Climate-smart agriculture: perspectives and framings

Abstract

This paper offers a systematic analysis of the concepts and contexts that frame the climate-smart agriculture (CSA) discourse in the academic and policy literature. Documents (n = 113) related to CSA and published in peer-reviewed journals, books, working papers, and scientific reports from 2004 to 2016 were reviewed. Three key trends emerged from the analysis: studies are biased towards global policy agendas; research focuses on scientific and technical issues; and the integration of mitigation, adaptation, and food security (the three pillars of CSA) is becoming a popular scholarly solution. Findings suggest that CSA is a fairly new concept used to describe a range of adaptation and mitigation practices without a specific set of criteria. Although CSA is often framed around the three pillars, the underlying issues constructing the discourse differ at global, developing, and developed country scales. Although there is increasing research on developing countries, particularly in relation to how CSA can transform smallholder agriculture, there is a paucity of research documenting the experiences from developed countries. The findings suggest that research on CSA needs to move beyond solely focussing on scientific approaches and only in certain geographical contexts. If CSA is to be applicable for farmers across the globe, then cross-disciplinary research that is underpinned by broad socio-economic and political contexts is essential to understand how differences in narratives might affect implementation on-theground in both developing and developed countries. Policy relevanceAlthough policy makers are increasingly supportive of the climate-smart agriculture (CSA) approach, the rhetoric has largely been developed on the basis of scientific and technical arguments. The political implications of varying perspectives have resulted in a growing divide between how developing and developed countries frame solutions to the impacts of climate change on agriculture under the 2015 Paris Agreement. Different framings are part of the explanation for why the scope of CSA is being rethought, with the scientific community redirecting attention to seeking a separate work programme under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The current policy framing of CSA will give no new policy direction unless it grounds itself in the smallholder farmer and civil society contexts. ARTICLE HISTORY

‘Triple wins’ or ‘triple faults’? Analysing the equity implications of policy discourses on climate-smart agriculture (CSA)

“…The link between CSA and the carbon market has been a particularly contentious point. A recent study argues that there is little evidence to show whether and how smallholder farmers may benefit from carbon markets (Chandra et al 2017). Bernier et al (2013) show how the carbon benefits in an agroforestry project in Kenya were negligible compared to other benefits from tree planting.…”

Governing Food and Agriculture in a Warming World

“…CSA is not interpreted homogeneously across scales and different contexts. As it moves further from the scientific and technical lens of the FAO (Chandra et al 2017), there is a much broader interpretation of the meanings of CSA. Beyond the relabeling of a variety of resilience and adaptation initiatives as "climate-smart," the government's Kenya Climate Smart Agriculture Strategy reframes the goals of CSA in the Kenyan context as (1) adaptation and building resilience; (2) mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions; (3) enabling policy, legal, and institutional frameworks; and (4) addressing crosscutting issues that adversely impact CSA (Government of Kenya 2017, 23)-goals that break away from the core triple win of the original CSA definition.…”

Strategizing beyond boundaries : policy entrepreneurship for climate-smart agriculture

“…The development of a CSA Strategy is thus a logical step given the historical development of policy frames. Often CSA is presented as a transformative approach to address climate change and food insecurity (Lipper et al 2014, Chandra, McNamara, andDargusch 2018). The policy frame analysis in this paper suggests that in Kenya, CSA is a continuation of an existing trend characterized by an increasing acknowledgement of the complexity of the issues and the complex and multi-dimensional linkages rather than a radical transformation.…”

“…It is worth studying these issues, because, given the nature of boundaries as demarcating differences among entities, cross-boundary policy entrepreneurship will most likely involve particular strategies including maintaining relations across policymaking cultures and coordinating activities across scales (Williams 2002, van Meerkerk and Edelenbos 2018. Insights into these processes will also contribute to the CSA policy literature, in which technical and depoliticised approaches to the crossing of boundaries dominate (Lipper et al 2014, Chandra, McNamara, andDargusch 2018).…”

“…Because CSA is a rather new approach, insights into the contribution of the concept and the process of incorporation into policy are still limited. Cases of successful CSA policy uptake are studied with close scrutiny to see what lessons they provide (Chandra, McNamara, and Dargusch 2018). Because antecedent conditions are expected to shape present and future reality, understanding how CSA fits in a longitudinal analysis of positions by ministries of agriculture and environment will enhance our understanding of CSA and what it has to offer.…”