Impact of Climate Change on the Jamaican Hotel Industry Supply Chain and on Farmers' Livelihood more

Case study: Jamaica Impact of climate change on Jamaican hotel industry supply chains and on farmer’s livelihoods Authors: A. Eitzinger, P. Läderach, A. Benedikter, J. Gordon A. Quiroga, A. Pantoja, C. Bunn, International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Managua, Nicaragua and Cali, Colombia Cali, Colombia, July 2011 1 1 Table of Contents 1. 2. Summary and main findings ................................................................................................................. 8 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3. Introduction of the research area ................................................................................................. 9 Introduction of "the case" .......................................................................................................... 10 Rationale for targeting the hotel industry .................................................................................. 10 General problems of the people in the area............................................................................... 10 Introduction of supply chain ....................................................................................................... 11 New concept: i.e. JAMAI ............................................................................................................. 11 Challenges in general and for the "new concept” limits of JAMAI ............................................. 11 Challenges ........................................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 3.2 3.3 Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture ................................................................................... 12 Climate Change in Jamaica.......................................................................................................... 12 Weather changes ........................................................................................................................ 12 4. 5. Our methodology ................................................................................................................................ 13 Assessment of observed changes and farmer’s perceptions ............................................................. 13 5.1 Results from focal workshops ..................................................................................................... 13 Farmers perception of historical climate ............................................................................................ 13 Farmers perception of natural capital ................................................................................................ 14 Farmers perception of physical capital ............................................................................................... 14 Farmers perception of human capital ................................................................................................ 15 5.2 Examples of farmer’s comments ................................................................................................ 15 Farmers Comments from Manchester................................................................................................ 15 Farmer Comment from St. Elizabeth .................................................................................................. 16 Farmer Comment from Douglas Castle .............................................................................................. 17 Farmer Comment from St. Mary ........................................................................................................ 17 Farmer Comment from Manchester................................................................................................... 17 6. Climate change predictions for 2030 & 2050 ..................................................................................... 19 6.1 The summary climate characteristics for 2030 and 2050 ........................................................... 19 General climatic characteristics .......................................................................................................... 19 Extreme conditions ............................................................................................................................. 20 Climate Seasonality ............................................................................................................................. 20 Variability between models ................................................................................................................ 20 6.2 6.3 Regional changes in the mean annual precipitation (2030) ....................................................... 20 Regional changes in the mean annual temperature (2030) ....................................................... 21 2 6.4 6.5 7. Regional changes in the mean annual temperature (2050) ....................................................... 22 Coefficient of variation of climate variables ............................................................................... 22 Exposure of most important crops to climate change ....................................................................... 23 7.1 7.2 Measure of agreement of models predicted changes ................................................................ 24 Banana ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Current suitability ............................................................................................................................... 25 Suitability for Banana by 2030 ............................................................................................................ 25 Suitability for Banana by 2050 ............................................................................................................ 26 Change in suitability by 2030 .............................................................................................................. 26 Change in suitability by 2050 .............................................................................................................. 26 7.3 Ginger .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Current suitability ............................................................................................................................... 27 Suitability for Ginger by 2030 ............................................................................................................. 27 Suitability for Ginger by 2050 ............................................................................................................. 28 Change in suitability by 2030 .............................................................................................................. 28 Change in suitability by 2050 .............................................................................................................. 28 7.4 Tomato (Salad) ............................................................................................................................ 29 Current suitability ............................................................................................................................... 29 Suitability for Tomato (Salad) by 2030 ............................................................................................... 30 Suitability for Tomato (Salad) by 2050 ............................................................................................... 30 Change in suitability by 2030 .............................................................................................................. 30 Change in suitability by 2050 .............................................................................................................. 31 8. Availability and restrictions for agricultural production ..................................................................... 31 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9. Land use ...................................................................................................................................... 32 Access .......................................................................................................................................... 32 Protection ................................................................................................................................... 33 Combined restrictions for agricultural production ..................................................................... 33 Vulnerability of farmer’s livelihoods to climate change ..................................................................... 35 9.1 Vulnerability Index ...................................................................................................................... 35 Sensitivity & adaptive capacity of Jamaican farmers to climate change ........................................ 37 Capital stock analysis .................................................................................................................. 37 Cluster analysis............................................................................................................................ 38 Site-specific vulnerability ............................................................................................................ 39 Estimated Carbon Footprint ........................................................................................................... 40 Tomato ........................................................................................................................................ 40 Lettuce ........................................................................................................................................ 40 10. 10.1 10.2 10.3 11. 11.1 11.2 3 12. 12.1 Strategies to adapt to the changing climate ................................................................................... 41 Farmer and supply-chain actors suggestions .............................................................................. 41 Group I (institutions) ........................................................................................................................... 41 Group II & III (farmer) ......................................................................................................................... 41 Group I (institutions) ........................................................................................................................... 42 Group II (JAS)....................................................................................................................................... 43 Group I (institutions) ........................................................................................................................... 43 Group II (farmer) ................................................................................................................................. 43 Group III (farmer) ................................................................................................................................ 43 12.2 From research output recommended adaptation strategies ..................................................... 44 Crop production system...................................................................................................................... 44 Community’s vulnerability to climate change .................................................................................... 45 13. 14. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 46 References ...................................................................................................................................... 47 4 2 Table de Figures Figure 1: study area. ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Analytical framework. .................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 3: Farmers perceptions of historical climate trend.......................................................................... 14 Figure 4: Farmers perceptions on natural resources. ................................................................................. 14 Figure 5: Farmers perceptions on physical capital road. ............................................................................ 14 Figure 6: Farmers perceptions on human capital road............................................................................... 15 Figure 7: Climate trend summary 2030 and 2050 for Jamaica. .................................................................. 19 Figure 8: Mean annual precipitation change by 2030 for 6 study sites in Jamaica. ................................... 21 Figure 9: Mean annual precipitation change by 2050 for 6 study sites of Jamaica. ................................... 21 Figure 10: Mean annual temperature change by 2030 for 6 study sites of Jamaica. ................................. 22 Figure 11: Mean annual temperature change by 2050 for 6 study sites of Jamaica. ................................. 22 Figure 12: Coefficient of variation for annual precipitation and temperature 2030 and 2050.................. 22 Figure 13: Measure of agreement of models predicting changes in the same direction as the average of all models at a given location for 2050. ..................................................................................................... 24 Figure 14: Current climate-suitability for Banana....................................................................................... 25 Figure 15: Suitability for Banana by 2030. .................................................................................................. 25 Figure 16: Suitability for Banana by 2050. .................................................................................................. 26 Figure 17: Climate-suitability change for Banana by 2030. ........................................................................ 26 Figure 18: Climate-suitability change for Banana by 2050. ........................................................................ 26 Figure 19: Current climate-suitability for Ginger. ....................................................................................... 27 Figure 20: Suitability for Ginger by 2030. ................................................................................................... 27 Figure 21: Suitability for Ginger by 2050. ................................................................................................... 28 Figure 22: Climate-suitability change for Ginger by 2030. ......................................................................... 28 Figure 23: Climate-suitability change for Ginger by 2050. ......................................................................... 28 Figure 24: Current climate-suitability for Tomato. ..................................................................................... 29 Figure 25: Suitability for Tomato (Salad) by 2030....................................................................................... 30 Figure 26: Suitability for Tomato (Salad) by 2050....................................................................................... 30 Figure 27 Climate-suitability change for Tomato (Salad) by 2030. ............................................................. 30 Figure 28: Climate-suitability change for Tomato (Salad) 2050. ................................................................ 31 Figure 29: Availability by land-use. ............................................................................................................. 32 Figure 30: Road access in Jamaica (distance-costs) .................................................................................... 32 Figure 31: Protected areas with buffer-zones in Jamaica. .......................................................................... 33 Figure 32: Combined availability of land-use, access & protected areas in Jamaica.................................. 33 5 Figure 33: Vulnerability Index for 3 case studies ........................................................................................ 35 Figure 34: Exposure compared between 3 case studies............................................................................. 35 Figure 35: Sensitivity compared between 3 case studies ........................................................................... 36 Figure 36: Adaptive capacitive compared between 3 case studies ............................................................ 36 Figure 37: Expected impact compared between 3 case studies................................................................. 37 Figure 38: Spider diagram of sensitivity and adaptive capacity ................................................................. 38 Figure 39: Site-specific vulnerability by 2030 ............................................................................................. 39 Figure 40: Site-specific vulnerability by 2050 ............................................................................................. 40 Figure 41: Compared carbon footprint of tomato and lettuce................................................................... 41 6 3 Table of Tables Table 1: Table of suitability-change of all examined crops. ........................................................................ 23 Table 2: Table of climate-suitability versus availability of land, numbers in grey are changes in area. ..... 34 7 1. Summary and main findings Main research findings   Temperature increases by about 1.1 ºC by 2030 and 1.7 ºC by 2050 Rainfall decreases over the year and the number of cumulative dry months (draught period) keeps constant in 3 months. Vulnerability of small farmer is very high Area is facing a geographical shift of some crops to higher altitudes High threat on extreme weather events Farmer depend on intermediaries Low human, social & financial capital of many farmers Calculated crop suitability reports reveal varying exposure to climate change. Through a questionnaire we assessed SENSITIVITY and ADAPTIVE CAPACITY of farmers by indicating the use of and access to capital assets. Thus, vulnerabilities were identified. Vulnerability of small farmer is very high in Jamaica because of their high sensitivity and low adaptive capacity in three of five livelihood assets (human, social and financial capital) While farmers may build upon physical and natural capital stock, “soft” assets like training, organization or finance are severely lacking. Notably, nearly all produce is marketed through intermediaries, alternatives are rarely present. The most vulnerable are characterized by their remoteness due to an underdeveloped infrastructure which leaves them entirely selfdependent. An institutionalized arm’s length principle along the supply chain is reflected by a non-traceability of processes which in turn inhibits organization at farm level and sustainable financing. Farmers are working on an individual basis, yet, while they are willing to engage in communal organizations, it is not put into practice as farmer’s expectations of financial benefits are not fulfilled. On the other hand, small-holder supporting institutions require a higher level of integration among the solutions they are providing. After analyzing the data and questionnaires we went back to the farmer and supply-chain actor and shared with them the results of potential threats of a changing climate. In a participatory process we jointly developed adaption strategies. The three main strategies that supply chain actors identified to balance the impacts of 8      This document reports on the results of a consultancy conducted for Oxfam GB to systematically address the challenge of climate change regarding farmers’ livelihoods and supply chains. In Jamaica the yearly and monthly rainfall will decrease and the yearly and monthly minimum and maximum temperatures will increase moderately by 2030 and will continue to increase by progressively 2050. The overall climate will become more seasonal in terms of variation throughout the year with temperature in specific districts increasing by about 1.1 ºC by 2030 and 1.7 ºC by 2050 and more seasonal in precipitation with the maximum number of cumulative dry month keeping constant in 3 months. climate are (i) capacity building, (ii) information sharing, Legislation and (iii) government policies and organization building. 2. Background 2.1 Introduction of the research area Geography: Jamaica is a tropical island located at 18˚N and 77˚W with a total land area of 11244km2. It is characterized by diverse microclimates which makes it highly suitable for a wide array of tropical crops. For example, average temperature in the coastal zone ranges from 22.0˚C to 30.3˚C. In contrast, the interior mountainous regions experience average temperature of about 18.9˚C. Similarly, some mountainous areas, particularly in the eastern section of the island receive more than 5080 mm (200inches) whilst coastal areas of the south receives less than 889mm (35) inches annually. Moreover, in the mountainous areas, the persistence of clouds result in mean sunshine averaging less than 6 hours per day in contrast to the coastal zones where it is close to 8 hours, and cloud coverage is less persistent. (Meteorological Service of Jamaica, 2011). moist mountainous areas, that experience limited sunshine such as the Blue Mountains, coffee is the main crop grown by local farmers. In contrast in the relatively warm, dry southern and south-eastern coastal areas, where close to 8 hours of sunshine is experienced daily, green vegetables such as lettuce and cabbage and condiments such as scallion and peppers are the popular crops. Diverse Crops: Jamaica is presently characterized by a dual agricultural system. This involves large scale plantation style agriculture existing side by side with small scale agriculture. The former generally possess relatively large plots of relative flat lands highly suitable for mechanized agricultural production and is often the source of the island’s traditional export crops of sugar cane, banana and citrus. The latter, on the other hand, often due to lack of adequate resources, are forced to cultivate crops on marginal plots (2-2.5 hectares) of disjointed lands (Rhiney, 2009). Theses marginal farm lands are often located in ecologically sensitive areas, on steep slopes or on other land that are generally less suitable for farming. Agriculture currently contributes approximately 7% to Jamaica’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Regardless of its relatively small contribution to Jamaica´s GDP, the sector absorbs a disproportionate 18% (over 220, 000 of the 1,239,000 people employed) of the countries employed labour force (STATIN, 2011) and provide a source of livelihood for thousands more who depend on it indirectly. In rural Jamaica, where agriculture is the main source of livelihood, 25% of the population lives in poverty, that’s 5% more than the national average (CARICOM, 2011). Figure 1: study area. Micro Climate: As a result of these diverse microclimatic conditions, farmers have long been able to cultivate diverse crops across the breadth of the island. For example, in the cool, 9 2.2 Introduction of "the case" Local agriculture in Jamaica, like in other Caribbean countries has traditionally been targeted at the export market, which was bounded by a very limited range of crops (Rhiney, 2009). Consequently, the local market, including the local tourism sector has been largely ignored for a protracted period of time. This has resulted in the local consumers, having to resort to overseas suppliers to fill their needs. Unfortunately, the overseas market which many Jamaican farmers once depended on are no longer viable destination for various reasons, including the erosion of specially protected markets, trade liberalization and competition from other sources. This development has seriously jeopardized the livelihood of thousands of small farmers who once depended on these export market for their sustenance (FAO, 2004). As a result, many farmers have now had to seek alternative markets for their produce, including the local market which they previously ignored. Here stands another dilemma for the farmers however. The same issue that confronted the farmers in the overseas markets is now creating obstacles for them in Jamaica, i.e., Jamaica is also an open market subjected to the same rules of free trade and trade liberalization as the former markets of these farmers (Rhiney, 2009). As such the farmers have had to compete with cheaper imports from overseas. produced locally (Brown, 2011). In a bid to overcome the lack of market access for the farmers, several local and international organizations have sought to develop a variety of programs aimed at improving the farmers’ marketability. One of the latest initiatives being developed is the establishment of a social intermediary enterprise called JAMAI. Spearheaded by Oxfam Great Britain, this initiative will seek to provide farmers with access to local markets, particularly in the local hotel industry. The hotel industry was targeted as a major market for local agricultural products for several reasons. Firstly, it is one of the sectors highly responsible for Jamaica huge volume of import. As a matter of fact, the largest hotels, such as the all-inclusive chains that are so popular with North American visitors, import over 60% of their food (Pennicook, 2006). Additionally, in 2011 Jamaica’s travel and tourism industry is expected to contribute 24% of Jamaica’s total GDP (WTTC, 2011), making it the country’s largest earner of foreign exchange (in contrast to agriculture’s 7%). 2.4 General problems of the people in the area Unfortunately, several problems currently plague the local agricultural industry and will ultimately thwart the farmers’ efforts to present themselves as feasible and viable source of supply of the hotels. Firstly, many of the large hotels argue that the small farmers that dominate the local agriculture industry cannot guarantee a stable supply, quality or price (McBain, 2007). The primary reasons for these shortfalls are: the small size of production units which does not facilitate economies of scale; the high cost of inputs; competition from 10 2.3 Rationale for targeting the hotel industry Jamaica imported approximately US$661 million worth of food in 2010. According to the Minister of Agriculture in Jamaica, however, up to 45% of the food that is imported could be cheaper food imports; and high level of vulnerability to natural disasters. Additionally, the farmers are not very organized and many of them refuse to operate within a cooperative that would allow them to overcome most of these challenges that they face (McBain, 2007). 2.6 New concept: i.e. JAMAI As a result of the numerous challenges being confronted by farmers, Oxfam has decide to establish a social intermediaries to aid local small scale farmers to overcome their challenges of market access, particularly in the hotel and restaurants affiliated with the tourism industry. This new initiative, spearheaded by Oxfam, will also provide, among other things, technical assistance, and access to a wider array of services that will seek to reduce the farmers’ level of vulnerability to the challenges that they face. This new intermediary being proposed will, among other things provide farmers with a more reliable and secure system of selling their goods. Additionally JAMAI with assist the farmers in getting access to training on sustainable agricultural practice that will simultaneously improve yield and reduce negative impacts on the environment. For the benefit of the hotel industry, JAMAI will also secure a steady supply of high quality products at a relatively stable, predetermined price. 2.5 Introduction of supply chain Many of the larger hoteliers lament that a single small farmer is incapable of supplying any significant portion of their needs and it is not economically feasible for them (the hotel) to do business with numerous small farmers. Therefore, they prefer to deal with a limited number individuals or organizations that can supply them with the bulk volumes that they require. In order to make themselves more attractive as a viable alternative to the current imports, local farmers thus need to have a central point where produced can be collected, graded, sorted and distributed to the hotels. This has been the case in the Nevis where such a project was established in the 1990s has and born remarkable fruit for both farmers and hoteliers (McBain, 2007). Oxfam has also successfully established a linkage between farmers and hotels in St. Lucia (Ostertag & Rhiney, 2010). This has resulted in not only a more stable and higher income for farmers, but it has also been successful in supplying hotels with a steady supply of quality goods. In Jamaica, both the Super Clubs and Sandals allinclusive hotel chains, the two largest hotel chains in Jamaica, have adopted similar arrangements with farmers with the aid of the Jamaica Agricultural Society. This too has proven to be very beneficial for both the farmers and the hotels (McBain, 2007) 2.7 Challenges in general and for the "new concept” limits of JAMAI The success of JAMAI initiative is highly dependent on a number of socio-economic, political and environmental factors. JAMAI anticipates that they will be confronted with a number of challenges, all of which are surmountable with the aid of effective communication between all stakeholders. Some of these challenges include farmers cultural preference in selling their goods haphazardly to the highest bidder, farmers tendencies to shun away from organized groups and to act independently and the farmers lack of education which would make it relatively 11 difficult to communicate with them in an efficient manner. Many stakeholders that were interviewed during the research also expressed concerns that political interference and victimization may be a major impediment to the successful implementation of the project. Another major challenge that is anticipated is the negative impact that climate change will continue to have on Jamaica’s small scale farmers. Latin America and the Caribbean, climate change mitigation is still not considered in mainstream policy (P. Smith et al., 2007). 3.2 Climate Change in Jamaica It is strongly believed that small island developing states (SIDS) such as Jamaica will be amongst the first and most severely affected by climate change and global warming (Simpson et al., 2009). Firstly, simply by virtue of their geographical location in the lower latitudes, climate change is expected to have a more pronounced effect such as extreme heat, longer and more intense duration of drought and increased outbreaks of pests and diseases (Burton et al., 2006) . SIDS, such as the Caribbean islands are believed to be amongst the most vulnerable, due to their small size, concentration of resources along the coast and limited resources,(Gamble et al., 2010; IIED, 2011; Mimura et al., 2007; Simpson et al., 2009). With the continued warming of the planet, Global Circulation Models (GCM) projects that there will be an inevitable rise in sea level globally by 1.5m-2m with a 1.5-2oC rise in temperature, The Caribbean region, however, is expected to have sea level rise 25% greater than the global average (Vermeersen and Lebrocq, 2004). According to Simpson et al. (2009) a 1m rise in sea level could result in 2% loss of agricultural lands, while 6m rise is likely to have 12% loss in Jamaica. These losses may be due to direct erosion or contamination of the agricultural soil via salination. 3. Challenges 3.1 Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture Agriculture systems around the world are expected to be confronted with a myriad of challenges as a result of the changing climatic conditions. Chief among them are heat stress associated with higher temperature and lower moisture levels, concentration of rainfall episodes into fewer days, resulting in higher frequency of flash flooding and soil erosions and increased incidence of pests and diseases and consequently a drop in the yield of major food crops by as much as a third (Nelson et al., 2009). Unfortunately, these pending catastrophes cannot be avoided in the short term, thus it is imperative that mitigation and adaptation strategies be implemented to cope with these new stresses (Burton et al., 2006) One of the primary aims of modern agricultural practices is to increase the quantity of food available to the world population. Ironically, however, the methods of production currently utilize is severely compromising the world’s future food security. Recent research has revealed that certain agricultural practices have a substantial role to play in global warming. In 12 3.3 Weather changes Jamaican small scale farmers have long been plague with numerous natural disasters such as landslides, floods, hurricanes and droughts (IIED, 2011). Agriculture nonetheless has been able to thrive with the aid of fairly good understanding of climatic patterns and the farmers’ ability to adapt to these relatively ‘small’ changes. Unfortunately, the recent changes in climatic conditions are too large for farmers in Jamaica to adapt to. These changes have substantially reduced farmers’ ability to strategize their operations, making them increasing vulnerable to the increasingly unpredictable and unfavorable climatic events. According to the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), in a 2009 report, climate change is very likely to cause a decline in yields of the most important crops in developing countries, ultimately resulting in an increase in food prices (Nelson et al., 2009). This development is bound to have detrimental effects on local farmers’ livelihood as they already lacked the technical, physical and financial support that would allow them to cope with the different types of stresses exerted on them (Gamble et al., 2010) the Working Group II report (McCarthy et al. 2001) in combination with the sustainable rural livelihood framework of Scoones (1998). Reviewing the state of the art of climate change vulnerability research Hinkel (2011) found that this approach is appropriate to identify vulnerable peoples, communities and regions when applied to narrowly defined local systems. Read full text of our methodology in chapter 2 of the “Methodology” document. 5. Assessment of observed changes and farmer’s perceptions 5.1 Results from focal workshops To obtain farmers perceptions about climate and its changes they observed during the last decades we organized participatory workshops. This workshop utilizes facilitators to guide the discussion of a group of farmers to unearth the necessary information. The entire discussions took place with the aid of charts and the farmers were asked to use beans and simple signs to indicate the magnitude, volume, frequency or intensity of specific variables. See more details on the procedure in chapter 4 of the “Methodology report”. Farmers perception of historical climate One of the first exercises that were done involved asking the farmers to illustrate historical climatic change by assessing favorability of rainfall, temperature and wind over the years. With the aid of beans, the level of favorability ascertained by indicating how “good” or “bad” these climatic events generally affected the production systems. Figure 3 shows high variability between years and 13 4. Our methodology Figure 2: Analytical framework. We base our research on the commonly used definition of vulnerability of the third assessment report (IPCC 2001) as outlined in highlight how hurricanes, accompanied by heavy rain periods caused crop failure in all communities in the region. Figure 3: Farmers perceptions of historical climate trend. Farmers perception of natural capital There was a general consensus amongst most of the research sites that the quality of forests, rivers and soils has declined over the past 20 years (Figure 4). Farmers expressed concern that the very resources that they are so highly dependent on, have been depleted to varying degrees and is likely to get worst with the onset of climate change. Figure 4: Farmers perceptions on natural resources. Farmers perception of physical capital Figure 5: Farmers perceptions on physical capital road. 14 At first glance it would seems that distance to markets and road access would not be a problem on a small island like Jamaica. This is this true for the better maintained northern coastline. As this is the tourist area, the government gives more attention to keep these roads well maintained. Once you venture towards interior areas of the island, the roads become increasingly deplorable and in some areas to the south of the island, the road situation is extremely bad. In areas such as Douglas Castle or Tangle River, the roads were so bad that farmers claimed that intermediaries have been coming less frequently to buy their products because of the roads. Additionally, they lamented that short distances of few kilometers may take you few hours to get to your destination (Figure 5). Farmers perception of human capital During the workshops many farmers highlighted in the discussion, that education is very important for them and it is not related to social status. Thus, it is normal in Jamaica for a small farmer and his family to have the same education level as the richer medium or large scaled farmer, because they have the ability to send their children a university. Nonetheless, the fact remains that many small farmers remain in farming, because they would not be able to get another job because of their age lack of professional qualification. During questionnaire interviews we often found that, that smallholder farmers are elderly people, without high education level and depend on the economical support of their abroad children, who are studying in Kingston or even live in the US. Actually on the family capital we didn’t get a clear respond during the workshops, it seems that Jamaican farmer tend to live and work individually (Figure 6). 5.2 Examples of farmer’s comments During the field work many farmer told us their personal stories and what kind of problems they are facing in their daily business, most of them are climate related. The following comments shows facts and situations from different regions. Farmers Comments from Manchester “Since last year a new disease is affecting the ginger, this year already 25% of farmers stopped cultivating their fields” Figure 6: Farmers perceptions on human capital road. 15 farming. Advantages are clear: controlled micro climatic characteristics, pest exclusion and accurately measured nutrition intake ends up into higher yield. Disadvantages are higher production costs, investment is needed to start, experience and knowledge not to fail and threats through hurricanes have to be calculated. Temperature Ginger farmer, Jamaica, Manchester, Lower Christiana, 2010. Jamaica used to have its own variety of ginger, which was a smaller tuber but adapted very well on local soil and climate conditions. Around 20 years ago a variety from China was introduced, because the yield is higher than the local variety. The disease currently affecting ginger is only affecting the ginger from China, the original Jamaican ginger is not affected. “I call it the Ginger valley, best conditions for Ginger in Jamaica, this year I started producing in Greenhouse to protect against diseases; but costs are high” inside a greenhouse is approximately 3 °C higher than outside, that fore greenhouse are found more up on the mountains in Jamaica, but even cooling systems powered by renewable energies like solar panels were tested and could be implemented, but would hardly work for a large scale farming at the moment. Farmer Comment from St. Elizabeth “In the past we installed irrigation systems, but when there is drought, there is still not enough water” Farmers co-operation, Jamaica, St. Elizabeth, Beacon, 2010. In this drought-stricken area, there is even a sophisticated pipe system with planned water supply to several communities to assure food security for Jamaica, because the parish St. Elizabeth provides a large part of Jamaican’s fresh vegetables and fruits. Unfortunately, however this is not always sufficient, especially in El Nino years when drought-like conditions 16 Ginger farmer, Jamaica, Clarendon, Top Alston, 2010. Early adopters are always trying out new technologies and many ‘trial and errors’ to learn have been done on Jamaican greenhouse are exacerbated and the farmers lack the necessary resources to adapt. Farmer Comment from Douglas Castle “Input costs for vegetable production are very high, this year a heavy rain destroyed all my lettuce in just 3 days” Farm co-operation, Jamaica, St. Mary, Fort George, 2010. Greenhouse farming is a good way to nurse seedlings during the first growth. In Fort Jorge farmers have founded a cooperative and they are renting land together to supply the close hotel industry. “We have no transportation, the road is bad, a lot of holes, if higglers (intermediaries) are not coming, we leave it on the field” Young farmer, Jamaica, St. Ann, Douglas Castle, 2010. Douglas castle used to be a vegetable supplier of the hotel industry on the northern coast. Climate variability is treating them hard and road access has also become also a big problem, and fewer intermediaries come by to pick up their products. Additionally, their investments to meet the high standards force them to increase inputs in order to optimize harvested output. Farmer Comment from St. Mary “Recently we started with a greenhouse for hotpepper seedlings to protect against excess rainfall & insects” Farmer, Jamaica, St. James, Summervile, 2010. Farmer told us repeatedly that they leave their produce to rot in the field, because nobody came by to purchase them. Furthermore, they don’t have their own transport facilities. Thus, when road access gets worse, even less intermediaries come to purchase their produce and eventually, even productive lands can get unused as there is no means to get the produce to the market. Farmer Comment from Manchester “I work only by myself. I don’t know how much I spend on farm-inputs. I just sell when higglers 17 come by” Farmer in a Mini-market, Jamaica, Manchester, Lower Christiana, 2010. Unfortunately, some farmer think like this and they are not much willing to work together with other farmer, even when that could be an advantage to be not so much dependent from intermediaries. 18 6. Climate change predictions for 2030 & 2050 In order to predict climate change we used historical climate data from www.worldclim.org database (Hijmans et al., 2005) as current climate. Variables included are monthly total precipitation, and monthly mean, minimum and maximum temperature. To generate the future climate we downloaded and downscaled Global Circulation Model (GCM) data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. See detailed information (“current climate”, “Future climate”) in chapter 3 of Methodology-document. 6.1 The summary climate characteristics for 2030 and 2050 Figure 7: Climate trend summary 2030 and 2050 for Jamaica. Results are based on 19 GCM Models from the 4th IPCC assessment (2007), A2 scenario (business as usual) General climatic characteristics • The rainfall decreases from 1846 millimeters to 1763 millimeters in 2050 passing through 1787 in 2030 19 • • • Temperatures increase and the average increase is 1.7 ºC passing through an increment of 1.1 ºC in 2030 The mean daily temperature range increases from 7.2 ºC to 7.3 ºC in 2050 The maximum number of cumulative dry months keeps constant in 3 months Extreme conditions • • • • The maximum temperature of the year increases from 29.1 ºC to 30.9 ºC while the warmest quarter gets hotter by 1.7 ºC in 2050 The minimum temperature of the year increases from 18.7 ºC to 20.3 ºC while the coldest quarter gets hotter by 1.6 ºC in 2050 The wettest month keeps constant with 298 millimeters, while the wettest quarter gets drier by 18 mm in 2050 The driest month gets drier with 58 millimeters instead of 62 millimeters while the driest quarter gets drier by 9 mm in 2050 Climate Seasonality • Overall this climate becomes more seasonal in terms of variability through the year in temperature and more seasonal in precipitation Variability between models • • • • The coefficient of variation of temperature predictions between models is 1.4% Temperature predictions were uniform between models and thus no outliers were detected The coefficient of variation of precipitation predictions between models is 6.2% Precipitation predictions were uniform between models and thus no outliers were detected 6.2 Regional changes in the mean annual precipitation (2030) 20 Figure 8: Mean annual precipitation change by 2030 for 6 study sites in Jamaica. The edges of the boxes indicate the mean maximum and mean minimum values and the ends of the line the maximum and minimum values. The mean maximum and mean minimum values are defined by the mean + or – the standard deviation. The mean annual precipitation decreases in 2030 on average by 59 mm and in 2050 by 79 mm. In 2030 Dumfries will have larger decrease in precipitation than others (Figure 8) and in 2050 Douglas Castle (Figure 9). We observed the smallest decrease in precipitation for 2030 in Beacon and Tangle River and for 2050 in Dumfries. Figure 9: Mean annual precipitation change by 2050 for 6 study sites of Jamaica. 6.3 Regional changes in the mean annual temperature (2030) 21 Figure 10: Mean annual temperature change by 2030 for 6 study sites of Jamaica. The mean annual temperature will increase progressively. The increase by 2050 is between 1.6 and 1.7 ºC (Figures 11) and for 2030 between 1 and 1.1 ºC (Figures 10). 6.4 Regional changes in the mean annual temperature (2050) Figure 11: Mean annual temperature change by 2050 for 6 study sites of Jamaica. 6.5 Coefficient of variation of climate variables CV precipitation 2030 CV precipitation 2050 CV temperature 2030 CV temperature 2050 Figure 12: Coefficient of variation for annual precipitation and temperature 2030 and 2050. The coefficient of variation (CV) for 2030 and 2050 climate variables ranges between 0 and 20%, and may therefore be accepted as reliable (Figure 12). 22 7. Exposure of most important crops to climate change What means exposure to climate change? Exposure to climate change Exposure is the character, magnitude and rate of climate change and variation. To determine Exposure to climate change we used most identified crops from the focal group workshops and undertake a participatory analysis of the current and future biophysical suitability of crops under a changing climate. We use a mechanistic model based on the Ecocrop database (FAO, 1998 available at http://ecocrop.fao.org/ecocrop/srv/en/home) to spatially predict crop suitability without having prior knowledge or data available. The model essentially uses minimum, maximum, and mean monthly temperatures, and total monthly rainfall to determine a suitability index. See more detailed description in the Methodology report on chapter 3. Table 1: Table of suitability-change of all examined crops. Table 1 shows results of 14 crops and their climate suitability. Models indicate for most crops values of suitability between 80 and 100 which means excellent growing conditions on current climate data. For 2030 predictions shows suitability values between 60 and 80. Suitability is still very good and keeps excellent for banana, cucumber, sweet potato (low), tomato (low) and zucchini. For 2050 suitability is predicted with ongoing decline and cabbage, carrot, irish potato, orange and yellow sweet potato (high) end up between 40 and 60, which indicates at least as suitable. Values below 40 on climate-suitability 23 e.g. ginger end up in marginal conditions for crop development and would not be with sufficient productivity. The right two columns show change in suitability as de anomaly between future and current crop suitability. Most affected crops are cabbage, carrot, ginger, sweet potato (high) and tomato (high) with 25% up to 47% declining climate suitability. 7.1 Measure of agreement of models predicted changes Figure 13: Measure of agreement of models predicting changes in the same direction as the average of all models at a given location for 2050. The Measure of agreement of models predicting changes in the same direction as the average of all models at a given location is generally high (Figure 13). In the following section we present a more the detailed analysis of the three crops of highest interest. Find maps of all crops on data collection disk! 24 7.2 Banana Current suitability Figure 14: Current climate-suitability for Banana. Currently, the main banana production areas are located in lower regions and coastal areas (Figure 14). According to the Ecocrop model, the most climate-suitable areas for banana cultivation are concentrated in the western section of the island, south western, south central. There are also excellent climatically suitable areas in the north western section of the island, with a narrow strip along the north coast connecting the equally suitable eastern end of the island. Suitability for Banana by 2030 Figure 15: Suitability for Banana by 2030. 25 Suitability for Banana by 2050 Figure 16: Suitability for Banana by 2050. Change in suitability by 2030 Figure 17: Climate-suitability change for Banana by 2030. Change in suitability by 2050 Figure 18: Climate-suitability change for Banana by 2050. 26 By 2030, there will be slight increase in overall climate suitability of banana with more inland (Figure 15), mountainous region gaining suitability of approximately 13%. By 2050, there will be significant changes in overall suitability, with more inland, mountainous region gaining suitability, particularly in the westcentral region (Figure 16). Overall, suitability will increase by approximately 18% from current status by 2050 (Table 1, Figure 18). Along the south-central coastline, however, small areas of less suitable zones will begin to emerge. 7.3 Ginger Current suitability Figure 19: Current climate-suitability for Ginger. Currently, the main ginger production areas are located close to Christiana, in the Top Alston area. According to the Ecocrop model, the most climatically suitable areas are concentrated in the interior regions of the island, mainly in the mountainous zones (Figure 19). With a few minor exceptions, the coastal zones are almost completely devoid of suitable climate for ginger. Suitability for Ginger by 2030 Figure 20: Suitability for Ginger by 2030. 27 Suitability for Ginger by 2050 Figure 21: Suitability for Ginger by 2050. Change in suitability by 2030 Figure 22: Climate-suitability change for Ginger by 2030. Change in suitability by 2050 Figure 23: Climate-suitability change for Ginger by 2050. 28 The climatic suitability of ginger will decline significantly (27%, see Table 1) by 2030, with the declines expected to be concentrated in the western and eastern interior of the island (Figure 22). Large sections of the center of the island however improve in suitability by this time, though this was not sufficient to off-set the overall decline. By 2050, zones barely suitable for the cultivation of ginger increase dramatically (47%) all over the island, while zones suitable for the cultivation of ginger shrink drastically, with the main area still remaining in towards the interior, mountainous zone, though with a much smaller area. Suitability also increases, in small mountainous regions towards the eastern end of the island (Figure 23). 7.4 Tomato (Salad) Current suitability Figure 24: Current climate-suitability for Tomato. Currently, the main Tomato production areas are located in St. Elizabeth parish. The areas suitable for the cultivation of tomatoes are the almost exactly same as the areas unsuitable for ginger (Figure 24 and 19). According to the Ecocrop model, the most climatically suitable areas are concentrated towards the coast and the lower elevation of Jamaica. Suitability tends to decline towards the interior and higher elevations. 29 Suitability for Tomato (Salad) by 2030 Figure 25: Suitability for Tomato (Salad) by 2030. Suitability for Tomato (Salad) by 2050 Figure 26: Suitability for Tomato (Salad) by 2050. Change in suitability by 2030 Figure 27 Climate-suitability change for Tomato (Salad) by 2030. 30 Change in suitability by 2050 Figure 28: Climate-suitability change for Tomato (Salad) 2050. By 2030, tomato suitable zones expand dramatically (16%, see Table 1), advancing towards higher altitudes (Figure 27). However most of the highest altitudes remain climatically unsuitable for the crop. By 2050, tomato suitable zones have continued its expansion towards the interior mountainous regions and would have increased by 23% overall. However, most of the highest altitudes remain climatically unsuitable for the crop (Figure 28). 8. Availability and restrictions for agricultural production In order to highlight the important role of land availability for agricultural production systems we analyzed as a next step the three main influencing factors for land availability:    Land use Access (road distance) Protection As most important factor for availability of land for agricultural production we analyzed land use (Figure 29) and categorized water bodies and populated areas as not available for agriculture. Areas of currently covered by forest or perennial crop systems such as coffee are classified as available but needs a land use change and would be theoretically available. However it is not recommended to clear forest in order to generate cultivating areas. Remaining areas indicated as white areas available and currently occupied even as cropland, pastureland and areas with low vegetation or wasteland. The second factor to determine availability is accessibility or also called distance-costs. We calculated the distance of each geographical location (each pixel on the map) and its distance to the closest road in distanced categories; distance accessible < 500m, inconvenient access 500-1000m, costly access > 1000m (see Figure 30). If the distance to the next road is higher, distance costs are also high. 31 Last we used protected areas as barrier for availability for agricultural extension and calculated areas inside protected areas and within a distance of 2 Kilometers around protected areas (Figure 31). 8.1 Land use Figure 29: Availability by land-use. 8.2 Access Figure 30: Road access in Jamaica (distance-costs) 32 8.3 Protection Figure 31: Protected areas with buffer-zones in Jamaica. 8.4 Combined restrictions for agricultural production Combining the three availability factors we obtain weighted restrictions as result map (Figure 32) and can further discuss highly favorable land for agricultural production with positive and negative change in crop suitability as exposed areas to climate change to develop adaptation strategies Figure 32: Combined availability of land-use, access & protected areas in Jamaica. 33 Table 2: Table of climate-suitability versus availability of land, numbers in grey are changes in area. In Table 2 climate suitability and restrictions to land availability in 1000 hectares are combined. For 2030 and 2050 it can be observed that most of the available land is facing a negative suitability change. With the exception of corn and tomato, all crops are having their highest suitability lost up to -40 for 2030 and -70 in 2050 in available areas. The consequence of this fact is, that farmer will tend to extend their production areas to higher altitudes, most of which is currently occupied by forests and will therefore not contribute to mitigate further climate change. 34 9. Vulnerability of farmer’s livelihoods to climate change 9.1 Vulnerability Index To compare vulnerability between regions a vulnerability index has been constructed. It is a function of the exposure by the year 2030, the sensitivity and adaptive capacity, and the households’ expected impact of climate change. Vulnerability index = Exposure + Sensitivity + Adaptive Capacity + Expected Impact These components together describe the abstract concept of vulnerability in a comprehensive way. The data for our index originates from the suitability modeling exercise and our sustainable livelihood assessment. Additionally, we make use of information about the motivation to adapt (“expected impact”) that we derived during our household survey. All 4 variables have equal weights. Data has been transformed to a 1 to 3 ordinal scale, where 3 refers to high resilience and 1 to a high vulnerability. Thus, the index ranges from 4 – high vulnerability – to 12 – high resilience. For details on the methodology, please refer to the accompanying methodology report. As can be seen from the box plots overall vulnerability is highest in Jamaica. This result is confirmed as statistically significant by OnewayAnova and t-Test statistics. While the means point to a ranking of the countries in terms of vulnerability, the whiskers make clear that this is deceptive. Colombia and Jamaica share a similar range of vulnerability. This means that in both countries inequality could be an issue. Even in the vulnerable Jamaica households exist that are very resilient, although on average households are as vulnerable as the worst of ones in Colombia. See more detailed description Methodology report on chapter 4. in the First, we discuss the accumulated result of our Index, then we present findings on its components. Figure 34: Exposure compared between 3 case studies For the construction of the vulnerability index the change in suitability has been seperated into terciles of equal number of cases. The graph however shows the original values as this provides additional information. The box plots show that Jamaica and Colombia exhibit similar variation in direct climate change impacts, while Guatemala will experience homogenically a low 35 Figure 33: Vulnerability Index for 3 case studies impact. Differences exist mostly in the means of Colombia and Guatemala and Jamaica. Here, Jamaica is clearly the worst affected. This result is confirmed as significant by Oneway-Anova and t-Test statistics. In comparison with the other two regions Jamaica sticks out because of its comparatively large range of impacts. While few changes are expected in Guatemala and even a slightly positive direct impact of climate change in Colombia is possible, in Jamaica households predominantly experience a negative impact on their main cultivars. Figure 36: Adaptive capacitive compared between 3 case studies Similar to the results of sensitivity the box plots and a comparison of means using Anova and repeated t-Tests show a higher resilience of Colombia, compared to the other two focus regions, including Jamaica. Interestingly, the range of adaptive capacity is nearly the same for all three countries, such that the difference can only be observed in the means. No differences exist between the least prepared and best prepared households of the three focus regions. However, weaknesses and strengths result from different livelihood assets. In the chapter that discusses the results of our sustainable livelihood assessment the reasons are discussed in more detail (see next section). Figure 35: Sensitivity compared between 3 case studies In terms of sensitivity all three countries show the same range of probability of indirect impacts. A clear difference only exists in the means. Colombia shows a higher resilience on average. This result is confirmed as significant by Oneway-Anova and t-Test statistics. The difference in sensitivity between Guatemala and Jamaica is not significant. In the chapter that discusses the results of our sustainable livelihood assessment the reasons for this result are discussed in more detail (see next section). 36 Figure 37: Expected impact compared between 3 case studies The data about expected impacts has been transformed onto a 1 to 3 scale such that data falls into terciles of equal size. This results in the odd shape of the box plots. Jamaica has the lowest mean with 1.76 compared to Colombia (2.02) and Guatemala (2.22). Differences in means are statistically significant between Jamaica and Guatemala. Also a small effect exists between Colombia and Jamaica. Thus, it may be concluded that Jamaica is the least prepared to climate change when regarding the motivation to adapt. The respondents in the survey do not appear to be particularly concerned about climate change or variability, nor do they seem to know much about this phenomenon. Taking all results together, Jamaica is the worst off country both in terms of direct impacts and its capacity and motivation to adapt. The probability of indirect impacts is just as high as in Guatemala. The latter is less vulnerable to climate change than Jamaica because respondents exhibit a high motivation to adapt even though this may not be necessary as our direct impact models suppose. As for our sustainable livelihood analysis differences between Guatemala and Jamaica are not statistically significant, and thus may have occurred due to chance. On average our vulnerability index proposes equal capital access in the two countries. The respective chapter 9 that discuss the sustainable livelihood assessment in more detail provide more detail on individual differences. However, a strategy to prepare Jamaican farmers to climate change will, in addition, need to consider the pronounced heterogeneity of production and thus difference in direct impacts, as well as the low awareness of the problem at hand. 37 10.Sensitivity & adaptive capacity of Jamaican farmers to climate change What is the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of a System to climate change? Sensitivity to climate change Sensitivity is the degree to which a system is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by climate variability or change. The effect may be direct (e.g., a change in crop yield in response to a change in the mean, range or variability of temperature) or indirect (e.g., damages caused by an increase in the frequency of coastal flooding due to sea-level rise). Adaptive capacity Adaptive capacity (in relation to climate change impacts), the ability of a system to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes), to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences. 10.1 Capital stock analysis     Difficult credit access Very low presence of organizations No access to education of some households A subgroup of resilient households exists The spider diagram of the modes of the different forms of capital separated into sensitivity and adaptive capacity suggests a clear result. In this diagram “1” represents a low vulnerability and “3” a high vulnerability; i.e. a value of three for adaptive capacity is a high adaptive capacity, a value of one means a low adaptive capacity. In contrast, for Sensitivity “3” stands for a low sensitivity and “1” for a highly sensitive form of capital. country report Guatemala). Farmers state that their income is affected by a changing climate through lower quality and quantity. Credit design is tolerable but in contrast to Guatemala hardly accessible for most farmers. This makes the picture for adaptive capacity worse for Jamaica, as certification and alternative technologies are equally inaccessible. The result for social capital is dominated by the same determinants as in Guatemala: An absence of any form of organizations from many parts of the study area. Unfortunately, however, even though only a few household participate in organizations, they still do not receive services. Thus, sensitivity is high and adaptive capacity is low. Human capital is seen to be sensitive as knowledge about markets is underdeveloped and most households do not keep records of their economic activities. The picture for the other indicators, such as market orientation is generally mixed. Thus, while resilient household exist, the vast majority appears to be unprepared to changes in their economic environment. At the same time the results for adaptive capacity hint in a similar direction. While training is available to some at good quality, others do not even have access to basic education. As the majority of indications points towards a lack of adaptive capacity this is seen to be low, despite the existence of a subgroup that has a high human capital. Figure 38: Spider diagram of sensitivity and adaptive capacity Given this ranking the diagram suggests that farmers in Jamaica are sensitive to climate change for certain forms of capital. Two of the five forms of capital receive a mode of “3”, meaning that the most frequent answer has been such that it fell into the highest category. The other three capital forms however, reveal a high sensitivity. In terms of adaptive capacity, physical capital and natural capital also display a good adaptive capacity. The three most sensitive forms of capital, human, social and financial capital received predominantly low scores in the survey. Thus, while the physical and natural capital does not appear to be vulnerable, all other forms require more attention. In many ways the reasons for the low financial capital are similar to those in that can be found in Guatemala (see the respective chapter in the 38 10.2 Cluster analysis Cluster analysis over the data from the questionnaire resulted in three groups in sensitivity and four in adaptive capacity. However, 2 of the three groups in sensitivity are not very distinct. Rather one group sticks out as very resilient. Therefore here only two groups are presented: the sensitive majority and the resilient minority. The situation is similar for adaptive capacity. Rather than distinct groups the cluster are along a continuum from low capacity to high adaptive capacity. Therefore here characteristics of the most vulnerable and the most prepared households are presented. It has to be noted though, that the group with high sensitivity is large compared with the low sensitivity group. This is not as clearly distinguishable for adaptive capacity, even though the majority of households is located at the vulnerable end of the distribution.  Sensitivity: – High sensitivity:  No organizations present so that also no one is a member  Water supply is irregular, of bad quality and no official authority is in charge of it  Water is collected from roofs or comes from a river  Houses are wooden  Management of chemical waste is not specified  This does not mean that they do not use chemicals, although this is the case for some households  No falls in production rate are reported (bad management?) – Low sensitivity  Many organizations present  Long term presence  Participation in organizations  Sowing plans developed  Credit access  Training in market systems  Adaptive capacity – Low adaptive capacity  No activities received of accessible  No education 39  No training  No assistance  No crop alternatives  Low or no management – High Adaptive capacity  No travel time to market/water  Member in multiple organizations  Good management  Training received  Certification  Credit access  Own a truck 10.3 Site-specific vulnerability For the analysis of site specific vulnerability we employ the IPCC’s standard definition of vulnerability. It is a function of the exposure as crop to climate suitability change by the year 2030 or rather 2050, the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of the farm system. Vulnerability = Exposure + Sensitivity – Adaptive Capacity Similar to our Vulnerability Index based analysis we derive proxies for sensitivity, adaptive capacity and exposure based on our household survey data. We mapped results to show which farmer are highly vulnerable to a changing climate. (Please note that in order to map vulnerability we had to change the scale in comparison to previous chapters). Figure 39: Site-specific vulnerability by 2030 On the horizontal axis Exposure is plotted as crop to climate suitability change (1 low and -3 high); the vertical axis shows Sensitivity rated from 0 (low) to 3 (high); the size of the bubbles indicates the Adaptive Capacity and low Adaptive Capacity is classified as big size and high capacity to adapt to a changing climate are shown as small bubbles. The background color of the chart shows the vulnerability in traffic light colors. Red means high vulnerability and green low. Significant attention must be given to those big sample points in the upper left red colored corner; these are those with maximum Vulnerability to predicted climate change. Mapped survey sample points show clearly, that for 2030 the vulnerability of Guatemalan frozen vegetable farmers is still balanced (Figure 39), by 2050 the majority of them move towards the left corner into higher Vulnerability (Figure 40). For more details on the methodology see chapter 6 of the Methodology report. During the field work we conducted necessary data to calculate the on farm carbon footprint via the Cool Farm Tool. At some point there is to say, that most farmer in Jamaica are roughly taking records and reliable data directly from the farmer are very difficult to collect. In most cases the interviewer depends on expert knowledge from technicians of agricultural development organizations, which gave us an average application of fertilizer and pesticides, no information on residue management and farm management. Most farmer in the region don’t have own transport and do not use energy on the field and for primary processing. 11.1 Tomato It is very difficult to compare results within tomato production, as for this crop, the cultivation methods and parameters such as yields vary widely. Within this report open field production has been compared to ones imported from the Netherlands. 11.2 Lettuce The lettuce carbon footprint results for open field production are almost equal between the assessed one and the results obtained from the literature, which is 0.15 and 0.26 kg CO2e/kg lettuce respectively. When it comes to comparison of these two values with UK greenhouse production, the emissions are 10 to 17 times higher at the primary production stage. Figure 40: Site-specific vulnerability by 2050 11.Estimated Carbon Footprint The carbon footprint of a product presents the total sum of all greenhouse gas emissions caused by a product’s supply-chain expressed in kg Co2e per kg product. In this chapter the aim is to calculate a comprehensive carbon dioxide equivalent footprint for tomato and lettuce. 40 12.1 Farmer and supply-chain actors suggestions CHRISTIANA WORKSHOP During the workshop we formed four groups, in the following section their individual recommended adaptation strategies are lined out: Group I (institutions) In this group participated producers from the Christiana Potato Growers association, the Forestry Department, Jamaica Agriculture Society (JAS) At the beginning they started the brainstorming to collect all ideas that came to mind: Figure 41: Compared carbon footprint of tomato and lettuce More detailed and with other case studies and crops compared results can be find in the carbon footprint report from our contributor Soil & More International. Survey of the community (Farmer population, Age of farmers & gender, Crops grown, Size of farm, Terrain, land usage); marketing; disease / pests; migration of youth; finance (availability & access); organizations of farmers (groups); praedial larceny; training – groups approach; farm inputs vs. costs; pesticides usage; crops & Livestock; land preparation (method); quality & quantity of crops; sustainability & viability; rainfall patterns. Group II & III (farmer) Farmer from Manchester parish Brainstorming results from farmer’s side: Reap before the hurricane season; have proper storage tanks for drought period (store crops); change the planting season (avoid drought); cut gutters around the plots (take off excess water); mulching of yam yields; build green houses (to protect from rain, frost, diseases); rebuild the soil (animal manure). 12.Strategies to adapt to the changing climate After analyzing collected data during the first field work phase we went back to the communities and presented preliminary results of their vulnerability to climate change to farmer and supply-chain actors and asked them to think about what could be done and what adaptation strategies they have in mind. See detailed approach of conducted workshops in chapter 5 of Methodology report. 41 In the second part they compiled 3 main adaptation strategies out of the collected ideas: Group I (Institutions) 1. Organization of farmers in groups to give power (strength), sense of belonging , unity & cooperation 2. Train and educate farmers through dissemination of information to influence behavioral change in best cultural practices and use of adaptable technology 3. Quality, quantity and sustainability to enhance long term productivity & viability to maintain standards and practices that are environmentally friendly Group II (Farmers from Manchester) 1. Change the planting season according to crops. Reap before hurricane season 2. Have storage tanks for drought period. Mulching of crops 3. Rebuild and preserve the soil Group III (Farmers from Manchester) 1. Financing at organizational level to invest in tools for the community and land titles 2. Soil Management: Test soils (organizations) to better respond to changing climate conditions 3. Information and training about green housing to produce all year long (RADA and others) 3 main strategies from Christiana workshop   Training & education Organization & financing  Adapting to changing seasons and extreme weather events & long term focus on sustainable production KINGSTON WORKSHOP Group I (institutions) Participants: Women's resource & outreach center, Portland 4-H clubs, Ministry of Agriculture – forestry department Brainstorming outcome: Strengthening of RADA/JAS & NGO’s (capacity building) – Oxfam; organize farmers; sensitize to effects of climate change; localized workshops & trainings; how their actions effects climate change; benefits of agro-forestry (not cutting down to cultivate vegetables; legislation (laws, policies), zoning by government; incentives for farmers doing land husbandry practices; irrigation system & water catchments; greenhouse for vegetables; building structure to support farm organizations (technology transfer, marketing, financing, training) In the second they compiled 3 main adaptation strategies out of the collected ideas: 1. Structuring & capacity building (farm organizations, RADA & JAS supported by Oxfam, Public-PrivatePartnerships (PPP’s) including Hotel industry, marketing & financing) 2. Training & infrastructure development (sensitizing, land husbandry practices, Greenhouse, irrigation & water catchments) 3. Legislation & Policies ( zoning, incentives for agro-forestry) 42 Group II (JAS) Different authorities Agriculture Society) from JAS (Jamaica Outcome and 3 main strategies: 1. Training and education policy: Awareness building for training at farm level; group training; practical demonstrations of practices, e.g. testing kits 2. Soil MGMT and farming practices: Soil analysis (determine nutrition, suitability for crops); preventing erosions (contour); crop rotation 3. Government policy: Monitor and stipulate land usage; Subsidize e.g. soil testing 3 main strategies from Kingston workshop:  Structuring, capacity building & training  Farming practices & infrastructure development  Legislation & government policies MONTEGO BAY WORKSHOP Group I (institutions) Participants: Representatives from RADA (Rural Agricultural Development Authority) & JAS (Jamaica Agriculture Society). Outcome and 3 main strategies: 1. Policy: Land tenure system (titles); enforce marketing system; improve access to credit; infrastructure development 2. Org. & capacity building: organization of farmers, focus on solution of similar problems; awareness building, identify problems & solutions; training, better access + useful assets 43 3. Adaptable technology: Greenhouse / protected agriculture (shed-house); irrigation / rain water harvesting; mechanization; seed banks / crop diversification; “renewable farming” (e.g. biogas, ethanol) Group II (farmer) Participants: farmer from the St. James Parish Outcome and 3 main strategies: 1. Soil management (reduce use of pesticides & weedicides) 2. Greenhouse for seedlings to protect against excess rainfall & insects 3. Use different planting practices for different seasons Group III (farmer) Participants: farmer from the St. James Parish Outcome and 3 main strategies: 1. Educating & information sharing (preserving the watershed areas, soil conservation practices) 2. Government needs to develop & implement a national land policy (finance access) 3. Wider scope of training and feedback from the relevant agencies (skill training especially those at risk, technology wise) 3 main strategies from Montego bay workshop:    Governmental policy to facilitate financing & improve marketing Implementation of sustainable technologies & practices Organization, information sharing & capacity building 3 main strategies from workshops  Education, training, capacity building, information sharing, research Legislation & government policies, marketing, financing Infrastructure development, organization, sustainable implementation   12.2 From research output recommended adaptation strategies Crop production system As main result from analyzing fourteen crops on their biophysical suitability to predict future climate conditions can be stated, that average climate-suitability of most common crop is slightly declining by 9%. While others decrease their suitability quite seriously by 2050, especially gingers, a variety of sweet potato which is more often grown in higher altitudes, carrots and cabbage. Others are gaining suitability, like cucumber, banana, zucchini and tomato (variety often known as salad). On farmer’s perceptions, in recent year’s damages caused by extreme weather events occurred mostly as a direct consequence or following hurricanes and have affect their production. To protect crops from this damage Agroforestry Systems could play an important role (CIAT, 2010), as well as natural wind curtains or moving of production systems for crops like banana to topographically more protected inland areas, mainly because they get more suitable in these areas as well. 44 As agroforestry system for example, the Quesungual Slash & Mulch Agroforestry System, coming originally from the southwestern of Honduras includes the principles: No slash and burn; permanent soil cover; Minimal disturbance of soil; efficient use of fertilizer. Application of these Quesungual principals can result in significant benefits for farmer: increased resilience to extreme natural events; increase in productivity by improving soil and water; surpluses of mayor staple foods; availability of firewood; reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased carbon sequestration; conservation of local biodiversity. Additionally to some of recently started initiatives to manage climate risk caused by extreme weather events could be given more attention. For example evacuation container for agricultural inventory and for saving seedlings, building shared infrastructure and storage facilities. Adaptation strategies for crop production systems       Crop variety sampling for improved climate-suitability Greenhouses for seedling nursery Evacuation container to protect them in an emergency Diversify crops: e.g.: yam vs. dasheen Irrigation system to control water stress Small, enclosed farming systems (greenhouse, water reservoir, renewable energy) to control harvest season (glut/shortage) Alternative crops for highly exposed crops to climate change Introduce Agroforestry systems: e.g. Quesungual System Low carbon agriculture to mitigate climate change however, they do not receive services from these organizations. Thus, sensitivity is high and adaptive capacity low. Human capital is seen to be sensitive as knowledge about markets is low and most households do not keep records of their economic activities. Adaptation strategies for impacts on livelihoods   Funding and accompanying of community organizations Training and awareness building of communities for climate change. Building alliance along value-chain Strengthening of local capacity to countered with adaptation strategies Knowledge sharing and best practice learning from climate similar areas.       Community’s vulnerability to climate change Presented results in chapter nine shows that farmers in Jamaica are sensitive to climate change for certain forms of capital. In many ways the reasons for the low financial capital is the fact that their income is affected by a changing climate through lower quality and quantity. Credit is hardly accessible for most farmers and certification and alternative technologies are equally inaccessible. The result for social capital is dominated by the absence of any form of organizations from many parts of the study area. Therefore only a few households participate in organizations, 45 13.Conclusion In Jamaica the yearly and monthly rainfall will decrease and the yearly and monthly minimum and maximum temperatures will increase by 2030 and will continue to increase progressively by 2050. The implications are that the distribution of suitability within the current production areas will change and for some crops quite seriously by 2050. The biggest threat at the moment is the risk for damage from extreme weather events like hurricanes. Initiatives exist to manage these risks but needs more attention and concrete actions. Vulnerability of small farmer is very high in Jamaica because of their high sensitivity and low adaptive capacity in three of five livelihood assets (human, social and financial capital) There are many possibilities to adapt to a changing climate. The winners will thus be those who are willing to adapt to an evolving climate. Checklist further actions against climate change in Jamaica  Choose the best adaptation strategies against climate change Learn to manage the risk associated with climate variability. Implement and adjust adaptation strategies together with policy makers Start mitigating to reduce the adverse affects of climate change by reducing emissions    46 14.References Bamber, J., Riva, R. E. M., Vermeersen, B. L. A., & Lebrocq, A. M. (2004). Reassment of the Potential Sea-Level Rise from Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Science, 324, 901-903. Brown, I. (2011, March). Jamaica can Replace 45% of Imported food with local Produce. Jamaica Observer. Kingston. Retrieved from http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Ja-canreplace-45--of-imported-food-with-local-produce-says-Tufton. Burton, I., Diringer, E., & Smith, J. (2006). ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE: International Policy Options. CARICOM. (2011). Agriculture Development Profile: Jamaica. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://www.caricom.org/jsp/community/donor_co nference_agriculture/agri_profile_jamaica.jsp. CIAT, (2010) Quesungual Slash and Burn Agroforestry System: An Eco-Efficient Option for Rural Poor. Cali: International Center for Tropical Agriculture. FAO. (2004). FAO and SIDS: Challenges and Emerging Issues in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The Inter-regional Conference of Small Island Developing States. (pp. 1-34). Gamble, D. W., Campbell, D., Allen, T. L., Barker, D., Curtis, S., Mcgregor, D., et al. (2010). Climate Change, Drought and Jamaican Agriculture: Local Knowledge and Climate Records. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 1-38. Hijmans, R. J, S. E Cameron, J. L Parra, P. G Jones, and Andy Jarvis. 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 25, no. 15: 1965-1978. Hinkel, Jochen. 2011. “Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: Towards a clarification of the science-policy interface. Global Environmental Change 21, no. 1 (February): 198-208. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.08.002. IIED. (2011). RV Ag & CC Jamaica IIED-Oxfam Lit & Data Review Initial Draft Aug 2010+PL. McBain, H. (2007). Caribbean Tourism and Agriculture: Linking to Enhance Development and Competitiveness. 2(March), 44. Studies and Perspectives, McCarthy, J. (2001). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK; New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. Meteorological Service of Jamaica. (2011). Climate. Retrieved April 5, 2011, from http://www.metservice.gov.jm/temperature.asp. Mimura, N., Nurse, L., McLean, R., Agard, J., Briguuglio, L., & Sem, P. G. (2007). Small Islands. Change (pp. 687716). Nelson, Gerald C, Rosegrant, M. W., Koo, J., Robertson, Richard, Sulser, T., Zhu, T., et al. (2009). Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation. Food Policy (pp. 1-30). Ostertag, C., & Rhiney, K. (2010). Stage one of JAMAI Feasability Study: Initial Proposed Business Model for JAMAI. Pennicook, P. (2006). The All-Inclusive Concept: Improving Benefits to the Jamaican Economy. In K. Hall & R. Holding (Eds.), Tourism: The Driver of Change in the Jamaican Economy (pp. 31-38). Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers. Rhiney, K. (2009). (Re) defining the Link?: Globalization, Tourism and the Jamaican Food Network. In D. McGregor, D. Barker, & D. Dodman (Eds.), Global Change and Caribbean Vulnerability: Environment, Economy and Society at Risk? (Vol. 11, pp. 237258). Kingston: UWI Press. Scoones, Ian. 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working Paper 72. Simpson, M. C., Scott, D., New, M., Sim, R., Smith, D., Harrison, M., et al. (2009). An Overview of Modelling Climate Change Impacts in the Caribbean Region with Contribution from the Pacific Region. Barbados. Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kymar, P., et al. (2007). Agriculure. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 497-540). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 47 STATIN. (2011). Labour Market & Earnings. Retrieved April 8, 2011, from http://statinja.gov.jm/LabourForceByIndustryGrou p.aspx#. WTTC. (2011). Travel and Tourism Economic Impact 2011: Jamaica (pp. 1-20). London. Retrieved from http://www.wttc.org/bin/pdf/original_pdf_file/ja maica.pdf. 48