Select the most suitable adaptation options

Abstract

The selection of options should take place during a stakeholder meeting in which participants are asked to identify which adaptation options would be most suitable for their specific local context. Their choices should be based on evaluation criteria, including acceptability, feasibility, effectiveness, affordability and timing (see Table 10). The assessment of adaptation options in the field is a separate exercise that is part of Step 4.

Method

Stakeholder meeting to prioritize adaptation options
Workshop with farmers

Expected Results

Selection and ranking of adaptation options for local context

Theory

Table 10: Definition of main selection criteria

Acceptability	Has there been any resistance to accepting this option by farmers?
Feasibility	Is it technically viable under local conditions?
Effectiveness	Will the actions performed and adaptation options implemented yield the expected benefits for farmers?
Affordability/cost	Are the costs of the overall implementation of this adaptation option affordable to farmers within their normal operations (the initial investment, maintenance costs and the availability of inputs)?
Timing/urgency	Is the amount of time it takes to implement the option reasonable for farmers? Is the amount of time that it takes until benefits accrue reasonable for farmers?

Guiding questions for selecting adaptation options

What evidence is there that this adaptation option may be appropriate in your context? What are the sources of this evidence?
How feasible or acceptable is the proposed adaptation measure in the local context?
How effective will the proposed measure be in addressing existing climate change issues? What evidence is there to support this?
What implications for cost does the adaptation option have? Can farmers afford its implementation?
Is the time period between implementation and predicted benefits reasonable for farmers? (You will most likely need to explain reasons to consider longer-term adaptation options).

It is recommended to first assess and prioritize suitable adaptation measures internally with staff before including local stakeholders in the discussion and selection. Potential adaptation options can be ranked using the overview table developed at the end of Step 2 (Table 8). In ranking the options, be sure to consider the exact meaning of each criterion. Table 11 provides an example of how the total score can be calculated.

Adaptation options with the highest scores in effectiveness, feasibility, acceptability, affordability and timing are the most promising.

At the stakeholder meeting, present the results of the risk assessment phase (Step 2) and encourage participants to think innovatively about each category of impact and suggest additional adaptation options. The criteria above serve as a basis for a joint ranking exercise, but it is best to first discuss and agree upon these selection criteria with participants before proposing the exercise.

This workshop should also help stakeholders reflect on the scope of each proposed adaptation option (see guiding questions below). Consider institutions that could support the implementation phase, as well as the gender aspect, local availability of required inputs and access to financing.

Table 11: Ranking of suitable adaptation options (example)

Impact (problem)	Soil erosion because of heavy rain	Vulnerability: Soil on hillsides unprotected because of high application of herbicides		Vulnerability: Soil on hillsides unprotected because of high application of herbicides
Suggested adaptation option	Mulch	Weed wiper	Ground crops
Acceptance/ feasibility (from technical side)	High (5)	Low-Medium (2) Requires prior training and skill in handling, difficult handling on sloping land	Medium (3) Dependent on availability of suitable local material
Effectiveness (from technical side)	Medium-High (4) Mulch is good soil protection, but must be renewed periodically	Medium (3) Will show results in relatively short time, but can kill all weeds	High (5); Will show results once cover crop is fully established
Acceptance/ Affordability (according to farmers)	Low (1) No mulch material available in coffee plots, fear of bushfire during dry period	Low (1) Unknown tool, not a familiar technique, equipment not available	Medium (3) Some suitable weed as ground crops found on farms
Timing	Low (1) Mulch (grass) materials available, but must be bought	Medium(3) Will show results in relatively short time	Medium (3) Requires time to establish cover crop
Results (score) = initial options	Score: 11 Demo plot	Score: 9 Not selected	Score: 13 Assessment of possible cover crop in the region Establish three test plots of selected cover crops

Guiding questions for reflection on potential adaptation options

What adaptation activities have farmers already been conducting? Is it possible to adjust existing approaches to take climate change predictions into account?
Can ‘no regret’ options be identified (e.g. recommendations that would benefit farmers even if the climate event does not occur in the short term)? Potential ‘no regret’ options should perform well under the present-day climate and under all future climate scenarios.
What type of options should be considered? These could be solely ‘no regret’, or longterm resilience building options that require considerable investment (e.g. engineering for irrigation). They could also include capacity building or technical options, options that address direct issues in the field or those that address underlying socio-economic challenges posed by climate change.
Can the options be defined in a flexible manner to allow for uncertainty (e.g. can options be identified that could be implemented on a larger scale, at a later date, or phased in to provide flexible levels of response to risk?) Does the option work across a range of possible climate scenarios?
Delay is also a possible option. Would it be feasible or advisable to delay implementation to a more appropriate time (e.g. would it be more efficient to only introduce new coffee varieties when the current trees are becoming old and less productive, and therefore need replacing?) What are the risks of doing so?

Once you have completed the selection exercise with stakeholders, compare these results with the results of the initial internal review.

Learning from experience

Involving farmers in the selection process

Prospective adaptation options should be discussed with farmers who will then make the final decisions on which options will be tested in their fields. It is important that producers show an interest in testing. Different farmers may select different options, meaning there is a range of possible solutions (priority setting will be required if there are budget constraints). Adaptation options should also take into consideration the different needs of men and women, as well as different age groups.

Example: In some situations, experts believe that mulching is a good way to reduce soil temperature, reduce erosion from heavy rain and build soil organic matter. However, in some countries, the mulch material is normally fed to livestock. This makes sense for some farming systems because the farmers are diversifying their risk by keeping a cow or goats. In other cases, however, farmers fear that the dry material is a fire hazard during the drought season, as it could cause a bush fire. For these farms, mulch could be a maladaptation.

A unique feature of coffee is that it is grown in a wide range of conditions. Therefore, when working with coffee farmers, adaptation options must be chosen according to the particular coffee system, rather than adapting the coffee system to suit the options.

Practical Guidance

Objectives

To select the most suitable adaptation option for making local coffee production systems more resilient.
To include and engage local stakeholders in the selection process.

Expected outputs

A list of suitable adaptation options for testing (validation) or implementation in Step 4.

Required time

One week to one month.

Guiding questions

What adaptation activities do farmers already use? This is a useful source of practical knowledge. Is it possible to adjust existing options in order to account for predicted changes in climate?
Can ‘no regret’ options be identified? E.g. recommendations that would benefit farmers even if the climate event (e.g. prolonged drought) does not occur in the short term. Potential ‘no regret’ options should perform well under present-day climate, as well as under all future climate scenarios.
What type of options should be considered? These could be solely ‘no regret’, or longterm resilience-building options that require considerable investment (e.g. engineering for irrigation).
Can these options be defined in a flexible manner to allow for sources of uncertainty (e.g. can options be identified that could be implemented in a larger scale at a later date, or implemented together and consecutively to provide flexible levels of response to risk)?
Delay is also a possible option. Would it be feasible or advisable to delay making a decision until further information is available?

Procedure

After the first internal revision of the table of hazard ranking and potential adaptation options seen in Step 2, arrange a meeting with extension staff. If possible, invite other relevant stakeholders to discuss this first draft of climate risk assessment (e.g. Table 28) and make adjustments.
Encourage stakeholders and experts to suggest additional adaptation options, and to prioritize climate hazards and problems.
Based on previously collected information, identify additional contributions from the meeting. Suitable adaptation measures that can be tested on-site with coffee farmers. Keep in mind that one problem (climate impact) can have several adaptation measures.
In selecting adaptation options, consider basic criteria like effectiveness, feasibility or acceptability, affordability and timing as a basis for a joint ranking exercise (Table 27).
Discuss and agree on additional selection criteria with all relevant stakeholders before proposing the ranking exercise for the adaptation options.
For each proposed adaptation option, factors should be evaluated on a pre-determined scale that is appropriate for each. For example, factors such as cost, stakeholder support and expert endorsement can be rated for their favorability as low (1), medium (3) or high (5). For factors such as effectiveness, a more detailed assessment scale may be required. The system for rating factors should be agreed upon in advance with decision-makers and stakeholders.
Adaptation options with the highest rank will be the most promising for implementation in the field.

Table 28: Additional selection criteria

Criteria	Brief definition of criteria
Cost	The cost of implementing adaptation options or cost without modifying the project.
Effectiveness	Effectiveness of adaptation options as a solution to problems arising from climate variability and climate change (benefits, damages mitigated, costs avoided, and lives saved as different specifications of ‘effectiveness’).
Long-term cost effectiveness	Less costly solutions should be preferred for obvious reasons. However, cost effectiveness should be considered over the long term, as adaptation solutions will by their very nature often only pay off in the longer run. Looking at costs therefore needs to take into account not only the immediate implementation costs of the project, but also the avoided future costs of climate impacts.
Ease of implementation	Includes issues such as barriers to implementation and the need to adjust other policies to accommodate adaptation.
Acceptability for local stakeholders	All adaptation options would have been identified as feasible, but not all will be equally attractive to all stakeholders for political, economic, social or cultural reasons.
Endorsement by experts	In some countries, decision-makers will partly base their selection on consistency of proposed adaptation options with international best practices.
Timeframe	The timeframe for implementing the adaptation approach is beneficial in that it is effective without being overly complex or costly
Helps vulerable groups	The most vulnerable socio-economic groups have the greatest need to increase their adaptive capacity. You can identify which social groups tend to be more socially disadvantaged or marginalized, and therefore who could be more vulnerable, by looking at the results of different focus group consultations. Also consider those groups who most lack access and control over key resources for building capacity to cope with climate risks.
Gender aspect	It is important to analyze whether or not an adaptation option will require more effort and time from women. Options must also improve women’s labor conditions and not be detrimental to any other agriculture and/or economic activity benefitting women.
Social impact	Social impact refers to the potential effects that an adaptation option will have on the general community (e.g. percentage of participation of farmers in the process, creating decent work, etc.)
Sustainable in longterm climate change	This ensures that the projected longer-term climatic changes summarized in the analysis are taken into account.
Institutional capacity	How much additional capacity building and knowledge transfer is required for the adaptation option to be implemented?
Adequacy for current climate	Are there negative consequences of the adaptation in the current climate? Some options may be targeted at the future climate, but may have costs and consequences in the current climate.
Number of beneficiaries	Adaptations that provide small benefits to large numbers of people will often be favored over those that provide larger benefits, but to fewer people.
Cultural appropriateness	Changes induced by new activities also need to respect the local culture to be feasible. Otherwise, you may find that changes are not widely adopted.
Greenhouse gas emissions	Synergies between low-carbon and climate-resilient development should be taken advantage of whenever possible.