Recent studies highlight a growing concern over the limited adoption of climate smart agricultural (CSA) practices despite their potential benefits on adaptation, mitigation and productivity. Literature indicates several factors behind the lack of adoption including socio-demographic and economic conditions, agro-ecological scales and the nature of the practices. This paper examines to what extent and under which conditions such factors influence the adoption of CSA practices at farm, household and community level across three study sites in different continents: Vietnam, Nicaragua and Uganda. While cost benefit analysis (CBA) is employed to assess the farm-level profitability of CSA practices, the aggregate community impact disaggregated by different groups of farmer typologies with specific socio-economic features is derived from the adoption rate estimated by the relative advantage of practices and the income level of each group. Our main findings show great variation of farm-profitability of CSA practices across scales. Similar practices could generate different profitability depending on crop typologies, input access and prices, household types and local context. Regarding the aggregate profitability of CSA practices at regional scale, we found that under particular conditions, relevant factors of adoption matter to the adoption pattern and thereby affects the ranking. Such conditions include (i) high income inequality, (ii) large profitability gap of prioritized CSA practices, and (iii) large proportion of cost and benefit of the practices in the level of income. This study contributes to enhancing the prioritization process of CSA practices and provides practical guidance for research and policy to tailor the investment to appropriate end-users to assure the greatest impact for the community.

No abstract

No abstract

<p>Slow-onset disasters build up gradually over time, often at the confluence of different hazards, and progressively erode livelihoods, especially among most vulnerable people. The aim of the paper is to summarize FAO’s conceptual and programmatic approach for anticipating and mitigating the impact of slow-onset hazards on the most vulnerable people depending on agriculture for their livelihoods and food security. In order to protect diverse livelihood groups at the right time before such sequenced impacts materialize, the phased approach to Anticipatory Action (AA) seeks to facilitate the identification of multiple windows of opportunity for anticipatory action along the crisis timeline of the slow-onset hazards. The five steps process include (1) determining who is at risk and when, (ii) which actions can be taken to mitigate hazard impacts, and when, (iii) how much time is needed to implement the actions selected, (iv) what kind of early warning information is available at the critical points in time identified and (v) bringing all the information together to define the action phases and the cut-off points beyond which an intervention cannot be considered ‘anticipatory’ anymore.  Since 2016, FAO has supported extensive country-level work on AA against several slow-onset hazards such as drought (e.g. in Kenya, Madagascar, Afghanistan, Philippines, Pakistan, and Sudan, among others), cold waves <em>dzud </em>(Mongolia), pests and diseases (e.g. desert locusts in the Greater Horn of Africa Region and Yemen), Rift valley fever in Kenya and the secondary consequences of COVID-19 (e.g. in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Kenya, Senegal, Sierra Leone, the Syrian Arab Republic, and Zimbabwe). Drawing on FAO’s experiences gathered in implementing AA and the technical expertise built over decades of supporting agriculture-based livelihoods, this paper recommends a phased approach to AA for slow-onset hazards as it reduces uncertainties associated with early warning information, improves the targeting of AA interventions, and helps adapt the selection of AA options to the evolving hazard context.</p>