechanism. https://unfccc.int/resource/cop25/cop25_auv_9_TEC_CTCN.pdf. Accessed June 2020 Daher BT, Mohtar RH (2015) Water–energy–food (WEF) Nexus tool 2.0: guiding integrative resource planning and decision-making. Water Int 40(5–6):748–771 Ferroukhi R, Nagpal D, Lopez-Peña A, Hodges T, Mohtar RH, Daher BT, Mohtar S, Keulertz M (2015) Renewable energy in the water, energy & food nexus. IRENA, Abu Dhabi Forsyth T (2005) Enhancing climate technology transfer through greater public–private cooperation: lessons from Thailand and the Philippines. In: Natural resources forum. Wiley Online Library Forsyth T (2007) Promoting the “development dividend” of climate technology transfer: can crosssector partnerships help? World Dev 35(10):1684–1698 Hassan TA, Muhammad K, Ian M, Lars R, Justyna S (2018) The water-energy-food security Nexus; a review on Nexus literature and ongoing Nexus initiatives and policy-makers. Nexus Regional Dialogue Programme (NRD) Hoff H, Alrahaife SF, El Hajj R, Lohr K, Mengoub FE, Farajalla N, Fritzsche K, Jobbins G, Özerol G, Schultz R (2019) A Nexus approach for the MENA region – from concept to knowledge to action. Front Environ Sci 7:48 Howells M, Hermann S, Welsch M, Bazilian M, Segerström R, Alfstad T, Gielen D, Rogner H, Fischer G, Van Velthuizen H (2013) Integrated analysis of climate change, land-use, energy and water strategies. Nat Clim Chang 3(7):621–626 Jia G, Shevliakova E, Artaxo P, De Noblet-Ducoudré N, Houghton R, House R, Kitajima K, Lennard C, Popp A, Sirin A, Sukumar R, Verchot L (2019) Land–climate interactions. In: Climate change and land. IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems Kulat MI, Mohtar RH, Olivera F (2019) Holistic water-energy-food Nexus for guiding water resources planning: Matagorda County, Texas case. Front Environ Sci 7:3 Laspidou CS, Kofinas DT, Mellios NK, Witmer M (2018) Modelling the water-energy-food-land use-climate Nexus: the Nexus tree approach. In: Multidisciplinary digital publishing institute proceedings Markantonis V, Arnaud R, Karabulut A, El Hajj R, Altinbilek D, Awad I, Brugemann A, Vangelis C, Mysiak J, Lamaddalena N (2019) Can the implementation of the water-energy-food Nexus support economic growth in the Mediterranean region? The current status and the way forward. Front Environ Sci 7:84 Matheri AN (2016) Mathematical modelling for biogas production. University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg Matheri AN (2020) Mathematical modelling of biological wastewater treatment and bioenergy production processes. PhD Thesis, Chemical Engineering, University of Johannesburg

53

Smart Climate Resilient and Efficient Integrated Waste to Clean Energy. . .

1079

Matheri AN, Ntuli F, Ngila JC, Seodigeng T, Zvinowanda C, Njenga CK (2018a) Quantitative characterization of carbonaceous and lignocellulosic biomass for anaerobic digestion. Renew Sust Energ Rev 92:9–16 Matheri AN, Mbohwa C, Ntuli F, Belaid M, Seodigeng T, Ngila JC, Njenga CK (2018b) Waste to energy bio-digester selection and design model for the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Renew Sust Energ Rev 82:1113–1121 Matheri AN, Eloko NS, Ntuli F, Ngila JC (2020) Influence of pyrolyzed sludge use as an adsorbent in removal of selected trace metals from wastewater treatment. Case Stud Chem Environ Eng Mishra A, Appadurai AN, Choudhury D, Regmi BR, Kelkar U, Alam M, Chaudhary P, Mu SS, Ahmed AU, Lotia H (2019) Adaptation to climate change in the Hindu Kush Himalaya: stronger action urgently needed. In: The Hindu Kush Himalaya assessment. Springer, Cham, pp 457–490 Newell JP, Goldstein B, Foster A (2019) A 40-year review of food–energy–water nexus literature and its application to the urban scale. Environ Res Lett 14(7):073003 Nhamo L, Ndlela B, Nhemachena C, Mabhaudhi T, Mpandeli S, Matchaya G (2018) The waterenergy-food nexus: climate risks and opportunities in southern Africa. Water 10(5):567 Pardoe J, Conway D, Namaganda E, Vincent K, Dougill AJ, Kashaigili JJ (2018) Climate change and the water–energy–food nexus: insights from policy and practice in Tanzania. Clim Pol 18 (7):863–877 Reckien D, Lwasa S, Satterthwaite D, McEvoy D, Creutzig F, Montgomery M, Schensul D, Balk D, Khan I (2018) Equity, environmental justice, and urban climate change: climate change and cities: second assessment report of the urban climate change research network. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 173–224 Republic of South Africa ZA (2019) Carbon tax act 15 of 2019. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/ files/gcis_document/201905/4248323-5act15of2019carbontaxact.pdf. Accessed June 2020 RES4 Africa Foundation (2018) Applying the water-energy-food nexus approach to catalyse transformational change in Africa. RES4Africa Foundation Romero-Lankao P, Burch S, Hughes S, Auty K, Aylett A, Krellenberg K, Nakano R, Simon D, Ziervogel G (2018) Governance and policy; climate change and cities: second assessment report of the urban climate change research network. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 585– 606 Rosenzweig C, Solecki W, Romero-Lankao P, Mehrotra S, Dhakal S, Ali Ibrahim S (2015) The urban climate change research network (UCCRN) second assessment report on climate change and cities (ARC3–2), and the UCCRN hubs. Cambridge University Press, New York Scott CA, Kurian M, Wescoat JL (2015) The water-energy-food nexus: enhancing adaptive capacity to complex global challenges. In: Governing the nexus. Springer, pp 15–38 Scott CA, Albrecht TR, De Grenade R, Zuniga-Teran A, Varady RG, Thapa B (2018) Water security and the pursuit of food, energy, and earth systems resilience. Water Int 43(8):1055–1074 SDGs, UN (2019) Goal 13: take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. https:// www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change/. Accessed June 2020 Seeliger L, De Clercq WP, Hoffmann W, Cullis JDS, Horn AM, De Witt M (2018) Applying the water-energy-food nexus to farm profitability in the middle Breede catchment, South Africa. S Afr J Sci 114(11–12):1–10 Simpson GB, Jewitt GPW (2019) The development of the water-energy-food nexus as a framework for achieving resource security: a review. Front Environ Sci 7:8 Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner M, Tignor SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (2013) Summary for policymakers. Climate change, the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York. IPCC-XXVI/Doc.4 Tashtoush FM, Al-Zubari WK, Shah A (2012) A review of the water–energy–food nexus measurement and management approach. Int J Energy Water Resour 3:1–14 UN Water (2013) What is water security. Infographic, 8 United Nation (UN) (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development resolution adopted by the general assembly. A/RES/70/1

1080

A. N. Matheri et al.

United Nation (UN) (2020) Report of the secretary-general on the 2019 climate action summit and the way forward in 2020. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange. Accessed June 2020 Volk M (2014) Ecosystem services and river basin models: international conference. In: “Sustainability in the Water-Energy-Food Nexus” C03 Special Session: Ecosystems and their Services in the Nexus, May 19–20, 2014. Bonn Welsch M, Hermann S, Howells M, Rogner HH, Young C, Ramma I, Bazilian M, Fischer G, Alfstad T, Gielen D (2014) Adding value with CLEWS–modelling the energy system and its interdependencies for Mauritius. Appl Energy 113:1434–1445 World Bank Group (WBG) (2016) Southern Africa energy-water nexus. Report no: ACS19178, World Bank

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Agricultural Systems and Climate Change Effects in Sub- Saharan Africa

54

Winnie Ntinyari and Joseph P. Gweyi-Onyango

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Approach Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gases Emissions and Mitigation of Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adopting Improved Nutrient Management in the Agricultural Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proper Management of Residue and Adoption of Appropriate Tillage Methods . . . . . . . . . Introduction of Carbon-Sequestrating Grass Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Livestock and Manure Management Strategies in SSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adopting Bioenergy as GHG Emission Reduction Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reduction of GHG Through Genetic Selection of Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adopting to Isotopic Tracers in the Agricultural Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Management of Emissions in Rice by Adoption of Efficient Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development of Flexible Technology-Forcing Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minimizing Enteric Fermentation and Food Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of Biochar to Minimize GHG Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compositing of Solid Manure Before Applying to Crop Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integrated Farming Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barriers to Mitigation GHG Emission and Climate Change in Sub-Saharan Africa . . . . . . Need for More Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1082 1084 1084 1084 1086 1087 1088 1092 1094 1094 1095 1096 1097 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1102

This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. W. Ntinyari (*) · J. P. Gweyi-Onyango Department of Agricultural Science and Technology, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_43

1081

1082

W. Ntinyari and J. P. Gweyi-Onyango

Abstract

Climate change has been viewed to result from anthropogenic human activities that have significantly altered the Nitrogen (N) cycle and carbon cycles, increasing the risks of global warming and pollution. A key cause of global warming is the increase in greenhouse gas emissions including methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon among others. The context of this chapter is based on a comprehensive desktop review on published scientific papers on climate change, greenhouse emissions, agricultural fertilizer use, modeling and projections of greenhouse gases emissions. Interestingly, sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has the least emissions of the greenhouses gases accounting for only 7% of the total world’s emissions, implying that there is overall very little contribution yet it has the highest regional burden concerning climate change impacts. However, the values could be extremely higher than this due to lack of proper estimation and measurement tools in the region and therefore, caution needs to be taken early enough to avoid taking the trend currently experienced in developed nations. In SSA, agricultural production is the leading sector in emissions of N compound to the atmosphere followed by energy and transportation. The greatest challenge lies in the management of the two systems to ensure sufficiency in food production using more bioenergy hence less pollution. Integrating livestock and cropping systems is one strategy that can reduce methane emissions. Additionally, developing fertilizer use policy to improve management of fertilizer and organic manure have been potentially considered as effective in reducing the effects of agriculture activities on climate change and hence the main focus of the current chapter. Keywords

Modeling · Pollution · Environment · Mitigation · Nitrous oxide · Carbon dioxide · Methane

Introduction Globally, agriculture is the main contributor to greenhouse gases emissions (GHG) that is estimated to be between 10% and 20% of the total anthropogenic GHG emissions (Allen et al. 2020). From a baseline scenario, it is projected that GHG emissions from agriculture will be 1.7 gigatonnes by 2050. The GHG concentration especially CO2 has increased by 40% since preindustrial times due to fossil fuels burning and also land-use changes. Current arable land cultivation practices have raised a great concern on the increase of GHG to the atmosphere. In sub-Saharan Africa, the effects are quite crucial but diverse as it has been associated with the variations of the season (rainy and dry) (Awazi and Tchamba 2019). As a result, this has significantly impacted the level of productivity, leading to food insecurity in this region. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency in 2010, the agricultural sector is the leading source of global GHG and accounts for 53% of carbon dioxide CO2 emissions (Ronaghi et al. 2018). The distribution of CO2 emissions is

54

Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Agricultural Systems and Climate Change. . .

1083

Fig. 1 Showing contribution of agriculture to GHG emission in global perspective. (Adapted from Malaka 2017)

globally spread as shown in Fig. 1, with most of sub-Saharan African countries emitting in the ranges of 0–75 MtCO2e. The main four sources of emissions from the agricultural sector include cropland soil management, rice cultivation, ruminant livestock enteric fermentation, and livestock manure management (Beach et al. 2015). According to Tongwane and Moeletsi (2018), half of Africa’s total agricultural emissions were from enteric fermentation in 214 which signifies how great this source is. The GHG emissions in sub-Saharan Africa are estimated using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidelines in various subsystems of agriculture including crop production, animal manures, and methane emissions from livestock. The main GHG fluxes from agricultural land include nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4). The emissions of these gases (CH4) and (N2O) in agricultural land have increased by 17% from 1990 to 2005 globally (Popp et al. 2010). It is also anticipated that the GHG emissions will increase soon due to modern land-use changes that the sub-Saharan Africa region has adopted (Popp et al. 2010). Although the fluxes are anticipated to be high, there are various uncertainties in the estimates provided due to large insufficient temporal and spatial representation of emissions from agricultural soils (Mwanake et al. 2019). In SSA, these changes have significantly impacted the climatic patterns leading to more extended droughts and excessive rainfall that does not support agricultural productivity at the field level. Furthermore, organic soils are important sources of GHG emissions with about 35 thousand Giga grams of CO2 as of 2010 demonstrated in SSA (Malaka 2017). Though there is no clear quantification data, there no doubt that there are some emissions from due to lack of management of crop residues since most of the agricultural waste in the land is openly burned or left free for livestock grazing. The burning of savannas and grassland fires that is common with the sub-Saharan African region is another greater contributors to GHG emissions (Malaka 2017). Due to this huge contribution of GHG emissions to the ecosystems, agriculture becomes an integral part that SSA and the whole globe should focus on to stabilize the

1084

W. Ntinyari and J. P. Gweyi-Onyango

emissions and save the current and future generations from the devastating effects of climate change. Therefore, this chapter will explore several available options and strategies that have the potential of mitigating GHG emissions from agriculture and minimize the impact of climate change.

The Approach Used To acquire information of this chapter, we used the Google Scholar search engine to identify relevant peer-reviewed research articles published in high impact journals. A total of 53 articles were used that ranged from experimental, reviews, and policy papers. Keywords used in Google Scholar search engine were sub-Saharan Africa, GHG, emissions, management of emissions from the agriculture sector, climate change, agricultural sectors, management, agricultural systems, modeling, emissions, and global warming. The chapter focused broadly on various methods that have been suggested by the global panel, policies, and guidelines of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change.

Key Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gases Emissions and Mitigation of Climate Change Adopting Improved Nutrient Management in the Agricultural Lands In sub-Saharan Africa, there is a problem of declining nutrient levels in cultivatable land which is due to poor nutrient management among the farmers. Most of the farmers lack the know-how on efficient use of the available fertilizers with minimal N loss but with improved crop yield (Galloway et al. 2003). To achieve this, farmers should be enlightened through policies and extension on various ways of fertilizer use that minimize the extent of nutrient loss to the environment that contribute to emissions of gases such as nitrous oxide (Huang et al. 2019). Improvement of nutrient use efficiency has a high potential of minimizing the N2O emissions from cropland that are generally generated by the soil microbes from the surplus of N and indirect emissions from carbon dioxide from fertilizer companies (Galloway et al. 2003). Some of the recommended practices that farmers can adopt lie in the 4 R principle, which entails the use of the right source (fertilizer with higher efficiency), right rate, right timing, and right placement as expounded by Cassman et al. (2003). The proper placements of these fertilizers lead to fewer losses since there is a concomitant improvement in the plant uptake through making nutrients more accessible by the roots hence restricting available pathways for emissions. An important viable option for reducing losses is by reducing nitrification. Use of nitrification inhibitors for the case of nitrogen use is a promising strategy that has the huge potential of slowing the release processes that contribute to the formation of N2O emissions (Coskun et al. 2017). Use of improved crop varieties with higher N uptake and use efficiencies will lead to a reduction in the nutrient loss since such crop

54

Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Agricultural Systems and Climate Change. . .

1085

idiotypes fully utilize the applied and available nutrient for use hence less losses in the form of GHG emissions (Sanz-Cobena et al. 2017). Improved nutrient management is considered a better and viable strategy to overcome the challenges associated with the impacts of climate change in crop and food insecurities. According to García-Marco et al. (2016), adopting improved agronomic practices can lead to higher yields and promote the generation of more carbon that can be used to increase the soil carbon storage hence fewer losses to the environment. Some of the practices suggested by García-Marco et al. (2016) are extending crop rotations, use of improved varieties as mentioned earlier in this text, and using mixed cropping with perennial crops that will result to more carbon storage underground. Emissions of GHG can also be reduced through practicing intensive cropping systems that minimize overreliance of pesticides and other agricultural inputs and consequently reduce the extent of emissions to the environment (Hoekman and Broch 2018). Besides, farmers/growers can use the cover crops that provide additional carbon to the soil and may help in extracting the available unused N by the next crops hence resulting to reduction of N2O emissions (Oberthür et al. 2019). Use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) guidance and variable rate technology are useful in applying inputs and hence allowing farmers to optimize nutrients with consequent less GHG emissions. In addition, the use of slow-release fertilizers such as prilled urea can be an efficient way of reducing N2O emissions from cropland. Moreover, the use of biofertilizer has been advocated as an alternative to the more soluble and more reactive N sources as documented by excellent reviews by Ntinyari and Gweyi-Onyango (2018). Locally available nitrification inhibitors can also be useful in reducing the amount GHG from applied fertilizers to cropping systems. Soil pH management is also critical towards the management of N2O emissions from the soil. Furthermore, the influence of pH on N2O emissions more profound in soils that have high nitrate levels. According to the existing literature, pH contributes between 3 and 10 folds in incidences denitrification (Šimek and Cooper 2002). However, the good news is that use of liming in management of pH is something feasible among many farmers within sub-Saharan Africa if given fertilizer subsidies. Liming is a good option since is technically feasible and is affordable at a small scale levels. Nutrient use models are other useful tools in quantifying emissions from respective farms through the nutrient budget methods. These tools are key in estimating farm emissions by considering key components of nutrients inputs and nutrient outputs in given farms. In this case, it can be used to make a rough estimate of the amount of inputs required for specific crops to help in the reduction of emissions. Another option is the use and application of the soil systems budgets which record all the nutrient transformation related to emissions, for example, leaching, denitrification, and ammonia volatilization. This points to the fact that modeling tools are essential in linking the soil nutrients as well as a proxy resource for nutrient management and economic benefits to farmers. Organic soils also need to be properly managed as they have the highest accumulation of carbon over the years. Avoiding row crops and tubers and deep ploughing using heavy machinery has been pointed out as one of the strategies that reduce the emissions of N2O and CO2 (Smith et al. 2008). In sub-Saharan

1086

W. Ntinyari and J. P. Gweyi-Onyango

Africa, a large fraction of the arable land has been degraded due to soil erosion, loss of organic matter, acidification, and other processes. These have to a greater extent affected the potential of the soil in holding/storing of carbon (Smith et al. 2008). Therefore, there is need for reclaiming land by application of organic substrates like manures, biosolids, reducing tillage, and leaving crop residues in the soils. With these practices in the farm, high nitrogen use efficiency is anticipated and this will minimize the emissions of N2O.

Proper Management of Residue and Adoption of Appropriate Tillage Methods Advancing methods of weed control and machinery used in farming systems is another available way of reducing N2O emissions from the soils. This is explained by the fact that soil disturbances tend to stimulate the soil carbon loss through enhanced erosion that result in soil carbon loss. However, the tillage method is dependent on the climatic conditions of the soils, considering that some reduced tillage options may have great effects of N2O emissions from cropland (Feng et al. 2018). In tillage systems where growers/farmers retain crop residues, they tend to increase the soil carb since these residues act as precursors of soil organic matter which is a main store of carbon in soils. Mostly in the case where paddy crop growing is practiced, it has been found that no-tillage has a significant decrease in methane CH4 emissions. Furthermore, recycling of crop residues has been reported to be of help in preventing the release and/or deposition of aerosols and GHGs that are generated during burning (Feng et al. 2018). Biomass burning is always thought to be a key contributory factor to climate change since it releases methane in notable amounts. This is a common practice in Kano plains in Western Kenya under rice production. This implies that there is a need to manage fire concerning biomass burning in agricultural fields. Reducing biomass burning will also go a long way in minimizing the emissions of hydrocarbons and reactive nitrogen emissions that react to form tropospheric ozone (Leng et al. 2019). This is explained by the fact that smoke composes of aerosols which can have either warming or cooling effects of the atmosphere, hence directly or indirectly contributing to climate change. In this light, reducing the frequency of or the intensity of fires will contribute to landscape carbon density in soil and biomass. To minimize the emissions, mitigation of the radiant forcing is expected to entail fire suppression strategies such as reducing fuel load through vegetation management and also burning of biomass at the time of year when CH4 and N2O are less emitted (Leng et al. 2019). Crop rotation is advocated since it has given beneficial outcome through improving the quality of soils, with reported overall increment of as much 50% in terms of organic carbon into soils (Paustian et al. 2019). This practice creates resilience in cropping systems and helps the world to be able to combat climate change effects and hence can be a better option for SSA, where this is practiced already in noticeable scale. Through this approach, it is possible to sequester carbon for long-term storage of the atmospheric carbon. In this regard, this alternative offers the best solution to counter the greenhouse gases emissions in

54

Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Agricultural Systems and Climate Change. . .

1087

the ecosystem. In addition, more yields are obtained from the cropping systems, which helps reduce the direct impacts of climate-related contributions to food insecurity. In soil management, there is also a need to bring in low-cost inhibitors that regulate nitrogen processes in the soils. However, this requires knowledge on the sources of the GHG using various soil microbial process that can help to bring mitigation of the same on board. Diversifying on the crop rotations will also provide another strategy to minimize GHG emissions from agriculture in SSA. Diversification of crops helps in improving the productivity in the different and diverse agro-ecosystems in SSA and also lower the carbon footprint. The choice of these crops can be guided depending on the ecological requirements in various growing zones within the region. Another option in minimizing emissions is through intensifying rotations in cropping systems through fallowing. Fallowing promotes nitrogen mineralization hence increasing available nitrogen for use by crops and minimize the amount of organic matter hence less carbon is stored in the soils. Most of the farmers prefer burning of various crop residues in their farms which contributes to climate change in various ways. It contributes to releases of GHGs like CH4 and also generates hydrocarbon and reactive nitrogen emissions that react to for tropospheric zones. Burning also destroys existing grass and also blackens the soil spoiling its quality and ability to sequester carbon. As a mitigation practice, farmers should rescue the frequency and the extent of fires for less CH4 and N2O emissions (Smith et al. 2008).

Introduction of Carbon-Sequestrating Grass Species Introduction of improved grasses that have a high level of production or with adaptations to C allocation to deeper roots has a great potential of increasing the soil carbon (Yang et al. 2019). For instance, using deep-rooted grasses in savannas has been associated with increased rates of carbon accrual hence less is emitted to the atmosphere. Cultivating of legumes into grazing lands has also been associated with the promotion of soil C storage and perhaps reduces N2O emissions (Garnett et al. 2017). Grasses also act as cover crops that have long-term potential for reducing GHG emissions through agriculture that comes from agricultural activities. The grasses have the potential of absorbing and retaining stored carbon in the soil. The roots and shoots of cover crops feed bacteria, fungi, and earthworms and other soil organisms that have a significant contribution to the soil carbon levels over time. In the land that is left fallow, there is a need to convert the lands to grassland to sequester more carbon and create a balance of the carbon in the soils for a longer period. The most beneficial aspects of grassland are that they can stay longer without ploughing hence reducing emissions of N2O from the soils. In grasslands, intensity grazing has an influence on the density of the grasses and allocation of carbon into the grass fields. It has been reported that carbon accrual on optimally grazed land has been often greater compared to ungrazed grasslands. Also, irrigation of grasslands has also high promotion of the soil carbon gains. Also alleviating deficiencies of nutrients in grassland through use of fertilizer or other organic amendments will promote carbon soil storage (Smith et al. 2008).

1088

W. Ntinyari and J. P. Gweyi-Onyango

Livestock and Manure Management Strategies in SSA Livestock, specifically ruminants such as cattle and sheep, are important sources of CH4 estimated to 18% of the global anthropogenic of this gas. In Table 1, there is a high chance of methane emissions that are more prevalent in the year 2000 compared with those likely to be there in the year 2030. These percentages represent a great share that needs to be mitigated using possible strategies that are available to the local farmers (Swamy and Bhattacharya 2006). According to the current statistics, the current population of livestock is anticipated to increase in 2030 based on the projections with sub-Saharan Africa, leading in the population as demonstrated in Fig. 2 (Herrero et al. 2008). This means that there is a need to come up with strategies for minimizing CH4 from livestock systems. Some of the mitigation practices that can be used to reduce CH4 emissions from livestock rearing include but not limited to improving the feeding practices. Feeding animals with more concentrates other than forages has been reported to reduce the rate of. CH4 for reducing. Other practices that can be used to minimize the level of CH4 emissions are adding oils to the diet, as this is key in improving pasture quality since it improved animal productivity that reduces the proportion of energy lost as CH4. A high intake of protein feeds is also associated with reduced N2O emissions to the environment. Another strategy of managing livestock methane emissions is the use of specific agents and dietary additives that can have the ability to suppress methanogenesis process. Some of the additives include Ionophores antibiotics that can minimize methane emissions in the livestock systems (Gibson 2002). Halogenated compounds inhibit methanogenic bacteria and their effects although they can have reduced feed intake. These have not yet been used extensively in SSA and have a huge potential of adopting. The bovine somatotropin (bST) and hormonal growth implants do not specifically suppress CH4 formation, but by improving animal performance they can reduce emissions per kilogram of animal product (Cerri 2010), which is also another viable option. Adoption of longer-term management changes and animal breeding will enhance reduction of methane output per kilogram of an animal. With improved animal production efficiency, there are reduced lifetime emissions (Wall et al. 2010). Supplements can also be used in reducing methane emission in the livestock. Some of the supplements include oils, fats, tannins, probiotics, and marine algae. It has been reported that methane abetment between 10% and 25% is possible when feeding ruminants dietary oils. Also, plant secondary compounds like condensed tannins have proved to reduce methane production by 13–16% through curbing the process of methanogens. Other available methane suppressers that are used in combating protozoal infections. Specialized proteins targeting methane-producing microbes will also constitute an effective alternative towards the management of emission from livestock. Moreover, plant saponins that occur naturally in many of the existing plant families have the potential to reduce methane and can be effective in the current measure towards minimizing the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere. Enteric methane emissions can be reduced through manipulation of the microbial communities in the

Systema Cattleb Livestock grazing Arid 1704.6 Humid 217.7 Temperate 175.1 Total 2097.4 Mixed Arid 2190.9 Humid 494.2 Temperate 1120.2 Total 3805.3 Other 451.0 Total methane 6353.7 from enteric fermentation Total methane 190.6 from manure Total methane 6544.4 emissions for African domestic ruminants

2000

290.5 14.6 28.5 333.6

166.3 38.9 56.4 261.7 41.9 637.1

19.1

656.2

211.8 24.6 9.1 245.4

164.2 71.9 36.6 272.8 49.0 567.3

17.0

584.3

123.6 179.5 772.8 136.3

7773.1

226.4 263.7

7.7

26.9

328.1 160.8 26.8 515.7 79.3 896.5

9369.9 923.4

272.9

4273.0 804.0 885.2 5962.2 614.6 9097.0

2187.4 266.2 261.1 29.4 71.6 5.8 2520.1 301.4

854.2

24.9

292.3 71.0 42.2 405.5 62.7 829.3

327.9 14.9 18.3 361.1

157.3 318.8 842.6 169.7

11147.5

324.7

377.7

11.0

4893.4 986.5 1035.8 587.8 954.2 2958.2 6883.4 977.1 756.7 203.5 10822.8 366.7

2781.5 305.4 95.7 3182.7

0.43

0.43

0.95 0.63 0.21 0.57 0.36 0.43

0.28 0.20 0.59 0.20

0.58

0.58

1.00 1.24 0.27 0.89 0.62 0.58

0.26 0.20 0.36 0.23

0.30

0.30

0.76 0.82 0.25 0.55 0.50 0.30

0.13 0.02 0.36 0.08

0.52 0.37 0.53 0.33 0.50 0.43

0.27 0.78 0.09 0.24

Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Agricultural Systems and Climate Change. . . (continued)

0.43 0.43

0.43 0.43

0.94 0.71 0.21 0.59 0.40 0.43

0.26 0.19 0.52 0.19

Differences 2000–2030 Methane/ Methane/ Methame Cattleb Goatsb Sheepb Totalb Cattlec Goatsc Sheepc Totalc km2c km2b km2c

2521.5 650.6 605.1 427.5 1213.2 1932.3 4339.8 733.2 541.9 135.3 7546.7 256.0

2206.9 256.9 201.2 2665.0

Goatsb Sheepb Totalb

2030

Table 1 Methane emissions by domestic ruminants in different livestock production systems in Africa 2000–2030. (Adapted from Novak and Fiorelli 2010)

54 1089

b

Methane from enteric fermentation In million kg c As a proportion of 2000 values

a

2030

6460.5 594.3 1065.2 190.2 956.7 32.6 614.6 79.3

620.2 85.9 60.6 62.7

7675.0 339.0 1341.2 493.1 1049.9 2407.1 756.7 203.5

0.66 0.50 0.26 0.36

0.58 0.97 0.29 0.62

0.36 0.60 0.29 0.50

0.62 0.56 0.26 0.40

0.56 0.63 0.51 0.50

Differences 2000–2030 Methane/ Methane/ Methame Cattleb Goatsb Sheepb Totalb Cattlec Goatsc Sheepc Totalc km2c km2b km2c

Systema Cattleb Goatsb Sheepb Totalb By environment Arid 3895.5 376.1 456.8 4728.4 217.6 Humid 711.9 96.5 96.5 861.9 302.9 Temperate 1295.3 45.7 84.9 1414.4 1592.4 Other 451.0 49.0 41.9 541.9 135.3

2000

Table 1 (continued)

1090 W. Ntinyari and J. P. Gweyi-Onyango

54

Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Agricultural Systems and Climate Change. . .

1091

Fig. 2 Showing spatial distribution of livestock in Africa in the year 2000 and projected for 2030 (Herrero et al. 2008)

stomach of ruminants. This can be done through injecting/administering specific vaccines, drugs, or supplements that contribute to the reduction of methane. Other methods inlcude; biological methods can be adopted to reduce the ability of the livestock to reduce methane production in domesticated animals. For instance, the virus that attacks microbes in the rumen of the ruminants can be used to ensure animals produce less GHG. Methanotrophs which are microbes can also be introduced in the animals to help in the breakdown of produced into other wastes. The bovine somatotropin and hormonal growth implants is also a possible option but it does not suppress methane formation but rather improved the general performance of animals hence minimizing the intensity of GHG. Manure management should be given priority as it is associated with significant amounts of N2O and CH4 during storage. However, the magnitude of the emissions varies depending on the structure. World over, there are no well-defined measures and policies of manure use and management since most of the grazing is done in open fields. For manure stored in lagoons or tanks, methane emissions can be minimized by covering or cooling of the sources. Other preliminary information has also suggested that covering manure heaps can significantly reduce N2O emissions (Dennehy et al. 2017). In addition, emissions from manure can be curtailed by altering feeding practices and also precision application when it comes to cropland. Methane digesters/anaerobic digester can also be used as an alternative strategy to the reduction of GHG although it is expensive to install. This is since maintaining anaerobic digester requires basic knowledge in wastewater and electrical generation hence high investment costs that can be managed by respective governments. Adopting anaerobic digestion offers an excellent strategy towards the reduction of the CH4 and CO2 to the ecosystem. The process offers natural existing bacteria that decompose organic matter resulting in biogas (Wang et al. 2017). In return, the biogas can be used to burn fuel and reduce emissions of GHG from fossils. Other practices that need to be put into consideration include:

1092

• • • •

W. Ntinyari and J. P. Gweyi-Onyango

Application placement (e.g., slurry injection) Application timing Application amounts (e.g., controlled rate systems) Export of manure (from the agricultural system)

GHG models can be developed at whole-farm level approaches to help in mitigation of various emissions specifically from daily farms. The advantage of using models in dairy farms is their ability to simulate calculations of CH4 and N2O emissions although the models may considerably vary but they give information on the current and future trends upon application of given measures. Following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change standard emission factors, it is confirmed that nitrogen deposited from urine and feces is converted to nitrous oxide twice the rate from the fertilizers used in farms. From the projections done for 2050, it is shown clearly that that in open pasture method, if no mitigation is put into practice, there is a possibility of having 25% increment on the emissions. In open field grazing strategy, the farmers can use chemical nitrification inhibitors as a way of preventing the transformation of the nitrogen is excreted in urine and feces to nitrous oxide. The other option is the introduction of biological nitrification, for example, use of the Brachiaria grass that has been reported to generate almost zero N2O emissions. Therefore, this a grass that the breeders can focus on to have the particular trait transferred in mostly grown grasses in pastures fields (Fig. 3). Use of methane digesters is another excellent successful strategy for consideration in SSA but will require government intervention especially in extending facilities from e large to small scale farmers to be able to encourage innovation. The respective governments should come into a collaboration to develop the most cost-effective technologies and this can be achieved through funded programs by innovators. In addition, there is a need to have programs that will enable early detection and remediation of leakages from digesters. The collected manure can also be used to make biogas which provides an additional source of renewable energy hence has higher chances of reducing GHG emissions. This is an economical method since it will save the farmers from using fossil fuels in cooking since they can generate power from their farms. It is also feasible to acidify slurry produced mostly in the zero-grazing sectors to enhance to reduce conversion and formation of methane.

Adopting Bioenergy as GHG Emission Reduction Strategy Crops and residues have high potential as sources of feedstocks for energy as a replacement of fossil fuels. Many of the materials that have been proposed for bioenergy role are grain, crop residue, cellulosic crops, and various tree species (Haberl et al. 2012). The advantage of these products is that they can be burned directly but later processed to generate fuel liquid. Although this process also produces CO2, it is associated with the original CO2 from the atmosphere for the process of photosynthesis hence displaces the CO2 that could be produced from fossils. The

54

Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Agricultural Systems and Climate Change. . .

1093

Fig. 3 Greenhouse gas and ammonia fluxes in the main compartments of a mixed crop-dairy system. (Adapted from Novak and Fiorelli 2010)

energy used in growing and processing the feedstock of bioenergy has a net benefit to the atmospheric CO2 (Eloka-Eboka et al. 2019). The existing interaction of an expanding bioenergy sector land use and other ecosystems services such as food production has not been exploited potentially; for instance, through assessment modeling, sub-Saharan Africa has been listed as one of the promising regions for bioenergy. It is estimated that in 2050, 65% of the expected agricultural energy emissions will arise from farm energy use. In this regard, there is a need to reduce the amount of farm energy used from fossil to nonfossil use. Mitigation on the use of diesel fuels by tractors and other heavy equipment will be an effective move but requires transitions to hydrogen power that comes from solar and wind power. Also, battery-powered equipment and synthetic carbon-based fields will provide an alternative strategy. Use of these kinds of renewable energy in farms where mechanization is highly practiced will help in mitigating 85% of the total emissions from the synthesis of nitrogen fertilizers. Considering bioenergy as an option of mitigating GHG and saving our planet from climate change impacts, there is a need to make major transitions that are essential in exploiting the great potential of this particular source of energy (Smith et al. 2008). Bioenergy or use of biofuels implies a decrease in the dependence on fossil fuels and chemicals. The energy supplied from the use of plant-based fuels has the potential of decreasing GHG flow to the atmospheres. The biofuels will enable GHG mitigation through three key factors that include lower and

1094

W. Ntinyari and J. P. Gweyi-Onyango

competitive prices compared to fossil energy sources, ease in their production since the plants are grown during the entire year, and ecological and economic benefits of biofuels due to their environmentally friendly nature. Through these strategies, it will be efficient in mitigation of climate change effects in sub-Saharan Africa, though this will take longer to be achieved compared to other considered options.

Reduction of GHG Through Genetic Selection of Animals Dairy is being one of the highest emitters of GHG to the atmosphere that requires critical strategies right from the selection of the best animals to reduce methane production. More focus should be put forward on the selection of cows that have less production of CH4 per unit according to Table 2. The impact of increasing genetic potential of the production stock is to increase the daily live weight gain of livestock for meat production or by nutrition hence leading to reduction of methane product per unity of the product. However, faster growth for slaughter implies that more feed will be needed to meet the required weight within a short time (de Haas et al. 2017). Therefore, this also means that the genetic selection has also to consider the type of grasses that can meet the requirements of such animals within the set time. A high growth genotype leads to low emissions hence providing a promising measure towards mitigation of the climate change as a result of concentration in the atmosphere (Martinez-Fernandez et al. 2018). In addition, the use of environmentally fit genotypes is fundamental to increasing efficiency of converting feed to beef. In an experiment conducted in a farm in Northern Territory, methane production was lower by 31% in per tonne of the weaned weight within a given time because of a genetic characteristic of animals that can be weaned early to reduce the total emissions in the livestock sector (Mottet et al. 2017).

Adopting to Isotopic Tracers in the Agricultural Field Stable isotopes that do not emit radiation such as nitrogen-15 and carbon 13 on small experimental fields are good options. This method allows then to analyze the efficiency of the crops to consume nitrogen and the accumulation of carbon in the soils. For instance, nitrogen-15 technique is widely used by scientist to track and advise farmers on the amount of chemical fertilizer/manure needed by the plants as one of the ways to reduce increased emissions to the ecosystems (Slaets et al. 2016). Nitrogen-15 isotopic techniques can also be used by scientist to identify the sources of nitrous oxide in production and this forms an important pathway of reducing the emission of the gas to the atmosphere. Therefore, this technique has the potential of measuring the impact of climate and provides a way of mitigation. Carbon-13 has also been used in the assessment of the soil quality by identifying the content of organic sources of carbon in the soil. This is also a crucial favor in promoting the optimal application of the agricultural practices hence reducing GHG emission. Stable isotope can also be essential in the generation of information on

54

Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Agricultural Systems and Climate Change. . .

1095

Table 2 Feeding strategy and genetic selection in the management of GHG emissions. (Adapted from Novak and Fiorelli 2010) Mitigation options for livestock management Feeding Adding linseed lipids to the strategy diet Increasing the proportion of concentrate in the diet

Genetic selection

Increasing the proportion of maize silage in the diet Introducing legumes into grazed grasslands Limiting excess N in the diet Selecting cows with low enteric CH4 production Selecting high-yielding cows

Herd characteristics

Reducing the replacement rate Reducing the number of milking cows

CH4 ↘?

N2O –

CO2 –

NH3 –

↘from animals ↗ from slurry? ↘ from animals ↘

↗ or ↘? (from slurrya) –

↗ (fossil energy + soil) –

↗ or ↘? (from slurrya) –

↗?

↘?

↗?

↗? ↘?

↘ –

– –

↘ –

↘ or ↗? ↘?

–

–

↘b or ↗? –

–

–

↘

↘

↘

↘

a

Depending on the N content of the concentrate compared to the roughage Results from Lovett et al. (2006) ↘: the mitigation option decrease the emissions ↗: the mitigation option increase the emissions “↘ or ↗”: both tendencies have been shown –: no information was given on this compound 0: studies have shown that this option had no significant effect on this compound. ?: the result needs to be confirmed by more studies. b

GHG production and transport within a soil ecosystem. Importantly, stable isotopes have the potential of studying how GHG exchange with soils and atmosphere. This information is useful to enable researchers to understand the pathways of GHG, as well as the magnitude, as well as the magnitude is hence given rational recommendations (Zhu et al. 2019). However, this method is expensive and local farmers cannot afford to use to make various estimates. Therefore, the use of experimental reference sites can be useful in giving recommendations over a geographical position with similar activities.

Management of Emissions in Rice by Adoption of Efficient Varieties Rice production in flooded or paddy rice contributes to at least 10% of global agriculture production. There are various suggestions that have high technical

1096

W. Ntinyari and J. P. Gweyi-Onyango

potential to mitigate rice emissions and that many of the options have a high potential of giving economic gains through yields and reduce the amount of water used in irrigation. Focusing on yield increase will give a promising measure towards reducing emission in rice production per unit area (Saha et al. 2018). This is in agreement with the FAO’s forecast that increasing the rate of yield in paddy will also contribute to emission reduction in rice. Removing rice straws from paddies before reflooding to reduce methane production is also advised as one of the practices that farmers can embrace. The straws may be used for Bioenergy production (Joint 2018). Reducing the rate of flooding will reduce methane-producing bacteria where farmers can draw water down during the middle of the growing seasons. Another option is the beeding for rice varaities with lower emmissions of methane in the systems. Experiments in other regions such as China and Japan have shown that drawdown can reduce methane emissions by up to 90% (Müller et al. 2016). Use of the system of Rice Intensification that aims at reducing irrigation water at farm-scale is also an adaptable technique that farmers can use to minimize methane emissions in their rice fields. In rice irrigation, farmers should be advised to reduce the duration of flooding to minimize the populations of the methane-producing bacteria. In this regard, rice can be planted in a dry field other than flooding them and also they can reduce water during the middle days of the growing season. Breeding of lower methane rice will be another strategy that researchers should focus on to introduce both upland and lowland rice-growing irrigation systems. Water management in irrigation through the expanding area on irrigation could be more effective in increased carbon storage in the soils. Draining of agricultural fields in humid regions will help in suppressing N2O emission through improved aeration in soils. This strategy has been used in other regions such as China and Japan since it also increases yield and saves on irrigation water hence can also be adopted for the sub-Saharan Africa region.

Development of Flexible Technology-Forcing Regulations The GHG emissions are strong issues that need to be regulated by the governments more so in sub-Saharan Africa counties where the governments have not invested much on controlling emissions due to their low-income capabilities. This is since if this issue remains a voluntary service, most of the individuals are not likely to take it as seriously as it is taken globally (Inglesi-Lotz and Dogan 2018). Therefore, there is a need to have flexible regulations that are designed to spur the technological development for the needed change. For instance, in case of fertilizer use, countries should develop regulatory systems that are similar to those developed in the United States or other places to increase the fuel efficiency of fleets of time (Nyamoga and Solberg 2019). Also, fertilizer manufacturers and importers will be required to sell fertilizers with increased efficiencies. Fertilizers regulation needed to be brought into consideration, for instance, the manufacturer should be barred from releasing any fertilizer product that does not have a coat to enhance its slow release and minimize N2O emissions in cropping systems.

54

Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Agricultural Systems and Climate Change. . .

1097

Minimizing Enteric Fermentation and Food Wastes Enteric fermentation has the highest accountability of emissions from agriculture. It is part of the digestive systems of herbivorous animals that have a large fourcompartment stomach with a complex microbial environment that enables it to digest complex carbohydrates. The process of digestion produced methane as a byproduct hence contributing to its accumulation in the atmosphere. In this regard when animals are kept for long, the more they produce methane, and therefore, this should be shortened and ensure the levels of methane per production unit are minimal (Owen and Silver 2015). The three main existing options to mitigate this kind of fermentation and emissions are 1. Improving the quality and digestibility of feed 2. Providing supplements and additives and reduce methane 3. Optimizing the health and reproductive capacity of the herds Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has approximated that food wastes contribute to almost a third of the world’s GHG. This is more so in sub-Saharan Africa due to the culture of people holding a social gathering with several types of edibles available hence providing a wide range of choice. These foods are potential sources of GHG emissions with key gases produced being carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons especially in countries without any existing policies on food loss and waste management (Capone et al. 2016). This calls for the development of a monitoring framework for developing countries especially in sub-Saharan countries through installing simple tools that can be used in the traceability of GHG emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the lowering of food wastes will help in reducing the rate of GHG emissions and concentration in the environment. In this regard, there is a requirement for the respective government to come up with policies and campaign to enlighten the locals on the need to reduce their food wastes as one of the factors for environmental sustainability and to alleviate the serious threats of climate change that are currently experienced (Edenhofer et al. 2011).

Use of Biochar to Minimize GHG Emissions Biochar is an organic material rich in carbon that is produced by the heating of biomass in the limited supply of oxygen. It is mainly produced as an additive to soils to improve nutrient retentions and carbon storage. In recent research, there has been growing interest in the use of biochar as an amendment to improve soil health, decrease net N2O emissions and methane, and to store carbon in the soils. Biochar has been recognized as one of the possible materials to enhance reduction of CO2 concentration in the environment. The advantage of biochar is sufficiently used to reduce GHG emission in the atmosphere for a prolonged time. It also allows a net reduction on the emissions in the entire lifecycle including both direct and indirect

1098

W. Ntinyari and J. P. Gweyi-Onyango

land uses (Kumar et al. 2020. It has been documented that biochar has the potential of reducing anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere by 12%. Biochar has a low degradation process which helps in increasing its potential to store more carbon in the soils compared to other materials.

Compositing of Solid Manure Before Applying to Crop Fields In many organic systems, composting of solid manure before applying to the field is encouraged. This method offers the advantage of producing a more stable product, free of weeds and toxins and easier to spread in the cropping systems. Through compositing it is subjects manure to the aerobic composition at temperatures of around 60 °C. Since this method requires frequent turning of the heaps, the method makes it more vulnerable for NH3 losses; however, after application to the cropping fields, there are minimal losses since remaining N is mainly bound organically (Kumar et al. 2020). The mechanical turning of the composted manure is associated with lower N2O and CH4 compared to the anaerobic method; hence, this should be considered for the whole management systems right from manure storage to supplication to soils in the fields. It has been estimated that compositing lowers N2O and CH4 emissions; although significant amounts of CO2 are emitted during the composting process, it is not considered as a net source of CO2 in the entire agricultural chain. In addition, since composted manure is less degradable than fresh manure, application of this is a greater source of carbon storage in the soil and thus reduces the rate of CO2 emissions. The rapid incorporation of manure in the soils as an improved technique of application is associated with fewer emissions and is more cost-effective (Joint 2018). This kind of incorporation should be done during the first hours after application. Through this method, a significant N2O emissions in the soils will be reduced. Farmers should also consider using farmyard manure over liquid slurry for reduced GHG emissions. In crop production as agriculture, subsystem offers various mitigation of greenhouse gases specifically the CO2 and N2O that are main gases in this level. The limitation of net CO2 can be achieved through increasing the rate of carbon storage to soils or by the plant. This is achieved through slowing return of stored carbon into the atmosphere via mineralization (Stanton et al. 2018). Most importantly, N2O mitigation should focus specifically on improving the nitrogen use efficiency of crops since N2O is generated from the soils. In crop production, farmers should also avoid compacting during tillage since this may increase N2O emission due to the conducive environment created for anaerobic zones within the soil structures. During the incorporation of plant, farmers should be advised to use plant contents with low N content since high N content in the tissue will trigger mineralization and denitrification that can alleviate the levels of N2O emissions. Tackling the interlinked problems on land degradation, climate change mitigation is a promising strategy that can produce promising results for both farmers and government (Zerhusen et al. 2019).

54

Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Agricultural Systems and Climate Change. . .

1099

Integrated Farming Systems The integrated farming system is another way to reduce GHG emission and promotes the fight against climate change. The integrated systems are based on nuclear techniques that have been put into practice in some counties within sub-Saharan Africa including Kenya and Uganda. The practices are aiming at maximizing the recycling of nutrients that are found in animal manure and crop residues. This will ensure there is a reduction in the chemical fertilizers use and this will enhance the reduction of GHG from agricultural land (Stanton et al. 2018). This is a practical strategy since farmers can recycle nutrients as livestock mainly feeds on herbs and grasses that are excreted in form of manure then farmers can collect the manure and apply in fields, which is a way of returning many nutrients into the soil as illustrated in Fig. 4. This strategy is feasible and practically possible in sub-Saharan Africa since it has been applied in other regions and does not require high investment but rather involves a set of regulations and extension to enlighten farmers on the benefits of

Livestock graze the field crops/pastures, either directly or after harvesting

Farmers collect the manure and apply it to the fields as fertilizer (in addition to a small amount of synthetic fertilizer)

This natural fertilizer improves soil health and quality, thereby increasing crop yields while reducing greenhouse gas emissions as less synthetic fertilizer is required

Fig. 4 Illustration of how an integrated system can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (Adapted from Garnett 2011)

1100

W. Ntinyari and J. P. Gweyi-Onyango

this process. Integrated cropping–livestock practices have been used in Brazil and have given a successful out management plan in the use of land more efficiently. As a result, the GHG emission from urine and dung was reported to reduce by 89% from respective farms. Polyculture is another agronomic practice that can be used to mitigate emissions of GHG and help in combating the adverse effects of climate change. Polyculture entails growing of multiple crops in the same space to increase local biodiversity and increase the soil carbon. Agroforestry is another agronomic practice that can be encouraged as a strategy to minimize GHG emission in agriculture. This practice entails integrating crops or livestock and trees either for timber, firewood, or any other wood products. The agroforestry provides buffer strips in the riparian land as well as increasing carbon stock in the soils since they increase carbon sequestration hence emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere (Garnett 2011). Changes in consumption habits have substantial effects on the reduction of GHG emissions. Therefore, this calls for addressing how our food from agriculture is distributed across a supply chain. In particular, many of the environmental bodies have a recommended reduction of consumption of meat and other dairy products to enhance the reduction of GHG emissions from agricultural production. This implies that if consumers can adhere to this strategy and focus on well-grown crop products will have a significant effect on the overall concentration of GHG in the atmospheres. How this requires policy regulations and consumers’ willingness to adapt to this kind of change. Although it is difficult to some communities that rear livestock as the main agricultural activity, they could be advised to minimize meat consumption, which may be from 5 to 2 days a week.

Barriers to Mitigation GHG Emission and Climate Change in SubSaharan Africa Although there are various opportunities to combat GHG emissions and reduce impacts of climate in Africa, there are key barriers that may hinder adoption and achievement of these goals. There is a challenge on lack of awareness among the farmers on the bottom line impacts of climate change and causes that emanate from their cropping-livestock systems. A great population of the farmers in sub-Saharan Africa are not aware of the existing option, either high or low cost. This is since there is less focus on the ground level to address the issue; in this regard mitigation of GHG and reducing the impact of climate change more focus on starting ground level for the change to experience. Moreso, there is the existence of unsureness about the practicality of the available measure among the leaders and activist of climate change actions; hence, less awareness has been created to date. There is also the existence of complex interactions as farmers do not know the bottom line of the unintended consequences on the complexity of interaction during the adoption of what is believed to make a change to GHG emissions from agriculture (Mehra et al. 2018). Regulations and policies are also other barriers towards adoption and application of the existing measure. Some of the verification and regulation are quite expensive, and the fact that sub-Saharan Africa is a low-income region confirms the

54

Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Agricultural Systems and Climate Change. . .

1101

weight of the barrier. In addition, new regulatory regimes may require structuring the existing regulation before the implementation of proper governing policies. Adopting some of the options may be against the social norms of the culture with diverse cultures being dominant in sub-Saharan Africa. For instance, manure management may be viewed as a dirty practice by some communities or religious beliefs hence making its management difficult. Besides, most farmers may fear loss aversion and may be adamant towards investing on best practices as advised by regulators. The existing extension services have the challenge of meeting farmers need and they create doubt on bits of advice they receive from them. Also, the government is slow in making clear on the role of extension officer and to what extent do they need to give communal seminars on critical issues such as climate change and GHG emissions (Allen et al. 2020). Development and transfer of technologies is another underlying barrier in the management of GHG emissions and mitigation of climate change. This is due to limited human and institutional capabilities to enhance proper dissemination of new information. Technological barriers exist in the limitation of generating and applying the developed solution to handle the problem. Technologies development and transfer remain crucial components for sustainable increase of productivity and mitigation of climate effects. Ecological barriers exist because mitigation potential in agriculture subsystems is mainly site-specific even within the same cropping systems. The limited resources in Sub-Saharan Africa pauses an ecological barrier towrads management of GHG and climate changes impacts. The frequent drought in Africa may limit the exact measurement and application of the mitigation measures at the farm level. In addition, due to high levels of poverty in the region, there is a likelihood that affording good equipment for mitigation will be hard hence have to rely on donors from other regions.

Need for More Research Mitigation of GHG emissions is a critical area that currently requires a lot of investment in research, because these gases are complex and emitted from day to day activities that men perform to earn a daily living. Due to the adverse effects, they are causing damage to our ecosystems; identification of scientifically proven measures and option needs to be analyzed and scrutinized keenly through research. The researcher should focus more on agriculture although other sectors such as transport, energy, and industrialization have an equivalent measure. Although several measures have been documented to curb and minimize the rate of emissions, there is a need to have additional measures and strongly emphasize on their adoption through policy regulations. The research should focus on both generating new technologies and management systems with lower emission rates. Therefore, this requires the collaboration of governments in the sub-Saharan each to generate funds that can motivate and facilitate scientists in agricultural discipline to focus more on GHG about to actual quantification of the emissions as well as documenting available measures in the current context. Generation of more knowledge through research will provide cost-benefit analysis concepts to help in the assessment of the trade-off

1102

W. Ntinyari and J. P. Gweyi-Onyango

in the climate change mitigation options (Garnett 2011). The discoveries through research will enhance the provision of information and rationale on taking actions to mitigate GHG emissions. In addition, it will form a basis on informing decisionmakers and policymakers in the whole system.

Conclusions In the light of adverse climate change effects being experienced in sub-Saharan countries currently, several opportunities to mitigate GHG in agriculture exist and can be realized through overcoming several barriers. There is a need to assign mitigation measures on the key causes of climate change hence more emphasis on greenhouse gases emitted from agriculture. The key GHGs – CO2, N2O, and CH4 – are not only produced in the farm setting but other sectors including energy, transport, and industries have a significant contribution. However, more potential lies in the agricultural sector that is widely spread in major regions of sub-Saharan Africa. Critical elements that require proper management are livestock systems and crop production that have shown to have the highest emission of the main GHG to the ecosystems. Therefore, to protect and improve the quality of our planet, there is a need to apply measures including manure management, improved fertilizer use efficiency, genetic selection of animals with less methane emission, minimizing enteric fermentation and floodwaters in agriculture and dairy subsystems. Developments of feasible and technological solutions to minimize GHG at small scale level, adopting bioenergy, growing of grass species with carbon sequestration effects, integrating crop-livestock system, and managing emission in paddy rice trough proper use of irrigation water and biochar application among others. Putting all measures discussed in the current chapter will help reduce the impacts of climate change in sub-Saharan and improve the quality of air and environment health in general. Regardless of several feasible options existing to mitigate GHG emissions and climate change in agriculture, to achieve these measures, there is a need for collaborative efforts between governments and the locals to carry out the required ground activities. There is the existence of certain barriers that limit the potential of management. Some of these barriers include policy and regulation, inadequate human and institutional capabilities, unstructured extension services, fear of loss aversion among farmers, and absence of platforms for disseminating new technologies. For any of the above-discussed measure, decision-makers need to make a consideration to the extent to which it moves away or closer to making the environment safer and still maintaining sustainable agricultural production with less GHG emissions.

References Allen J, Pascual KS, Romasanta RR, Van Trinh M, Van Thach T, Van Hung N, Chivenge P (2020) Rice straw management effects on greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options. In: Sustainable rice straw management. Springer, Cham, pp 145–159 Awazi NP, Tchamba MN (2019) Enhancing agricultural sustainability and productivity under changing climate conditions through improved agroforestry practices in smallholder farming systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. Afr J Agric Res 14(7):379–388

54

Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Agricultural Systems and Climate Change. . .

1103

Beach RH, Creason J, Ohrel SB, Ragnauth S, Ogle S, Li C, Salas W (2015) Global mitigation potential and costs of reducing agricultural non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions through 2030. J Integr Environ Sci 12(sup 1):87–105 Capone R, Adriana C, Lee TKW (2016) Food losses and waste: global overview from a Mediterranean perspective. Mediterra 2016. Zero Waste in the Mediterranean. Natural Resources, Food and Knowledge/International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)–Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, 193 Cassman KG, Dobermann A, Walters DT, Yang H (2003) Meeting cereal demand while protecting natural resources and improving environmental quality. Ann Rev Environ Resource 28:315– 358. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.040202.122858 Cerri C (2010) Management practices for greenhouse gas emission reduction and carbon removal in Brazilian agriculture, livestock and forestry. Centro de Energia Nuclear na Agricultura/ Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba Coskun D, Britto DT, Shi W, Kronzucker HJ (2017) Nitrogen transformations in modern agriculture and the role of biological nitrification inhibition. Nat Plants 3(6):1–10 de Haas Y, Pszczola M, Soyeurt H, Wall E, Lassen J (2017) Invited review: phenotypes to genetically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in dairying. J Dairy Sci 100(2):855–870 Dennehy C, Lawlor PG, Jiang Y, Gardiner GE, Xie S, Nghiem LD, Zhan X (2017) Greenhouse gas emissions from different pig manure management techniques: a critical analysis. Front Environ Sci Eng 11(3):11 Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Kadner S, Zwickel T, Matschoss P (eds) (2011) Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA Eloka-Eboka AC, Bwapwa JK, Maroa S (2019) Biomass for CO2 sequestration encyclopedia of renewable and sustainable materials; Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-12-803581-8.11029-X Feng J, Li F, Zhou X, Xu C, Ji L, Chen Z, Fang F (2018) Impact of agronomy practices on the effects of reduced tillage systems on CH4 and N2O emissions from agricultural fields: a global meta-analysis. PLoS One 13(5):e0196703 Galloway JN, Aber JD, Erisman JW, Seitzinger SP, Howarth RW, Cowling EB, Cosby BJ (2003) The nitrogen cascade. Bioscience 53:341–356. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[ 0341:TNC]2.0.CO;2 García-Marco S, Abalos D, Espejo R, Vallejo A, Mariscal-Sancho I (2016) No-tillage and liming reduce greenhouse gas emissions from poorly drained agricultural soils in Mediterranean regions. Sci Total Environ 566:512–520 Garnett T (2011) Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy 36:S23–S32 Garnett T, Godde C, Muller A, Röös E, Smith P, De Boer IJM, Van Zanten HHE (2017) Grazed and confused?: ruminating on cattle, grazing systems, methane, nitrous oxide, the soil carbon sequestration question-and what it all means for greenhouse gas emissions. FCRN, Oxford Gibson AI (2002) Mitigation options for greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. University of London, London Haberl H, Sprinz D, Bonazountas M, Cocco P, Desaubies Y, Henze M, Lange E (2012) Correcting a fundamental error in greenhouse gas accounting related to bioenergy. Energy Policy 45:18–23 Herrero M, Thornton PK, Kruska R, Reid RS (2008) Systems dynamics and the spatial distribution of methane emissions from African domestic ruminants to 2030. Agric Ecosyst Environ 126(1– 2):122–137 Hoekman SK, Broch A (2018) Environmental implications of higher ethanol production and use in the US: a literature review. Part II–biodiversity, land-use change, GHG emissions, and sustainability. Renew Sust Energ Rev 81:3159–3177 Huang R, Wang Y, Liu J, Li J, Xu G, Luo M, Gao M (2019) Variation in N2O emission and N2O related microbial functional genes in straw-and biochar-amended and non-amended soils. Appl Soil Ecol 137:57–68

1104

W. Ntinyari and J. P. Gweyi-Onyango

Inglesi-Lotz R, Dogan E (2018) The role of renewable versus non-renewable energy to the level of CO2 emissions a panel analysis of sub-Saharan Africa’s Βig 10 electricity generators. Renew Energy 123:36–43 Joint FAO (2018) Rice production guidelines: best farm management practices and the role of isotopic techniques (No. IAEA-TECDOC–1847). Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture Kumar S, Meena RS, Datta R, Verma SK, Yadav GS, Pradhan G, . . . Mashuk HA (2020) Legumes for carbon and nitrogen cycling: an organic approach. In: Carbon and nitrogen cycling in soil. Springer, Singapore, pp 337–375 Leng LY, Ahmed OH, Jalloh MB (2019) A brief review on climate change and tropical peatlands. Geosci Front 10(2):373–380 Lovett DK, Shalloo L, Horan B, Dillon P, O’Mara FP (2006) Effect of Holstein–Friesian strain and feeding system on greenhouse gas emissions from pastoral dairy production systems. In: International Congress Series, vol 1293. Elsevier, pp 335–338 Malaka SF (2017) Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in the eastern Free State, South Africa (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Free State) Martinez-Fernandez G, Duval S, Kindermann M, Schirra HJ, Denman SE, McSweeney CS (2018) 3-NOP vs. halogenated compound: methane production, ruminal fermentation and microbial community response in forage-fed cattle. Front Microbiol 9:1582 Mehra P, Baker J, Sojka RE, Bolan N, Desbiolles J, Kirkham MB, Gupta R (2018) A review of tillage practices and their potential to impact the soil carbon dynamics. In: Advances in agronomy, vol 150. Academic Press, pp 185–230 Mottet A, Henderson B, Opio C, Falcucci A, Tempio G, Silvestri S, Gerber PJ (2017) Climate change mitigation and productivity gains in livestock supply chains: insights from regional case studies. Reg Environ Chang 17(1):129–141 Müller A, Bautzen L, Meier M, Gattinger A, Gall E, Chatzinikolaou E, Ullmann L (2016) Organic farming, climate change mitigation and beyond. Reducing the environmental impacts of EU agriculture. IFOAM EU, Brussels Mwanake RM, Gettel GM, Aho KS, Namwaya DW, Masese FO, Butterbach-Bahl K, Raymond PA (2019) Land use, not stream order, controls N2O concentration and flux in the upper Mara River basin, Kenya. J Geophys Res Biogeo 124(11):3491–3506 Novak SM, Fiorelli JL (2010) Greenhouse gases and ammonia emissions from organic mixed cropdairy systems: a critical review of mitigation options. Agron Sustain Dev 30(2):215–236 Nyamoga GZ, Solberg B (2019) A review of studies related to charcoal production, consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions in Tanzania. In: Agriculture and ecosystem resilience in Sub Saharan Africa. Springer, Cham, pp 357–399 Oberthür S, Hermwille L, Khandekar G, Obergassel W, Rayner T, Wyns T, and Melkie M (2019) Key concepts, core challenges and governance functions of international climate governance: deliverable 4.1; COP21-results and implications for pathways and policies for low emissions European societies Owen JJ, Silver WL (2015) Greenhouse gas emissions from dairy manure management: a review of field-based studies. Glob Chang Biol 21(2):550–565 Paustian K, Larson E, Kent J, Marx E, Swan A (2019) Soil C sequestration as a biological negative emission strategy. Front Clim 1(8):1–11 Popp A, Lotze-Campen H, Bodirsky B (2010) Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Glob Environ Chang 20(3):451– 462 Ronaghi M, Saghaian S, Reed M, Mohammadi H (2018) The impact of the agricultural sector in developing countries that produce natural gas on greenhouse gas emissions. Int J Food Agric Econ (IJFAEC) 6(1128–2019-555):53–69 Saha S, Chatterjee D, Swain CK, Nayak AK (2018) Methane emission from wetland rice agriculture-biogeochemistry and environmental controls in projected changing environment. In: Advances in crop environment interaction. Springer, Singapore, pp 51–85

54

Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Agricultural Systems and Climate Change. . .

1105

Sanz-Cobena A, Lassaletta L, Aguilera E, Del Prado A, Garnier J, Billen G, Plaza-Bonilla D (2017) Strategies for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in Mediterranean agriculture: a review. Agric Ecosyst Environ 238:5–24 Šimek M, Cooper JE (2002) The influence of soil pH on nitrification: progress towards the understanding of this interaction over the last 50 years. Eur J Soil Sci 53:345–354 Slaets J, Mayr L, Heiling M, Zaman M, Resch C, Weltin G, Dercon G (2016) Protocol development for continuous nitrogen-15 measurement of N2O and its isotopomers for real-time greenhouse gas tracing Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P, Scholes B (2008) Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 363(1492):789–813 Stanton CY, Mach KJ, Turner PA, Lalonde SJ, Sanchez DL, Field CB (2018) Managing cropland and rangeland for climate mitigation: an expert elicitation on soil carbon in California. Climatic Change 147(3–4):633–646 Swamy M, Bhattacharya S (2006) Budgeting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission from Indian livestock using country-specific emission coefficients. Curr Sci:1340–1353 Tongwane MI, Moeletsi ME (2018) A review of greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector in Africa. Agric Syst 166:124–134 Wall E, Simm G, Moran D (2010) Developing breeding schemes to assist mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Animal 4(3):366–376 Wang Y, Dong H, Zhu Z, Gerber PJ, Xin H, Smith P, Chadwick D (2017) Mitigating greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from swine manure management: a system analysis. Environ Sci Technol 51(8):4503–4511 Winnie N, Gweyi-Onyango J (2018) Biofertilizers as an alternative to inorganic fertilizers in sub-Saharan African: is the adoption the missing link? Eliexir Agric 114:49564–49551 Yang Y, Tilman D, Furey G, Lehman C (2019) Soil carbon sequestration accelerated by the restoration of grassland biodiversity. Nat Commun 10(1):1–7 Zerhusen B, Maze M, Effenberger M (2019) Hands-on model for assessing the green-house gas emissions and the fossil energy consumption of agricultural biogas plants. Landtechnik 74(5):118–134 Zhu XC, Di DR, Ma MG, Shi WY (2019) Stable isotopes in greenhouse gases from soil: a review of theory and application. Atmosphere 10(7):377

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Use and Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Climate Change Adaptation in Africa

55

Isaac Rutenberg, Arthur Gwagwa, and Melissa Omino

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scoping AI in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Studies of General Applications of AI in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of African AI Focusing on Climate Change Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geospatial Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Private Sector, and Converging Exponential Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Potential of AI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Challenges and Future Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scope of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethical Issues of Predicting Climate Change Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Inadequacies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1108 1110 1111 1113 1114 1116 1118 1119 1119 1119 1120 1121 1122 1122

Abstract

Although Climate Change is a global phenomenon, the impact in Africa is anticipated to be greater than in many other parts of the world. This expectation is supported by many factors, including the relatively low shock tolerance of many African countries and the relatively high percentage of African workers engaged in the agricultural sector. High-income countries are increasingly turning their focus to climate change adaptation, and Artificial

This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. I. Rutenberg (*) · A. Gwagwa · M. Omino CIPIT, Strathmore University, Nairobi, Kenya e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_80

1107

1108

I. Rutenberg et al.

Intelligence (AI) is a critical tool in those efforts. Algorithms using AI are making better predictions on the short- and long-term effects of climate change, including predictions related to weather patterns, floods and droughts, and human migration patterns. It is not clear, however, that Africa is (or will be) maximally benefitting from those AI tools, particularly since they are largely developed by highly developed countries using data sets that are specific to those same countries. It is therefore important to characterize the efforts underway to use AI in a way that specifically benefits Africa in climate change adaptation. These efforts include projects undertaken physically in Africa as well as those that have Africa as their focus. In exploring AI projects in or about Africa, this chapter also looks at the sufficiency of such efforts and the variety of approaches taken by researchers working with AI to address climate change in Africa. Keywords

Africa · Climate change · Artificial intelligence · Algorithms · Data · Adaptation · Migration

Introduction The deepest roots of climate change begin with the second industrial revolution and the widespread adoption of fossil fuel-based machinery. As the world enters the fourth industrial revolution, the adoption of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) introduces complex challenges and opportunities for the nowinevitable and as-yet-undetermined issues of climate change. This chapter explores those challenges and opportunities, and whether or to what extent the fourth industrial revolution will enhance Africa’s ability to cope with climate change. Technologies associated with the fourth industrial revolution (4IR) include blockchain, the Internet of things (IoT), artificial intelligence, cloud computing, quantum computing, advanced wireless communications, and 3D printing, among others. Although these technologies are, at times and in various ways, interrelated, this chapter focuses mainly on AI and the impact that it will have on Africa’s ability to cope with climate change. This focus is not, however, meant to imply that other 4IR technologies will not be important. Indeed, some technologies such as the widespread connectivity of sensors that accompany the development of IoT will likely have substantial positive impact on the ability of African nations to gather useful data. An example of this is Upepo Technologies, described below, that is using IoT devices to monitor water distribution points throughout Kenya. Other technologies may have mixed or negative impact: cryptocurrencies based on blockchain technology have so far increased the amount of energy used worldwide by computers, and advanced communications technologies are projected to account for 20% of global energy demand by 2025 (The Guardian 2017). Any increase in energy demand has a negative effect on climate change. Surely these technologies will continue to evolve, and Africans’ ability to predict their ultimate impacts is limited.

55

Use and Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Climate Change Adaptation in. . .

1109

AI has probably been postulated for longer than any other 4IR technology, but has remained impractical until the recent decade. Although a variety of forms of AI are known and being pursued in various contexts and by various private- and publicsector stakeholders, this chapter is largely confined to discussing AI as a tool for processing large amounts of data and improving predictions from those data. Predictive algorithms using AI are available to entrepreneurs using two main pathways. The first is by using and adapting widely available open source algorithms. Many of the global technology companies have released suites of AI tools on open source licenses, including Google, Microsoft, and IBM. The alternative pathway is to develop, test, and train novel algorithms. Examples of companies following each of these pathways, as well as combinations thereof, can be readily identified, particularly (but not exclusively) in the high technology hubs of Lagos, Nairobi, and Johannesburg. Developing the algorithms is, however, only one part of a larger process of integrating AI into products and processes. Effective predictive algorithms using AI rely on three main components: fast computers, large datasets, and abundant human labor (The Economist 2020). The need for fast computers is obvious, and suitable computing power is relatively abundantly available, even if Africa is perpetually and conspicuously absent from international lists of supercomputers (TOP500.org 2019). Human labor is needed in order to label data, as AI algorithms require accurately labelled data in order to learn and increase the accuracy of predictions. Africa has an abundance of labor, including large numbers of unemployed or underemployed youth that have sufficient computer skills, and is therefore ideally positioned for performing this task. For example, Samasource is a data annotation provider with a major presence in Kenya and Uganda. Using a hybrid structure involving both for-profit and nonprofit entities, Samasource provides data labelling services for Fortune 500 companies employing AI systems, while simultaneously seeking to reduce poverty through job creation. This leaves three factors that are particularly interesting in the African context: the availability of sufficiently large datasets, the suitability of the algorithms themselves; and the creativity of developers, entrepreneurs, and others in applying AI in the creation of new products, services, and solutions. The three factors of interest are interrelated, and it is difficult to assess any one factor in isolation. AI is a multipurpose tool, but the output of any given AI product is as much or more dependent upon the dataset as on the specific AI algorithm. Regardless of the algorithms, the availability of high quality, locally relevant datasets is likely to be extremely important for AI to be of any use to the fight against climate change. Furthermore, since the bulk of AI development has so far been from outside the African continent, the creativity and effort of developers and their collaborators are also critical to the contribution of AI. Accordingly, the second (datasets) and third (applications) factors are the subject of this chapter. Part I of this chapter introduced the topic and framed the research question. Part II broadly and briefly review the state of AI research and development in Africa, as well as global AI research that is relevant or targeted at Africa. Part III narrows the focus and explore African AI products and research that are specific to the issues of Climate Change. Such issues include weather prediction, agriculture, floods and drought, and

1110

I. Rutenberg et al.

human migration. The chapter concludes in Part IV, with a look at particular challenges and potential future applications of AI in the area of climate change.

Scoping AI in Africa It is easy to get the impression that there is little or no activity in AI research and development in Africa. In report after report, African countries are either characterized as poorly performing or are complete absent from the analysis. African governments score very low in their perceived readiness to “take advantage of the benefits of AI in their operations and delivery of public services” (Oxford Insights International Development Research Centre 2019). In that global index, no African government ranked within the top 50 governments. In a broader index covering 54 countries over seven factors (Talent, Infrastructure, Operating Environment, Research, Development, Government Strategy and Commercial Ventures), all six African countries that were part of the study ranked in the bottom quartile (Tortoise Intelligence 2019). In an even broader analysis using different datasets to “comprehensively assess the state of AI R&D activities around the world,” the African region was ranked at or near the bottom of nearly every measure and ranking (Perrault et al. 2019). This included measurements such as AI papers published and cited, AI-focused patents, conferences, and technical performance. The picture painted by these global indices is one of virtually no activity and a gloomy outlook for future activity. As is often the case, however, the global indices are not necessarily good measures of activity on the African continent. Activities by African governments and certain other entities are often not reported or described online. Activities in the private sector may be minimal when compared to activity levels in developed countries, but the comparison is not particularly useful. As shown by the examples provided below, the R&D that is carried out is meaningful and a significant part of the overall research environment on the continent. African-hosted conferences on AI showcase African-led and Africa-focused AI R&D and demonstrate the breadth of such work. The Deep Learning Indaba, which began in 2017, is such an example; devoted entirely to African AI R&D, it has doubled attendance each of the following 2 years. The yearly event has created great interest, and in 2018, 13 mini-conferences (referred to as “IndabaX” conferences) were held in as many countries in Africa. Such conferences are important for the normal reasons, but also because African researchers have particular difficulties attending AI conferences in other parts of the world. African nationals are routinely denied visas to attend international conferences (Knight 2019). The challenges faced by African nationals is significant enough that the International Conference on Learning Representations, a major AI conference, elected to hold the 2020 conference in Africa. This decision was intended to enable greater African participation (Johnson 2018). Meanwhile, global technology companies are turning some of the focus of their AI R&D on Africa. Google opened an AI development laboratory in Ghana in 2019. Microsoft published a whitepaper focusing on the importance of AI research in Africa (Microsoft Access Partnership University of Pretoria 2018). A significant

55

Use and Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Climate Change Adaptation in. . .

1111

body of technological developments have been produced by IBM researchers at the IBM laboratory in Nairobi (Weldemariam et al. 2020). Motivations for global technology companies to work in Africa include, among others, the reduction of bias by increasing diversity in the researchers and the context in which they work (Adeoye 2019).

Case Studies of General Applications of AI in Africa Academic and private sector AI researchers in Africa seek to apply AI to a wide variety of topics, some of which are directly relevant to climate change, and others are relevant insomuch as they advance the general state of AI. A particularly important topic is bioinformatics and genomics (Diallo et al. 2019). Significant biodiversity exists on the African continent, and much of it is understudied relative to other regions (Campbell and Tishkoff 2008). The application of AI algorithms, with its ability to analyze large datasets, is particularly appropriate in the area of genomics. Even where the work is not specifically addressing issues directly related to climate change, a better understanding of bioinformatics and genomics will support biodiversity and our ability to encourage genetic resistance to environmental shocks. Another topic of interest to African AI researchers is farming. The importance and vulnerability of farming on the African continent cannot be overstated. More than 50% of the entire African workforce is employed in agriculture, yet most of that activity is at the subsistence level (Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) 2014). Approximately 80% of all farms in Sub-Saharan Africa are smallholder farms where 175 million people are directly employed. Modern farming methods such as large-scale mechanized harvesting, irrigation, and crop rotation are less common, meaning that African agriculture is more susceptible to weather and labor shocks. Traditional African crops are under threat from global seed companies seeking to dominate the African market (Scoones and Thompson 2011). Deforestation and overgrazing threaten African soil, but productive farmland is targeted by foreign governments and companies seeking new resources to enhance food security (The World Bank 2014). It is anticipated that predictive analytics, aided by machine learning, will significantly improve overall output by the African farming sector (Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) 2014). The cornerstone of successful AI is sufficient data, and in this area, Africa is relatively well positioned. Datasets pertaining to agriculture are available from a variety of sources, as the subject of African agriculture has been of intense interest to both local and international stakeholders for many decades. These datasets include actual measurement data as well as predictive or extrapolative datasets, as well as combinations thereof (African Soil Information Service). Improving the quantity and quality of data, and encouraging wider and more effective use of Big Data, is the focus of research by Patrick MacSharry at the Carnegie Mellon University campus in Kigali, Rwanda. Numerous other academic researchers are also contributing to the push toward effective incorporation of data science in African agriculture.

1112

I. Rutenberg et al.

Successful agriculture requires more than land, seeds, and suitable weather. Crop diseases and infestations of plant pests are significant threats to global agriculture and are particularly dangerous to agriculture in Africa. For example, invasions of the desert locust can last for up to a decade, and can cause widespread food shortages of catastrophic proportions (Lecoq 2003). Similarly, strains of wheat rust such as ug99, which originated in Uganda, are considered a global threat as well as a threat to African agriculture (Aydoğdu and Boyraz 2012). An ability to diagnose crop diseases is therefore critical, and local and global technology industries have taken notice. Mobile phone applications that allow farmers to diagnose crop disease or identify the presence of crop pests are proliferating (Nzouankeu 2019). Considering that many plant diseases and crop pests are highly geographically specific, local development of technology solutions to these problems is a prerequisite to their success, and the African technology industry is beginning to address this need. Looking beyond agriculture, financial institutions in Africa are not often at the forefront of widespread introduction and adoption of technology. Notwithstanding the success of mobile banking (which more properly attributes success to the fact that it originated from the telecom industry rather than the banking industry), traditional financial institutions have been slow to adopt technologies such as online banking. This is not necessarily only due to resistance within the African banking sector, but is also due to the relatively low level of access to technology by banking customers. Nevertheless, nearly every industry sector in Africa is affected by the availability (or absence) of credit and the presence (or absence) of financial institutions. Financial technologies, referred to as “fintech,” are a particularly active area of the incorporation of AI into products and services. A common use of AI in fintech is in the determination of creditworthiness. Although not discussed here, it is worth noting that such applications have been criticized for a variety of reasons, ranging from data protection issues to exacerbation of inequality (Johnson et al. 2019). Traditional and nontraditional banking institutions can make use of larger datasets from a broader list of sources in order to determine the risk of extending credit to individual or institutional customers. This is particularly useful in a region where formal credit histories are relatively rare or based on very limited data. Another fintech product that is gaining traction with African financial institutions is the use of AI to evaluate customer behavior. Behavior analysis can be used to improve predictions of suitable financial products, thus allowing institutions to focus their marketing efforts and improve efficiencies. Raising capital to support product development and market expansion is a necessary component of the modern technology industry. There is significant evidence that success at attracting investor attention in Africa is due to a variety of factors, including some factors that are not related to the quality or appropriateness of the technology (Peacock and Mungai 2019). Nevertheless, some African startups have raised significant capital for the application of AI to agriculture, fintech, and mobility solutions, among other uses of AI. In South Africa, Aerobotics is a company that is developing a digital platform for using AI to interpret data gathered by drones and satellites. The data interpretation algorithms are targeted at detecting plant pests and diseases. Apollo Agriculture is a Kenyan company using AI to

55

Use and Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Climate Change Adaptation in. . .

1113

interpret satellite data, soil data, farmer behavior, and crop yield models. The data interpretation algorithms allow the company to offer farmers customized financing as well as customized seed and fertilizer packages (Nanalyze 2019). In view of the above examples and others not mentioned, there is clearly activity in AI R&D in Africa. It may be that the activity is minimal when compared with that of developed countries, but there is a very high level of interest in AI technologies by governments, academia, and the private sector, and activity levels will surely increase with time. Having reviewed the general state of AI R&D in Africa, and having established that there is ongoing interest and activity in applying AI to a variety of fields, this chapter now turns to the specific application of AI to climate change.

Review of African AI Focusing on Climate Change Issues By 2050, it is widely expected that hundreds of millions of people in developing countries will have left their homes as a result of climate change – a mass displacement that will make already-precarious populations more vulnerable and impose heavy burdens on the communities that absorb them. Unfortunately, the world has barely begun to prepare for this impending crisis. According to the World Politics Review, those displaced by climate change are neither true refugees nor traditional migrants, and thus occupy an ambiguous position under international law. Consequently, the world needs to agree on how to classify environmental migrants, as well as what their rights are. It also needs to strengthen its capacity to manage these mass migrations, without weakening existing international regimes for refugees and migrants (Patrick 2020). Similarly, international organizations, such as the United Nations, as well as industry and social society are exploring technological solutions including the development of tools and technologies that leverage data sources from radio content, social media, mobile phones and satellite imagery, and technology toolkits. These toolkits can enhance decision-making by providing real-time situational awareness for project and policy implementation. The trend is moving towards a converging of exponential technologies (AI, robotics, drones, sensors, and networks). Although there is growing criticism of this trend toward ‘technologizing of care’, which can conflict with the centrality of the humanitarian principles, these technologies, in particular AI, have the potential to help Africa to be better prepared to thwart the effects of climate change, both through mitigation and adaptation. In light of this, this section examines the use of AI that is being (or could be) used in Africa for any aspect of climate change such as weather prediction, agriculture, human migration, floods and droughts. These projects could be undertaken physically in Africa as well as in those countries that have Africa as their focus, and those that can be adapted to Africa. It assumes a broader definition of AI which includes the use of “software (and possibly also hardware) systems designed by humans that, given a complex goal, act in the physical or digital dimension by perceiving their environment through data acquisition, interpreting the collected” (European

1114

I. Rutenberg et al.

Commission High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence 2018). It examines how a combination of technologies work together, including geospatial technologies, converging technologies such as robotic responders, swarm technology, and aerial drones which may also rely on geospatial data. Further, it also examines AIdriven platforms that crowdsource first-hand experiential data from those on the ground, and how these technologies could potentially transform disaster relief methods in Africa. Finally, it examines the issue of mobile connectivity and wireless networking trends and how improving these can give a newfound narrative power to those most in need. Although some of the projects examined in this section do not directly address climate change, per se, they may address other environmental concerns that are relevant to climate change.

Geospatial Technologies Africa has seen a steady increase in multi-stakeholder geospatial initiatives in recent years and these include those sponsored by the UN agencies, Public Private Partnerships, and initiatives led by international organizations and industry, especially global technology companies such as Google and Vodafone.

UN Agencies The UN, in particular its data science arm, the Global Pulse, has been working to support African governments to achieve the U.N. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Global Pulse, working from its Kampala Lab in Uganda, has led the work to develop numerous toolkits that consolidate it as an important technical arm of the UN network (Pulse Lab Kampala 2018). These pieces of software are a key in informing the SDGs through big data, data science and artificial intelligence because they aggregate, anonymize, combine, analyze, and visualize data. During 2016 and 2017 the Lab has both created brand-new toolkits and adapted previously developed ones for new projects. This has been part of a bigger project under which, between 2016 and 2017, the Pulse Lab Kampala worked with various UN agencies and development partners in Uganda and the region to test, explore and develop 17 innovation projects. The Lab also furthered the development of tools and technologies that leverage data sources from radio content, social media, mobile phones and satellite imagery, and created technology toolkits. These toolkits can enhance decision-making by providing real-time situational awareness for project and policy implementation (Pulse Lab Kampala 2018). The Pulse’s projects sit in the current global policy shift which emphasizes technological tools as opposed to their application to improving knowledge about climate change. This is even reflected in the secondary school geography curriculum which has seen an introduction of GSI in some African countries (Cox et al. 2014). This shift is borne from the premise that geospatial technologies, synergetic applications of remote sensing, and geographical information systems, offer versatile cross-scale tools to study long term climate changes, and their impacts on social- and ecological systems.

55

Use and Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Climate Change Adaptation in. . .

1115

According to the UN World Data Forum, the U.N. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development requires countries to be chiefly responsible for collecting information and monitoring progress towards achieving economic, social, and environmental sustainability (United Nations World Data Forum 2018). For instance, the UN World Data Forum has held sessions to enable the sharing of sound Earth Observation (EO) methods, tools, and technologies, as well as national use cases of effective integration of EO and geospatial data products with traditional and other relevant information sources in support of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), targets, and indicators, and for informed decision-making. Some of the technologies discussed at such forms include the African Regional Data Cube, aimed to enable greater use of EO and geospatial data for sustainable development (Anderson et al. 2017). To strengthen its work at policy level in this area, in 2019, the UN Pulse has been engaging African AI experts to lead efforts to draft a Code of Ethics for the use of AI-supported systems in humanitarian and development contexts (International Telecommunication Union 2019). Once developed, the Code may be used as guidance for the work at Global Pulse and at other UN organizations deploying AI for social good and to ensure the deployment of such technologies is both ethical and human rights respecting.

Public-Private Partnerships Similarly, the private sector has been working with governments on data science projects that leverage data for AI applications in humanitarian contexts. For instance, the Vodafone Foundation pioneered a program in Ghana to use aggregated anonymized data to help the government track and control epidemics to prevent widespread outbreaks (Vodafone 2018). The program, dubbed as one of the first of its kind globally, tracks and analyzes real-time trends in population movement. The program demonstrates the use of big data in situations directly relevant to climate change. The Ghana initiative is a good example of a multistakeholder approach to technology deployment for humanitarian ends as it is not only supported by Vodafone Ghana but also the Flowminder Foundation, an NGO that provides insights, tools and capacity-strengthening to governments as well as international agencies and NGOs (GhanaWeb 2019). The South Africa company Aerobotics, mentioned above, operates a public private partnership that utilizes aerial imagery and machine learning algorithms to solve specific problems across some industries including insurance and agriculture. In May 2019, Aerobotics signed an agreement with Agri SA to offer free service for all South African farmers (Lukhanyu 2019). Drones are used to track tree health and size, using multispectral, high resolution imagery. The project also enables farmers to identify areas needing attention from historical satellite health data, and inspect these in the field using a mobile app. The Aerobotics project is supported by the South African Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) which works with the Committee on Spatial Information (CSI) and the broader GIS community to define the data architecture, systems, standards, policies and processes for a fully integrated and effective spatial data infrastructure for the country. The Environmental Geographical Information Systems (E-GIS) webpage provides access to baseline

1116

I. Rutenberg et al.

environmental geospatial data, map services, printable maps and relevant documents to users of geospatial technology, government, and the public (Department of Environmental Affairs South Africa 2016). Another example, also out of South Africa, applies machine learning to the issue of air quality prediction (Chiwewe and Ditsela 2016). Stemming from the Green Horizons initiative, IBM researchers partnered with Chinese government researchers for the purpose of building air quality prediction software. In Johannesburg, the work is to adapt the air quality prediction software to the local context. The Green Horizon’s system harnesses historical and real time data about weather, air quality, topography, and traffic reports to build predictions about air quality. The project’s South Africa lead, Tapiwa Chiwewe, says that the task is to tweak the software to local particularities. For instance, Johannesburg does not have the dense network of air quality monitoring stations (eight stations compared to 35). Chiwewe and the team of researchers sought to ‘teach’ the software to work with more sparse data and to use intermediate fixes to make up for the lack of data.

The Private Sector, and Converging Exponential Technologies International Organizations & Global Technology Companies Globally, converging exponential technologies (AI, robotics, drones, sensors, networks) are transforming the future of disaster relief (Diamandis 2019). African stakeholders have been experimenting with these technologies in a variety of contexts. These efforts have been led by international organizations such as Omdena and Element AI, working with local African NGOs like R365 and the Nigerian NGO Renewable Africa (Adewumi 2020). Academic institutions and global technology companies such as Google also play a part in this work, which span the R&D process as well as prototyping and implementation. For example, the Canadian based Element AI has African-focused projects that support the use of robots for humanitarian purposes. Their intention is to develop human-machine collaborations that build up a trusted relationship with AI products and services already available. Two further examples are illustrative. Atlas AI, a Silicon Valley public benefit corporation, has teamed with the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), to apply predictive analytics and machine learning to help process numerous datasets in an effort to improve smallholding farming output (AGRA 2019). Pennsylvania State University developed, deployed, and continue to upgrade PlantVillage, a mobile application that uses an AI tool to diagnose crop diseases in Africa (Penn State 2019). Global initiatives inspired by Kenya’s Ushahidi are emerging that leverage AI, crowd sourced intelligence, and cutting-edge visualizations to optimize crisis response (Starbird 2012). Such projects include One Concern (2020), which employs AI in analytical disaster assessment and damage estimates. Crowdsourced intelligence (which includes predictive crisis mapping and AI-powered responses) is used in response to both natural disasters and humanitarian disasters. An opensource crisis-mapping software developed by Ushahidi is used for real-time mining

55

Use and Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Climate Change Adaptation in. . .

1117

of social media, news articles, and geo-tagged, time-stamped data from countless sources (Meier 2012). As mobile connectivity and abundant sensors converge with AI-mined crowd intelligence, real-time awareness will only multiply in speed and scale (Diamandis 2019). Other organizations are using similar crowdsourcing technologies to address different challenges, but such technologies are also helpful in understanding agricultural and other environment concerns. IBM’s Hello Tractor is an open source mobile platform that enables farmers to access tractor services on demand (Assefa 2018). By using technology integrated from partners like the IoT companies Aeris and CalAmp, the platform can tell when a tractor is turned on and how far it travels. By using the platform, over the next 5 years, through a public-private partnership, John Deere plans to deploy 10,000 tractors in Nigeria, selling them to contractors who then rent them out to small farmers (Peters 2018). Considering that climate change is expected to increase uncertainty in the long-term viability of agricultural land, the availability of tractors for rent will be critical as a means for improving flexibility of farmers. Another organization using AI-based crowdsourcing solutions to climate-related or climate-relevant challenges is Omdena, which sources ideas to respond to local challenges. Several of Omdena’s projects are worth discussion. Under one of its challenges, 34 collaborators working together with the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) built several AI and machine learning solutions to predict forced displacement, violent conflicts, and climate change effects in Somalia (Omdena 2019). Their community of AI experts and data scientists have developed several solutions to predict climate change and forced displacement in Somalia, where millions of people are forced to leave their current area of residence due to natural and manmade disasters such as droughts, floods, and violent conflicts. This is a holistic project under which Omdena’s challenge partner, UNHCR, provides assistance and protection for those who are forcibly displaced inside of Somalia. The findings will help UNHCR improve speed and efficiency of responses to such disruptions. In a second project, Omdena’s collaborators analyze conflict data to build a hot zone representation, which predicts the most dangerous locations and the highest fatalities (Omdena 2019). The machine learning model can help to optimize the allocation of utility personnel to handle incidents. A promising application of this technology is to leverage satellite images to assess the environmental impact of forced displacement and conflict by comparing the weekly Vegetation Health Index with human displacement data. Omdena’s projects are also focused on increasing the adoption of renewable energy, an important component of climate change mitigation. In Nigeria, Omdena’s AI community built an interactive map showing the top Nigerian regions for solar power instalments (Adewumi 2020). The solutions will provide helpful insights for government and policy makers to make decisions on where to allocate resources in the most effective way. In a country where more than 100 million people lack stable access to electricity, renewable energy must be a major part of any environmentally friendly solution. The Omdena community generated a variety of outputs, including a grid coverage analysis and machine-learning-driven heatmaps to identify sites that

1118

I. Rutenberg et al.

are most suitable for solar panel installation. Along with an interactive map listing the top Nigerian regions in terms of demand for electricity, such tools are helpful for those seeking to survey and validate locations before installing solar panels. This will enable data-driven investments and policy-making and potentially impact the lives of many people in Nigeria. A particularly forward-looking initiative is the Microsoft AI for Earth grant program. One of the recipients of the grant is Upepo Technology, a Kenyan company that plans to use the grant in a water monitoring project. The company is deploying a large network of IoT devices, and employing AI algorithms to analyze the data from sensors monitoring reservoirs, boreholes, water kiosks, individual taps, and other water points. Considering the substantial impact that climate change has on issues pertaining to water – particularly by changing the patterns of precipitation – an enhanced ability to monitor water usage, wastage, and storage will greatly benefit the ability to deal with climate change impacts.

University Activity African universities and academic institutions are also setting up AI technologybased projects to tackle environmental issues, including Makerere University in Uganda and Carnegie Mellon University in Kigali, which was the first to offer a Master of Science Degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering with hands-on courses which include machine learning, robotics, and the internet of things (Carnegie Mellon University Africa). A few such projects are discussed below.

AirQo The Makerere University Artificial Intelligence Research Group (AIR Lab) specializes in the application of artificial intelligence and data science to challenges common in the developing world. AIR Lab received support from the Pulse Lab to set up AirQo – an air quality data monitoring, analysis and modelling platform in East Africa meant to achieve clean air for all African cities through leveraging data (Nabatte 2019). AirQo is deploying a growing network of low-cost air quality monitors. Using machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect and analyze data, the project makes air quality predictions useful in raising awareness and informing policy decisions. Future research plans include the development and deployment of machine learning methodology to analyze air pollution data from Kampala, in order to determine the source of the pollution and to aid the design of mitigating interventions. WIMEA-ICT WIMEA-ICT is a combined research and capacity building project that seeks to improve weather information management in the entire East Africa region by development of ICT-based solutions (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation [NORAD] 2013). Funded by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) under the NORHED (Norwegian Programme for Capacity Development in Higher Education and Research for Development) scheme, the

55

Use and Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Climate Change Adaptation in. . .

1119

project is a cooperation between Makerere University in Uganda, Dar es Salaam Institute of Technology (DIT) in Tanzania, the University of Juba in South Sudan, and the Geophysical Institute of the University of Bergen. The project recognizes the wide-ranging importance of weather data and the problems that result when weather predictions are inaccurate. Although project documentation does not specify the use of AI, among the five components of the project at least one is ideal for incorporation of AI: development of numerical weather prediction models specifically designed for the East African context.

The Potential of AI It is not difficult to identify a long list of research projects that focus on various climate change issues in Africa. Many such projects include analyses of large datasets that would, seemingly, be ideal for analysis by AI algorithms. For example, Petja et al. (2004) describe an analysis of South African regional weather data dating from 1900 onward and satellite data dating from 1985 onward. The data are used to monitor regional climate and vegetation variations over time. In another example, Hagenlocher et al. (2014) describe the combination of numerous datasets to develop a cumulative climate change impact indicator. Applied to sub-Saharan Africa, the authors identified, evaluated, and mapped 19 hotspots that exhibited the most severe climate changes. In research out of Stanford University, Burke and Lobell (2017) demonstrated the importance of high-resolution satellite imagery data to estimate and understand yield variation among smallholder African farmers. This understanding generates various potential capabilities including the inexpensive measurement of the impact of specific interventions, the broader characterization of the source and magnitude of yield gaps, and the development of financial products aimed at African smallholders. Although the immediately foregoing examples, and many other studies, do not specifically mention the use of AI, it is clear that large interrelated datasets are of vital importance to many different areas of research relevant to climate change. There is significant room for AI to be used by researchers to improve methodologies involving analysis of weather and other data (Rasp et al. 2018).

Challenges and Future Applications Development of advanced technologies typically encounters challenges, and AI technologies and applications with a focus on climate change are no exception. Besides the typical challenges of developing AI products and services, Africa presents unique challenges both technological and political/ethical.

Scope of the Problem Technologies powered by machine learning (ML) algorithms, including those discussed herein that aid climate analysis (Huntingford et al. 2019), have advanced

1120

I. Rutenberg et al.

dramatically, triggering breakthroughs in other research sectors. Although a considerable number of isolated Earth System features have been analyzed with ML techniques, more generic application to understand better the full climate system has not occurred, and the technology to do so may be quite far from the current state of development. At this stage of development, Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to analyze smaller systems and provide enhanced warnings of approaching weather features, including extreme events. ML and AI can aid in understanding and improving existing data and simulations, as it has done in other systems (Huntingford et al. 2019). For instance, Airbus Defence and Space is using TensorFlow, the open-source set of AI tools from Google, to extract information from satellite images and offer valuable insights to customers. In a similar manner, AI can be used to detect and analyze isolated Earth System features and climate patterns, especially with the latest release of TensorFlow Quantum which enables a faster prototyping of ML models. Nevertheless, modeling the entire global climate remains challenging, and predictions from such models vary at all scales. Until the computational power and models have been refined to enable accurate global predictions, the need remains for smaller scale models. Local modeling requires context specific data and algorithms, so efforts toward development of Africa-specific climate change models must continue to be encouraged.

Ethical Issues of Predicting Climate Change Impacts AI algorithms are well suited to analyze large datasets and detect patterns, so they are naturally well suited for looking at patterns of large-scale human movement and the data that might be associated with such movement (Beduschi 2020). For example, it is postulated that economic data such as GDP growth, along with trends in other data such as population growth and weather data (which might indicate food security issues), can be used to predict future large-scale human migration (Nyoni 2017). Accuracy of the predictions can be increased by incorporating real-time data points, such as announcements by government central banks, military actions, and weather observations. Assuming there is a reasonable level of accuracy, predicting the location or the country most likely to suffer the next crisis of human migration has both remedial and prophylactic uses (TEDx Talks 2016). Humanitarian organizations can begin preparations for dealing with the crisis, and intergovernmental financial institutions can consider policy measures to ease debt burdens or encourage growth. Local and national governments of the yet-to-be affected regions can take measures to calm tensions and address the issues that cause migration. As useful as such predictions may be, this use case raises extreme ethical issues, for example by encouraging international efforts (including both active and passive efforts) to promote regime change where a specific government’s policies appear to be leading to a future migratory crisis. Additionally, a prediction of a future migratory crisis may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, by increasing tension among the population and reducing investor confidence in the economy. The good intentions of those developing the

55

Use and Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Climate Change Adaptation in. . .

1121

technology, in this case, may increase the likelihood of the humanitarian disasters that they are seeking to ease.

Data Inadequacies Apart from ethical issues, the development of AI for combating climate change in Africa may be severely hampered by a lack of data. The concept of a digital divide is many decades old, and documentation of the digital divide separating Africa from other regions is well established (Karar 2019). The modern-day extension of this concept is that of a data divide (Castro 2014), also referred to as a data desert or data poverty. First recognized with respect to certain populations in developed countries, the data divide is a problem in Africa and with respect to climate change for a variety of reasons. Historical weather data is less extensive in Africa compared with other parts of the world (Dinku 2018). Current data is also less extensive, as there are fewer weather satellites monitoring Africa than other regions and ground-based sensing is also less extensive (Dinku et al. 2011). Even where there is historical climate data, those data may be inaccessible – for example, because African governments and their weather agencies are increasingly seeking to commercialize the data, or because the data are not digitized (Nordling 2019). In this context, the issue of a data divide is complex and is indicative of an uneven power dynamic. As with many other areas, Africa engages the rest of the world from a disadvantaged position, and the unbalanced power of the relationship may negatively affect the outcome. Whereas monetizing data is a common practice in developed countries, because African nations need significant help in building the infrastructure for collecting data, they are expected to willingly release the data. A data commons, in which climate data is readily available for all to use, is vitally important to help climate scientists and other interested parties understand the impacts of climate change in Africa. Nevertheless, the desire of data holders to seek ways of monetizing their data is understandable. The concept of Africa as a data desert may, therefore, be unfairly characterizing the true situation. Rather than an absence of data, as the desert analogy implies, it is probably more accurate to say that data are present but not as readily available or easily searchable. As mentioned previously, African government websites may lack updated data (Ndongmo 2016), but this does not mean that they are not collecting the data. Open data portals are present in a few countries but have not become mainstream methods for governments to disseminate datasets. In some cases, governments generate revenue by selling datasets, and therefore have little incentive to making them available on an open platform. Efforts at increasing the volume of data collected about Africa should take into account these issues. Regardless of the causes of the data divide, there is no doubt that insufficient data is important in Africa’s ability to adapt to climate change. Climate change does not affect all geographical locations equally (United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2017). As the global average temperature rises, and sea levels rise, average temperatures in some areas may decline. Overall rainfall may increase or

1122

I. Rutenberg et al.

decrease in any particular location, depending on a variety of factors. Extremes in precipitation and temperatures will also be in homogeneously affected. These variations would be less problematic if data were gathered with uniform consistency in all locations, but as mentioned previously, data collection in Africa is less consistent and less thorough. The result of this situation is likely to be less accurate predictions of the effects of climate change in Africa compared with other regions. Less accurate predictions may mean that local and international decision makers are unable to adequately prepare for the impacts of climate change. Whether due to inefficient dissemination or to a fundamental lack of collection, or to some other reasons, the lack of available data has severe implications for the use of AI in adapting to climate change. Without sufficient data, AI algorithms are substantially less accurate and useful (West and Allen 2018). The trend in Africa, however, appears to be shifting toward a wider availability of data and a greater effort toward utilizing all available tools, including AI, in addressing climate change issues.

Conclusions Some countries are serious in their look toward the future. For example, Ethiopia launched its first observatory satellite into space in 2019. The 70-kg remote sensing satellite is to be used for agricultural, climate, mining and environmental observations, allowing the Horn of Africa to collect data and improve its ability to plan for changing weather patterns for example. The satellite will operate from space around 700 km above the surface of earth. Developments in Ethiopia follow the introduction by the African Union of an African space policy, which calls for the development of a continental outer-space program and the adoption of a framework to use satellite communication for economic progress. Clearly, efforts such as this are forward thinking and will help the continent to address the lack of data that hampers the use of AI to address issues of climate change. The problems of climate change are global, but Africa is likely to suffer to a greater degree compared with other regions. Scientists and policymakers in Africa need every available tool to help the continent adapt to the changes, but should always keep in mind the severity and scale of the problem. Notwithstanding the benefits that AI clearly brings, or promises to bring, in the efforts to adapt to climate change, it is clear that the fourth industrial revolution cannot fix what the second industrial revolution started.

References Adeoye A (2019) Google has opened its first Africa Artificial Intelligence lab in Ghana. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/14/africa/google-ai-center-accra-intl/index.html. Accessed 16 Mar 2020 Adewumi AE (2020) AI for the people: how to stop the Nigerian energy crisis. https://omdena.com/ blog/ai-energy-crisis. Accessed on 15 Mar 2020 African Soil Information Service, AfSIS. http://africasoils.net/. Accessed on 15 Mar 2020

55

Use and Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Climate Change Adaptation in. . .

1123

Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) (2014) Africa agriculture status report 2014: climate change and smallholder agriculture in sub-saharan Africa, AGRA Report. Nairobi. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/42343. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) (2019) New partnership to boost food security in Africa by use of artificial intelligence. http://agra.org/new-partnership-to-boost-food-securityin-africa-by-use-of-artificial-intelligence. Accessed on 14 Mar 2020 Anderson K, Ryan B, Sonntag W, Kavvada A, Friedl L (2017) Earth observation in service of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Geo Spat Inf Sci 20(2):77–96. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10095020.2017.1333230 Assefa S (2018) IBM Research, Hello Tractor pilot agriculture digital wallet based on AI and blockchain. https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2018/12/hello-tractor/. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 Aydoğdu M, Boyraz N (2012) Stem rust (ug99), seen as a threat globally. Akden iz Univ Ziraat Fak Derg 25(1):23–28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305687716_Stem_rust_ug99_ seen_as_a_threat_globally. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 Beduschi A (2020) International migration management in the age of artificial intelligence. Migr Stud. https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnaa003 Burke M, Lobell DB (2017) Satellite-based assessment of yield variation and its determinants in smallholder African systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114(9):2189–2194. https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.1616919114 Campbell M, Tishkoff S (2008) African genetic diversity: implications for human demographic history, modern human origins, and complex disease mapping. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 9:403–433. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164258 Carnegie Mellon University Africa. https://www.africa.engineering.cmu.edu/. Accessed on 17 Mar 2020 Castro D (2014) The rise of data poverty in America. Report from Center for Data Innovation. Available at: http://www2.datainnovation.org/2014-data-poverty.pdf. Accessed on 13 Mar 2020 Chiwewe T, Ditsela J (2016) Machine learning based estimation of ozone using spatio-temporal data from air quality monitoring stations. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Industrial Informatics, Poitiers, France, 18–21 July 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/ INDIN.2016.7819134 Cox H, Kelly K, Yetter L (2014) Using remote sensing and geospatial technology for climate change education. J Geosci Educ 62(4):609–620. https://doi.org/10.5408/13-040.1 Deep Learning Indaba. http://www.deeplearningindaba.com. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 Department of Environmental Affairs South Africa (2016) Welcome to environmental GIS. https://egis.environment.gov.za/. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 Diallo AB, Nguifo EM, Dhifli W, Azizi E, Prabhakaran S, Tansey W (2019) Selected papers from the workshop on computational biology: joint with the international joint conference on artificial intelligence and the international conference on machine learning 2018. J Comput Biol 26:6. https://doi.org/10.1089/cmb.2019.29020.abd Diamandis P (2019) AI and robotics are transforming disaster relief. https://singularityhub.com/ 2019/04/12/ai-and-robotics-are-transforming-disaster-relief/. Accessed on 17 Mar 2020 Dinku T (2018) Overcoming challenges in the availability and use of climate data in Africa. ICT Update. https://ictupdate.cta.int/en/article/overcoming-challenges-in-the-availability-anduse-of-climate-data-in-africa-sid06fd8a811-e179-4fa5-9c8f-806bd2f27c3e. Accessed on 13 Mar 2020 Dinku T, Asefa K, Hilermariam K, Grimes D, Connor S (2011) Improving availability, access and use of climate information. World Meteor Org Bull 60(2) Available at: https://public.wmo.int/en/bulletin/improving-availability-access-and-use-climate-information. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 European Commission High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (2018) The ethics guidelines for trustworthy artificial intelligence. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/ high-level-expert-group-artificial-intelligence. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 GhanaWeb (2019) GSS partners Vodafone & Flowminder to produce reliable data for sustainable development. https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/GSS-partners-

1124

I. Rutenberg et al.

Vodafone-amp-Flowminder-to-produce-reliable-data-for-sustainable-development-814189. Accessed on 17 Mar 2020 Hagenlocher M, Lang S, Hölbling D, Tiede D, Kienberger S (2014) Modeling hotspots of climate change in the Sahel using object-based regionalization of multidimensional gridded datasets. IEEE J Sel Top Earth Obs Remote Sens 7(1):229–234. https://doi.org/10.1109/ JSTARS.2013.2259579 Huntingford C, Jeffers E, Bonsall M, Christensen H, Lees T, Yang H (2019) Machine learning and artificial intelligence to aid climate change research and preparedness. Environ Res Lett 14 (12):124007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4e55 International Telecommunication Union (2019) United Nations activities on artificial intelligence. Compendium presented and discussed at the AI for Good UN Partners Meeting, UNWomen Headquarters in New York, 23 September 2019. https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/opb/gen/SGEN-UNACT-2019-1-PDF-E.pdf. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 Johnson K (2018) Major AI conference is moving to Africa in 2020 due to visa issues. https://ven turebeat.com/2018/11/19/major-ai-conference-is-moving-to-africa-in-2020-due-to-visa-issues/. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 Johnson K, Pasquale F, Chapman J (2019) Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and bias in finance: toward responsible innovation. Fordham Law Rev 88(2):499. https://ir.lawnet.fordham. edu/flr/vol88/iss2/5. Accessed on 12 Mar 2020 Karar H (2019) Algorithmic capitalism and the digital divide. J Dev Soc 35(4):514–537 Knight W (2019) African AI experts get excluded from a conference – again. https://www.wired. com/story/african-ai-experts-get-excluded-from-a-conference-again/. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 Lecoq M (2003) Desert locust threat to agricultural development and food security and FAO/ International role in its control. Arab J Pl Prot 21:188–193. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/242118174_Desert_Locust_Threat_to_Agricultural_Development_and_Food_ Security_and_FAOInternational_Role_in_its_Control. Accessed on 17 Mar 2020 Lukhanyu M (2019) Agri SA & Aerobotics partner to offer free service for all South African farmers. https://techmoran.com/2019/05/15/agri-sa-aerobotics-partner-to-offer-free-service-forall-south-african-farmers/. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 Meier P (2012) Crisis mapping in action: how open source software and global volunteer networks are changing the world one map at a time. J Map Geogr Libr 8(2):89–100. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15420353.2012.663739. Accessed on 15 Mar 2020 Microsoft Access Partnership University of Pretoria (2018) Artificial intelligence for Africa: An opportunity for growth, development and democratisation. White Paper. https://www.up. ac.za/media/shared/7/ZP_Files/ai-for-africa.zp165664.pdf. Accessed on 14 Mar 2020 Nabatte P (2019) Mak’s AirQo project is a US 1.3million Google AI impact grantee. https://news. mak.ac.ug/2019/05/maks-airqo-project-us13m-google-ai-impact-grantee. Accessed on 14 Mar 2020. See further AirQo https://www.airqo.net/. Accessed on 17 Mar 2020 Nanalyze (2019) Top-10 artificial intelligence startups in Africa. https://www.nanalyze.com/2019/ 04/artificial-intelligence-africa/. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 Ndongmo K (2016) African government websites – new and improved, or not? Report on medium. Edition of January 8 2016. Available at: https://medium.com/@kathleenndongmo/african-gov ernment-websites-new-and-improved-or-not-746a5a5a62d. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 Nordling L (2019) Scientists struggle to access Africa’s historical climate data. Nature 574:605–606 Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) (2013) Improving weather information management in East Africa. https://norad.no/en/front/about-norad/. Accessed 10 Mar 2020 Nyoni B (2017) How Artificial Intelligence can be Used to Predict Africa’s Next Migration Crisis. https://www.unhcr.org/innovation/how-artificial-intelligence-can-be-used-to-predict-africasnext-migration-crisis/. Accessed on 13 Mar 2020 Nzouankeu A (2019) App helps African farmers detect crop disease. https://www.voanews.com/ africa/app-helps-african-farmers-detect-crop-disease. Accessed on 17 Mar 2020 Omdena (2019) Using AI to predict climate change and forced displacement. https://omdena.com/ challenges/ai-climate-change. Accessed on 10 Mar 2020

55

Use and Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Climate Change Adaptation in. . .

1125

One Concern (2020) What we do: We are advancing science based technology to make disasters less disastrous. https://www.oneconcern.com/product. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 Oxford Insights International Development Research Centre (2019) Government artificial Intelligence readiness index 2019. https://www.oxfordinsights.com/ai-readiness2019. Accessed on 12 Mar 2020 Patrick S (2020) How should the world respond to the coming wave of climate migrants? World Politics Review. https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/28603/how-should-the-worldrespond-to-the-coming-wave-of-climate-migrants. Accessed on 15 Mar 2020 Peacock C, Mungai F (2019) Impact investment favours expats over African entrepreneurs: Here’s how to fix that. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/impactinvestors-favour-expats-over-african-entrepreneurs-here-s-how-to-fix-that/. Accessed on 12 Mar 2020 Penn State. (2019). New AI app predicts climate change stress for farmers in Africa: researchers will unveil their app for climate-smart agriculture to coincide with the UN Climate Action Summit. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190923082252.htm. Accessed 12 Mar 2020 Perrault R, Shoham Y et al (2019) The AI index 2019 annual report. AI Index Steering Committee Human-Centered AI Institute, Stanford University, Stanford. Accessed on 13 March 2020. Available at: https://hai.stanford.edu/sites/xg/files/sbiybj10986/f/ai_index_2019_report.pdf Peters A (2018) This startup lets african farmers hire and on-demand tractor to boost their harvests. https://www.fastcompany.com/90227534/hello-tractor-and-john-deere-bring-10000-tractors-toafrica. Accessed on 20 Sept 2019 Petja BM, Malherbe J, van Zyl D (2004) Using satellite imagery and rainfall data to track climate variability in South Africa. Paper presented at the 2004 IGARSS 2004 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Anchorage, Alaska, 20–24 September 2004. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2004.1369098 Pulse Lab Kampala (2018) Pulse Lab Kampala progress report 2016–2017. https://beta. unglobalpulse.org/document/pulse-lab-kampala-progress-report-2016-2017-2/. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 Rasp S, Pritchard MS, Gentine P (2018) Deep learning to represent subgrid processes in climate models. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115(39):9684–9689. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1810286115 Scoones I, Thompson J (2011) The politics of seed in Africa’s green revolution: alternative narratives and competing pathways. IDS Bull 42(4):1–23 Starbird K (2012) Crowdwork, crisis and convergence: how the connected crowd organizes information during mass disruption events. Dissertation, University of Colorado. http://fac ulty.washington.edu/kstarbi/starbird_dissertation_final.pdf. Accessed on 14 Mar 2020 TEDx Talks (2016) Predicting Africa’s Next Refugee Crisis Using AI|Babusi Nyoni| TEDxCapeTown In: Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼lsi8ZgTvbT4. Accessed on 14 Mar 2020 The Economist (2020) China’s success on AI has relied on good data. https://www.economist.com/ technology-quarterly/2020/01/02/chinas-success-at-ai-has-relied-on-good-data. Accessed on 10 Mar 2020 The Guardian (2017) ‘Tsunami of data’ could consume one fifth of global electricity by 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/tsunami-of-data-could-consume-fifthglobal-electricity-by-2025. Accessed on 10 Mar 2020 The World Bank (2014) Land and food security. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/ brief/land-and-food-security1. Accessed on 17 Mar 2020 TOP500.org (2019) TOP500 lists. https://www.top500.org/lists/top500/. Accessed on 6 Mar 2020 Tortoise Intelligence (2019) The global AI index. https://www.tortoisemedia.com/intelligence/ai/. Accessed on 12 Mar 2020 United Nations World Data Forum (2018) (TA2.16) Earth observation applications for the sustainable development goals: opportunities for scaling successful methods. https://unstats.un.org/

1126

I. Rutenberg et al.

unsd/undataforum/sessions/ta2-16-earth-observation-applications-for-the-sustainable-develop ment-goals-opportunities-for-scaling-successful-methods/. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2017) International Climate Change Impacts. Report from Climate Change Impacts edition of January 19 2017. Available at: https://19januar y2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/international-climate-impacts_.html. Accessed on 16 Mar 2020 Vodafone (2018) Vodafone Foundation to use aggregated anonymised mobile data to help prevent spread of epidemics in transformative ‘Big data for good’ programme. https://www.vodafone. com/news-and-media/vodafone-group-releases/news/vodafone-foundation-use-aggregate-data. Accessed on 15 Mar 2020 Weldemariam K, Pickover C, Kozloski J, Gordon M (2020) Artificial Intelligence for providing enhanced microblog message insertion, US Patent Application 20200028885, 23 Jan 2020 West D, Allen J (2018) How Artificial Intelligence is transforming the world. The Brookings Institution report. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-artificial-intelligenceis-transforming-the-world/. Accessed on 04 Nov 2020

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme Rainfall Events in Nigeria

56

Olumide A. Olaniyan, Vincent O. Ajayi, Kamoru A. Lawal, and Ugbah Paul Akeh

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Study Area and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convective Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-convective Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean HMFD and CAPE at the Surface, Three Days Prior and Three Days After Storm Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1128 1130 1130 1131 1132 1134 1134 1145 1149 1152 1156

This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. O. A. Olaniyan (*) · U. P. Akeh National Weather Forecasting and Climate Research Centre, Nigerian Meteorological Agency, Abuja, Nigeria V. O. Ajayi West African Science Service Center on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria Department of Meteorology and Climate Science, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria e-mail: [email protected] K. A. Lawal National Weather Forecasting and Climate Research Centre, Nigerian Meteorological Agency, Abuja, Nigeria African Climate and Development Initiative, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_98

1127

1128

O. A. Olaniyan et al.

Abstract

This chapter investigates extreme rainfall events that caused flood during summer months of June–September 2010–2014. The aim is to determine the impact of horizontal moisture flux divergence (HMFD) and vertical wind shear on forecasting extreme rainfall events over Nigeria. Wind divergence and convective available potential energy (CAPE) were also examined to ascertain their threshold values during the events. The data used include rainfall observation from 40 synoptic stations across Nigeria, reanalyzed datasets from ECMWF at 0.125°
0.125° resolution and the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) dataset at resolution of 0.25°
0.25°. The ECMWF datasets for the selected days were employed to derive the moisture flux divergence, wind shear, and wind convergence. The derived meteorological parameters and the CAPE were spatially analyzed and superimposed on the precipitation obtained from the satellite data. The mean moisture flux and CAPE for some northern Nigerian stations were also plotted for 3 days prior to and 3 days after the storm. The result showed that HMFD and CAPE increased few days before the storm and peak on the day of the storms, and then declined afterwards. HMFD values above 1.0
106 g kg1 s1 is capable of producing substantial amount of rainfall mostly above 50 mm while wind shear has a much weaker impact on higher rainfall amount than moisture availability. CAPE above 1000 Jkg1 and 1500 Jk1 are favorable for convection over the southern and northern Nigeria, respectively. The study recommends quantitative analysis of moisture flux as a valuable short-term severe storm predictor and should be considered in the prediction of extreme rainfall. Keywords

Mesoscale convective system · Moisture flux divergence · Wind shear · Extreme rainfall · Flood

Introduction Human-induced climate change has increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and has caused adverse effects on different regions, ecosystems, and economies across the world (Nwankwoala 2015). These effects depend not only on the sensitivity of populace to climate change but also on their ability to adapt to risks and changes associated with it. Since the atmospheric moisture budget plays an important role in the hydrology of a particular region, the changing weather patterns caused by climate change has increased the incidences of extreme rainfall events (Roshani et al. 2012; Weisman et al. 1988). Rainfall variability associated with climate change has impacted socioeconomic activities such as agriculture, food security, water resources management, health sector, hydroelectric power generation, and dam management among others in Nigeria (Bello 2010). Most of the negative effects of rainfall variability are on agriculture since majority of farmers

56

Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme. . .

1129

in the country depend on rain-fed agriculture for livelihood (IPCC 2014; Lawal et al. 2016). Levels of adaptation of farmers in Nigeria to climate change is low, due to lack of adequate education, assets, information, and income (Madu 2016), and consequently agriculture is more vulnerable to climate change impact. Rainfall over Nigeria is mostly from the West African Monsoon systems (WAMS) (Diatta and Fink 2014), and agriculture is an important sector of economy of the country which is highly dependent on the WAMS (Raj et al. 2019). Studies have shown that the complexity of the atmospheric dynamics that generate rainfall, temporal and spatial variation of its scale made it difficult to understand and model. Also, the required parameters to predict it are usually complex even for a short-term period (Sumi et al. 2012). Majority of the results of studies conducted on extreme precipitation events over Nigeria showed that there have been some notable increase in intensity of rainfall extremes which usually claim many lives and properties (Okorie 2015). In recent times, incidences of large storms have become more frequent with increased intensity, especially the occurrences of high rainfall in form of intense single-day events causing devastating flood (Enete 2014). However, short-range forecasting of these flood occurrences has been a great challenge. Studies have also shown that the distinctive property of West African monsoon flow is that there is seasonal, monthly, and daily variability in its moisture content mainly in the lowest 1 km of the atmosphere (Omotosho and Abiodun 2007). Furthermore, the intensity and duration of extreme rainfall are majorly dependent on the adequacy of moisture carried by the moist southwesterly flow from the South Atlantic Ocean. Studies have also shown that the daily variability of moisture advection mechanisms is responsible for the changes in the intensity and amount of rainfall (Omotosho et al. 2000). Couvreux et al. (2010) noted that at low level, daily moisture transport takes place with periodic northward advection of moisture flux that has 3–5 days frequency. A study conducted by Bechtold et al. (2004) also showed that large-scale thunderstorms in form of Mesoscale Convective Systems (MCSs) are formed over West Africa when there is constant supply of low-level moisture. The action of synoptic scale intensification of the St. Helena high pressure system over the South Atlantic Ocean is majorly responsible for moisture divergence into West Africa. Similarly, in a numerical study of moisture build-up and rainfall done by Omotosho and Abiodun (2007), it was reported that the rainfall amount does not depend on the monsoon flow alone but majorly on the sufficiency and the variability of its moisture content. Other studies have also examined the influence and interaction of different scales of motion such as African Easterly Jet (AEJ), Tropical Easterly Jet (TEJ), and African Easterly Waves (AEW) on the formation of MCSs (Nicholson 2013). These studies focused mainly on the scale interactions responsible for seasonal variability in weather pattern during northern summer (Janicot et al. 2011). They, however, did not consider in detail the quantity of daily moisture advection responsible for these rainfall extremes. The main focus of this chapter is to contribute to the understanding of the impact of moisture flux on the rainfall amount. Hence, it is necessary to study extreme precipitation events and diagnose the signatures of the meteorological parameters peculiar to such events. Studying this may enhance the assessment of the manner in which extreme rainfall events evolve and therefore provide a short-term early warning

1130

O. A. Olaniyan et al.

method to forecasters. It will also assist in understanding the evolution of some derived meteorological parameters such as the moisture flux which determines the quantity of rainfall and the wind shear which determines the life span of the storm (Weisman et al. 1988). Thorough understanding of these parameters will aid reliable short-term flood forecast. The usefulness of horizontal moisture flux at or near the earth’s surface as a thunderstorm predictor has been recognized throughout various studies (Beckman 1990). Apart from the availability of moisture, sustenance of MCSs also requires a certain magnitude of vertical wind shear to produce a stronger and longer-lived system (Weisman and Rotunno 2004). Observational and numerical studies have revealed that horizontal winds and their vertical structures have important impacts on convective development; to buttress this point, Omotosho (1987) noted that thunderstorms occur, most frequently, in association with low-level wind shears below the AEJ (surface to 700 hPa) ranging from 20 to 5 s1 and for mid troposphere (700–400 hPa) in the range of 0 to 10s1. Despite the importance of wind shear, its effect on MCS has not been treated explicitly over Nigeria. Most climate prediction models do not perform well in prediction of extreme rainfall events over West Africa because of their low resolution (Nyakwada 2004), the nature of parameterization schemes employed in the model, scarcity of real-time data, and mostly due to the convective nature of West African rainfall, hence the forecast of extreme rainfall event is a major challenge to forecasters in West Africa. The aim of this chapter is therefore to determine the impact of moisture flux, vertical wind shear, and other derived meteorological parameters such as wind divergence and convective available potential energy (CAPE) on MCSs during extreme rainfall events over Nigeria. Therefore, the study investigates the spatiotemporal variability of moisture flux that feeds into MCSs and its impacts on the occurrences of high impact rainfall. The objective is to assess the threshold values of derived meteorological parameters responsible for isolated cases of extreme precipitation in order to enhance its predictability and contribute to the understanding of the impact of moisture flux on the amount of precipitation. This research makes use of a synergistic approach involving the moisture flux divergence, wind shear analysis below and above the AEJ, and CAPE. The spatial distribution of these derived parameters is considered, with a focus on understanding their contribution to the formation and sustenance of MCSs during extreme rainfall events. This chapter will be a useful guide for further investigations into accurate prediction of high impact rainfall that can result into flood events using moisture flux analysis.

Description of the Study Area and Methodology Study Area Nigeria is situated between latitudes 4° and 14°N and longitudes 2° and 15°E and falls within the tropics. It shares borders with Niger in the north, Chad in the northeast, Benin in the west, Cameroon in the east, and its coast in the south borders the Gulf of Guinea on the South Atlantic Ocean. Precipitation is received mainly

56

Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme. . .

1131

Fig. 1 Map of Nigeria showing the whole country as study area and spatial distribution of Nigerian Meteorological Agency synoptic stations used in this chapter

during the northern hemispheric summer, which is referred to as the wet seasons. Moist southwesterly winds from the South Atlantic Ocean prevail during the summer while dry northeasterlies from the Sahara desert are dominant in the winter which is the dry season (Fig. 1). The confluence zone between both wind systems is the Inter-tropical Discontinuity (ITD). The surface location of the ITD significantly accounts for rainfall interannual variability in the country (Nicholson 2009). The ITD fluctuates seasonally during the northern summer over West Africa and migrates northward from its winter position of 4°N to its northernmost position of about 22°N (Fig. 2). The amount of rainfall experienced by different areas depends on the position of the ITD. Most of the convective rainfall follows the south-north-south displacement of the ITD (Sultan and Janicot 2003).

Data Daily data for selected days of heavy rainfall was obtained from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast’s (ECMWF) ERA-INTERIM dataset on a gridded point of 0.125°
0.125° and pressure levels of 1000, 850, 700, 400, and 200 hPa for the summer months of June–September 2010–2014. The daily datasets

LATITUDE (0N)

1132

O. A. Olaniyan et al.

19 14 9 4 II

FE

B II

AP

R

MONTHS Obs2018

Normal

Fig. 2 Decadal latitudinal positions of the ITD in 2018 and its climatological mean over Nigeria. (Source: NiMet Climate Review Bulletin 2018)

are convective available potential energy (CAPE), specific humidity, zonal (U), meridional (V) winds, and divergence. Daily-accumulated rainfall was obtained from Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) dataset, at a resolution of 0.25°
0.25°. Observed rainfall for the months of June–September 2010–2014 was obtained from the Nigerian Meteorological Agency (NiMet) from 40 synoptic stations over Nigeria as shown in Fig. 1 to validate the TRMM dataset. Days of unusually high amount of rainfall during the months of June–September were selected from 2010 to 2014.

Research Methodology Derived meteorological parameters such as moisture flux, CAPE, vertical wind shear, monsoon depth, the strengths of AEJ and TEJ were evaluated on these specific days to ascertain the characteristics of atmospheric dynamics during the occurrences of extreme rainfall events. The monsoon depth, the strengths of AEJ and TEJ are obtained by plotting the vertical wind profile using the U component of wind. The atmospheric dynamics of these events were diagnosed to find out the significant threshold of moisture flux, CAPE, vertical wind shear, monsoon depth, the strengths of AEJ and TEJ that may possibly be responsible for such unusually high amount of rainfall. Convective days were compared to a non-convective day to determine the difference in the characteristics of the atmospheric dynamics. Observationally, while there were occurrences of thunderstorms with heavy rainfall on convective days, none occurred on non-convective days. Ten weather events that produce rainfall above 50 mm were also selected for four meteorological stations over the northern region from 2010 to 2014. The mean of derived parameters such as moisture flux and CAPE 3 days prior and after the rainfall events are calculated to assess their characteristics during the period. (12.00°N, 8.59°E), Maiduguri (11.83 N, 13.15°E), Sokoto (13.01° N, 5.25°E), and Yelwa (10.83°N, 4.74°E) were chosen, because according to Omotosho (1985), about 90% of rainfall over these stations is attributed to MCSs.

56

Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme. . .

1133

Computation of Horizontal Moisture Flux and Wind Shear Horizontal moisture flux is computed by the following formula. Using U and V components of wind, ∇:V ¼

@u @v þ @x @y

ð1Þ

where ∇. V ¼ Divergence Horizontal moisture flux divergence (HMFD) fields were derived from the specific humidity and components of the wind for the surface and 850 hPa by using the following formula:     @q @q @u @v þq þV þ HMF ¼  U @x @y @x @y

ð2Þ

where:   @q @q is the Advection term U þV @x @y   @u @v is the divergence term q þ @x @y where (q) is the specific humidity, (u) and (v) are zonal and meridional wind speed components of q, u and v; the advection term represents the horizontal advection of specific humidity, while the divergence term denotes the product of the specific @ @ and @y show the horizontal variation humidity and horizontal mass convergence. @x of atmospheric quantities such as specific humidity and wind. The first term in the moisture flux (MF) equation is moisture advection. This term incorporates changes of the moisture field with time or the flux of the moisture field. The moisture advection term, similar to the mass divergence term, incorporates into MF the effects of moisture availability on convection. The second term, mass convergence term incorporates moisture accumulation by multiplying the wind convergence, which is the rate at which the air itself is pooling, by the moisture content of the air (mixing ratio). The mass convergence term is usually the dominant term, and observations have shown that the moisture advection term can significantly contribute to the development and subsequent intensification of storms. By combining the effects of mass convergence as a low-level forcing mechanism with moisture availability, moisture flux incorporates most of the ingredients necessary for convection (Roshani et al. 2012). Vertical wind shear (U S) was calculated using the zonal component of wind at 1000, 700, 400, and 200 hPa levels. The vertical wind shear (U S) is defined as: US ¼

du 1 S dz

ð3Þ

1134

O. A. Olaniyan et al.

The vertical wind shear at the lower, mid, and upper troposphere using the formula (Omotosho 1987): US ðLÞ ¼ U700  Usurface

ð4Þ

US ðMÞ ¼ U400  U700

ð5Þ

US ðUÞ ¼ U200  U400

ð6Þ

where: US (L) ¼ Wind shear at lower troposphere US (M) ¼ Wind shear at mid troposphere US (U) ¼ Wind shear at upper troposphere Rainfall events that produced rainfall above 50 mm were also selected for four meteorological stations over the northern Nigerian region from 2010 to 2014. The mean of derived moisture flux and CAPE 3 days prior and after the rainfall events were calculated to assess their characteristics during the period. Kano (12.00°N, 8.59°E), Maiduguri (11.83°N, 13.15°E), Sokoto (13.01°N, 5.25°E), and Yelwa (10.83°N, 4.74°E) were chosen, because according to Omotosho (1985), about 90% of rainfall over these stations is attributed to MCSs.

Result Convective Days Moisture Flux Analysis The study presents the analysis of rainfall events that took place from the first to third July 2014 over most parts of the country. The intense rainfall observed led to flooding which resulted into loss of lives and properties. The TRMM rainfall analysis over the country from first to third as shown by Fig. 3a–c depicted the widespread rainfall across the country during the period. Rainfall amount of 71.5, 104, and 117 mm was observed on the first to third day, respectively, over Eket (4.65°N, 7.94°E), a coastal city in the southeastern part of the country. The horizontal moisture flux divergence (HMFD) analysis indicated that divergence of moisture at the surface was from the South Atlantic Ocean for the 3 days considered. Figure 4a–c showed that the values of HMFD ranged from 0.10 to 1.05
106g kg1 s1 on the first day with slight reduction on the second day to 0.85
106 g kg1 s1 while the maximum value of HMFD on the third day was up to 1.25
106 g kg1 s1. This analysis showed that higher the amount of moisture supplied to the storm, the higher the amount of precipitation. The analysis at 850 hPa level as shown by Fig. 5a–c depicted that area of moisture divergence shifted from the coast to mainly over the high grounds of Jos, Mambilla plateaus, and other high

Fig. 3 (a–c) Spatial distribution of TRMM rainfall (color; mm) for first, second, and third of July 2014, respectively, over Nigeria

56 Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme. . . 1135

Fig. 4 (a–c) Spatial distribution of horizontal moisture flux divergence (HMFD) at the surface (1000 hPa level) for 1–3 July 2014 (conversely, dotted lines indicate moisture convergence)

1136 O. A. Olaniyan et al.

Fig. 5 (a–c) Spatial distribution of horizontal moisture flux divergence (HMFD) at the 850 hPa for 1–3 July 2014 (conversely, dotted lines indicate moisture convergence)

56 Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme. . . 1137

1138

O. A. Olaniyan et al.

grounds across the country. Values of HMFD ranged from 0.01 to 0.55
106g kg1 s1 on the first and second day and increased to 1.15
106g kg1 s1 on the third day. It was observed that close to the divergence areas were areas of strong convergence, which coincided with areas of highest precipitation.

Wind Divergence Analysis Figures 6a–c and 7a–c showed the observed rainfall distribution over the country was maximum along the coastal areas and some inland cities of the southwest, e.g., at Shaki (8.35°N, 5.47°E) on the first day, strong wind divergence at 200 hPa level exactly over this area enhanced the lower tropospheric wind convergence. This is consistent with Nicholson (2009) which stated that strong upper-level divergence is associated with strong upward motion and severe convective storms; in contrast, upper-level convergence usually indicates downward motion, which is a sign of decaying convection. Due to this strong divergence at the upper level, convection became vigorous and vertical transport of moisture was enhanced from the lower troposphere. However, Fig. 5b shows that along the coast, convergence was observed at the surface with corresponding divergence at 200 hPa with little amount of rainfall; this may also be attributed to insufficient moisture as shown by the moisture flux analysis. Similarly, over the western parts of the country, wind divergence was at the surface with corresponding convergence at 200 hPa, hence less precipitation was observed. Vertical Wind Shear The wind shear analysis, Fig. 8a–c showed that the low-level wind shear Us(L) ranged between 4 s1 and 14 s1 across the country. These values agreed with Omotosho (1987) who showed that thunderstorms occur most frequently in association with low-level shears, below the African Easterly Jet (i.e., surface to 700 hPa) with values within – 20 ~ < Us(L) ~ <  5 s1. Areas with precipitation value above 50 mm have values of Us (L) of 14 s1 and above. However, some areas with Us (L) of 14 s1 did not record any rainfall, this may be attributed to wind divergence observed at the surface or inadequate moisture supply (Grist and Nicholson, 2001). The value of Us (L) ranges from 8 to 4 s1 over the southwest on the first and second day and up to 12 s1 on the third day. Considerable amount of rainfall observed over these regions coincided with areas with adequate moisture flux convergence on the first and third day. According to Rotunno et al. (1988) and Weisman et al. (1988), vertical wind shear is important in the formation of organized long-lived convection; however, very strong horizontal wind shear can inhibit the growth of cumulus clouds by blowing away the parts of the cloud containing the best developed precipitation particle and thereby preventing the process of precipitation (Rickenbach et al. 2002). Figure 8a–c showed that the value of mid-level wind shear Us (U) over the country ranges between 0 and 2 s1 except on the second day where the value of WSU over western parts is between 0 and 10s1. It is noteworthy that moderately sheared environment is important for sustaining MCSs during extreme rainfall event (Figs. 9 and 10).

Fig. 6 (a–c) Spatial distribution of rainfall (color; mm) and wind divergence at surface (contour; s1) for 1–3 July 2014 (dotted lines indicate convergence)

56 Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme. . . 1139

Fig. 7 (a–c) Spatial distribution of Rainfall (color; mm) and wind divergence at 200 hPa (contour; s1) for 1–3 July 2014 (dotted lines indicate convergence)

1140 O. A. Olaniyan et al.

Fig. 8 (a–c) Spatial distribution of low-level wind shear US(L) between the surface (1000 hPa) and 700 hPa level (contour; s1) and TRMM precipitation (color; mm) for 1–3 July 2014

56 Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme. . . 1141

Fig. 9 (a–c) Spatial distribution of upper-level wind shear US(U) between the 400 and 700 hPa level (contour; s1) and TRMM precipitation (color; mm) for 1–3 July 2014

1142 O. A. Olaniyan et al.

Fig. 10 (a–c) Spatial distribution of upper-level wind shear US(U) between the 200 and 400 hPa level (contour; s1) and TRMM precipitation (color; mm) for 1–3 July 2014

56 Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme. . . 1143

1144

O. A. Olaniyan et al.

Wind Vector at 850 hPa Figure 11a–c showed that there was continuous moisture supply from the Atlantic Ocean throughout the rainfall events. Moist southwesterly winds convergence that was observed along the southwest coast on the first day produced significant amount of rainfall over Lagos (6.52°N, 3.37°E) and Lokoja (7.80°N, 6.73°E) axis. The wind flow from south to north remained steady from the day 1 and 2. Although over the northern parts, the wind direction indicated northeasterly flow on day 3, but sufficient residual moisture has already accumulated over the country up to the northern areas before the occurrence of a more widespread and heavy rainfall on the third day as shown by Fig. (11a–b). On the third day, over the southeastern parts, there was a well-organized deep monsoon flow from the Gulf of Guinea feeding into a vortex over the inland area of the southeastern parts of the country. The advected moisture depth was enough to maintain the active system over the southeastern axis as shown by the HMFD analysis. A total rainfall of 292.5 mm was recorded round Eket (4.65° N, 7.94°E), the vicinity of the vortex.

Fig. 11 (a–c): Spatial distribution of wind vector at 850 hPa for 1–3 July 2014

56

Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme. . .

1145

Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE) CAPE is an energy-based measure of atmospheric stability; it is a very important index in the forecasting of rainfall over Nigeria (Olaniyan et al. 2015). Figure 12a–c showed that the CAPE up to 2900 Jkg1 was observed over the northeast and central parts in the first and second day; however, not much precipitation was recorded. This may also be attributed to insufficient moisture as shown by Fig. 4a–b. Over the southwest, CAPE value of 1600 Jkg1 and 2400 Jkg1 was observed on the first day and the second day, respectively, but due to reduction in moisture flux on the second day, rainfall reduction was observed compared to the first day. Over the southeastern parts, the CAPE values vary from 800 JKg1 to 1600 JKg1 and 1000–1500 Jkg1 on the first and second day, respectively, while on the third day, the value ranged from 1000 JKg1 to 1500 JKg1, and the highest amount of rainfall was observed on the third day. Over the northern parts, CAPE values favorable for convection ranges between 1000 and 2800 Jkg1 on the first day, while it is 600–3000 Jkg1 on the second day though no rainfall was observed on this day due to reduced moisture flux. On the third day, the CAPE value was 2500 Jkg1 and peaked to 4000 Jkg1, higher rainfall was observed due to abundant moisture over this area indicating a deep layer of moisture to fuel the MCSs. A consistent pattern of CAPE was observed throughout the rainfall events, CAPE increases from coastal to the northern parts of Nigeria and the higher the CAPE, the higher the intensity of storm, provided moisture is sufficient. Vertical Wind Profile (AEJ, TEJ, and Monsoon Depth) Figure 13a–c showed the extent of the moist southwesterly winds, the strength of the AEJ and the TEJ over the south and northern regions, and their mean position over the whole country, respectively, from the first to third of July. The zonal wind at the surface was westerly with speed of about 2, 6, and 5 ms1, respectively, over the south of 9°N, north of 9°N, and the entire country. The first and second days indicated lower moisture depth at 900 hPa compared to 950 hPa on the third day (Fig. 13c). The AEJ was located at about 700 hPa with a mean speed of 12, 10, and 8 ms1 for the first, second, and third day, respectively, while the speed of TEJ was 18, 12, and 13 ms1, respectively, for the 3 days over the entire country. Thermodynamically, the AEJ is often responsible for advection of both sensible heat and latent energy into regions where severe thunderstorms are formed. TEJ is responsible for enhancing upper level divergence, which in turn encourages vertical motion and lower level convergence (Nicholson et al. 2012). Therefore, the strength of the jets and the availability of adequate moisture support these extreme rainfall events.

Non-convective Day Generally, the atmosphere was stable on this day; most stations in the country reported no rainfall. Analysis of a non-convective day was done to evaluate the

Fig. 12 (a–c): Spatial distribution of CAPE over Nigeria for 1–3 July 2014

1146 O. A. Olaniyan et al.

Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme. . .

b

south of 9°N

north of 9°N

100

100

200

200

300

300

400 500 600

400 500 600

700

700

800

800

900

900

1000 –20

–15

–10

–5

1000 0

–20

5

–15

–10

U-wind (m/s) 01-JUL-2014

02-JUL-2014

1147

Pressure (hPa)

a

Pressure (hPa)

56

–5

0

5

U-wind (m/s) 03-JUL-2014

c

01-JUL-2014

02-JUL-2014

03-JUL-2014

whole Nigeria 100 200 Pressure (hPa)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 –20

–15

–10

–5

0

5

U-wind (m/s) 01-JUL-2014

02-JUL-2014

03-JUL-2014

Fig. 13 (a–c) Vertical wind profiles (in m/s) averaged over (a) south of 9°N, (b) north of 9°N, and (c) the entire Nigeria for 1–3 July 2014. Days 1, 2, and 3 are indicated in blue, red, and gray lines, respectively

difference in the behavior of the convective parameters in order to identify the reason for the observed stability in the atmosphere on the day.

Divergence Analysis Figure 14a, b shows that over the southwestern parts of the country, convergence was observed at the surface and also at 200 hPa, and hence vertical motion was

1148

O. A. Olaniyan et al.

Fig. 14 Spatial distribution of rainfall (color; mm) and wind divergence at (a) 1000 hPa (b) 200 hPa level (contour; s1) for 27 August 2014 (dotted lines indicate convergence)

suppressed; this may be due to widespread subsidence prominent during this period caused by reduced sea surface temperature and the ridging effect of the south Atlantic high pressure system over the St. Helena. This period is usually referred to as the little dry season. However, over some parts of the central region and the southeastern coast, convergence was observed at the surface while there was corresponding divergence at 200 hPa, but no rainfall was observed; this may be due to lack of sufficient moisture as shown by the HMFD (as shown in the next section) analysis. The rest of the country was prevailed by convergence at 200 hPa while divergence was observed at the surface. These features could suppress vertical transport of moisture.

Moisture Flux Analysis The HMFD analysis at the surface in Fig. 15a shows that less moisture was available at the surface and 850 hpa level. Moisture flux diverging from the Atlantic Ocean at the surface over the southwest coast was almost negligible, while over the southeastern part extended from the coast even to the inland has values ranging from 0.10 to 0.55
106 kg/gs1. Although wind convergence is present at the surface with corresponding divergence at 200 hPa, moisture may not be sufficient as shown in Fig. 14b, hence no rainfall is observed over the country. Vertical Wind Shear Analysis Figure 16a–c shows that US(L) values ranged between 0 s1 and 12 s1. The value of US(M) across the country ranged from 0 s1 to 8 s1, zero value was observed over the central state, while the value of US(U) ranged from 8 s1 to 18 s1as shown in Fig. 15a–c. Although this range is conducive for storm initiation, provided other conditions such as moisture availability, lower level convergence, and upper level divergence are met; otherwise, convection may be suppressed.

56

Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme. . .

1149

Fig. 15 (a and b) Spatial distribution of horizontal moisture flux divergence (HMFD) at the surface (1000 hPa) and 850 hPa for 27 August 2014 (conversely, dotted lines indicate moisture convergence)

Wind Vector The wind vector analysis shown in Fig. 17 depicted the prevalence of southwesterly wind from the Atlantic Ocean, but no rainfall was over the country; this was confirmed by insufficient moisture as shown in the moisture flux analysis of Fig. 15a, b despite the fact that the entire country was prevailed by southwesterly winds, and no rainfall was recorded across the country. According to Omotosho and Abiodun (2007), little or no precipitation is observed below a certain limit of atmospheric moisture. Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE) Figure 18 shows that the CAPE across the country ranges between 200 Jkg1 in the south and 1200 Jkg1 over the north; this is an indication of less potential energy to support convection, and for this particular day, moisture was also not sufficient to support rainfall as shown by HMFD analysis (Fig. 15a, b).

Mean HMFD and CAPE at the Surface, Three Days Prior and Three Days After Storm Events Ten weather events that produce rainfall above 50 mm were selected for four meteorological stations over the northern Nigeria from 2010 to 2014. The mean of derived parameters for selected days namely, horizontal moisture flux divergence (HMFD) and CAPE were evaluated 3 days before and 3 days after the storm over the northern stations of Kano (12.00°N, 8.59°E), Maiduguri (11.83 N, 13.15°E), Sokoto (13.01°N, 5.25°E), and Yelwa (10.83°N, 4.74°E) depicted in Figs. 19a, b, 20a, b, 21a, b, and 22a, b, respectively. On these figures, horizontal axes represent days; with 0 representing the day of the stormy events while negative and positive values (day) represent, respectively, 3 days prior and 3 days after the storm. Generally,

Fig. 16 (a–c) Spatial distribution of low-level wind shear: (a) 700–1000 hPa (L)), (b) 400–700 (US(M)), and (c) 200–400 hPa (US(U)) level (contour; s1) and TRMM precipitation (color; mm) for 27 August 2014

1150 O. A. Olaniyan et al.

56

Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme. . .

1151

Fig. 17 Spatial distribution of wind vector over Nigeria at 850 hPa for 27 August 2014

Fig. 18 Spatial distribution of CAPE over Nigeria for 27 August 2014

moisture divergence from the Atlantic Ocean accumulates prior to the storm, reaches climax on the day of the rainfall event, and starts declining after the storm (Panel (a) of Figs. 19, 20, 21, and 22). The mean HMFD was highest on day 0 which is day of the rainstorm. This is depicted by negative moisture flux and afterwards it gradually decreased after the storm. The analysis showed that extreme rainfall events are characterized by significant moisture flux divergence prior to storm events. Panel

1152

O. A. Olaniyan et al.

(a) 0.00E+00 -3

-2

-1

0

1

2

1

2

3

-2.00E-07

HMFD (gkg-1s-1)

-4.00E-07 -6.00E-07 -8.00E-07 -1.00E-06 -1.20E-06

(b)

DAY

3000

CAPE (Jkg-1)

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 -3

-2

-1

0 DAY

3

Fig. 19 (a and b) Derived meteorological parameters at surface over Kano (3 days before and 3 days after extreme rainfall events from June to September 2010–2014) for (a) mean HMFD and (b) CAPE

(b) of Figs. 19, 20, 21, and 22 also showed a similar pattern for the mean CAPE analysis. Table 1 shows the mean CAPE on day 0, which ranges from 2416 Jkg1 to 2954 Jkg1 with the highest over Sokoto.

Conclusion This chapter identified and examined a set of severe widespread rainfall that produced flood events over different parts of Nigeria. The result showed that moisture, convective instability, vertical wind shear, and lifting mechanisms all contributed to these events, but most importantly, the moisture influx. The quantity of rainfall over a given area can be related to the magnitude of the lower tropospheric moisture flux. The study also showed that the transfer of moisture flux in the low layer is mainly from the South Atlantic Ocean, and the higher the moisture flux diverged from the

56

Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme. . .

1153

(a) 8.00E-08 6.00E-08 4.00E-08 2.00E-08 0.00E+00 -3

-2

-1 0 -2.00E-08 -4.00E-08

(b)

1

2

3

DAY

3500 3000

-1

CAPE (Jkg )

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 -3

-2

-1

0 DAY

1

2

3

Fig. 20 (a and b) Derived meteorological parameters at surface Sokoto (3 days before and 3 days after the storm for extreme events from June to September 2010–2014) for (a) mean moisture flux divergence and (b) CAPE. Negative values in moisture flux analysis indicate convergence while positive values indicate divergence

Atlantic Ocean, the higher the amount of rainfall. The result also indicated that lowlevel convergence that corresponds with upper-level divergence encourages vertical transport of moisture while low-level divergence and upper-level convergence results in subsidence. At the surface, the value of moisture flux divergence ranges between 0.05 and 1.15
106gkg1 s1 at the vicinity of areas where considerable amount of precipitation of above 50 mm were observed. They are mostly located westward of moisture divergence zone. This gives a good indication of where flood is most likely. Moisture flux divergence value ranged from 1.0 to 2.0
106 gkg1 s1 at 850 hpa around the areas with substantial amount of rainfall in its vicinity, the high grounds of the southwest, Jos, Mambila, Adamawa plateaus, and Cameroonian mountain are good source of moisture divergence at 850 hPa, and hence theses area can be referred to as fertile ground for convection (Hodges and Thorncroft 1997; Akinsanola and Ogunjobi 2014). The wind shear below the AEJ (US(L)) over

1154

O. A. Olaniyan et al.

(a)

1.00E-06

-1 -1

HMFD (gkg s )

5.00E-07

0.00E+00 -3

-2

-1

0 -5.00E-07

1

2

3

1

2

3

DAY

3000

(b)

2500 -1

CAPE (Jkg )

2000 1500 1000 500 0 -3

-2

-1

0 DAY

Fig. 21 (a and b) Derived meteorological parameters at surface over Maiduguri (3 days before and 3 days after extreme rainfall events from June to September 2010–2014) for (a) mean moisture flux divergence and (b) CAPE. Negative values in moisture flux analysis indicate convergence while positive values indicate divergence

the region of intense precipitation ranges between 8 and 12 ms1. At midtroposphere (US(M)), wind shear value ranged from 2 s1 to 8 s1, while at upper level (US(U)), the values ranged between 0 and 12 s1. Most of the result of US(L) were in agreement with Omotosho (1987) on the value of wind shear necessary for the initiation and sustenance of MCSs. The CAPE analysis indicated that potential energy equal or greater than 1500 Jkg1 favored convection over the northern parts, while CAPE value equal or greater 1000 Jkg1 was able to trigger convective activities over the southern parts. The result also showed that extreme rainfall also depends on convective available potential energy CAPE, and the higher the CAPE, the more intense was the rainfall, provided moisture was sufficient. Similarly, rainfall observed at a particular area varies according to the amount of moisture flux advected by the monsoon winds into the area. The mean moisture flux and CAPE analysis for extreme storm events over selected cities in northern Nigeria indicated that there is always an increase in the value of moisture flux and CAPE 3 days prior to storm occurrences. This can be a good indicator for forecasting extreme rainfall events. Table 1 shows the peak values of mean CAPE and moisture flux over the selected northern Nigerian stations. The result also shows that sufficient CAPE and wind

56

Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme. . .

1155

(a)

-2

HMFD (gkg s )

-3

0.00E+00 -1 0 -1.00E-08

1

2

3

-1 -1

-2.00E-08 -3.00E-08 -4.00E-08 -5.00E-08 -6.00E-08 DAY

(b) 3000 2500 -1

CAPE (Jkg )

2000 1500 1000 500 0

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

DAY

Fig. 22 (a and b) Derived meteorological parameters at surface over Yelwa (3 days before and 3 days after extreme rainfall events from June to September 2010–2014) for (a) mean moisture HMFD and (b) CAPE Table 1 Peak values of mean derived meteorological parameters at the surface HMFD and CAPE over Kano, Maiduguri, Sokoto, and Yelwa for JJAS (2010–2014) STATIONS KANO MAIDUGURI SOKOTO YELWA

HMFD (gKg1 s1) 9.60E-07 2.90E-07 2.40E-08 5.60E-08

CAPE (Jkg1) 2492 2644 2954 2416

shear is not enough for convection, it is necessary to have sufficient amount of moisture for initiation and sustenance of the storm throughout its life. These observed pattern of wind flow at the surface and 850 hPa, the CAPE and HMFD when sighted on the forecast charts may be good indicators for forecasting extreme

1156

O. A. Olaniyan et al.

rainfall and the likelihood of flood events which will help in early preparedness and prevention of the worst impacts of such extreme events on lives and properties. A further study of moisture flux and wind shear is recommended using different operational models and more network of stations as this will give a better perception of impact of moisture flux on spatial rainfall variability across the country. Forecasting precipitation amount is a challenging task for forecasters, therefore adequate study of the criteria such as moisture flux, wind shear, and CAPE will increase the understanding of extreme rainfall events; though there will always be variability in the values of meteorological parameters, sound understanding of forecast models, learning how to analyze the situation using the appropriate tools, and knowing how to apply these tools will give the best chance of predicting extreme events and issuing timely warnings.

References Akinsanola AA, Ogunjobi KO (2014) Analysis of rainfall and temperature variability over Nigeria. Glob J Hum-Soc Sci: B 14(3):11–17 Bechtold P, Chaboureau J-P, Beljaars A, Betts AK, Kohler ¨M, Miller M, Redelsperger JL (2004) The simulation of the diurnal cycle of convective precipitation over land in a global model. Q J Roy Meteor Soc 130:3119–3137 Beckman SK (1990) A study of 12 h NGM low-level moisture flux convergence centers and the location of severe thunderstorms/heavy rain. In: Proceedings of the 16th AMS conference on severe local storms, Kananaskis Park, Alta, pp 78–83 Bello NJ (2010) Impacts of climate change on food security in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Symposium of the International Association of Research Scholars and Fellows, IITA, Ibadan, pp 13–25 Couvreux F, Guichard F, Bock O, Campistron B, Lafore JP, Redelsperger JL (2010) Synoptic variability of the monsoon flux over West Africa prior to the onset. Q J R Meteorol Soc 136 (1):159–173 Diatta S, Fink AH (2014) Statistical relationship between remote climate indices and West African monsoon variability. Int J Climatol 34:3348–3367 Enete IC (2014) Impacts of climate change on agricultural production in Enugu State, Nigeria. J Earth Sci Clim Change 5(9):234. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/impacts-of-climatechange-on-agricultural-production-in-enugu-state-nigeria-2157-7617.1000234.php?aid¼32633 Grist JP, Nicholson SE (2001) A study of the dynamic factors influencing the rainfall variability in the West African Sahel. J Clim 14(7):1337–1359 Hodges KI, Thorncroft CD (1997) Distribution and statistics of African mesoscale convective weather systems based on the ISCCP Meteosat imagery. Mon Weather Rev 125:2821–2837. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1997)1252.0.CO;2 IPCC (2014) Synthesis report. In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, 151pp Janicot S, Caniaux G, Chauvin F, De Coëtlogon G, Fontaine B, Hall N (2011) Intraseasonal variability of the West African monsoon. Atmos Sci Lett 12(1):58–66 Lawal KA, Abatan AA, Anglil O, Olaniyan E, Olusoji Victoria H, Oguntunde PG, Lamptey B, Babatunde JA, Shiogama H, Michael FW, Dith AS (2016) The late onset of the 2015 wet season in Nigeria. BAMS 97:63–69. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMSD-16-0131.1

56

Impact of Moisture Flux and Vertical Wind Shear on Forecasting Extreme. . .

1157

Madu IA (2016) Rurality and climate change vulnerability in Nigeria: assessment towards evidence based even rural development policy. Paper presented at the 2016 Berlin conference on global environmental change, 23–24 May 2016 at Freie Universität Berlin. https://pdfs. semanticscholar.org/508b/94cab07b84a703b44eca1089326cc98d7495.pdf?_ga¼2.154518008. 112403230.1572433568-162569160.1557482164 Nicholson SE (2009) A revised picture of the structure of the “monsoon” and land ITCZ over West Africa. Clim Dyn 32(7–8):1155–1171 Nicholson SE (2013) The West African Sahel: a review of recent studies on the rainfall regime and its interannual variability. Int Scholar Res Notices 2013:453521, 32 p. https://doi.org/10.1155/ 2013/453521 Nicholson SE, Klotter DA, Dezfuli AK (2012) Spatial reconstruction of semi-quantitative precipitation fields over Africa during the nineteenth century from documentary evidence and gauge data. Quat Res 78:12–23 NiMet Climate Review Bulletin (2018) Nigerian Meteorological Agency 2019 Nwankwoala HNL (2015) Causes of climate and environmental changes: the need for environmental-friendly education policy in Nigeria. J Educ Pract 6(30). http://www.iiste.org. ISSN 2222–1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Nyakwada W (2004) The challenges of forecasting severe weather and extreme climate events in Africa WMO WSHOP-SEEF/Doc.4(4) Okorie FC (2015) Analysis of 30 years rainfall variability in Imo state of South-Eastern Nigeria. In: Hydrological sciences and water security: past, present and future. IAHS Press, Wallingford, pp 131–132 Olaniyan E, Afiesimama EOF, Lawal KA (2015) Simulating the daily evolution of West African monsoon using high resolution regional Cosmo-model: a case study of the first half of 2015 over Nigeria. J Climatol Weather Forecast 33:3–8 Omotosho JB (1985) The separate contributions of squall lines, thunderstorms and the monsoon to the total rainfall in Nigeria. J Climatol 5:543–552 Omotosho JB (1987) Richardson number, vertical wind shear, and storm occurrences over Kano Nigeria. Atmos Res 21:123–137 Omotosho JB, Abiodun BJ (2007) A numerical study of moisture build-up and rainfall over West Africa. Meterol Appl 14:209–225 Omotosho JB, Balogun AA, Ogunjobi K (2000) Predicting monthly and seasonal rainfall, onset and cessation of the rainy season in West Africa using only surface data. Int J Climatol 20:865–880 Raj J, Bangalath HK, Stenchikov G (2019) West African monsoon: current state and future projections in a high-resolution AGCM. Clim Dyn 52:6441–6461. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00382-018-4522-7 Rickenbach TM, Ferreira RN, Halverson J, Silva Dias MAF (2002) Mesoscale properties of convection in Western Amazonia in the context of large-scale wind regimes. J Geophys Res Atmos 107:8040 Roshani A, Fateme P, Zahra H, Hooshang G (2012) Studying the moisture flux over South and Southwest of Iran: a case study from December 10 to 13, 1995 rain storm. Earth Sci Res 2 (2):2013 Rotunno R, Klemp JB, Weisman ML (1988) A theory for strong long lived squall lines. National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder, Colarado, pp 463–483 Sultan B, Janicot S (2003) The West African monsoon dynamics. Part II: the “preonset” and “onset” of the summer monsoon. J Clim 16:3407–3427 Sumi SM, Zaman MF, Hirose H (2012) A rainfall forecasting method using machine learning models and its application to the Fukuoka City case. Int J Appl Math Comput Sci 22(4):841–854 Weisman ML, Rotunno R (2004) A theory for strong long-lived squall lines revisited. J Atmos Sci 61:361–382. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2004)0612.0.CO;2 Weisman ML, Klemp JB, Rotunno R (1988) Structure and evolution of numerically simulated squall lines. J Atmos Sci 45:1990–2013

1158

O. A. Olaniyan et al.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Plastic Pollution and Climate Change: Role of Bioremediation as a Tool to Achieving Sustainability

57

S. A. Idowu, D. J. Arotupin, and S. O. Oladejo

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET): A Typical Plastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plastic Waste and Environmental Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bioremediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In Situ and Ex Situ Bioremediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organisms Involved in Bioremediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bioremediation of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1160 1160 1161 1163 1163 1164 1164 1165 1167 1167

Abstract

Pollution from post-consumer plastics is a growing global environmental challenge whose negative impacts are exacerbating climate change. Plastics are stable, durable, and hydrophobic. They possess high molecular weight, complex threedimensional structure, and are not readily available to be used as substrate by biological agents such as microorganisms and enzymes. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is one of the examples of petrochemical-based plastics. PET is a strong, clear, and light-weight plastic with global usage in the production of bottles.

This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. S. A. Idowu (*) · D. J. Arotupin Department of Microbiology, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria S. O. Oladejo Department of Remote Sensing and Geoscience Information System, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_102

1159

1160

S. A. Idowu et al.

Technological innovation, policy formulation, advocacy and sensitization, change in consumption pattern, and bioremediation are some of the approaches that are currently being used to mitigate environmental pollution from post-consumer PET bottles. The ubiquitous property of microorganisms and their ability to survive in almost every environment, including very extreme ones, make them good candidate for biodegradation. Bioremediation is simply defined as engineered or enhanced biodegradation. This review discusses the potential of bioremediation as sustainable and environment-friendly tool to clean up post-consumer PET bottles that already accumulate on land, in soil, and in water bodies. Keywords

Bioremediation · Plastic · Pollution · Climate change · Biodegradation

Introduction Plastic is a group of substances with wide global usages and applications as a consumer product. Plastic possesses characteristic cheap price, light weight, and disposable nature which make them the substance of choice in the manufacturing industry. However, plastic pollution is a growing global environmental challenge to aquatic, celestial, and terrestrial organisms including man. The current increasing global human population and technological developments are among the major factors contributing to increasing significant snowballing quantity of plastic waste that is generated annually. This increase exacerbates environmental pollution due to unsustainable methods of disposal of post-consumer (or used) plastics. Accumulation of post-consumer plastics on the surface of the earth including those that are buried in the earth is a serious threat to environmental safety and human health. In general, plastics possess characteristic stable, durable, and hydrophobic nature. They possess high molecular weight, complex three-dimensional structure, and are not readily available to be used as a substrate by many biological agents such as microorganisms and enzymes (Arutchelvi et al. 2008; Kale et al. 2015). As a result of the above, plastics accumulate over a very long period of time. (Kenny et al. 2008) reported that an efficient decomposition of plastic takes about 1,000 years.

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET): A Typical Plastic Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is one of the examples of petrochemical-based plastics. PET is a thermoplastic polyester (Hosseini et al. 2005). It is a strong, clear, and light weight plastic with global usage in the production of bottles. The PET bottles are used for packaging drinks, other food products, and pharmaceuticals. In the field of engineering, PET is being used as alternative or replacement for metals like aluminum, steel, and other metals in the manufacture of precision moldings for office appliances, domestic appliances, and electrical and electronic devices (Hosseini et al. 2005; Tanasupawat et al. 2016; Yoshida et al. 2016). Polyethylene

57

Plastic Pollution and Climate Change: Role of Bioremediation as a Tool to. . .

1161

Fig. 1 Typical example of a bottle made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET). (Source: https:// www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/top-view-empty-plastic-bottle-isolated-572688928)

terephthalate is a polyester (polymer) produced by polymerization reaction. The reaction involves two monomers, namely terephthalic acid (TPA) and ethylene glycol (EG) according to (Kale et al. 2015). A typical example of bottle made of PET is presented in Fig. 1 below. The presence of aromatic groups in the PET molecule makes PET nondegradable under normal condition according to the report of (Hosseini et al. 2005). The biological degradation of PET was thought to be limited to only a few fungal species and as a result biodegradation was earlier considered as not yet a remediation strategy for PET (Tanasupawat et al. 2016).

Plastic Waste and Environmental Pollution The traditional methods (such as burning in the open field) used to dispose of postconsumer plastics, especially in developing countries, is a global environmental concern. Smoke, containing dioxins, furans, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls which are injurious to health and the environment, is released into the atmosphere during open burning of plastics, thereby leading to air pollution which consequently contributes to climate change (Webb et al. 2013). In addition, most post-consumer PET bottles end up in landfills where they persist and occupy huge land space, thereby impairing soil fertility with subsequent negative impact on agricultural practice (Chan 2016; Kale et al. 2015). Some post-consumer PET bottles are burnt in open fire during which they release carbon dioxide (CO2) and dioxins into the atmosphere, also exacerbating environmental pollution and climate change (Kenny et al. 2008; Tanasupawat et al. 2016). Increasing efforts are being made globally to address environmental pollution from PET wastes. Other toxic and hazardous pollutants from plastic wastes are highlighted in the report of (Webb et al. 2013). Measures and approaches that are currently being used to mitigate plastic pollution include the following:

1162

S. A. Idowu et al.

• Technological innovations (e.g., bioplastics) • Policies (e.g., ban of single-use plastics and green shopping) • Change in consumption pattern and different “Rs” including reduction, reuse, and recycling of post-consumer plastics • Advocacy/sensitization (e.g., The 2018 World Environment Day with the theme “Plastic Pollution”). • Bioremediation (Gnanavel et al. 2012; Hadad et al. 2005; Hosseini et al. 2005; Ron and Eugene 2014; Sardrood et al. 2013; Yoshida et al. 2016) It is practically impossible to totally eradicate the use of plastics for domestic and industrial uses, neither is it possible not to generate post-consumer plastics due to vast properties of plastics that make them suitable for various domestic and industrial uses. This therefore means that wastes from post-consumer plastics will be generated continually as long as man exists on earth. This waste is projected to increase with the increasing global human population. Several approaches have been identified to mitigate environmental pollution from post-consumer plastics. However, two of the approaches are majorly relevant to this discourse. The first is a total removal of PET bottles which constitute environmental nuisance. This can be achieved through sustainable clearing of PET bottles that have been used and dumped, mostly in indiscriminate manner, from the surface of the earth or from water bodies. The second approach is replacing plastics of nonbiological origin with plastics that are made from biological agents. The latter are commonly referred to as bioplastics. Bioplastics are produced or synthesized from biomass or renewable resources according to the report of (Sardrood et al. 2013). They have been identified to be more readily available for bioremediation than nonbioplastics, thereby preventing accumulation on the environment for a very long period of time. Technology is involved in the production of bioplastics to harness the biomass and other raw materials that are employed in the production. This special type of technological process that involves biological agent is called biotechnology (Sardrood et al. 2013). Detailed discussion of types of biotechnology and the processes involved in each of the types are beyond the scope of this chapter. Technological advancements and scientific researches toward development and improvement on bioplastics are growing globally. This biotechnology will help to produce plastics that will be readily available for easy degradation by microorganisms, thereby proving solution to environmental and climatic problems that are associated with accumulation of post-consumer plastics. As this biotechnology develops to gain worldwide popularity and acceptance to displace nonbioplastics in circulation, it is important to provide suitable sustainable approach to get rid of post-consumer plastics, particularly PET bottles that are already exacerbating environmental pollution and climate change. A biological approach will be appropriate for this remediation as it is usually environment friendly (Gnanavel et al. 2012; Hosseini et al. 2005). The interesting ability of microorganisms to survive in almost every environment including very extreme ones together with their ubiquitous property makes them a good candidate for bioremediation. Bioremediation is a form of biotechnology which involves engineering. This essence of engineering

57

Plastic Pollution and Climate Change: Role of Bioremediation as a Tool to. . .

1163

the process is to enhance the capacity of the microorganisms being used and to make the process faster (Borasiya and Shah 2007; Hadad et al. 2005).

Climate Change Climate change (natural and human induced) is real. Industrialization and human desire for development and better living, which are carried out sometime in an unsustainable way, affect the environment and natural resources negatively, thereby exacerbating climate change. The realization of this challenge by the General Assembly of the United Nations gave birth to establishment of Brundtland Commission. The Commission in their report tagged Our Common Future and submitted to the UN General Assembly in 1987, and identified that both environment and development are inseparable, nevertheless sustainable development must be encouraged in every human development as a means of saving the earth. This development, described popularly as sustainable development, embraces and encourages development that equally promotes economy, social, and environmental developments without prejudice to any of the three members (Burton 1987). Any development whose economic, environmental, and social benefits are not equally addressed is unsustainable and this was part of the recommendation of the commission. Unsustainable consumption of PET bottles is a potential economic, social, and environmental problem that can increase climate change.

Bioremediation According to (Baggot 1993; Boopathy 2000) in (Sardrood et al. 2013), bioremediation is a process of using living organisms or biological processes to clean up contaminated environments by exploiting and harnessing metabolic abilities of microorganisms to convert contaminants into harmless products by mineralization, generation of carbon (IV) oxide and water, or by conversion into microbial biomass. Bioremediation as evolving environmental biotechnology uses microorganisms in the degradation process and can be optimized to achieve better result (Borasiya and Shah 2007). Some of the numerous applications of bioremediation include cleanup of ground water, sludges, lagoons, and process-waste stream (Boopathy 2000). Practically, bioremediation has been used on a large-scale application in cleanup of oil spill from Exxon in Prince William Sound, Alaska (Kenny et al. 2008). Some of the advantages of bioremediation have been reported (Boopathy 2000; Sardrood et al. 2013). Microorganisms have the ability to break the molecular chains in polymers like the PET through degradation. Degradation is one of the many processes involved in bioremediation (Sardrood et al. 2013), this means that a biodegradation activity may not result into total bioremediation. The break in molecular chains during biodegradation leads to decrease in the total length of macromolecules that make the polymer and the degree of polymerization (Fig. 3) as contained in the report of (Hosseini et al. 2005).

1164

S. A. Idowu et al.

In Situ and Ex Situ Bioremediation One of the advantages of bioremediation in management and treatment of wastes is that the process can be carried out at site of contamination or somewhere away from site of contamination. Based on the above, bioremediation can be classified as in situ bioremediation and ex situ bioremediation. The former involves treatment of the contaminated material within the site where contamination or pollution has occurred, while ex situ technique of bioremediation involves physical removal of the contaminant or pollutant from the site of pollution for treatment (Boopathy 2000). In situ bioremediation is usually used in cleanup of oil spills. However, in treating pollutants such as post-consumer PET bottles, ex situ bioremediation may be used.

Organisms Involved in Bioremediation Bioremediation involves the use of microorganisms in the remediation process. Pollution from post-consumer plastics can be noticed in the air, on land, and in water bodies such as sea and oceans. The natural ability of microorganisms to degrade hydrocarbons, though at a relatively slow rate, makes them suitable candidates for bioremediation. What scientists do is to simply optimize and harness the natural potential of such microorganisms through biotechnology. (Ron and Eugene 2014; Sardrood et al. 2013) highlight how certain species of microorganisms were used to clean oil spills. Several species of fungi, bacteria, and plants are major organisms that have been identified and reported to be involved in bioremediation. There are specific conditions that enhance bioremediation. The conditions must be provided in order for bioremediation process to proceed as planned and expected. According to (Kenny et al. 2008; Ron and Eugene 2014), these favorable conditions include the following: 1. The organism shall be able to live and demonstrate its bioactivity under conditions of pollution 2. A consortium of microorganism that can successfully utilize the pollutant as a substrate must be present 3. Contaminant and the enzymatic system must come in close contact somewhere in or out of the cell 4. The organisms will have the effective enzymes that are important in bioremediation 5. Appropriate favorable environmental conditions must exist or be provided to enhance multiplication of the potential organism to be used for bioremediation (Boopathy 2000) summarized the key conditions that affect bioremediation as microbial and environmental substrate, aerobic and anaerobic process, growth substrate and co-metabolism physico-chemical bioavailability of pollutants, and mass transfer limitations.

57

Plastic Pollution and Climate Change: Role of Bioremediation as a Tool to. . .

1165

Bioremediation of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) The discovery of the bacterium Ideonellasakaiensis 206-F6T signified another scientific development in bioremediation of PET. The discovery presented I. sakaiensis as one of the many microorganisms whose potentials can be harnessed to remediate environmental pollution from post-consumer PET bottles that are disposed indiscriminately. The fungus Pseudozymajejuensis isolated from leaves of Citrus unshiu in South Korea earlier before the isolation of I. sakaiensis, has also been demonstrated to possess remarkable plastic-degrading potential as reported by (Tanasupawat et al. 2016). The fungus possesses the enzyme cutinase which has the ability to degrade some plastics according to (Tanasupawat et al. 2016). Despite the plastic-degrading potential of P. jejuensis, the organisms were not reported to degrade PET. This development clearly indicates the need to isolate specific microorganisms that are suitable to degrade each of the large groups of plastics that constitute environmental pollution. This necessitated the need for more scientific researches to isolate microorganisms that posses the ability to utilize PET as their source of carbon. The bacterium, I. sakaiensis, is important in bioremediation of post-consumer PET bottles that constitute environmental pollution (Yoshida et al. 2016). According to the report of (Tokiwa et al. 2009; Yoshida et al. 2016), the bacterium showed high PET-degrading potential when compared with previously isolated microorganisms. The authors highlighted factors that favor the bioremediation process in order to achieve optimum result (Fig. 2). Reports of (Webb et al. 2013; Yoshida et al. 2016) explained that I. sakaiensis 206-F6T possesses critical enzymes that are needed in the degradation of PET. The enzymes include PETase and MHETase. I. sakaiensis 206-F6T uses the two

Fig. 2 Images of plastic pollution on both terrestrial and aquatic environment. (a) Dump site showing plastic pollution. (Source: https://www.alamy.com/garbage-dump-plastik-bottles-petbottles-image281712766.html). (b) Plastic pollution of marine environment. (Source: Saving Earth Encyclopaedia Britannica)

1166

S. A. Idowu et al.

Fig. 3 Schematic degradation of PET bottle by I.sakaiensisstrain 206-F6T. (Source: (Chan 2016))

enzymes to metabolize PET as its major carbon source (Fig. 3). PETase is a type of esterase and it initiates breaking of the long ester bonds in PET through hydrolytic activity. Esterase is an enzyme that has the ability to break ester bond in a compound. The hydrolytic activity PETase produces an intermediate called mono(2-hydroxyethyl) terephthalic acid (MHET) as presented in Fig. 3 below. The intermediate that results from the hydrolytic breakdown is taken back by the cell of I. sakaiensis 206-F6T and is further hydrolyzed by the second enzyme MHETase. The responsibility of MHETase in the degradation process is to break the intermediate into the monomers of PET (Caruso 2015; Tokiwa et al. 2009; Yoshida et al. 2016). The two monomers are named Terephthalic acid (TPA) and ethylene glycol (EG). The report of (Chan 2016) showed that I. sakaiensis 206F6T damaged PET film extensively and almost completely degraded the film after 6 weeks at temperature of 30 °C. In natural environments, PET bottles, like other plastics, are exposed to UV radiation. The radiation causes cleavage of the C▬C bond of the polymer, thereby leading to the formation of low molecular weight fragments. This process increases the susceptibility of the polymer to microbial attack (Arutchelvi et al. 2008). This may be one of the reasons why (Yoshida et al. 2016) used lowcrystalline (1.9%) PET film in their study as free-flying plastic bottles in nature may be of a higher crystalline percentage than the ones used by the authors in their research.

57

Plastic Pollution and Climate Change: Role of Bioremediation as a Tool to. . .

1167

Conclusion The above discourse shows that there are several options to reducing environmental pollution from post-consumer plastics in general and PET bottles in specific. However, bioremediation still stands tall as an important evolving option for sustainable remediation of post-consumer plastics. Other approaches such as discouraging unsustainable consumption of plastics and formulation and implementation of research-informed policies also need to be encouraged as a mean to reducing environmental pollution from plastics. Microorganisms have the natural potential to use petroleum products including plastics as their sources of carbon and energy, thereby helping to reduce the menace of plastic pollution within the environment and subsequently mitigating climate change. The natural potential of microorganisms can be engineered and optimized through biotechnology as the sustainable way to “clean up” plastic pollution that threatens life on land, water, and air. It is recommended that in order to further contribute to knowledge on harnessing the potential of microorganisms isolated from PET bottle recycling sites to degrade PET bottles, there is the need to test such microbial isolates with PET film of high crystalline value and be sure that the microorganisms can sufficiently hydrolyze the film. This is to ensure wider global acceptability of the technology because the PET bottles that are used to package food, drinks, and pharmaceutical products are made from high crystalline PET.

References Arutchelvi J, Sudhakar M, Arkatkar A, Doble M, Bhaddur S, Uppar PV (2008) Biodegradation of polyethylene and polypropylene. Indian J Biotechnol 7:9–22 Baggot J (1993) Biodegradable lubricants. In: Sardrood BP, Goltapeh EM, Varma A (eds) An introduction to bioremediation: fungi as bioremediators. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-64233811-3_1 Boopathy R (2000) Factors limiting bioremediation technologies. Bioresour Technol 74:63–67 Borasiya H, Shah MP (2007) Waste water treatment by environmental microbiology. J Bioremed Biodegr. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6199.1000386 Burton I (1987) Report on reports: our common future. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 29(5):25–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1987.9928891 Caruso G (2015) Plastic degrading microorganisms as a tool for bioremediation of plastic contamination in aquatic environments. J Pollut Eff Cont. https://doi.org/10.4172/2375-4397.1000e112 Chan A (2016) The future of bacteria cleaning our plastic waste. Berkeley Sci J. https://doi.org/10. 5772/48612 Gnanavel G, Valli VPMJ, Thirumarimurugan M (2012) A review of biodegradation of plastics waste. Int J Pharm Chem Sci 1(3):1019–1022 Hadad D, Geresh S, Sivan A (2005) Biodegradation of polyethylene by the thermophilic bacterium brevibacillusborstelensis. J Appl Microbiol 98:1093–1100 Hosseini SS, Taheri S, Zadhoush A, Mehrabani-Zeinabad A (2005) Hydrolytic degradation of poly (ethylene terephthalate). J Appl Polym Sci 102:2304–2309 Kale SK, Deshmukh AG, Dudhare MS, Patil VB (2015) Microbial degradation of plastic: a review. J Biochem Tech 6(1):952–961

1168

S. A. Idowu et al.

Kenny ST, Runic JN, Kaminsky W, Woods T, Babu RP, Keely CM, Blau W, O’Connor KE (2008) Up-cycling of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) to the biodegradable plastic (polyhydroxyalkanoate). Environ Sci Technol 42(20):7696–7701 Ron E, Eugene R (2014) Enhanced bioremediation of oil spills in the sea. Curr Opin Biotechnol 27:191–194 Sardrood BP, Goltapeh EM, Varma A (2013) In: Goltapeh (ed) Fungi as bioremediators, soil biology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33811-3_1 Tanasupawat S, Takehana T, Yoshida S, Hiraga K, Oda K (2016) Ideonellasakaiensis sp. nov., isolated from a microbial consortium that degrades poly (ethylene terephthalate). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 66:2813–2818 Tokiwa YA, Calabia BP, Ugwu CU, Aiba S (2009) Biodegradability of plastics. Int J Mol Sci 10:3722–3742 Webb HK, Arnott A, Crawford RJ, Ivanova EP (2013) Plastic degradation and its environmental implications with special reference to poly(ethylene terephthalate). Polymers 5:1–18 Yoshida S, Hiraga K, Takehana T, Taniguchi I, Yamaji H, Maeda Y, Toyohara K, Miyamoto K, Kimura Y, Oda K (2016) A bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly(ethylene terephthalate). Science 351(6278):1196–1199

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Climate Change, Rural Livelihoods, and Ecosystem Nexus: Forest Communities in Agroecological zones of Nigeria

58

Olushola Fadairo, Samuel Olajuyigbe, Tolulope Osayomi, Olufolake Adelakun, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, Siji Olutegbe, and Oluwaseun Adeleke

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forest Livelihoods and the Challenge of Changing Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agriculture, Climate Change, and Food Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate Change and Drivers of Social Vulnerability in Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sustainable Livelihood Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effects of Climate Variability on Cropping Calendar in Mangrove, Rainforest, and Savannah Agroecological Zones of Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceived Trend in Agriculture, Forest Area, and Population as Primary Drivers of Social Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceived Effects of Drivers of Climate Change on Household Livelihood . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1170 1172 1174 1174 1175 1175 1177 1179 1183 1185

This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. O. Fadairo (*) · O. Adelakun · S. Olutegbe · O. Adeleke Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria e-mail: [email protected]; fl[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] S. Olajuyigbe Department of Forest Production and Products, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria e-mail: [email protected] T. Osayomi Department of Geography, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria e-mail: [email protected] O. Olaniyan Department of Economics, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_155

1169

1170

O. Fadairo et al.

Causes and Consequences of Environmental Degradation in the Nigeria Agroecological Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farming Communities’ Needs for an Enduring Adaptation to Climate Change in Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1186 1188 1189 1190

Abstract

A top-bottom approach where local problems are treated in isolation has proven ineffective in achieving sustainable development. The need for inclusive approaches to managing the demand for arable lands, forest resources, and the problems of resource exploitation and climate change calls for local understanding of these elements’ interrelationship. Understanding the interrelationships among climate change, agriculture, and the ecosystems in different agroecological zones in Nigeria was the purpose of this chapter. Deforestation and forest degradation analysis approach was utilized. One state and two forest communities from each of the rainforest, savannah, and mangrove agroecological zones were purposively focused in this chapter based on forest distribution and cover. Focus group discussions involving 252 male and female farmers using 30 years as reference were used to garner relevant information. Climate variation caused a slight modification in cropping schedules of farmers due to prolonged dry season, mainly in the savannah region. Farmers engaged in mixed farming and also cultivate more hardy crops like cassava in response to climate uncertainties. Especially in the mangrove and savannah, ecosystem components such as agriculture and population showed increasing trends over the years as forest cover reduces. Downward trend in charcoal production was limited to mangrove and rainforest zones as fishing and hunting becomes vulnerable livelihoods across the zones. The degree and progression of climate change effects on the ecosystem in Nigeria agroecological zones is largely comparable and have both desirable and adverse livelihood outcomes. Affordable insurance policy, credit, agri-inputs, favorable forest regulatory framework, and youth empowerment supports would enhance sustainable adjustment to climate change. Keywords

Forest communities · Cropping calendar · Agroecology · Climate change · Vulnerability · Rural livelihoods · Nigeria

Introduction Nigeria is seriously threatened by climate change with a significant proportion of its terrestrial ecosystem on dry land mass which is frequently affected by desertification, sheet erosion, and droughts. The coastal and mangrove agroecological zones in the south are also prone to incessant flooding because of their proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, riverine nature of the setting, the very low altitude, and all-year-

58

Climate Change, Rural Livelihoods, and Ecosystem Nexus: Forest Communities. . .

1171

round and high volume of rainfall. In recent times, variations in climatic conditions have resulted in undesirable effects on food production and nutritional security. Unfortunately, the country has very weak adaptive strategies and capacity to mitigate the effects of a changing climate. Presently, the impacts of rising temperatures and rainfall variability on farming are being felt across major agroecological zones in Nigeria (Ayanlade et al. 2018). Agricultural systems are dependent on ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling, pollination, soil fertility, hydrological balances, and biological pest control which ensure a balance in the ecosystem (Power 2010). However, agricultural intensification in the last century has distorted the ecosystem equilibrium and led to loss of ecological integrity, land degradation, and loss of environmental services provided by the ecosystems. These conditions are further worsened due to increasing effects of climate instability (Pretty et al. 2011). For instance, environmental problems such as groundwater depletion, variability in the onset and amounts of rainfall, increase in concentration of greenhouse gases, soil degradation, depletion of pollinators’ habitat, which all have negative consequences on sustainable agriculture, are climate change-induced. Forest communities, which are highly vulnerable to these adverse effects, are occupied by low-income earners who depend on the ecosystem for their income, food, nutritional security, and livelihoods. Hence, these rural populations will be seriously affected by climate change, with little or no resources to adapt or mitigate its effects. It has been reported that the livelihoods of these communities are made vulnerable by land use variation such as continuous grazing and monoculture plantation. For example, in coastal and mangrove regions, there is a shortage of food resources obtained from streams coupled and agricultural instability due to increased flooding (Ward et al. 2016). Similarly, savannah and rainforest agroecosystems are recording a decline in agricultural production outputs (Ayanlade et al. 2018). Natural resource utilization forms the base of most livelihoods in developing countries including Nigeria. However, forest resources are gradually being depleted due to the pressures of degradation and deforestation, poverty, urbanization, and poor management (Azeez et al. 2010; Saka et al. 2013). In Nigeria and most parts of Africa, shifting cultivation among small-holder farmers results in large-scale habitat destruction (Cooper et al. 2008). For instance, over 75% of the Nigerian population still lives in rural areas with vast areas of forest vegetation and depend on extensive rain-fed farming as well as short fallows for their sustenance. However, this dependence is limited by loss of forest biodiversity, climate change, and exposure of fragile soils (Azeez et al. 2010). Frequent changes in climate parameters affect the livelihoods of rural populations and poses challenges to food security, survival, and economic development (Tompkins and Adger 2004). For instance, savannah and tropical forest zones have experienced a dramatic decrease in annual rainfall and an increase in the length of dry season and rainfall variability (Malhi and Wright 2004; Veenendaal and Swaine 1998). It is therefore pertinent to investigate the forest-dependent communities’ responses to the hazards posed by climate uncertainties on their environment

1172

O. Fadairo et al.

and livelihoods (Lindner and Pretzsch 2013), as this will have important implications for sustainable development in the near future. The capability of farming communities and agricultural stakeholders to manage the challenges and prospects of present climatic patterns must primarily be improved in order to enhance their adaptive capacity and reduce their exposure to the undesired effects of changing climatic conditions (Cooper et al. 2008; Tompkins and Adger 2004). The challenges are complex and call for integrative learning-oriented approaches that emerge from the bottom-up that will enable successful mitigation and adaptation. These approaches offer pathways for vulnerable communities to engage in developing response policies and ensure that there is room for change in those policies (Lindner and Pretzsch 2013). Adaptive management is a cyclic, multiple stakeholder learning-oriented approach to the management of complex environmental problems such as climate change. The introduction of such approaches would encourage multi-stakeholder participation and the integration of all sectors in decision-making, policy formulation, and implementation (Stringer et al. 2006). Unfortunately, most policy implementers adopt a top-bottom approach where local problems are treated in isolation, and this method has proven to be ineffective in yielding or sustaining solutions. Therefore, the need for allencompassing approaches to manage the demand for arable lands, forest resources, and the problems arising from resource exploitation and climate change (Lindner and Pretzsch 2013; Tompkins and Adger 2004). A step towards achieving this is to understand that the poor and vulnerable themselves are key actors in identifying important areas of their own livelihoods and solutions to their challenges. For instance, rural communities have in times past developed indigenous technologies which have assisted in mitigating the risks associated with climate variability. These technologies are represented in local customs, traditions, and heritages, constituting a testimony of how societies have thrived well in various environments (Azeez et al. 2010; Vidaurre de la Riva et al. 2013). Therefore, research needs to integrate climate change impacts with sustainable agriculture in a stressed ecosystem. Such information will bridge the knowledge gap and assist planning for adapting and mitigating climate change. Therefore, this chapter explains how agriculture, climate change, and the ecosystems interrelate among themselves in the main agroecological zones of Nigeria. Specifically, this chapter discussed the effects of the changing climate on farming calendar and local adaptation measures employed, the trend in primary drivers of social vulnerability to climate variability, the drivers of vulnerability to climate variation as perceived by farmers, health and environmental effects of climate instability on forest communities in Nigeria, and forest inhabitants needs in services and or facilities for an effective adjustment to climate change.

Forest Livelihoods and the Challenge of Changing Climate Forests are mainly situated in rural areas and/or frequently isolated areas (Aruwajoye and Ajibefun 2013). Apparently, such areas are in close harmony with nature with

58

Climate Change, Rural Livelihoods, and Ecosystem Nexus: Forest Communities. . .

1173

little development in terms of infrastructure (roads, potable water supply, markets, health facilities, and schools), government services, and jobs. Thus, it is not surprising that communities living in the fringe of these forests have limited livelihood opportunities and options (Wunder 2005). As a corollary to this, Bassey and Obong (2008) and Nayak et al. (2012) assert that communities around forest fringe are lowincome earners who sought to build their economic capacity by engaging in the livelihood options provided by the forest. In Nigeria, more than 90% of the rural populace depend on forests for their livelihood (Ayuk et al. 2011; Fadairo et al. 2017). These livelihood activities offered by forests include hunting of animals, forest-based farming, timber logging, gathering of building materials, collection of fuel wood for cooking or charcoal production, materials for local craft, fodder (grasses and leaves for livestock and grazing of livestock), medicinal plants, and non-timber forest products which include honey, leaves, and fruits. Suffice it to say that these forest products derived from the various livelihood activities are not solely for household consumption but also for commercial purposes. Studies have documented the benefits accruing from forest resources in the livelihood activities of those inhabiting the fringes of forests as substantial (Levang et al. 2005; Sunderlin et al. 2005). These benefits according to Warner (2000) are increased income, improved food security, reduced vulnerability by providing safety nets, and increased well-being. Furthermore, some of these livelihood activities have social, religious, and cultural dimensions. For instance, hunting may serve as a cultural event for initiation into manhood while fishing maybe a social or cultural event. In addition to this, Shackleton (2004) opine that forests provide sites for spiritual healing and religious practices. Hence, it is not uncommon to find sacred places, herbalists, and native doctors in forest communities. Agriculture as an important livelihood activity in most forest communities is affected by climate change in several ways, namely, changes in rainfall, standard temperatures, and climate extremes (heat weaves). Climate change influences planting and cropping conditions which in turn affects the supply of food. It necessitates changes in farming methods, increases soil pressure, reduces water supply to the root system, and increases farmers reliance on agrochemicals for farming. In addition, crops stressed as a result of climate changes become more susceptible to damage from diseases and pests. Animal husbandry industry is also indirectly affected following climate-induced changes in the availability of grains, pasture, and forages and its accustomed price increase. Animals health are usually affected negatively by extreme heat (Enete 2014). Furthermore, peasant and small-holder farmers who produce the bulk of food consumed in most developing countries are usually vulnerable to climate uncertainties due to their small size of farms, poor technology, and little working capital (Morton 2007). In addition, the seasonal calendar which provides information on planting, sowing, and harvestings periods of locally adopted crops in specific agroecological zones (Fadairo et al. 2019) is distorted by climate variability, predisposing farmers to risks arising from weather uncertainties.

1174

O. Fadairo et al.

Agriculture, Climate Change, and Food Security The occurrence of climate change is interlinked with the performance of agriculture and attainment of food security. Agricultural production in most parts of Africa including Nigeria has been seriously affected by environmental degradation caused by climate change, making a case for serious intervention (Osuafor and Nnorom 2014). The current global climatic condition has both natural and man-made causes. The reliance on rain-fed agriculture by most African countries both as a source of income and consumption has resulted in their high vulnerability to climate change. Some of the devastating effects includes: erosion, flooding, drought, pests and diseases, desertification, gas emissions, fluctuation in rainfall patterns, and a host of others. These factors in turn impact on agriculture and consequently threaten food security. As a result, food security is at risk with a daily world population increase. In order to forestall the danger ahead, the United Nations has clearly set the targets of attaining food surplus, food security, and improved nutrition, and advancing sustainable agriculture as number two among its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for the year 2030. According to Food and Agriculture Organization (2002) as cited by Coates (2013), food security exists when all individuals, at every time, have socioeconomic and physical access to adequate, nutritious, and safe food that meets their dietary requirements and food preferences for a healthy and productive life. Therefore, food security goes beyond having adequate supply of food but also include issues relating to the food safety and hygiene. For instance, use of chemicals such as fertilizer in planting or produce preservation as a response to climate fluctuation predisposes the population to poor health. This assertion is in line with Kinsey (2005) who opined that a nation is not regarded as food-secure just because food is available in the right quantity needed by its populace, but also when the food consumption does not predispose the people to any health hazard. In order to reduce the impacts of climate change on agriculture, various coping strategies have been put in place. Osuafor and Nnorom (2014) highlighted the strategies as including controlling greenhouse gases emission; preventing deforestation; planting climate-smart, disease-tolerant, and high yield crops; and adjustment of planting calendars by farmers.

Climate Change and Drivers of Social Vulnerability in Nigeria In recent times, the variation in climate such as rise in temperature, increase in rainfall causing flood, delayed and inconsistent rainfall causing drought, strong wind, and landslides have threatened both the natural systems and the human society, specifically causing internal displacement of persons, destruction of lives, properties, and livelihood, food insecurity, disease outbreak, violence arising from struggle over resources, and increased suffering and penury. Yet, the impact caused by these climate extremes is not uniformly distributed among and within groups of people in the same country, state, and/or community (Petkova et al. 2015). Thus, it is unlikely for the impact of climate extremes to felt in the same way. Some groups

58

Climate Change, Rural Livelihoods, and Ecosystem Nexus: Forest Communities. . .

1175

or individual are likely to be more vulnerable than others. This underscores the need for researches to continually explore comparative analysis of climate change impacts across environmental, social, economic, and political factors in order to engender sustainable solutions. In the views of Petkova et al. (2015), climate change effects will vary among age groups, sex, socioeconomic status, health condition, geographical location, and nature of livelihoods of the people. A measure of the extent of exposure of groups or individuals to stress as a result of the impacts of climate change extremes is known as social vulnerability. In this chapter, livelihood of the forest-edge communities in Nigeria is singled out among others for discussing the effects of vulnerability to climate change. Hence, stress in this perspective refers to the interference of the livelihood activities of groups or individuals in the face of climate extremes. Evidence abounds that the people who are likely to be more susceptible to the adverse effects of climate extremes are people in the rural areas. Rural Nigeria is mainly agrarian with many of them living below the poverty line. Research reveals that rural communities are inexplicably vulnerable to climate extremes because their livelihoods are dependent on climate-sensitive activities (agriculture, forestry, fishing, recreation) in their rural environment (Fisher et al. 2013). Therefore, the effect of climate extremes poses a huge threat especially to the agrarian rural people many of whom already live below the poverty line.

Theoretical Framework The Sustainable Livelihood Framework, as presented below, was considered relevant for underpinning the assumptions and approach utilized in this chapter.

Sustainable Livelihood Framework Sustainable livelihood (SL) framework presents a tool for development workers to understand, analyze, and explain the real factors that affecting poor people’s livelihood (Petersen and Pedersen 2010). According to Carloni and Crowley (2005), a livelihood comprises the assets (including both social and material endowments), capabilities, and activities necessary to earn a living. Ability to manage and recover from shocks and stresses, retain or enhance its assets and capabilities, while not depleting the natural resource base is what makes a livelihood sustainable. SL framework addresses the creation of guaranteed livelihoods for the poor by development workers. The basic principle of SL is that development work ought to focus on the people, with considerations of, what matters for the poor, cultural diversity, and its effects on livelihood processes. Secondly, poor people themselves are major actors in bringing about the change they desire. This is because they have a better knowledge of issues affecting them much more than any external person (Petersen and Pedersen 2010). The foregoing reechos the central argument in this chapter that adequate understanding of the perspectives of the local people whose livelihoods are

1176

O. Fadairo et al.

Fig. 1 Sustainable Livelihood Framework. (Source: DFID (2000), cited in Petersen and Pedersen (2010))

intertwined with and affected by climate variability is important for a more sustainable adaptation and mitigation measures for climate change. Hence, primary information used for discussion in this chapter were derived from engagement with those who are most affected in order to acquire their perspectives of their problems and what things to change to improve their condition. The key components of the SL framework are indicated in Fig. 1, and they include vulnerability context, livelihood assets, structure and process for transformation, livelihood strategies, and livelihood outcome. Vulnerability context: This refers to people’s external environment. It includes occurrences for which people have restricted or no control. Examples of such occurrences are critical trends of economic inflation, natural disasters, shocks, and seasonality, among others. The issue of vulnerability thus emerges when individuals are exposed to harmful threats they are not well equipped to confront (Petersen and Pedersen 2010). Livelihood assets: Since the framework by nature focuses on the people, it thus seeks to have a better consideration of the people’s power (capitals or assets). Since the approach relies on the belief that achieving livelihood outcomes requires a combination of assets, understanding how the conversion of the people’s power to favorable livelihood outcomes becomes paramount. For this reason, the framework identifies five forms of capitals which support livelihoods. These are social, human, natural, financial, and physical capitals (Petersen and Pedersen 2010). Structure and process for transformation: This refers to the establishments and regulations found from the household to the international levels that defines the livelihoods of the poor. These establishments and regulations stimulate how people access the various types of assets. Ownership rights and laws to secure individual rights are examples of processes, whereas structures are things like existence of ministries, banks with credit facilities for support groups and farmers (Petersen and Pedersen 2010).

58

Climate Change, Rural Livelihoods, and Ecosystem Nexus: Forest Communities. . .

1177

Livelihood strategies: This refer to the way in which people organize towards achieving their anticipated livelihood and access to diverse types of resources determine the approaches to be employed. Furthermore, societal opportunities or constraints can be dictated by its structures and processes. Finally, livelihood outcome refers to the resultant effect of livelihood strategies assumed by the people. These effects could be better income, enhanced wellness, decreased susceptibility, and food security, among others (Petersen and Pedersen 2010).

Chapter Approach This chapter utilized synthesis of literature and collection of primary data to reach its conclusions. The field activities for primary information garnering were carried out in Nigeria. Nigeria’s ecological environment consists of seven agroecological zones such as saltwater swamp, freshwater swamp, Sudan savannah, guinea savannah, Sahel savannah, tropical rainforest, and the montane zones. However, discussions in this chapter are mainly focused on its three broadly classified agroecological zones namely savannah, mangrove/swamp, and rainforest. Each of these agroecological zones has their own peculiarities and supports a wide range of plant and animal species. Nevertheless, the tropical rainforest has been adjudged the richest. All adult residents in forest communities who are engaged in farming and or other forest-based livelihood activities were engaged in discussions. Adults who were 45 years and above at the time of the field work were specifically targeted due to the 30 years reference period used in this chapter. A two-stage sampling procedure was used. First, from each of the three major agroecological zones, one state was purposively sampled based on distribution and extent of forest cover. Second, two forest communities in each sampled state were selected purposively based on intensification of climate variability in the past 15 years. Thus, six forest communities namely Iyamitet, Ikom Agoi (Cross River State), WawaGbere, Emi-Hakimi Mokwa (Niger State), Osoku, and Fowowa (Ogun State) were sampled for primary information garnering (Fig. 2). In each of the sampled locations, a short survey was carried out to generate a pool of potential participants for focus group discussions as follows: Would you be willing to participate in a focus group discussion regarding climate change, rural livelihoods and other related issues? The discussion would take about 2-3 hours on . . .. . .. . .. . . (date) and you would be incentivised for participation. The discussion will be audiotaped for the purposes of review by the researchers. Yes [ ] No [ ]. Name. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . Phone no. . . .. . .. . .. . . Age. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . ...

Given the size of potential participants generated, four focus group discussions comprising 10–12 members per group were held in each forest community. Thus, qualitative data were collected from 24 focus group discussions held with 252 male and female farmers in selected sites. Deforestation and Forest Degradation Analysis adapted

1178

O. Fadairo et al.

Fig. 2 Map showing the focus group discussion locations within the agroecological zones of Nigeria

from Tiani et al. (2015) was used in this chapter. Using a discussion guide and 30 years as reference, primary information was sought on effects of climate change on farming calendar, trends in primary drivers of social vulnerability to climate change, causes and consequences of environmental degradation in forest communities, and communities needs in services and/or facilities for an effective adaptation. A visual representation showing seasonal activities among community members on a flip chart was used to facilitate conversation on how climate change affects farming calendar. Discussants indicated their cropping pattern in a calendar year, the associated activities, and why the activities are conducted in order to provide information on farmers’ local climate change adaptation measures. Also, participants during the discussions used pebbles (stones) to proportionately represent areas covered by each ecosystem components (population, agriculture, forest cover, hunting, and charcoal production) as perceived over the past 30-year period (Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 6). The outcome of this exercise was represented in a single table to indicate the trend as perceived by the discussants. Influence of climate change on local livelihood activities were captured by asking participants to award scores to represent magnitude and impact of each climate parameter on available livelihood activities. Problem tree analysis and paired needs ranking participatory tools were used to investigate health and environmental impacts of unstable climate on forest communities and communities needs in services and or facilities for an effective adaptation to climate change, respectively. During the discussions, audiotape recording, flip chart, and handwritten notes were taken by researchers and were later transcribed. Primary information collected

58

Climate Change, Rural Livelihoods, and Ecosystem Nexus: Forest Communities. . .

1179

Fig. 3 Male participants during focus group discussion at Mokwa, Niger State on March 9, 2018

were coded and analyzed based on thematic patterns in the participants responses to issues raised in the focus group discussions. In doing this, particular attention was paid to important quotes from some of the respondents. Some of these quotes are used as evidences to support discussions in this chapter. Limitations however exist in the approach used in this chapter due to language barrier experienced in some of the field locations as we observed that some respondents could not communicate well in the English language. Therefore, the researchers relied on translators to interpret the questions to the respondents and participants’ responses back to the researchers. Some content and meaning may have been lost in this process. Also, due to the problems of insurgency, farmer-herdsmen conflict, and other security issues, most states within the savanna agroecological zone were deliberately excluded from the focus group discussions.

Effects of Climate Variability on Cropping Calendar in Mangrove, Rainforest, and Savannah Agroecological Zones of Nigeria Farm households’ ability to grow enough food to feed themselves and their animals is determined to a large extent by the weather since agricultural production depends on climate variables, such as temperature, precipitation, and light. Therefore,

1180

O. Fadairo et al.

Fig. 4 Male participants during focus group discussions at Iyamitet, Cross River on 14 February, 2018

Fig. 5 Female participants at FGD at Mokwa on March 9, 2018

58

Climate Change, Rural Livelihoods, and Ecosystem Nexus: Forest Communities. . .

1181

Fig. 6 Female participants at FGD on April 11, 2018 at Osoku

shifts in temperature and precipitation are important parameters for farming communities in the timely operations of farm operations. Table 1 shows the activities done in relation to the major crops produced by each of the ecological zones. Yam, cocoa, and maize were focal crops in the mangrove, rainforest, and savannah zones, respectively. Within the mangrove ecological zone, the major activity between January and May was land preparation, with dry and wet seasons being observed in March 30 years ago. Currently, there is a little shift, as dry and wet seasons are now being observed in April. It was clear that there is a relatively longer dry season now compared to what it was 30 years ago as wet season was fully experienced from April to September, lasting a period of 6 months. In the recent times, however, the wet season now occur in May to August, lasting only 4 months. This trend is similar to what is observed in the rainforest and savannah zones with extended dry season compared with the referenced 30 years ago. This shows a drop in the duration of rainfall across the three agroecological zones. This change in climatic trend is in line with the position of Appiah et al. (2018) that there is a decrease in the intensity of rain in most forest reserves communities of most sub-Saharan African countries where there is still heavy reliance on agriculture as primary means of livelihood. This change has implications for agriculture in Nigeria which is known to be mainly rainfed. Further, two of the participants at focus group discussions gave explicit distinctions of the season and farming activities between 30 years ago and now as thus:

1182

O. Fadairo et al.

Table 1 Seasonal and cropping calendar for major crops in mangrove, rainforest, and savanna ecological zones of Nigeria

Mangrove Season 30 years ago Season currently Activities currently ● Land preparation ● Planting ● Weeding ● Staking ● Harvesting/storage Rainforest Season 30 years ago Season currently Activities currently ● Land preparation ● Cocoa nursery ● Planting ● Weeding ● Spraying ● Harvesting/storage Savanna Season 30 years ago Season currently Activities currently ● Land preparation ● Planting ● Weeding ● Harvesting/storage

Months of the year (January-December, respectively) A M J J A S O N D

J

F

M

D D

D D

D/W D

W D/W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W D/W

D/W D

D D

D D

D D

D D

D/W D

W D/W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W DW

D/W DW

D D

D D

D D

D/W D

W D

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W

W W/D

W/D D

D D

D =Dry, W = Wet, D/W =Dry & Wet

Thirty years ago, we experienced little rainfall in the month of March and then the rains become fully established in April and then fade away in September. Presently, we experience little rainfall in the month of February which become fully established in April and then fades out in October. Land clearing of farmland in our area has shifted from January/February to March. This happens because onset of rain has shifted to April, currently any rain we see in February/ March is tagged accidental rain.

Another discussant also said: ‘Compared to thirty years ago, there is reduced intensity and duration of rainfall’ (A 50-yearold man, Muslim, farmer, savannah zone).

Access to food through both production and exchange will continue to depend not only on the productivity and profitability of agriculture, but also on how well the political climate enables people to respond creatively to their environment and prospects. As a means of adapting to the extended dry spell, farmers have adopted the cultivation more hardy crops such as cassava to reduce economic losses

58

Climate Change, Rural Livelihoods, and Ecosystem Nexus: Forest Communities. . .

1183

associated with climate change. Diversification into trading and processing of agricultural produce also take place during the off seasons to bridge income gap that is now experienced. This corroborates the assertion of Appiah et al. (2018) which argues that farmers in forest communities are often engaged in other economic activities to supplement their agriculture-based incomes. One of the discussants said thus: Presently, when there is no planting activity, we engage in other businesses like buying and selling so as not to be idle and to earn money.

Perceived Trend in Agriculture, Forest Area, and Population as Primary Drivers of Social Vulnerability The relationship between climate change and ecosystem is intertwined. Climate change can affect the distribution and behavior of some ecosystem components. Conversely, the intensification of some ecosystem components such as forest cover also have implications for carbon sequestration capacity, and hence extent of climate change impact on the environment. In this chapter, element of the ecosystem such as agriculture, forest cover, population, and alternative income-generating activities in the sampled sites such as fishing, hunting, and charcoal production were focused for understanding the interrelationship among these elements and climate change. Across the three agroecological zones of rainforest, mangrove, and savanna, more people are presently involved in agricultural activities compared with 30 years ago. This, according to discussants, is due to lack of employment for graduates and irregularities in payment of salaries/wages to government workers. Therefore, the need for alternative sources of income or employment (for the unemployed) has caused the recent surge in the farming population in the areas. A 48-year-old woman farmer in one of the rainforest communities explained thus: Very few people were involved in agriculture thirty years ago in our community, then, youth only engaged in land clearing, planting and weeding of their parents’ farms. However, as our population increases many people got involved in agriculture and young people now cultivate their own farmlands.

Population as a component of the ecosystem also witnessed increasing trend in the last 30 years in all the agroecological zones. Population is a key factor that differentiate Africa from other regions of the world. African population is projected to grow rapidly throughout the twenty-first century and this growth will have direct effect on the demands for agricultural commodities. Discussants explained that increase in population is caused mainly by two factors. First, migration of people into various communities within the area for livelihood, especially in agriculture. Rural areas are known to be rich in an important factor of production which is land. Second factor was increase in child-bearing and survival of children due to improved health awareness. However, while there was

1184

O. Fadairo et al.

increase in population and intensity of agriculture across the agroecological zones, decrease in forest spread and abundance of non-timber forest products such as snails and mushrooms was observed across the zones in the last 30 years. This is caused by deforestation and bush burning, occasioned by increase in population. Increasing population exerts more pressure on resources leading to upsurge in the rate of felling of trees for cooking and charcoal production. Increasing involvement of people in agriculture and declining soil nutrient also led to agricultural “extensification” and the consequent expansion of land for agricultural activities. The implication is that more forest cover is removed in order to increase size of land cultivated for farming. A 52-year-old man in one of the savannah communities remarked during the focus group discussions as follows: The forest cover has drastically reduced against how it was. In those days we usually have 10-2 stumps of tree together, but due to deforestation by saw millers, increase in land acquisition for farming activities and construction of houses, almost all the trees are gone.

Further, hunting and fishing activities have assumed a downward trend in the savanna, mangrove, and rainforest zones in the last 30 years. This can be attributed to a decline in their distribution in their natural habitat and hence, reduced motivation on the part of the hunters and fishermen to continue in the business due to low rewards. In addition, reduced trend in fishing activities in the locations is plausibly due to water pollution, overfishing, and reduction in water volume caused by prolonged drought and a decline in intensity and duration of rainfall. Idowu et al. (2011) confirmed a decline in Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) in coastal areas of Nigeria due to pressure of climate change. However, charcoal production is among the gradually becoming prominent livelihood activities in savannah and mangrove zones. This is perhaps as a replacement for fishing and hunting livelihood activities that are already becoming faded in the areas. Charcoal production serves as an alternative income source for farmers in rural communities while ignoring its long-term implications for a sustainable environment. This is consistent with Mwampamba (2007) who had projected that by 2028, public forest resources would be depleted in some parts of Africa and there would be a total collapse of charcoal chain if no measures are put in place to stop the trend. Mwampamba’s position suggests that there is an arbitrary involvement in charcoal production and that the rate of growth in the sector is largely unsustainable. Massive charcoal production in the areas have implications for availability of None Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) in the area. During the focus group discussion, one of the discussants explained (Table 2): Duration of time used for collecting products in the forest has reduced because of scarcity of these products in the forest. Harvest from NTFPs was much thirty years ago (A 45-year-old woman, Christian, farmer, rainforest zone)

58

Climate Change, Rural Livelihoods, and Ecosystem Nexus: Forest Communities. . .

1185

Table 2 Trend in ecosystem components as primary drivers of social vulnerability to climate change Agroecological zones Rainforest

Mangrove

Savanna

Ecosystem components Agriculture Population Forest cover Fishing Charcoal production Agriculture Population Forest cover Hunting Charcoal production Agriculture Population Forest cover Fishing Charcoal

Index of intensification in last 30 years (%) 1987 1997 2007 2017 18.6 21.0 24.6 36.0 25.0 20.6 21.6 33.6 44.6 24.6 19.6 11.6 58.0 22.0 14.0 6.0 100 0 0 0 18.5 21.0 24.5 36.0 25.0 20.0 21.5 33.5 44.5 24.5 19.5 11.5 56.0 24.0 14.0 6.0 92.0 0 0 8.0 21.0 15.5 20.5 43.0 15.0 20.0 23.0 42.0 46.0 24.0 18.0 12.0 38.0 20.0 20.0 22.0 4.0 9.0 19.0 68.0

Perceived Effects of Drivers of Climate Change on Household Livelihood Weather patterns are becoming unpredictable due to increasing variability in climate parameters. Rising temperature and increased frequency of extremely dry and wet years are expected to slow progress in crop productivity, livestock system, and improved food security. This section explains the effects of drought, flood, pest and diseases, increase in temperature, and strong wind as observable drivers of vulnerability to climate change in the Nigeria agroecological zones. The effect of each was captured in both direction (negative or positive) and magnitude (which measures the extent of such effects) on subsistent crop, cash crop, charcoal production, and animal production. In the agroecological zones, the negative effects of drought were most felt on subsistence crops. Cash crops such as cocoa were not spared as the effect was high, especially on the field. An opinion leader among the farmers in Iyamitet community (mangrove zone) explained thus: In recent times, there is incessant invasion of pests and diseases on our crops which we cannot effectively control. Most times, it takes a lot of time before we understand the nature and causes of such infestation and able to adjust to it. The result is a serious reduction in the quality of our crops and huge losses for us. Ugly experience from the last year harvest has even discouraged some few cocoa farmers from business.

Discussions further revealed that charcoal production was the most resistant or the least affected by drought in the ecological regions. The reverse was the case with

1186

O. Fadairo et al.

respect to flooding, as charcoal production was reportedly highly affected in terms of quality of charcoal, quantity of wood (log), and duration of activities of charcoal production. The level of vulnerability was also high for subsistent crops, cash crops, and availability of NTFPs. Discussants during the focus group sessions justified their position that flood has a high negative effect on charcoal production explaining that when flood occurs, it washes away the charcoal heaps and woods, thereby terminating the charcoal production process. The implication is that while flooding is not an everyday occurrence, the few times it occurs, it has considerable negative effect on the quantity, quality, and hence profitability of charcoal production among producers. Furthermore, livestock production was the least threatened livelihood by increased temperature, with little or no observable implications for livestock/milk production. However, almost all the livelihood activities were threatened by increased temperature with negative implication for future and present income generation among the people. The effects of pests and diseases, which were also directly associated with climate change as reported earlier, is also evident on subsistent crop, NTFPs, and cocoa production. This rating agrees with the position of majority during discussions as they were unanimous that pests and diseases had grown in both frequency of occurrence and severity of effects in the past few years with observable negative effects on crops and other means of income generation. On the other hand, the effects were less felt on charcoal and livestock production. The last driver considered was strong wind. This chapter reveals that strong wind had the least effect on respondent’s various livelihood activities, with the most visible effects on NTFPs and the least on livestock production. The effect was rated moderate on charcoal production. This rating was backed by some explanations during discussion as follows: Strong wind often has negative effect on quantity of charcoal produced. This is often due to strong wind and availability of opening on the charcoal heap. This causes air to enter the charcoal heaps. This occurrence often reduces production efficiency, leading to high ash to charcoal ratio, thereby reducing quantity and profitability of our charcoal production enterprise.

Causes and Consequences of Environmental Degradation in the Nigeria Agroecological Zones The problem tree analysis in Fig. 7 illustrates the composite results of the effects of environmental degradation in the three ecological zones. It gives the causes and effects of the common problem identified as environmental degradation. The causes of environmental degradation identified in this section are consistent with earlier discussions and include drought, deforestation, strong wind, delayed rainfall, bush burning, use of agrochemicals, and air pollution. This corroborates the report of Somorin (2010) that impact of climate change could be felt by increased temperature, deforestation, and drought. Discussants also reported that the effects of

58

Climate Change, Rural Livelihoods, and Ecosystem Nexus: Forest Communities. . .

1187

Fig. 7 Problem tree analysis of causes and consequences of environmental degradation in Nigeria

environmental degradation produced both adverse health and environmental consequences such as mental disorder, measles, meningitis, water scarcity, erosion, cough/ catarrh, body pain, reduced NTFPs activities, erosion, poverty, low income and poor harvest, soil infertility, increased incidence of pest and diseases and fever. Specifically, in savannah zone, respondents experienced strong wind which is carries particles of dust causing cough and catarrh. Idowu et al. (2011) established that respiratory diseases and infections like cough and catarrh are prominent in harsh climate due to presence of pollutants and dust. Also, increased temperature in the area causes meningitis and measles which is very common in children of less than 5 years. A 37-year-old woman from savannah zone and 30-year-old lady from mangrove zone are quoted, respectively, as follows while commenting on the consequences of some of climate change parameters on their health and livelihoods: During hot weather, as we now frequently experience here, there is usually the prevalence of meningitis, measles and chicken pox especially among our children. Also, wind is accompanied with dust, and this brings about occurrence of cough and catarrh is common. Increased temperature also affects our animals and crops as pests and diseases grow more

1188

O. Fadairo et al.

when the weather is hot which slow down crop production (A 37-year-old woman, Muslim, farmer, savannah zone). The impact of wind is low and it could be beneficial when drying crops after harvesting them. But when it is too strong, it could destroy the crops’ (A 30-year-old woman, Christian, processor, mangrove zone)

An interesting link between deforestation and pervasiveness of mental disorder among the people was alluded to in Wawa community (savannah zone) where the participants argued that deforestation releases certain spirits which are believed reside in trees to inflict young ladies with insanity. One of the male discussants said the following: Due to deforestation, spirits that abode in the trees are made homeless and therefore come to town and enter into our young ladies making them go insane. We are able to establish this because during deliverance session for some of the victims, the spirits confessed that their natural habitats have been disrupted and that’s the reason for the attacks.

Farming Communities’ Needs for an Enduring Adaptation to Climate Change in Nigeria Farming communities’ adaptation is key in translating climatic challenges and agricultural responses into changes in production, prices, food supply, and welfare. The potential for positive change for farming communities will increase if farmers are helped to adapt to climate variability. Table 3 therefore show the priority ranking of what communities in the agroecological areas adjudged as their needs to effectively adjust to climate changes impact. Across the ecological zones, respondents highlighted some needs that were important due to various problems and setbacks they encountered arising from climate change. Availability of credit facilities ranked first, suggesting lack of sufficient capital for various livelihood activities and effective climate change adaptation. Building of health center

Table 3 Needs matrix as identified by communities in forest-edge communities in Nigeria Needs Credit facilities Heath center Farm inputs – improved seed variety, fertilizer, herbicides Good road network Pipe borne water Power supply Irrigation Communication network

Ranks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

58

Climate Change, Rural Livelihoods, and Ecosystem Nexus: Forest Communities. . .

1189

ranked second as most of the communities’ lacked access to well-equipped health centers that can provide health care services. Farmers also require farm inputs in the form of herbicides, improved seed varieties, and fertilizer as the third ranked need. Perhaps, the need to easily connect outside communities for timely marketing of agricultural produce necessitated farmer’s choice of good access-linking road. Discussions revealed that farmers find it difficult to sell their produce to right buyers due to poor state of farm-to-market road. Instead, commodities were often sold to middle men at farm gate prices and hence, low profitability for the farmers. Other infrastructure such as pipe borne water, power supply, communication network was also mentioned as some of their pressing needs across communities in the agroecological zones. The huge infrastructural deficit in the sampled locations is indicative of the state of physical development in most of the forest-edge communities in Nigeria. This corroborates the earlier assertion by one of the discussants: ‘We strongly desire credit facilities and good road network to enable us perform better in our farming activities and also for outsiders to come into our community and trade with us’ (A 52-years-old man, Christian, farmer, rainforest zone)

Conclusion and Recommendation This chapter concludes that the scale and direction of climate change impact on agriculture as the primary rural livelihood and other ecosystem components in Nigeria’s agroecological zones is largely comparable and have both positive and negative consequences on rural sustenance. While climate change impact combined with some other economic factors such as unemployment have encouraged urbanrural migration, agricultural intensification, and livelihood diversification on the one hand, it has increased vulnerability tendencies of rural households in forest-edge communities in all the agroecological zones of Nigeria on the other hand. Among several others, increased forest encroachment, lack of a well-coordinated policy framework which allows for alternative livelihood without accompanying forest regulatory framework were major vulnerability exacerbating factors for the rural poor. Although the rural populace need help for better adjustment to climate change, they also do have demonstrated ability to respond to changes occasioned by climate variability and are exploring these abilities to the best of their knowledge. Support in the form of affordable insurance policy, credit, agri-inputs, favorable forest regulatory framework, and youth empowerment would enhance sustainable adjustment to climate change among the rural people. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the African Development Bank and Japan Trust Fund under the Education for Sustainable Development in Africa (ESDA) project on knowledge creation, sharing, and exchange between Asia and Africa in support of Sustainable Development of Africa.

1190

O. Fadairo et al.

References Appiah DO, Akondoh ACK, Tabiri RK, Donkor AA (2018) Smallholders farmers’ insight on climate change in rural Ghana. Cogent Food and Agriculture 4:1–16. http://www. congentoa.com/article/10.1080/23311932.208.1436211.pdf/27/April/2018. Assessed 17 June 2018 Aruwajoye AS, Ajibefun IA (2013) Assessment of livelihood strategies among households in forest reserve communities in Ondo state, Nigeria. Int J Sci Eng Res 4(7):1650–1655 Ayanlade A, Radeny M, Morton JF, Muchaba T (2018) Rainfall variability and drought characteristics in two agro-climatic zones: an assessment of climate change challenges in Africa. Sci Total Environ 630:728–737 Ayuk ET, Fonta WM, Ichoku HE (2011) Forest income and household welfare in rural Nigeria. https://unu.edu/publications/articles/forest-income-and-household-welfare-in-rural-nigeria. html#info. Accessed 20 Nov 2019 Azeez IO, Ikponmwonba OS, Popoola L, Amusa TO (2010) Land use activities among forest environments’ dwellers in Edo State, Nigeria: implications for livelihood and sustainable forest management. Int J Soc For 3(2):164–187 Bassey BJ, Obong LB (2008) The role of non-timber forest products (NTFR) in community livelihoods: a case study of Okiro, Obudu Local Government Area Cross River state, Nigeria. J Environ Res Policies 3:98–105 Carloni AS, Crowley E (2005) Rapid guide for missions: analysing local institutions and livelihoods. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome Coates J (2013) Build it back better: deconstructing food security for improved measurement and action. Global Food Secur 2(3):188–194 Cooper PJM, Dimes J, Rao KPC, Shapiro B, Shiferawa B, Twomlow S (2008) Coping better with current climatic variability in the rain-fed farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa: an essential first step in adapting to future climate change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 126:24–35 Vidaurre de la Riva M, Lindner A, Pretzsch J (2013) Assessing adaptation – climate change and indigenous livelihood in the Andes of Bolivia. J Agric Rural Dev Trop Subtrop 114(2):109–122 Enete IC (2014) Impacts of climate change on agricultural production in Enugu State Nigeria. J Earth Sci Clim Change. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7617.1000234 Fadairo OS, Calland R, Mulugetta Y, Olawoye JE (2017) A corruption risk assessment of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation project in Nigeria. Int J Clim Change Impact Responses 10(1):1–22 Fadairo O, Williams PA, Nalwanga FS (2019) Perceived livelihood impacts and adaptation of vegetable farmers to climate variability and change in selected sites from Ghana, Uganda and Nigeria. Environ Dev Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00514-1 Fisher PA, Paveglio T, Carroll M, Murphy D, Brenkert-Smith H (2013) Assessing social vulnerability to climate change in human communities near public forests and grasslands: a framework for resource managers and planners. J For 111(5):1–9. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.12-091 Idowu AA, Ayoola SO, Opele AI, Ikenweiwe P (2011) Impact of climate change in Nigeria. Iranica J Energy Environ 2(2):145–152 Kinsey J (2005) Will food safety jeopardize food security? Agr Econ 32(s1):149–158 Levang, P., Dounias, E. & Sitorus, S. (2005). Out of the forest, out of poverty? Forests, trees and livelihoods, 15(2): 230 Lindner A, Pretzsch J (2013) An international network on climate change impacts on small farmers in the tropical Andes – global conventions from a local perspective. Sustain Agric Res 2 (2):92–98. https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v2n2p92

58

Climate Change, Rural Livelihoods, and Ecosystem Nexus: Forest Communities. . .

1191

Malhi Y, Wright J (2004) Spatial patterns and recent trends in the climate of tropical rainforest regions. Philos Trans Biol Sci 359:311–329 Morton JF (2007) The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. PNAS 104(50):19680–19685 Mwampamba TH (2007) Has the woodfuel crisis returned? Urban charcoal consumption in Tanzania and its implications to present and future forest availability. Energy Policy 35 (8):4221–4234 Nayak BP, Kohli P, Sharma JV (2012) Policy brief: livelihoods of communities and forest degradation in India: issues for REDD+ policy. Https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Liveli hood-of-local-communities-and-forest-in-India-Nayak-Kohli/ 4a45c80a48147a4c607b96905212d6bf5f5622f6. Accessed 17 Nov 2019 Osuafor AM, Nnorom NR (2014) Impact of climate change on food security in Nigeria. Int J Sci Technol 3(1):1–16 Petkova EP, Ebi KL, Culp D, Irwin R (2015) Climate change and health on the U.S. Gulf Coast: public health adaptation is needed to address future risks. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:9342–9356 Petersen EK, Pedersen ML (2010) The sustainable livelihoods approach: from a psychological perspective. Institute of Biology, University of Aarhus Power AG (2010) Ecosystem services and agriculture: trade-offs and synergies. Philos Trans R Soc 365:2959–2971. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0143 Pretty J, Toulmin C, Williams S (2011) Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. Int J Agric Sustain 9(1):5–24 Saka MG, Jatau DF, Olaniyi WA (2013) Status of indigenous tree species in Girei forest reserve of Adamawa State. J For Res Wildlife Environ 5:28–40 Shackleton CM (2004) Assessment of livelihoods importance of forestry, forests and forest products in South Africa. Rhodes University, Grahamstown Somorin OA (2010) Climate impacts, forest-dependent rural livelihoods and adaptation strategies in Africa: a review. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 4(13):903–912 Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Fraser E, Hubacek K, Prell C, Reed MS (2006) Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: a critical review. Ecol Soc 11(2):39. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art39/. Assessed 12 July 2018 Sunderlin W, Angelsen A, Belcher B, Burgers P, Nasi R, Santose L, Wunder S (2005) Livelihoods, forests and conservation in developing countries: an overview. World Dev 33(9):1383 Tiani AM, Besa MC, Devisscher T, Pavageau C, Butterfield R, Bharwani S, Bele M (2015) Assessing current social vulnerability to climate change: a participatory methodology (Working paper no. 169). Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor. ISBN 978-602-1504-70-3. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/005463 Tompkins EL, Adger WN (2004) Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecol Soc 9(2):10. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10. Assessed 17 Aug 2018 Veenendaal EM, Swaine MD (1998) Limits to tree species distribution in lowland tropical rainforests. In: Newbery DM, Prins HHT, Brown M (eds) Dynamics of tropical communities. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford Ward RD, Friess DA, Day RH, Mackenzie RA (2016) Impacts of climate change on mangrove ecosystems: a region by region overview. Ecosyst Health Sustain 2(4) Warner K (2000) Forestry and sustainable livelihoods; what part can forest and forestry play in reducing poverty? Unsilver: FAO, 51(202), 3–12 Wunder S (2005) Forestry and sustainable livelihoods. World Commission on Environment and Development (1999). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, pp 1817

1192

O. Fadairo et al.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Climate Change, Biodiversity, and Tipping Points in Botswana

59

Peter Urich, Yinpeng Li, and Sennye Masike

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tipping Points and Emergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emergence and Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ISEET Analysis Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Institutional-Socio-Earth-Economical-Technical (ISEET) systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Working Definition of a Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study: Botswana’s Biodiversity Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biodiversity and Tipping Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baseline Biodiversity in Botswana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate Change Impacts on the Biodiversity in Botswana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One Example: The Okavango Delta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tipping Points for Climate Change for the Biodiversity Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1194 1195 1196 1198 1198 1199 1200 1202 1207 1210 1212 1213 1214 1214 1222 1223

Abstract

Climate adaptation planning requires new ways of thinking and approaching the analysis of risks. Such thinking needs to be systemic in nature and practice/ action-oriented while respecting the complexity of the physical and social sciences. Through this chapter on climate tipping points in Botswana, it is proposed

This chapter was previously published non-open access with exclusive rights reserved by the Publisher. It has been changed retrospectively to open access under a CC BY 4.0 license and the copyright holder is “The Author(s)”. For further details, please see the license information at the end of the chapter. P. Urich (*) · Y. Li · S. Masike International Global Change Institute and CLIMsystems Ltd, Hamilton, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_161

1193

1194

P. Urich et al.

that a generic and practice-oriented analysis framework be applied with a mathematical foundation including modeling methods based on complex science. The objective is to promote a framework that privileges a worldview to avoid biased and partial explanations of risks. An Institutional-Socio-Earth-EconomicalTechnical systems (ISEET) approach is based on a systems science philosophy for risk governance analysis, with particular emphasis on tipping points and emergence which are some of the key elements that can support sound adaptation planning. Through the lens of the biodiversity sector in Botswana, the complex interrelationships of ISEET principles are explained. They provide a new, efficient, and practical framework for moving rapidly from theory to action for planning and implementing climate change adaption projects. Keywords

Tipping points · System dynamics · Climate change · Risk assessment · Biodiversity · Action research

Introduction Humanity has modified the earth systems in significant ways and has initiated unprecedented Anthropocene risks (Keys et al. 2019; Baer and Singer 2018). Changes include fundamental aspects of the earth system such as all layers of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere through changes in weather patterns, climate, land surfaces, ocean chemistry, and geological structures. Anthropocene risks such as global connectivity either have reached or are approaching tipping points of various earth systems at different temporal and spatial scales (Steffen et al. 2018). Meanwhile, the emergence of new knowledge, technologies, and institutions has led to new approaches for problem-solving. An example of collective action is the Paris Agreement ratified by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). However, progress in mitigating climate risk has not been satisfying. Responses are uneven and uncoordinated, and CO2 emissions continue to increase globally, even with green energy and other technological advancements. New approaches to the analysis of risks need to be articulated systemically and be practice-oriented while respecting the complexity of the physical and social sciences (Sterner et al. 2019; Lucas et al. 2018). The existing initiatives and frameworks are limited, such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the Paris Agreement, and international programs such as IRGP-IDHP (Integrated Risk Governance Project-International Human Dimension Programme). These limitations transcend the research frameworks as well, such as SES (socio-ecological system), STS (science technology and sustainability, and IAD (institutional analysis and development). The weaknesses of these existing frameworks as analysis and practice tools are being more widely debated and are modified as society seeks a better understanding of systemic risks posed by climate change and large-scale socio-physical disasters (Cole et al. 2014; McCord et al. 2017).

59

Climate Change, Biodiversity, and Tipping Points in Botswana

1195

A more generic and practice-oriented analysis framework is explored from a mathematical foundation, including modeling methods based on complex science. A structure of systems thinking applicable in the Anthropocene is proposed whereby analysis privileges a worldview and earth-view that attempt to avoid biased and partial explanations of risks.

Tipping Points and Emergence There are standard features of systemic risks in different domains. These include the character of agents and emergence phenomena, tipping parameters indicating instability, and more noncommittal empirical observations. Instead, these features can be related as Lucas et al. (2018) describe on fundamental theory for relatively wellunderstood and straightforward systems in physics and chemistry. A crucial mechanism is the breakdown of macroscopic patterns of whole systems due to feedback reinforcing actions of agents on the microlevel, whereby the role of complexity science forms the basis for unifying the phenomena of systemic risks in widely different domains. Tipping points sometimes also refer to shifting points. For example, the shift from an unsustainable to a sustainable society requires a radical historical change in the form of a profound transition which could involve a series of connected transitions in many socio-technical systems (e.g., energy, mobility, and food) toward sustainability. People who work from an SES point of view, studying the profound transition and radical change issues, use different expressions (Schot and Kanger 2018; van der Vleuten 2019). According to Lenton et al. (2008: 1786), the term tipping point refers to a “critical threshold at which a tiny perturbation can qualitatively alter the state or development of a system.” The following attributes are identified as tipping points in the Anthropocene: • Tipping points could impact the whole planetary scale, everything living on Earth. • Tipping points could impact the transition or the change of regime. • Interaction crosses boundaries, including administration and nature systems and ISEETS boundaries. • Both collective and individual social actions operate in multiple sociocultural, technological, governance, biophysical, and knowledge systems which interact with many other systems at the same time and many levels. • Tàbara et al. (2018) focused on the complexity of attribution and a reductionist approach about systems thinking and the historical drive to an oversimplified explanation of solutions, drivers of tipping points that could improve the likelihood of limiting global warming to either the 1.5 °C or 2 °C target. • When social and natural scientists collaborate and integrate their studies, new patterns and previously unforeseen relationships that can accentuate understanding have been achieved. Such studies often reveal intricate causes and effects as such works are based on well-defined spatial, temporal, and organizational units,

1196

P. Urich et al.

be they culturally, physically, or politically determined. Another finding in such studies is their non-stationary and as Liu et al. (2009) feedback loops lag in effects from a range of identified causes and their relationship with resilience and thresholds can reveal new insights. It is also recognized that past interrelationships can have spillover effects that can continue to impact on not only a present state of a system but also its future. • Tipping points are likely to be breached in the future; however, the underlying conditions are challenging to predict, and the accuracy in defining the time and place makes policy and decision-making currently inadequate for either mitigating or possibly avoiding transgressions. • Thresholds are not constant. Instead, the position of a threshold along a determining variable can change. The consequences of crossing a threshold are context-dependent. The threshold is sometimes known, and the decision-making depends on the effects of crossing it. • Tipping points or regime shifts are intricately related to the concept of system resilience.

Emergence and Innovation Emergence plays a central role in theories related to integrative levels and complex systems. Emergence and emergent phenomena are essential concepts in complexity studies (Goldstein 2018). Emergence can be described as either the development or the presence of the existence or formation of common behaviors, whereby the collective actions within a system would not lead to a similar outcome if applied as individual, constituent parts with no recognized interaction. Emergence is also used to describe the properties of a system – what the system does under its relationship with the environment that it would not otherwise complete itself and is coupled to the scope and system boundaries (Ryan 2007). Emergence also refers to the ability of individual components of a system to collaborate, thus leading to rapid and diverse behavioral changes and new features. For the ISEET, more linkages and communication between subsystems, or the building of more relationships among the ISEET subsystems, could lead to new features emerging. These would then reflect the application of the more complex system and possibly more innovative systems thinking. Emergence is typically not reducible to, nor readily predictable from, the properties of individual system components. Therefore, it may appear surprising or unexpected (Halley and Winkler 2008). Emergent phenomena exist in all subsystems, which could provide solutions or options to the existing challenges in all subsystems if the emergence is managed properly (Ceccarelli et al. 2019; Lichtenstein 2014; Roundy et al. 2018). Emergence could be applied in a conceptual framework. This framework could improve the understanding of scientific and technological progress (Alexander et al. 2012), innovation, and economic growth (Du and O’Connor 2019). Such a holistic innovation system could improve productivity through the diverse knowledge of

59

Climate Change, Biodiversity, and Tipping Points in Botswana

1197

business resources available. Emergence also could be scored to identify the topics and drivers of innovation (Porter et al. 2019). The technology innovation process is central to effective adaption to climate change and development challenges. However, models from business and management tend to dominate innovation theory, which sits outside the adaption-development paradigm (Hope et al. 2018). The goal is, however, to support the development of sectoral and technologically detailed and policy-relevant country-driven strategies consistent with the UNFCCC Paris Agreement. An ISEETS framework can be used to engage stakeholder input and buy-in; design implementation policy packages; reveal necessary technological, financial, and institutional enabling conditions; and support global stock-taking and ratcheting of ambition (Waisman et al. 2019). Macro-level agreements, such as the UNFCCC Paris Agreement, should be designed to encourage debate on how to tackle climate change through the notion of innovation, applying both technological innovation and marketing issues. Innovation of a technical nature is part of the equation, but it is not the only requirement. It has been suggested by Asayehegn et al. (2017) that an enabling sectoral system of innovation (SSI) be prioritized where some technological innovations contribute to adaptation actions for climate change. Technological impact analysis could be included based on the following approaches: historical sectoral application and improvement on the systems, such as agriculture technology, livestock breeding and feeding technology, ICT technology, carbon sequestration technology, and others where appropriate. With the emergence of adaptation technology, it can be defined as “the application of technology to reduce the vulnerability or enhance the resilience, of a natural or human system to the risks of climate change” (UNFCCC 2005: 5). Technologies are defined as either “hard” that includes equipment and infrastructure or “soft” such as institutions and management systems (Christiansen et al. 2011). However, some technologies, such as new crop varieties, are not so easy to categorize. Many technologies can be used to address current vulnerabilities to climate and other environmental, economic, and societal concerns and to reduce future exposure to climate change impacts. Some can also be used to address several types of climate change impact in different sectors. ISEET modeling seems too big to be handled by either a single model or an existing framework. However, when considering specific modeling for a risk governance issue, the data, variables, and parameters could be selected and refined according to their importance and their functionalities. The modeling approaches from different disciplines could be either simplified or reorganized to fit specific purposes. For the subsystem in this chapter, the modeling approaches have been developed for specific contexts, which can be either absorbed or integrated into the ISEET modeling processes. Modeling systemic or structural change in socio-environmental systems is not new. Tipping point modeling has been carried out by scientists from SES, climate systems, social systems, network analysis, and agent-based modeling disciplines. Based on the ISEET system analysis framework, Fig. 1 depicts an overview of an

1198

P. Urich et al.

Fig. 1 The framework of Institutional-Socio-Economic-Ecological-Technological Systems (ISEETS) for a climate change tipping point study. (Source: authors)

ISEET structure for tipping points and the emergence of, and linkages between, five subsystems. Tipping points and regime shifts are being studied within various disciplines applying a range of modeling approaches and analysis frameworks. One of the first obstacles in any study of systemic change is the terminology. Environmental and social science disciplines have engaged in relevant ideas of regime shift, structural change, non-marginal change, and transition theory, and each claims ownership (Polhill et al. 2016).

ISEET Analysis Framework Institutional-Socio-Earth-Economical-Technical (ISEET) systems ISEET describes five intrinsically interlinked systems formed around the Anthropocene. The method has at its foundation systems science concepts and mathematical methodologies for risk governance analysis, with emphasis on tipping points and emergence, which are the key characteristics that need to be analyzed for risk governance.

59

Climate Change, Biodiversity, and Tipping Points in Botswana

1199

ISEET represents a dynamic system. Their elements, functions, and relationships change with time and across spatial scales. Historical evidence and future prediction are essential for risk governance. Human beings do not always passively react to risks. With new and different technologies and the extension of knowledge, the risk may become more manageable. Opportunities could be created through the emergence mechanism in ISEET. ISEET systems can be characterized as the coupling of natural laws with world rules. The goals are to support mutual well-being of the earth (physical) and world (social) systems. To describe risk governance issues in the Anthropocene, ISEET framework subsystems are indispensable. ISEET risk governance is either realized or implemented by institutions. They require the full engagement of societies and apply certain economically viable technologies that should encompass sustainable ecosystem service support from the earth environment and its resources. From the subsystem point of view, the interrelationship could be described as: • An institution that must have close collaboration with its relational society, using environmentally and ethically sound and economically viable technologies. • Societies that could live with the environment, given effective and efficient institutions, and be economically healthy, with controllable risks on the earth system. • Societies that need to work together to advance and apply technologies with economic endeavors, to live sustainably with the earth system. • The sustainable development of economic systems that could be achieved by a well-designed and well-operated institution, which include social capital and earth resources. • Technology that may need to be advanced and applied and that does not harm the environment and is ethically healthy. In this way, societies are more likely to promote institutions, with the input from their constituent economic systems.

The Working Definition of a Subsystem • An institution in ISEET implies a body that operates within regulations, laws, policies, and conventions. Such institutions can represent cross-sectoral entities established when either developing or implementing a related risk governance framework. For example, emergency management laws and emergency management ministries are all part of a larger institutional system. • Social systems in ISEET refer to all the elements, functions, and relationships in societies, including the population and its age and gender composition, culture, religion, educational level, and connectivity. Complexity theory offers the toolkit needed for this paradigm shift in social theory (Walby 2007). • Earth system refers to the biophysical existence of the Earth planet, including the living support environment, from top air to deep earth. • An economic system, as defined by Gregory and Stuart (2013: 30), “is a system of production, resource allocation and distribution of goods and services within

1200

P. Urich et al.

a society or a given geographic area. It includes the combination of the various institutions, agencies, entities, decision-making processes and patterns of consumption that comprise the economic structure of a given community.” • Technological systems are sets of interconnected components that transform, store, transport, or control materials, energy, and information for specific purposes. Machines, software, and the hardware they run on are considered part of a technological system. Similarly, how humanity organizes itself to apply such technology are broader arrangements based on the organization’s structures to exploit technology and techniques developed to optimize their application.

Case Study: Botswana’s Biodiversity Sector Time is of the essence for engaging in the intersection between climate change and the biodiversity extinction crisis. The Global Deal for Nature (GDN) is one opportunity as it is science-driven with the goal of saving the diversity and current relative abundance of life on the planet. The linkage of the GDN with the Paris Climate Agreement might help humanity avoid catastrophic climate change while conserving species and their increasingly recognized values, including ecosystem services. Compelling recent findings add additional urgency to the issue as less than half of the globe’s terrestrial realm is intact. The application of global climate points toward a tipping point. Habit conversions continuing as they were historically while greenhouse gas emissions maintaining its current trajectories may exceed humanity’s chances of limiting global warming to the 1.5 °C target. Over the next 10 years, currently expanding conversion and poaching rates need to be slowed down considerably to avoid “points of no return” for some floral and faunal species (Fig. 2). If global mean temperatures are permitted to rise above 1.5 °C, it is widely believed that fundamental aspects of ecosystems, both large and small, could unravel. Continued unsustainable use of the natural environment threatens our global health as witnessed by the rising risk of global pandemics, while mass migration owing to the lack of access to resources such as clean water and productive and uncontaminated land become more widespread. Global climate change and its increase in extreme events could accelerate the degradation of land and societies. For example, climate change-induced sea level rise and extreme still high-water events, which inundate coastal zones and droughts, may displace at least 100 million people by 2050. Most of those people currently live in the southern hemisphere (Dinerstein et al. 2019). Botswana, as part of Southern Africa, is home to an appreciable portion of global biodiversity, and many of its ecosystems retain relatively intact species assemblages across all trophic levels. The region possesses an established network of protected areas that contribute both to conservation targets and to nature-based tourism. Pressure on biodiversity can result from regional and highly localized developments concerning extractive resource use. Anthropogenic climate changes are more widely accepted as a profound driver of such impacts for Africa’s biodiversity, including

59

Climate Change, Biodiversity, and Tipping Points in Botswana

1201

Fig. 2 Thresholds of temperature anomaly that could lead to significant local changes in landbased ecosystems. Colored areas (left legend) represent regions with severe transformation; gray areas (right legend) are likely to experience moderate transformation. Dark red transformation at 1.5 °C and light red at 2.0 °C. (Courtesy of Gerten et al. 2013)

Botswana, and it is increasingly likely to be harmful from both ecological and economic perspectives. Worldwide, the United Nations is committed to mainstreaming biodiversity planning in a wide range of policies and programs and with the inclusion of climate change. In a country such as Botswana, mainstreaming biodiversity and/ or wildlife management at the local, regional, and country level is critical to its economy and its place as a critical biodiversity REDD hotspot for several primary faunal species. Botswana, in terms of biodiversity, is a country of contrasts. The diversity ranges from the wetlands of the north, dependent on water arriving season from neighboring Angola, to the broad and arid Kalahari Desert in the center and southwest. Each area is part of a systematic protected area system with the Okavango Delta representing the world’s largest inland delta which is also a Ramsar site. At the same time, Chobe National Park has many varieties and populations of game and a considerable density of elephants. The country has innovated the first formally declared transboundary park in Africa, the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. There is also the Central Kalahari Game Reserve and the distinctive prehistoric lake that now consists of salt pans called the Makgadikgadi and Nxai Pans National Park system. This area has important habitats for migratory birds. Botswana is developing a National Climate Change Policy, Strategy and Action Plan (NCCPSAP) with the framework for such being only recently devised. The policy will be implemented through the Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism in cooperation with the United Nations Development Programme. Among other objectives, the NCCPSAP aims to develop and implement appropriate adaptation strategies and actions that will lower the vulnerability of Botswana and various sectors of the economy to the impacts of climate change.

1202

P. Urich et al.

Biodiversity and Tipping Points Biodiversity in the context of tipping points is a complex area for investigation. Alternate stable states are associated with abrupt shifts in ecosystems, tipping points, and hysteresis, all of which challenge traditional approaches to ecosystem management (Oliver et al. 2015). Ecosystems often maintain their stability through internal feedback mechanisms. Environmental perturbations (natural and enhanced by climate change) can change the frequency and magnitude of regime shifts leading to fundamental changes in the assemblages of species providing functions. Systems can be more susceptible to environmental randomness/irregularity and perturbations/fluctuation close to these critical tipping points and can lead to sudden changes and foster a new equilibrium. Such evolved alternative stable states might be unsupportive in terms of ecosystem functions with a return to a previous state only possible through substantial and costly management interventions (hysteresis). Therefore, the recovery capacity of ecosystem function can be compromised. Alternative conditions have been documented in a wide variety of ecosystems from local to global scales. However, how stable and persistent these will be in the future, under rapid changes in climate, remain uncertain. It is exceedingly difficult to understand how complex ecosystems, for example, the Okavango Delta, will behave as they either approach or surpass tipping points (Fig. 3). Exceedingly small changes in one or more conditions can lead to a cascade of other changes resulting in a large shift in the state of the system. Sometimes this process can be played out very slowly and therefore less perceptibly by society, and at other times, extreme events lead to radical shifts that exceed the capability of systems to slowly recover, and hence it is forced to find a new stasis; this is a natural process with volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and flood events often leading to abrupt changes. However, climate change and its speed of onset, which varies from location to location, and the uncertainty in future projections can lead to management paralysis. The slowing down of a potentially catastrophic collapse of individual and highly relevant parts of a system is therefore preferred to prolong the sustainability of the large system. Ecosystem management depends on monitoring and maintaining resilience because the loss of resilience renders ecosystems more vulnerable to undesirable shifts. Several works summarized by Dai et al. (2012) suggest that a set of generic indicators may aid in the sustainable management of fragile ecosystems. Signals of critical slowing down based on time series demand observations over a long span. Compiling such data is often tricky; therefore, if other indicators based on the spatial structure can be identified, they could be complementary to the early warning signals. Tipping points are often driven by either complex feedback mechanisms or interactions between multiple drivers. Some of these triggers or drivers are found to be new and thus are not well represented in models currently in use (Leadley et al. 2010). An example is a relationship between dying back in Amazon forests and deforestation and climate change processes that resulted in an underestimation of impacts in earlier global biodiversity assessments. This situation may pertain in the

59

Climate Change, Biodiversity, and Tipping Points in Botswana

1203

Fig. 3 Tipping point analysis framework for biodiversity in Botswana. (Source: authors)

case of the Okavango Delta where the sustained integrity of the Miombo woodlands on neighboring country of Angola leaves the well-established ecotourism focal areas such as the Okavango swamps in Botswana critically dependent on the sustained flow of sediment- and nutrient-free water from those upland parts of the wider river basin (Leadley et al. 2010). Ecosystem service degradation can be linked with species extinctions, eroding species abundance, or as shown in this chapter potential shifts in biomes and associated species distributions. However, conservation of biodiversity and provision of some types of ecosystem services can conflict. The following tables list the already identified changes (from 2008 to 2019) in red category lists for plants and animals in Botswana in a limited African context (Tables 1, 2, and 3). Midgley and Thuiller (2011) suggest significant impacts from unrestrained climate change for the southern part of the African region. However, overestimates of the speed of change and extent of those impacts may be the case owing to underlying assumptions of bioclimatic modeling. The analysis of a diverse range of studies does, however, support the rationale for a high level of concern as there is a signal across the available research that unmitigated changes in climate threaten a

EX 0 0 0 0

EW 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 0 0 0 0

CR 0 0 0 0

EN 2 0 4 1

VU 24 0 32 2

Subtotal 26 0 36 3

LR/cd 0 0 14 2

NT 6 3 0 0

DD 1 0 38 8

LC 6 3 859 398

Total 39 6 947 411

IUCN Red List Categories: EX extinct, EW extinct in the wild, CR critically endangered, EN endangered, VU vulnerable, LR/cd lower risk/conservationdependent, NT near threatened (includes LR/nt lower risk/near threatened), DD data-deficient, LC least concern (includes LR/lc lower risk/least concern)

Sub-Saharan Africa Angola 2008 Botswana 2008 Angola 2019 Botswana 2019

Table 1 Red List Category summary country totals (plants) by the number of extinct, threatened, and other species of plants in each Red List Category in each country (IUCN 2008, 2019)

1204 P. Urich et al.

Mammals 14 6 19 11

Birds 18 7 32 16

Reptiles* 4 0 7 1

Amphibians 0 0 0 0

Fishes* 22 2 53 2

Mollusks* 4 0 7 0

Other inverts* 1 0 4 0

Plants* 26 0 36 3

0 0

Fungi and protists*

Total* 89 15 158 33

*Reptiles, fishes, molluscs, other invertebrates, plants, fungi & protists: please note that for these groups, there are still many species that have not yet been assessed for the IUCN Red List and therefore their status is not known (i.e., these groups have not yet been completely assessed). Therefore the figures presented below for these groups should be interpreted as the number of species known to be threatened within those species that have been assessed to date, and not as the overall total number of threatened species for each group

Sub-Saharan Africa Angola 2008 Botswana 2008 Angola 2019 Botswana 2019

Table 2 Red List Category summary country totals by numbers of threatened species (critically endangered, endangered, and vulnerable categories only) in each major taxonomic group by country (IUCN 2008, 2019)

59 Climate Change, Biodiversity, and Tipping Points in Botswana 1205

EX 0 0 0 0

EW 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 0 0 0 0

CR 9 1 12 4

EN 19 1 33 7

VU 35 13 77 19

Subtotal 63 15 122 30

LR/cd 0 0 60 29

NT 50 21 0 0

DD 114 12 233 10

LC 1,384 847 2,493 1,010

Total 1,611 895 2,908 1,079

IUCN Red List Categories: EX extinct, EW extinct in the wild, CR critically endangered, EN endangered, VU vulnerable, LR/cd lower risk/conservationdependent, NT near threatened (includes LR/nt lower risk/near threatened), DD data-deficient, LC least concern (includes LR/lc lower risk/least concern)

Sub-Saharan Africa Angola 2008 Botswana 2008 Angola 2019 Botswana 2019

Table 3 Red List Category summary country totals (animals) by the number of extinct, threatened, and other species of animals in each Red List Category in each country (IUCN 2008, 2019)

1206 P. Urich et al.

59

Climate Change, Biodiversity, and Tipping Points in Botswana

1207

considerable portion of southern African biodiversity. It is the underlying shifts in ecosystem structures, for example, increases and decreases in woody plant cover, that have a secondary impact on faunal diversity that is likely to alter the dominant savanna vegetation type of the region. Midgley and Thuiller (2011) pointed to the winter rainfall areas of the broader region that could suffer the most significant biodiversity loss. The trends identified in Botswana are echoed in other biomes. It is increasingly recognized that rates of disturbance vary with time and can depend on long-term climate trends, the influence of anthropogenic land-use practices (e.g., fire), wildlife population cycles, and other factors such as presence or introduction of invasive species (Wilson et al. 2019). As noted by Wilson et al. (2019), assessment of regional patterns and trends is needed, hence our approach that placed Botswana in the context of Southern Africa. Specifically, some crucial areas are mostly outside Botswana, but they have relevant spillover effects, especially for the Okavango Delta. Specifically, when mammals in the region are differentiated by size and dietary requirements, some more telling climate risks emerge. Correlations are significant for annual temperature but only for large mammals, where 60–67% of the variability in species richness of large mammals is impacted versus 85%) were observed for the treatments with S. marcescens NGAS9, E. tabaci MATS3, and E. asburiae MWAKS5. For K, E. tabaci MWATS 3 yielded the highest average of 2741.86 mg kg
1 corresponding to an 82.3% increment over the un-inoculated control for which the average K content was 486.33 mg kg
1. Similar results were observed for Fe quantity in potato tubers where the same treatment resulted in tubers with an average Fe content of 6.63 mg kg
1 corresponding to a 96.7% increment over the control which recorded an average Fe content of 0.126 mg kg
1. Interestingly, the rhizobacterial treatments resulted in tubers with improved Zn content to a great extent over the un-inoculated controls by between 90% and 97%. The highest Zn content of 6429.97 mg kg
1 was recorded for the treatment with E. tabaci MATS3, an increment of 97.6% over the control whose tubers had an average Zn content of 155.95 mg kg
1.

Discussions Cultural, Microscopic, Biochemical, and Carbohydrate Utilization Properties of the Isolates The rhizobacterial isolated exhibited a broad range of morphological features in terms of their colony forms, indicating their relative diversity. All isolates were Gram-negative, agreeing with other reports that that plant rhizospheres are predominantly colonized by Gram-negative bacterial communities. For instance, in a recent study by Mujahid et al. (2015), up to 90% of all studied rhizobacterial isolates from various crop fields, respectively, were also Gram-negative. Only 3 out of the 10 potato rhizobacterial isolates in this study did not exhibit any form of motility in the MTM. Rhizobacterial motility is an important property that enables bacteria to reach the plant root exudates and flagella-driven chemotaxis is very critical for successful root colonization (Turnbull et al. 2001). Half of the isolates were MR-positive, indicating their ability to produce organic acids which are important in the solubilization of inorganic P (Adeleke et al. 2017). Similarly, the rhizobacterial isolates were all positive for catalase production and some isolates exhibited very strong catalase activities. Catalases are enzymes that act as defense mechanisms for bacteria to detoxify, neutralize, repair, or escape oxidative damages and bactericidal effects of reactive oxygen species like H2O2 (Mumtaz et al. 2017). Except for K. oxytoca MWAKS1, all the isolates also exhibited citrate utilization which is thought to play a significant role in competitive root colonization and maintenance of bacteria in the rhizosphere (Turnbull et al. 2001). Half of the potato rhizobacterial isolates exhibited H2S production. The reduction of sulfide and other sulfate compounds into H2S is thought to diminish sulfur availability in the soil for plants and is thus not a desirable trait for soil fertility (Choudhary et al. 2018). The isolates all exhibited indole-production in

71

Sustainable Food Production Systems for Climate Change Mitigation:. . .

1489

tryptophan-amended cultures, showing their corresponding abilities to produce tryptophanases (Das et al. 2019). Similarly, the rhizobacterial isolates were all positive for the O-F test, indicating their saccharolytic nature which is an important trait for rhizosphere colonization. The rhizobacterial isolates exhibited varying capacities to metabolize different CHO. A number of them were capable of metabolizing all the sugars but some could not metabolize lactose, sorbitol, and dulcitol. The rhizosphere is generally a nutrientrich microenvironment due to the presence of rhizodeposits and root exudates with different chemical compositions (Kumar et al. 2018). This can explain the diverse ability of the isolates to utilize different substrates for growth as may be provided for in their natural environments. Substrate preference may confer certain selective advantages in the rhizosphere and multisubstrate utilization may enable rhizobacteria to diversify their nutrient sources for efficient rhizosphere colonization (Zahlnina et al. 2018).

In vitro Plant Growth-Promoting Activities of the Potato Rhizobacterial Isolates The potato rhizobacterial isolates exhibited varying P, Zn, and K solubilization capacities. The average quantities of solubilized P ranged from 60.96 to 163.47 mg mL
1 which is higher compared to previously reported averages for potato rhizobacterial isolates, for example, in studies by Naqqash et al. (2016) where the averages ranged from 30.71 to 141.23 mg L
1. The best P solubilizers were E. tabaci LUTS 2, E. tabaci MPUS2, and S. liquefaciens KIBS5 with average quantities of 115.88, 112.59, and 117.43 mg L
1 of solubilized P, respectively. The solubilization of P is proposed to occur through acidification by organic acids and results in the production of di- and mono-basic phosphates which are the only plant-available P forms (Awais et al. 2019). The production of organic acids by the rhizobacterial strains in the present study was evidenced in the biochemical assays and can explain their P solubilization abilities and illustrate how valuable they can be in improving potato P nutrition. Serratia marcescens NGAS9, with average ZSI of 2.94 and E. ludwigii BUMS1, with an average of 130.26 mg L
1 of solubilized Zn exhibited the best Zn solubilization abilities in the qualitative and quantitative assays, respectively. Although Zn is a micronutrient, its adequate supply is required for proper potato yields (Vreugdenhil 2007). Since only a small portion of Zn occurs in plant-available forms in most soils, Zn solubilizing bacteria (ZSB) such as the ones identified in the present study have the potential of improving the Zn utilization in potato grown soils (Aloo et al. 2019). Except for a few isolates, the K solubilization abilities of the potato rhizobacterial isolates followed similar trends to P and Zn solubilization abilities. Two isolates C. freundii MWANS4 and E. ludwigii BUMS1 particularly showed good K solubilization abilities in the quantitative assays by yielding averages of 112.98 and 125.26 mg L
1 of solubilized K, respectively. Evidence suggests that about 98%

1490

B. N. Aloo et al.

of K occurs in soils in fixed forms and only about 2% is available in plant-accessible forms (Meena et al. 2018). As such, efficient KSB such as the ones identified in the present study can significantly enhance potato K nutrition. All the potato rhizobacterial isolates produced IAA in tryptophan-amended culture media similar to reports by Naqqash et al. (2016). Indole-3-acetic acid is a rhizobacterial PGP hormone that is important for the proliferation of lateral roots and root hairs and enhancement of plant mineral nutrients uptake (Kumar et al. 2018). The average IAA quantity produced by the isolates in the present study was 5.57  4.51 μg mL
1. In a recent study by Jadoon et al. (2019) in Pakistan, lower IAA average quantities of only 2.09 μg mL
1 were reported but geographical differences could explain this variation. The isolates generally produced lesser quantities of GA with an average of only 0.423  0.420 μg mL
1. The best GA producer was E. tabaci MATS3 with an average of 1.27 μg mL
1. Unlike IAA, reports on rhizobacterial GA production are scanty (Amar et al. 2013), yet GA production is one of the rhizobacterial PGP mechanisms (Aloo et al. 2019). The average N2-fixation zones and quantities of NH3 were 1.153  0.440 cm and 27.97  21.09 mg L
1, respectively. Serratia marcescens NGAS9, with an average N2 fixation zone of 1.70 cm and E. ludwigii BUMS1, with an average NH3 of 79.84 mg L
1 yielded the best results in this assay. The diazotrophic abilities of the potato rhizobacteria established in the present investigation indicate the critical role they could be playing in the potato rhizosphere. Although diazotrophy is a common trait in legume symbioses, nitrogenase genes are present in diverse bacterial taxa (Gyaneshwar et al. 2011). Such traits can be optimized and exploited to promote N nutrition in nonlegumes such as the potato using the diazotrophic strains identified in the present study. The potato rhizobacterial isolates were all capable of producing siderophores which are important metabolites with a high affinity for binding Fe and promoting its availability to plants (Mhlongo et al. 2018). Interestingly, the present isolates showed higher siderophore production abilities than has been reported in other studies for potato rhizobacteria. For instance, the average SU obtained for the isolates in the present investigation was 26.14  18.25% while in studies by Pathak et al. (2019), potato rhizobacteria produced lower SU means (< 11.97%). Very few potato rhizobacteria have been associated with the siderophore production trait (Aloo et al. 2019), and these siderophore-producing rhizobacterial isolates are important candidates for potato biofertilization.

Effects of the Rhizobacterial Treatments on Growth and Yield of Potted Potatoes The present study also evaluated the effects of indigenous rhizobacterial treatments on various growth parameters of potted potato under screen house conditions. The results showed that most of the rhizobacterial treatments reduced the DTE and DTF of the potato plants by up to 7.35% and 32.68%, respectively, relative to the

71

Sustainable Food Production Systems for Climate Change Mitigation:. . .

1491

un-inoculated controls. Increased germination rates and seedling vigor in plants following inoculation with beneficial rhizobacterial strains are advanced to occur as a result of phytohormone production that enhances growth by stimulating root elongation and development (Ahemad and Kibret 2014). Except for the number and weight of tubers in the present study, the rest of the potato growth parameters were not significantly different across the treatments and the control treatment. Nevertheless, the rhizobacterial treatments still resulted in increased growth attributes of the plant. For instance, the potato shoot weights were increased by 22–88% upon rhizobacterial inoculation. Such results can also be attributed to the stimulation of root development and nutrient uptake by rhizobacterial PGP hormones (Kumar et al. 2018), whose production was also established for the present rhizobacterial inocula. Contrary to the expectation, E. ludwigii BUMS resulted in average potato shoot length and weight that were less than those of the un-inoculated control by 3.94% and 5.94%, respectively. The failure of rhizobacterial inocula to produce the desired results during in planta investigations is probably due to the inabilities to establish themselves in the rhizosphere (Istifadah et al. 2018). The potato rhizospheric soils were also greatly influenced by the rhizobacterial treatments. Most treatments resulted in reduced pH levels relative to the control and increased N, P, K, Zn, and Fe contents in the potato rhizospheres, signifying rhizosphere acidification which is commonly associated with the solubilization of nutrients in the soil. The increased availability of N and P in the rhizospheric soils may be attributed to N2 fixation and P solubilization by the rhizobacterial inocula as advanced by Sood et al. (2018). The Fe contents in the potato rhizospheric soils increased by up to 99.7% relative to the un-inoculated control following rhizobacterial inoculation, signifying the excellent Fe-mobilization abilities by the rhizobacterial inocula. The soil OC and OM contents also increased significantly for most of the treatments relative to the un-inoculated control. The present study established that most of the rhizobacterial treatments resulted in tubers with increased nutrient contents, demonstrating improved nutrient uptake and accumulation by the treated plants. This can mostly be attributed to the multitrait inoculants used to treat the potato plants. For instance, the increased uptake and accumulation of N and P may have been due to increased fractions of the minerals in the rhizospheric soils mediated by the rhizobacterial treatments through N2 fixation and P solubilization, respectively, as similarly observed in wheat by Sood et al. (2018). The inoculation of seed potato tubers with S. marcescens NGAS9, S. liquefaciens KIBS5, and E. asburiae MWAKS5 resulted in tubers with significantly higher N and protein contents, a clear indication of their efficient diazotrophic roles. Interestingly, the treatment of potato seed tubers with C. freundii MWANS4 and K. grimontii LUTS1, despite exhibiting N2 fixation abilities in the in vitro studies, did not lead to significant increments on the average concentration of N and protein in the potato tubers relative to the uninoculated control, probably due to the inability to establish adequately themselves in the potato rhizosphere.

1492

B. N. Aloo et al.

Conclusions The study establishes the importance of indigenous rhizobacterial communities in the biofertilization of potato which can be exploited for its sustainable cultivation. The selected potato rhizobacterial isolates demonstrated efficient N2-fixing, P-solubilizing, and IAA, siderophores producing abilities. All these characteristics are important PGP traits and have been found effective in positively improving the growth of potted potato plants under screen house conditions. In sustainable crop production, the focus should not only be on increasing crop productivity but also the nutritional value of the food produced for food security. Apart from improving the potato growth parameters relative to the control, the rhizobacterial treatments also enhanced nutrient availability in the rhizospheric soils and improved the potato tuber nutrient contents. The studied isolates are, therefore, potential candidates in future field applications and sustainable cropping of potato in Tanzania.

References Adeleke R, Mwangburuka C, Oboirien B (2017) Origins, roles and fate of organic acids in soils: a review. S Afr J Bot 108:393–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2016.09.002 Ahemad M, Kibret M (2014) Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: current perspective. J King Saud Univ-Sci 26:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jksus.2013.05.001 Aloo BN, Mbega ER, Makumba BA (2019) Rhizobacteria-based technology for sustainable cropping of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Potato Res:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11540019-09432-1 Aloo BN, Mbega ER, Makumba BA, Hertel R, Danel R (2020) Molecular identification and in vitro plant growth-promoting activities of culturable Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) rhizobacteria in Tanzania. Potato Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11540-020-09465-x Amar JD, Kumar M, Kumar R (2013) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): an alternative of chemical fertilizer for sustainable, environment friendly agriculture. Res J Agric For 1:21–23 AOAC (1995) Official methods of analysis, 16th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC Awais M, Tariq M, Ali Q, Khan A, Ali A, Nasir IA, Husnain T (2019) Isolation, characterization and association among phosphate solubilizing bacteria from sugarcane rhizosphere. Cytol Genet 53:86–95. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0095452719010031 Batista BD (2012) Promoção De Crescimento Em Milho (Zea mays L.) Por rizobactérias associadas à cultura do guaranazeiro (Paullinia cupana var. sorbilis). Dissertation, University of Sao Paulo Bremmer JM, Mulvaney CS (2015) Nitrogen total. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 595–624 Chaurasia S, Gupta AD (2014) Handbook of water, air and soil analysis. International Science Congress Association, Madhya Pradesh Chi CM, Wang ZC (2010) Characterizing salt-affected soils of Songnen plain using saturated paste and 1:5 soil to-water extraction methods. Arid Land Res Manag 24:1–11. https://doi.org/10. 1080/15324980903439362 Choudhary M, Ghasal P, Yadav R, Meena V, Mondal T, Bisht J (2018) Towards plant-beneficiary rhizobacteria and agricultural sustainability. In: Meena VS (ed) Role of rhizospheric microbes in soil: volume 2: nutrient management and crop improvement. Springer Nature, Singapore, pp 1–46

71

Sustainable Food Production Systems for Climate Change Mitigation:. . .

1493

Das S, Nurunnabi TR, Parveen R, Mou AN, Islam ME, Islam KMD, Rahman M (2019) Isolation and characterization of indole acetic acid producing bacteria from rhizosphere soil and their effect on seed germination. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 8:1237–1245 Edi-Premona M, Moawad MA, Vlek PLG (1996) Effect of phosphate- solubilizing Pseudomonas putida on growth of maize and its survival in the rhizosphere. Indones J Crop Sci 11:13–23 FAO (2008) International year of the potato: new light on a hidden treasure. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome Fasim F, Ahmed N, Parsons R, Gadd GM (2002) Solubilization of zinc salts by a bacterium isolated from the air environment of a tannery. FEMS Microbiol Lett 213:1–6 George H, Ed H (2011) A summary of N, P, and K research with tomato in Florida. The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville Goswami D, Dhandhukia PC, Patel P, Thakker JN (2014) Screening of PGPR from saline desert of Kutch: growth promotion in Arachis hypogea by Bacillus licheniformis A2. Microbiol Res 169: 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2013.07.004 Gyaneshwar P, Hirsch AM, Moulin L, Chen WM, Elliot GN, Bontemps C, Santos PE, Gross E, Reis FB Jr, Sprent JI, Young PW, James EK (2011) Legume-nodulating betaproteobacteria: diversity, host range, and future prospects. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 24:1276–1288. https://doi.org/10. 1094/mpmi-06-11-0172 Holbrook AA, Edge WLW, Bailey F (1961) Spectrophotometric method for determination of gibberellic acid in gibberellins. ACS, Washington, DC Hopkins BG, Hornek DA, MacGuidwin AE (2014) Improving phosphorus use efficiency through potato rhizosphere modification and extension. Am J Potato Res 91:161–174. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12230-014-9370-3 Hugh R, Leifson E (1953) The taxonomic significance of fermentative versus oxidative metabolism of carbohydrates by various gram negative bacteria. J Bacteriol 66:24 Istifadah N, Pratama N, Taqwim S, Sunarto T (2018) Effects of bacterial endophytes from potato roots and tubers on potato cyst nematode (Globodera rostochiensis). Biodiversitas 19:47–51. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d190108 Jackson ML (1973) Soil chemical analysis, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi Jadoon S, Afzal A, Asad SA, Sultan T, Tabassum B, Umer M, Asif M (2019) Plant growth promoting traits of rhizobacteria isolated from Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) and their antifungal activity against Fusarium oxysporum. J Anim Plant Sci 29:1026–1036 Kumar A, Patel JS, Meena VS (2018) Rhizospheric microbes for sustainable agriculture: an overview. In: Meena V (ed) Role of rhizospheric microbes in soil. Springer Nature, Singapore, pp 1–31 Manzira C (2011) Potato production handbook. Potato Seed Association, Harare Meena SV, Maurya BR, Meena SK, Mishra PK, Bisht JK, Pattanayak A (2018) Potassium solubilization: strategies to mitigate potassium deficiency in agricultural soils. Glob J Biol Agric Health Sci 7:1–3 Mhlongo MI, Piater LA, Madala NE, Labuschagne N, Dubery IA (2018) The chemistry of plantmicrobe interactions in the rhizosphere and the potential for metabolomics to reveal signaling related to defense priming and induced systemic resistance. Front Plant Sci 9:112. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00112 Miller RO (1995) Extractable chloride nitrate orthophosphate and sulfate-sulfur in plant tissue: 2% acetic acid extraction. In: Kalra YP (ed) Handbook of reference methods for plant analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 115–118 Mujahid YT, Subhan SA, Wahab A, Masnoon J, Ahmed N, Abbas T (2015) Effects of different physical and chemical parameters on phosphate solubilization activity of plant growth promoting bacteria isolated from indigenous soil. J Pharm Nutr Sci 5:64–70 Mumtaz MZ, Ahmad M, Jamil M, Hussain T (2017) Zinc solubilizing Bacillus spp. potential candidates for biofortification in maize. Microbiol Res 202:51–60 Naqqash T, Hameed S, Imram A, Hanif MK, Majeed A, Van Elsas JD (2016) Differential response of potato toward inoculation with taxonomically diverse plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Front Plant Sci 7:144. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00144

1494

B. N. Aloo et al.

Pathak D, Lone R, Khan S, Koul KK (2019) Isolation, screening and molecular characterization of free-living bacteria of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) and their interplay impact on growth and production of potato plant under Mycorrhizal association. Sci Hortic 252:388–397. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.02.072 Payne SM (1993) Iron acquisition in microbial pathogenesis. Trends Microbiol 1:66–69. https://doi. org/10.1016/0966-842X(93)90036-Q Pradhan P (2016) KOH mount preparation: principle, procedure and observation. Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. http://microbesinfo.com/2016/05/koh-mount-preparation-principle-proce dure-and-observation/. Accessed 28 Apr 2018 Sambrook J, Russell DW (2001) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 1st edn. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York Schwyn B, Neilands JB (1987) Universal chemical assay for the detection and determination of siderophores. Anal Biochem 60:47–56 Simmons JS (1926) A culture medium for differentiating organisms of typhoid-colon aerogenes groups and for isolation of certain fungi. J Infect Dis 39:209 Sindhu SS, Gupta SK, Dadarwal KR (1999) Antagonistic effect of Pseudomonas spp. on pathogenic fungi and enhancement of plant growth in green gram (Vigna radiata). Biol Fertil Soils 29: 62–68 Somasegaran P, Hoben HJ (1994) Handbook for rhizobia. Methods in legume–rhizobium technology. Springer, Heidelberg Sood G, Kaushal R, Chauhan A, Gupta S (2018) Indigenous plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria and chemical fertilisers: impact on wheat (Triticum aestivum) productivity and soil properties in North Western Himalayan region. Crop Pasture Sci 69:460–468 Tedesco MJ, Gianello C, Bissani CA, Bohnen H, Volkweiss SJ (1995) Analysis of soil, plants and other materials, 2nd edn. Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre Tran TS, Simard RR (1993) Mehlich III – extractable elements. In: Carter MR (ed) Soil sampling and methods of analysis, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 43–49 Turnbull GA, Morgan JAW, Whipps JM, Saunders JR (2001) The role of bacterial motility in the survival and spread of Pseudomonas fluorescens in soil and in the attachment and colonisation of wheat roots. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 36:21–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2001. tb00822.x Vincent JM (1970) A manual for the practical study of the root-nodule Bacteria. Blackwell, Oxford, UK Vreugdenhil D (2007) Potato biology and biotechnology – advances and perspectives. Elsevier, Amsterdam Wahyudi AT, Astuti RP, Widyawati A, Meryandini AA, Nawagsih AA (2011) Characterization of Bacillus sp. strains isolated from rhizosphere of soybean plants for their use as potential plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. J Microbiol Antimicrob 3:34–40 Walkley AJ, Black IA (1934) Estimation of soil organic carbon by the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37:29–38 Zahlnina K, Louie K, Hao Z, Mansoori N, Da Rocha UN, Shi S, Cho H, Karaoz U, Loqué D, Powen BP, Firestone M, Northern TR, Brodie EL (2018) Dynamic root exudate chemistry and microbial substrate preferences drive patterns in rhizosphere microbial community assembly. Nat Microbiol 3:480

71

Sustainable Food Production Systems for Climate Change Mitigation:. . .

1495

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Climate Change Adaptation Among Smallholder Farmers in Rural Ghana

72

Peter Asare-Nuamah and Athanasius Fonteh Amungwa

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Study Area and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adaptation Strategies Employed by Smallholder Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Predictors of Adaptation Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Predictors of Effective Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1498 1498 1500 1500 1500 1504 1504 1506 1507 1509 1511

Abstract

Climate change has the potential to disrupt sustainable development initiatives, particularly in developing economies. A substantial body of literature reveals that developing economies are vulnerable to climate change, due to high dependency on climate-sensitive sectors, such as agriculture. In Ghana, a growing body of literature has revealed multiple adaptation strategies adopted by smallholder farmers to respond to and reduce climate change impacts. However, there is a dearth of literature on the effectiveness of adaptation strategies. This chapter explores the adaptation strategies of smallholder farmers and analyzed the predictors of effective adaptation. Through the technique of simple random P. Asare-Nuamah (*) Institute of Governance, Humanities and Social Science, Pan African University, Soa, Cameroon School of Sustainable Development, University of Environment and Sustainable Development, Somanya, Eastern Region, Ghana A. F. Amungwa Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Management Sciences, University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon © The Author(s) 2021 W. Leal Filho et al. (eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_279

1497

1498

P. Asare-Nuamah and A. F. Amungwa

sampling, 378 smallholder farmers were selected, and data was collected using a questionnaire survey. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed using the SPSS software. The findings indicate that smallholder farmers adopt multiple adaptation strategies to reduce the impact of climate change. In addition, it is revealed that marital status, years of farming experience, knowledge of climate change, and education are significant predictors of adaptation. Moreover, the chapter found that marital status, weedicide application, change in staple food consumption, and planting of early-maturing crops are good predictors of effective adaptation. The chapter recommends the need to intensify adaptation strategies through agricultural extension programs and interventions that improve rural food security and livelihood. In addition, the chapter recommends strengthening the capacity of farmer organizations and rural institutions, particularly agricultural extension and advisory services. Keywords

Climate change · Climate change adaptation · Effective adaptation · Smallholder farmers · Ghana

Introduction Background Climate change adaptation is defined as the adjustment in a system to respond to, recover from, and exploit opportunities, to reduce the impact of climate change. Adaptation has gained center stage in global development debates and discourse (IPCC 2018; World Bank 2018). The heightened attention of adaptation stems from the fact that climate change affects every component of the earth’s system, particularly the biosphere and essential life-dependent resources (IPCC 2018). More importantly, climate change affects agriculture, thereby increasing the vulnerability of developing countries, whose economies are largely dependent on climate-sensitive sectors, including agriculture (AGRA 2014; IPCC 2018). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014, 2018), adaptation strategies are very important in developing economies in Africa and Asia, as the impact of climate change is already felt in extreme in these regions. For instance, climaterelated disasters, such as floods and droughts, are predominant and extreme in Africa and Asia. Moreover, El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) has been reported in Southern and West Africa, with prolonged dry season in Ghana (see Hirons et al. 2018; IPCC 2014, 2018). Consequently, a large body of literature has focused on examining the adaptation strategies adopted particularly by smallholder farmers to respond to these changes, with little or no attention on the effectiveness of adaptation as a conduit for food security and livelihood, which this chapter seeks to address. Dankelman (2010) asserts that adaptation strategies, particularly in developing countries, are ineffective and unsustainable, as they are practiced in a resource-

72

Climate Change Adaptation Among Smallholder Farmers in Rural Ghana

1499

constrained environment, which calls for the need to examine effective adaptation strategies employed by smallholder farmers to enhance their food security and livelihood. According to the European Environment Agency (EEA 2013), effective adaptation requires holistic, concrete, and process-based measures and approaches, whereas the German Development Agency (GIZ 2014) and IPCC (2007, 2014) argue that effective adaptation strategies have the potential to increase adaptive capacity and offset the negative impact of climate change, by decreasing sensitivity and exposure to climate change. Globally, farmers have adopted adaptation strategies to reduce vulnerability and respond to climate shocks and stresses, such as erratic rainfall, high temperature, flood, drought, and pests, among others (IPCC 2007, 2014, 2018). Adaptation strategies may be self-induced or externally planned; proactive, reactive, or concurrent; planned or spontaneous; and tactical or strategic. In addition, they may occur at different scales, such as local, regional, or international; by agents of adaptation including but not limited to individuals, communities, governments, the private sector, and non-governmental/civil society organizations (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2014a; Bryant et al. 2000; Smit et al. 2000; Smit and Skinner 2002; IPCC 2014). To ensure an effective adaptation, it is essential for adaptation agents to adopt planned adaptation behaviors, which are typical of disaster preparedness, as well as ensure effective response and recovery to disasters (World Bank 2018b). A growing body of literature has revealed that farmers have adapted to climate change through multiple on-/off-farm adaptation strategies such as climate-smart agricultural practices, to enhance their livelihood and food security, which depend largely on the environment (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2014a; Gyampoh et al. 2009; Pearce and Ford 2015; Yaro et al. 2014). In Ghana, for instance, crop and livelihood diversification; pesticide, weedicide, and fertilizer application; water harvesting; and planting of early-maturing and drought-resistant crops have been reported in the literature (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2014a, b; Fosu-Mensah et al. 2012; Gyampoh et al. 2009; Osumanu et al. 2017; Yaro 2013a, b; Yaro et al. 2014). Nevertheless, Sarpong and Anyidoho (2012) argue that the adaptation strategies in Ghana are not effective due to poor policy environment, whereas Connolly-Boutin and Smit (2016) and the IPCC (2014) argue that poor natural resource management, low adaptive capacity, and poverty make the adaptation strategies ineffective in Africa. According to the GIZ (2014) and Turner et al. (2003), entitlement, access, and endowment influence the adaptive capacity to climate change. This corroborates the assertion that the assets owned, used, and/or available to communities and households enable them to adapt to climate change (IPCC 2007, 2014). Similarly, studies have demonstrated that adaptation is dependent on multiple socioeconomic factors, such as age, gender, years of farming experience, assets, level of education, household size, and technology (Adu et al. 2018; Fosu-Mensah et al. 2012; Lopez-Ridaura et al. 2018). The present study aims to achieve the following objectives: explore adaptation strategies of smallholder famers and predict factors that promote adaptation and effective adaptation. The rest of the paper presents the methods, results, and conclusion.

1500

P. Asare-Nuamah and A. F. Amungwa

Description of the Study Area and Methodology Study Area The study was conducted in the Adansi North District, located in the Ashanti Region of Ghana on longitude 1.50 W, latitude 1.4 N and longitude 1.5 W, latitude 6.30 N. It covers about 853.63 km2, which is equivalent to 4.7% of the surface area of the region. It also has a total population of about 107,109, with 54,036 (50.5%) females and 53,055 (49.5%) males (GSS 2010, 2014). The dependency ratio in the district is high, with males found to be more dependent than females (GSS 2014). Located in the semi-equatorial climate, the district experiences high temperature and rainfall, with a mean rainfall of 1250 mm to 1750 mm and temperature of 27 °C. The district has bi-modal rainfall patterns, comprising of major and minor rainy seasons. February is the hottest month in the district, and agriculture is the major economic activity, employing about 77% of the labor force, followed by services (15%) and manufacturing (8%) (GSS 2014). The district has rich ochrosols, which favor agriculture and forest vegetation. The major food crops produced here include cassava, plantain, cocoyam, maize, yam, and cash crops, such as cocoa and oil palm. As a rural district, poverty, low income, and lack of access to basic socioeconomic assets are dominant in the district (GSS 2014).

Research Methods Study Site Selection and Sampling Method A total of 15 communities from 7 operational areas were selected via multistage sampling techniques comprising of cluster and simple random sampling. The district has 15 operational areas which served as the clusters from which 7 were randomly selected. A sample of 378 farm household heads was randomly selected using the district census data as the sample frame. Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) statistical table for sample size selection led to the selection of 378 respondents from the household population of 23,863. Data Sources and Collection Methods The chapter used quantitative primary data. Data collection lasted for 6 months, starting from April to September 2018. Prior to data collection, the Institutional Review Committee of the Pan African University, Cameroon, approved the study. The data collection instrument was questionnaire survey. The questionnaire was divided into sections to collect data on the respondents’ demographic characteristics, access to essential assets, and adaptation strategies. Data Analysis Primary data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20. Data cleaning was performed through frequency analysis to identify the missing data. Preliminary analyses, such as outliers and normality tests, were

72

Climate Change Adaptation Among Smallholder Farmers in Rural Ghana

1501

Table 1 Variables description and coding Variable description Dependent variable Have you adapted to climate change? Independent variables Sex Age Household size Education Marital status Access to land Access to extension Access to market Knowledge of climate change Access to technology (e.g. phone) Farming experience

Variable coding Yes = 1 No = 0 Male = 1 Female = 0 Years (Number) Number Yes = 1 No = 0 Married = 1 Else = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0

Source: Fieldwork, 2018

conducted using box and scatter plots as well as line graphs (Pallant 2016). Two binary logistic regression models were specified for the analysis. The first binary logistic regression model explored factors that predicted the respondents’ climate change adaptation strategies. The dependent variable in the first model was adaptation that was operationalized as whether or not a respondent has adapted to climate change using any of the strategies available to them. The independent variables comprised of categorical and continuous variables, such as age, sex, household size, farming experience, marital status, access to land, access to technology (phone), access to market, extension service, and knowledge of climate change. Table 1 presents the variable coding and description. The use of the preliminary regression model without the predictor variables resulted in an overall percentage of 59.2% in terms of whether respondents have adapted or not, which served as a baseline for comparison with the regression model that included predictor variables (Pallant 2016). The Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficient, which determines the “goodness of fit” of the regression model resulted in a significance level of 0.006 ( p <   ð10Þ Di ¼ αi Ryi > 0, Rxi < 0 > > : αi ðRxi < 0Þ   n PCPi ¼ Di  ð11Þ ∘ 360

1540

G. M. L. D. Quenum et al.

The next section discusses the results obtained with regard to the three indices above mentioned.

Results This section presents the results obtained from the study. Based on the variability between the historical period (1971–2000, also referred to as the control period, CTL) and the various GWLs periods the section “Annual Precipitation Concentration” shows the annual precipitation concentration patterns, while the section “Seasonal Precipitation Concentration” focuses on the seasonal PCI variabilities. The section “Evaluation of the Models’ Robustness” investigates the robustness of the models to assess the PCI over West Africa. The period and the degree of the concentration of the rainfall are evaluated in the section “Variability of PCD and PCP”, while the section “Daily Precipitation Variability” shows the daily consecutive precipitation variability. Finally, the adaptation processes proposed are explained in section “Adaptation Strategies.”

Variability of PCI The variability of the PCI is investigated in sections “Annual Precipitation Concentration” and “Seasonal Precipitation Concentration,” respectively, for the annual and seasonal time scales.

Annual Precipitation Concentration The variability of the PCI computed across West Africa at an annual scale is between 12 and above 20 (Fig. 2a–e). According to a classification established by Oliver (1980), this high variability of the PCI values over West Africa illustrates the existence of a seasonal rainfall regime. Lower values (between 12 and 13) are noticed for the simulation of the historical period over the Gulf of Guinea, which means that this region of the study domain has a moderate precipitation concentration when interested in the distribution at the annual scale. The seasonality is more pronounced in the Savanna with PCI range between 17 and 18 (according to Oliver’s (1980), this explains how the precipitation is irregularly distributed both spatially and temporally). Lastly, the Sahel region recorded a high precipitation concentration (PCI>20), which means that the precipitation is strongly irregularly distributed. For the specified GWLs, it is illustrated in Fig. 2a–e that for the Gulf of Guinea and the Savanna, the precipitation concentration is irregularly distributed except for some countries like Côte d’Ivoire and Liberia which have a low PCI. Seasonal Precipitation Concentration There are two major seasons over the study area. For the purposes of this analysis, the rainy season is assumed to last from early May to the end of September (MJJAS).

Fig. 2 Variability of Precipitation Concentration Index (PCI) at annual and seasonal scales for the historical period (CTL: 1971–2000) and for projections of GWLs 1.5
C, 2.0
C, 2.5
C, and 3.0
C

74 Precipitation Variability in West Africa in the Context of Global Warming. . . 1541

1542

G. M. L. D. Quenum et al.

The PCI computed for the seasonal scale over West Africa indicates complex spatial patterns of precipitation distribution. Therefore, Fig. 2f–j shows that precipitation is uniformly distributed (i.e., almost the same amount of precipitation occurs in each month) over the Gulf of Guinea and the Savanna. For the studied GWLs, when compared with the historical period, it can be noticed that the uniform precipitation distribution extends a little toward the Sahel. So, the precipitation concentration is irregularly distributed (i.e., PCI  [16, 20] according to Oliver 1980) over the northern region of West Africa during the rainy season. Figure 2k–o presents the PCI for the dry season. It illustrates an irregular precipitation concentration distribution over the Gulf of Guinea. This is obvious, because there is almost no rain during this period of the year, and the irregular distribution noticed might be due to some isolate rains recorded after some particular meteorological phenomena. The precipitation in the Savanna and Sahel is strongly irregularly distributed (i.e., PCI > 20 during the rainy period, according to Oliver 1980), which means that the total of significant precipitation occurs within a short period (1–2 months). The analysis of simulations presented in Fig. 2 (with regard to annual and seasonal evaluation) establishes that in West Africa, the precipitation is uniformly well distributed during the period May–September (MJJAS) in the Gulf of Guinea and the Savanna. A northward gradient is well noticed because the highest values of the PCI are located in the Sahel, whereas the lowest are identified around the Gulf of Guinea. Despite the global warming effect for all levels, the precipitation concentration does not change over the Gulf of Guinea and the Savanna; on the contrary, it extends toward the northern region of the study domain.

Evaluation of the Models’ Robustness Figure 3, which presents the differences between the projected PCI in respect of the historical period, shows that the level of variability is similar from one GWL to another. The annual and seasonal concentrations reduce gradually from the Sahel to the Gulf of Guinea, and confirm the variability illustrated by Fig. 2, which shows the regression of irregular and strong irregular precipitation concentrations. Figure 3 also illustrates the robustness of the simulations. At least 80% of models (indicated here with vertical green strips) demonstrate that the precipitation concentration over the eastern part of the study area has changed. This change, which increases according to the GWLs, is also shown over several countries, such as Niger during the rainy season. At least 80% of the models demonstrated that the change is significant (as indicated by the horizontal blue strips), with a confidence level of 95%. Here too, Niger and Nigeria are projected to experience significant changes, which will increase with the GWLs. The red cross (+) is observed in the area where at least 80% of the simulations agree with regard to the change, and where these changes have a 95% confidence level. Therefore, during the rainy season and under GWL3.0, countries such as Ghana, Togo, and Burkina Faso present a more uniform precipitation distribution, in contrast to variabilities for the historical period and the projections (Fig. 2).

Fig. 3 Evaluation over West Africa of the difference between the changes at 1.5
C, 2.0
C, 2.5
C, and 3.0
C GWLs of PCI using the CORDEX Africa ensemble. The vertical green strip (|) indicates where at least 80% of the models agree on the sign of the changes, while horizontal blue strip (–) indicates where at least 80% of the simulations agree that the projected change is statistically significant with 95% as confidence level. The red cross (+) indicates where both conditions are satisfied

74 Precipitation Variability in West Africa in the Context of Global Warming. . . 1543

1544

G. M. L. D. Quenum et al.

Variability of PCD and PCP Figure 4 presents the PCP and PCD. Figure 4a–e shows that the variability over the entire West Africa of PCPs both for historical and projected periods is a range between 7  2. This indicates that the yearly mean precipitation concentration over West Africa occurs between June and September. The analysis corroborates with the current knowledge about the period of the West African precipitation producing system, which is led by the West African Monsoon (WAM). The high values during the control period are observed in the north-western of West Africa, while regarding the projected period, the highest values are recorded over the Sahel. The finding indicates that the wet season starts earlier in the southern regions, followed by the Savanna before reaching the Sahel in the North. The variability of the yearly mean PCDs (shown in Fig. 4f–j) is between 0.17 and 0.90, indicating the high spatial variability of the precipitation concentration in the study domain. When looking at the historical period simulations (Fig. 4f), it can be observed that the computed PCDs increase northwardly. Lower values (0.17–0.60) are located around the Guinea coast, and the highest (>0.80) in the Sahel. This denotes the existence of a gradient across the Gulf of Guinea and the Sahel. This gradient informs that precipitation during the rainy season is more concentrated in a few months across the Sahel compared to the Gulf of Guinea. For the projected simulations, the same gradient Gulf-of-Guinea-Sahel is observed, although here the magnitude of the PCD is less in response to the control period. The lower values lie between 0.17 and 0.50, and the higher range between 0.5 and 0.6. During the projected period, there is globally a decrease of precipitation concentration compared to the historical period, leading both the Sahel and the Savanna having the same precipitation distribution for all GWLs studied. Furthermore, the projections indicate a shift in time for the starting of the rainy season. Therefore, comparing the projected and the present period, it is noticed that the wet season will state earlier. The highest concentration of precipitation will occur from May to July for the Gulf of Guinea and the Savanna, and in August for the Sahel.

Daily Precipitation Variability The consecutive wet days (CWD) and consecutive dry days (CDD) were calculated over the study domain to evaluate the daily variability of the precipitation distribution. CWD and CDD also indicate extremes in rainfall. CDD is furthermore a useful indicator for studying short-term droughts (Frich et al. 2002) and drought tendencies (Orlowsky and Seneviratne 2012), as it could indicate enhanced dryness and high risk for seasonal droughts (Klutse et al. 2018). Changes in CDD and CWD can lead to uneven temporal distributions of rainfall, which could have a significant consequence for agricultural practices (Barron et al. 2003; FAO et al. 2015; Wiebe et al. 2017). The CDD was calculated both at annual (cdd) and seasonal scales (in this study, May– September: MScdd), in order to evaluate both dry and wet spells within the rainfall season; knowing this is very important for agricultural practices in the region (Klutse

Fig. 4 Spatial distribution of yearly mean Precipitation Concentration Degree (PCD) and Precipitation Concentration Period (PCP) for the historical period (CTL: 1971–2000) and at projections of GWLs 1.5
C, 2.0
C, 2.5
C, and 3.0
C

74 Precipitation Variability in West Africa in the Context of Global Warming. . . 1545

1546

G. M. L. D. Quenum et al.

et al. 2018). Figure 5 shows the variability between the projection of different GWLs and the selected historical period. High values of CDD are noticed in the north of West Africa, and higher CWD values around the coast of Gulf of Guinea. The comparison between the results of (Figs. 5a–d, i–l) shows both for annual and rainy season periods a decrease of CDD about 10  5 days over the north-eastern of West Africa. Around the northern area of the study domain, an important variability of dry days is noticed within the rainy season (e.g., a decrease in CDD over the north-eastern part and an increase in CDD over the north-western part), which demonstrates that the northeastern of West Africa is wetter under GWLs, while the north-western region is drier. Over the Gulf of Guinea, for both annual and rainy season scales a slight variability of CDD for all GWLs is noticed. The results of the GWLs 1.5
C, 2.0
C, and 2.5
C indicate a pattern of CDD with same spatial variability, and for the GWL 3.0
C (on Fig. 5i), a significant increase in the annual CDD is observed. The CDD is projected to increase for 4–5 days over the Gulf of Guinea; in Mauritania and Senegal, the increase is projected to be 10  2 days as showed by Quenum et al. (2019). Some Sahel countries like Niger and Chad (which are characterized by a dry north-easterly flow crossing the Sahara desert) are projected to record a dwindling of CDD between 10 and 14 days. This finding agrees at GWLs 1.5
C and 2.0
C, with Klutse et al. (2018), who showed a reduction for GWLs 1.5
C and 2.0
C, in terms of the number of CDD in the wet season over our study domain, and also the results of Sultan and Gaetani (2016), who concluded a decrease in the number of CDD over central Africa. In contrast to the CDD analysis over West Africa, the CWD did not show important variability. Its variation is very slight and ranges between 0  3 days. Nonetheless, some high variations could be observed at several specific points. On the projected simulations illustrated in Fig. 5e–h), the CWD decreases about 10  2 over the South Benin and Nigeria. A slight augment in CWD of up to 2 days is likely to be noticed in the Sahel. In order to investigate the spatial variability of extreme rainfall events, which plays an important role in the availability of water resources and agriculture, etc., the frequency of intense rainfall events (RxD10 mm: R  10 mm/day), very intense rainfall events (RxD20 mm: R  20 mm/day), and heavy rainfall events (RxD25 mm: R  25 mm/day) were calculated; they are displayed in Fig. 6. These variables indicate whether there were changes in the amount of precipitation received over consecutive 5 days with the highest precipitation. Figure 6a–d illustrate that, compared to the control period, each GWL detects an increasing RxD10 mm over the orographic regions and the ocean boundary (Gulf of Guinea). There is a very slight increase in the number of RxD10 mm over the Savanna and Sahel zones. In general, the results clearly show that as the GWL increases, the more the projected RxD10 mm increases too (e.g., for GWL 1.5
C, the increase is about 7  2 over the Gulf of Guinea and 1  1 for the Savanna and Sahel, while for GWL 3.0
C, the increase is about 9  2 over the Gulf of Guinea and 3  1 for the Savanna and Sahel). In the case of RxD20 mm and RxD25 mm, the general increase in response to increasing GWLs is noticed too. Only the coastal countries record significant increases in RxD20 mm and RxD25 mm, which could be due to the south-westerly moist flow from the Gulf of Guinea inland.

Fig. 5 Spatial distribution of the change in Consecutive Dry Day (CDD) during the rainy season (MScdd), as well as the annual consecutive dry days (cdd) and the consecutive wet days (cwd)

74 Precipitation Variability in West Africa in the Context of Global Warming. . . 1547

Fig. 6 Spatial distribution of the change in frequency of intense rainfall events (RxD10 mm), very intense rainfall events (RxD20 mm), and heavy rainfall events (RxD25 mm)

1548 G. M. L. D. Quenum et al.

74

Precipitation Variability in West Africa in the Context of Global Warming. . .

1549

Adaptation Strategies Since the spectacular drought events of the 1970s, it has become clear that the high variability in precipitation constitutes one of the major challenges faced by the West African region. Agriculture is one of the major economic activities of West Africa, and thus significant changes in rainfall due to climate change will negatively affect the entire region. These concerns have generated ongoing scientific, social, and political debate. Moreover, some parts of West Africa (mostly along the Guinean Coast) have recorded recurrent flood events since 2000. Thus, both climate variability and increasing trends in droughts and floods and other severe weather events pose a challenge for the primarily rain-fed agriculture systems in West Africa (Sultan and Gaetani 2016). Therefore, any adaptations must enable inhabitants to cope successfully with short-term climate variability as well as to reduce the long-term negative impacts of climate change (Lobell 2014; Saba et al. 2013). Households and communities must become accustomed to and able to respond creatively and effectively to disruptions of their livelihoods. Indeed, in order to be successful, adaptations must be anchored in all processes affecting life. Some of the possible adaptation strategies, especially relating to floods, droughts, and food crops, are illustrated in this study. According to the results above, at increasing GWLs, precipitation over the Gulf of Guinea and the Savanna will shift and start earlier (in May) and that the highest precipitation concentration will occur in May–June over that area. In addition, intense rainfall events and consecutive wet days will increase in frequency, which can expose the Gulf of Guinea and Savanna to flood events from June onwards. This confirms the results from Donat et al. (2016), which showed that the intensification of the hydrological cycle both in recent decades and in future projections will lead to an increased risk of flooding in dry regions as the climate warms. Groundnut, cassava, and maize are important crops for the Gulf of Guinea, especially for Nigeria, southern Mali, Benin, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Senegal, while over the Savanna, the main crops are yam, millet, and sorghum. Therefore, to inform farmers about short-term coping and adaptation practices, scientists are encouraged to simulate crop models and to assess their uncertainties according to the shift in the times of the projected precipitation distribution and the increase in the soil temperature. Alternative strategies, such as constructing infrastructure or irrigation systems, could also be used to mitigate the impact of exposure. Regional provisions and strategies that include all West African countries should be developed to meet the challenge of combating GHG production. The framework agreements must link and bind countries to ensure strict compliance with community-based adaptation measures. At the local level, moreover, each country will have to develop precautionary flood and drought warning systems to limit the loss of human life. Scientific community frameworks need to be developed at the local level to improve the seasonal prediction of rainfall models that must be updated frequently in order to generate reliable information. Better research findings are needed to increase knowledge of how information structures could be framed and used to reduce the power of parochial conflicting benefits and overcome inertia, apathy, and lack of political drive. Finally, communication systems geared toward achieving

1550

G. M. L. D. Quenum et al.

specific targets (e.g., to assist farmers) will have to be developed. Informing media platforms about climate sciences and adaptation strategy policies and discussions, for instance, would educate the public about the impacts of global warming, the importance of reducing GHG emissions, and the need for developing and implementing mitigation and adaptation strategies.

Discussion and Conclusion It is widely demonstrated in the literature that West Africa is vulnerable to climate change due to its high climate variability and high reliance on rain-fed agriculture. It does not have an institutional capacity to respond and to adapt climate variability and climate change (Quenum et al. 2019). In order to reduce risks and suggest reliable adaptation strategies for predicted climate change, this study focused on determining the variability of precipitation both in the present time and under various future scenarios. The findings obtained with regard to the PCI showed that in West Africa the period summarizing the main rainfall activity is between May and September. For the historical period, simulations show over the Gulf of Guinea and the Savanna a uniform precipitation distribution, and in the Sahel both moderate and irregular distribution of precipitation. Under future scenarios, i.e., at all the GWLs (1.5
C, 2.0
C, 2.5
C, and 3.0
C in this study), the magnitude of the simulated PCIs over West Africa reduced and became close to PCI66% chance of holding warming to below 2 °C. They suggest their analysis provides a robust basis for immediate global action to improve ecosystem stewardship as a major solution to climate change (N.B. the authors define a