While disasters may not be a daily occurrence, preventing hazards from triggering them must become one if we are to achieve the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework. As outlined in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, this can be done through the following actions : i) generating better and actionable risk information and analysis to inform decision making and actions; ii) strengthening disaster and climate risk governance; iii) increasing investments in risk reduction for resilience; and iv) enhancing preparedness and anticipatory action capacities.
The conceptual framework reported in FIGURE 2 of the Introduction indicates how Part 4 of the report complements the previous three. While the discussion in Parts 2 and 3 conveyed the available evidence on the impact of disasters on agriculture, the discussion here focuses on the viability of investments in enhanced disaster risk reduction in agriculture; and in anticipatory action to increase the resilience of livelihoods to disasters. The actions to reduce the potential impacts of disasters and underlying risks are thus analysed in terms of their potential to reduce such impact – as a benefit – vis-à-vis the cost of their implementation.
This part of the report offers several examples of analysis of the benefits associated with disaster risk reduction good practices and anticipatory action, that can serve as blueprints for the comparative assessment of different scalable investments in each context. These examples can be used as a reference to undertake similar and possibly more specific assessments in support of risk-informed decision making.
As seen in Parts 2 and 3, to date, there is a lack of systematic and comprehensive information on the impact of disasters, as well as standardized approaches to the definition and estimation of implementation costs of disaster risk reduction good practices and anticipatory actions. As such, the analysis of the benefits associated with disaster risk reduction good practices and anticipatory action is performed in the absence of systematic data and homogeneous information. The impact of an intervention depends crucially upon the economic, social and natural environment in which it needs to take place, along with the institutional and policy frameworks, which are context-dependent. For this reason, creating global assessments or large-scale solutions remains a challenge, as risk-reducing and mitigating investments will always require context-specific analyses and assessments.
The first section of Part 4 focuses on proactive disaster risk reduction measures that can be implemented in agriculture. The quantifications that are presented indicate the extent of the benefits that can be derived from investments in risk-informed agricultural practices when hazards strike. As discussed in the section, risk-informed agriculture interventions bear broad and mutually reinforcing socioeconomic and environmental co-benefits. The approach adopted in this section is cost–benefit analysis, which is used to demonstrate the potential of disaster risk-informed agricultural good practices vis-à-vis previously used practices.
The second section of Part 4 demonstrates the benefits that can be derived from anticipatory action that are implemented when a shock or stressor is forecast, and before it materializes. Anticipatory action contributes to enhancing the resilience of vulnerable communities, hence protecting livelihoods while reducing the need for more costly ex-post recovery. In this way, anticipatory action complements and protects the gains achieved through risk-informed practices – such as those highlighted in section 4.2 – protecting food security and nutrition, and easing pressure on strained humanitarian resources.219 The analysis framework, also in this case, is the benefit–cost ratio of taking action.
The third section of Part 4 presents one more case of risk-informed action, combined with preventative control and anticipatory action. The specific case analysed is that of the desert locust outbreak, which was implemented during the upsurge in the greater Horn of Africa during 2020–2021. The approach employed in the analysis is again a cost–benefit one, which highlights the averted losses from a combined surveillance and anticipatory action.
The approach of comparing benefits and costs is implemented in this context by highlighting and considering its main assumptions. This is the case of discount rates and the time frame in which the assessments are cast. To properly inform policy decisions, cost–benefit assessments require evidence of the sensitivity of the results to such parameters.
The discussion in this part of the report is also supplemented by several insights and suggestions on how the adoption of disaster risk reduction good practices can be promoted at the farm level through extension, and how disaster risk reduction measures and anticipatory action can be institutionalized and scaled up in policymaking.
4.1 Benefits from farm-level disaster risk reduction good practices
Farmers, particularly smallholders farming under rain-fed conditions, are the most vulnerable stakeholders in the agrifood systems and thus tend to bear the brunt of disaster impacts. Farmers, policy makers, and development and humanitarian actors can pursue multiple pathways to reduce the vulnerability of smallholders. Among those are farm-level DRR good practices and technologies. These technical solutions are scalable and tested under both hazard and non-hazard scenarios, and thus proven to help avoid or reduce agricultural production losses caused by natural or biological hazards.
Several studies provide evidence of the benefits of preventative action in the agriculture sector, which avoids losses caused by disasters.220,221,222 Some of those highlight benefit–cost ratios of DRR good practices in agriculture, focusing mostly on the crops and livestock subsectors such as improved crop varieties (drought/saline/flood tolerant), crop diversification, conservation agriculture, adjusting cropping calendars and fodder conservation, improved animal shelter, vaccination and preventive disease control measures, and, in a more limited number, on forestry and fisheries.223,224,225 While the specific findings differ, due to assumptions of the cost–benefit calculation and set ups, some similartities across studies were observed.
First, when farm-level DRR good practices are combined, benefit–cost ratios are higher than when the same practices are implemented in isolation. This means that good practices tend to mutually reinforce each other, and that potential benefits from the simultaneous implementation of multiple practices are higher than those of single practices. Second, grey infrastructure-related interventions in agriculture have lower ratios compared to nature-based solutions, such as improved crop varieties and people centred approaches. This is largely the consequence of the lower input costs of these actions compared to those of infrastructure.
Further evidence is available from a set of multiyear trials on farm-level DRR good practices that were undertaken by FAO during the 2016–2021 period on a total of 1 112 farms in ten countries.am The study analysed locally collected field-level data on farm-level disaster and climate risk reduction practices and technologies. The aim was to measure and quantify the avoided damage and losses resulting from the implementation of these practices and technologies at individual farms and through broader scaling up. Tested under both hazard and non-hazard scenarios, these good practices were proven to reduce disaster risk and should be integrated in both development and longer-term humanitarian action, such as in rehabilitation and recovery periods towards building back better.
In Uganda, to reduce the impact of increasing dry spells, the cultivation of high-yield and drought-tolerant banana varieties was combined with soil and water conservation practices such as mulching, trenches and the use of organic compost. These practices were implemented in the cattle corridor districts. Bananas are becoming a major cash crop in the country, with an estimated 24 percent of agricultural households cultivating it. The crop grows best under conditions in which relative humidity is greater than 60 percent and with an average annual rainfall of 1 500 mm to 2 500 mm. However, there has been an increase in the frequency and intensity of dry spells as well as delays in the rainy seasons due to climate change. This is affecting the livelihoods of smallholder farmers who primarily cultivate this crop and own less than 0.5 ha of land.226,227
The study showed that in farms affected by dry spells, the good practice package brought cumulative net benefits per acre (about .4 ha) over 11 years about ten times higher than those of the existing local practices. The benefit–cost ratio of good practices was 2.15, as compared to 1.16 for the existing local practices (FIGURE 37). The low-cost, high-returns feature of this good practice package makes it highly suitable for this agroecological zone of Uganda.
FIGURE 37 CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE PER ACRE OVER 11 YEARS OF BANANA CULTIVATION WITH MULCHING, CONTOUR TRENCHES, ORGANIC COMPOSTING AND IMPROVED VARIETIES IN UGANDA
Source: FAO. 2019. Disaster risk reduction at farm level: Multiple benefits, no regrets. Rome. www.fao.org/3/ca4429en/CA4429EN.pdf
Given the high returns of the good practice packagean compared to the previously used banana cultivation practices, its low costs and high replicability, a simulation scaling up analysis was undertaken. This showed that the difference in average annual net benefits is overwhelming: the benefits of the good practice would be between 95 percent and 695 percent higher as compared to the previously applied practice, depending on the hazard frequency scenario. It is estimated that on average, losses that were avoided and added benefits of between USD 212 million and USD 236 million could annually be obtained by banana farmers in the central region through systematic scaling up (including farmer-to-farmer and vertical government scaling up) under the low, medium and high scenarios respectively (FIGURE 38).
FIGURE 38 SIMULATION RESULTS – AVERAGE ANNUAL NET PRESENT VALUES FROM BANANA PRODUCTION UNDER DIFFERENT HAZARD FREQUENCY SCENARIOS: DISASTER RISK REDUCTION GOOD PRACTICE SCALING UP SCENARIO VERSUS PREVIOUS PRACTICE SCENARIO, CENTRAL REGION, UGANDA
Source: FAO. 2019. Disaster risk reduction at farm level: Multiple benefits, no regrets. Rome. www.fao.org/3/ca4429en/CA4429EN.pdf
BOX 12 Methodology for cost–benefit analysis (CBA) of farm-level DRR good practices
This methodology is developed to provide an effective means for conducting robust assessments of the costs and benefits of agriculture-specific DRR interventions at the farm level, with a particular focus on the needs and challenges specific to smallholder producers.
This study calculates the benefit–cost ratio ex-post, with data being collected over several seasons and the benefit–cost ratio (BCR) is computed for an 11-year appraisal period. Therefore, observed data are utilized to project costs and benefits over the appraisal period, as opposed to assumed inputs used in ex-ante assessments. This increases the validity of the findings. The 11-year appraisal period allows an understanding of whether longer term benefits compensate for the capital investment made at the beginning of the intervention. A relatively short period of time was chosen to reduce uncertainty associated with longer term analyses, because no major capital outlays were involved in the farm-level good practices analysed by the study.
To provide a useful counterfactual, a distinction is made between hazard and non-hazard conditions, as well as between intervention and non-intervention cases within each hazard- and non-hazard scenario. In addition, this study combines quantitative assessments with qualitative interviews and scaling up simulations to assess costs and benefits of farm-level DRR good practices from a variety of angles. This contributes to provide a holistic analysis of applied good practices, generating important evidence for wider uptake by farmers, policy formulation and further guidance for DRR practices (ibid).
For further details, please refer to Technical annex 4.
The low cost, high return aspect of this good practice package suggests that farmer-to-farmer replication would be a viable scaling up option. Eighty-five percent of farmers interviewed indicated that applying the good practices resulted in higher banana yields, and around 70 percent of farmers found that their income increased. On a 1 to 5 scale, farmers assigned a 4.4 score to the performance of this good practices in the face of dry spells. Most farmers said that they would replicate the good practices in the coming season since it resulted in higher yields and had a positive impact on income and food security. At the same time, most farmers recommended conducting additional training on banana plantation management as a crucial support element.
In the highlands of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, to reduce mortality of the llama camelids from frost, snow, heavy rains and hailstorms, good practices were experimented, entailing the building of semi-roofed livestock shelters (corralónes) and the deployment of veterinary pharmacies. These combined practices were prioritized based on agroecological suitability due to the location and context specificities, and because farmers were willing to replicate them.
The benefit–cost ratio of these practices resulted in 17 percent higher cumulative net benefits than that of the previous local practices over 11 years (FIGURE 39). The analysis also showed that if the good practices were systematically scaled up, camelid mortality could become 12 times lower than under the previous practices. They would result in less camelid deaths and at the same time avoid related damage and losses due to intense and prolonged extreme weather.228
FIGURE 39 CUMULATIVE NET BENEFITS AND BENEFIT COST RATIO OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION GOOD PRACTICES FOR LLAMA CAMELIDS IN THE PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA
Source: FAO. 2019. Disaster risk reduction at farm level: Multiple benefits, no regrets. Rome. www.fao.org/3/ca4429en/CA4429EN.pdf
In Pakistan, DRR practices were tested on wheat, cotton, rice, sugar cane, and vegetable and oilseed crops, including okra and sunflower during the two main cropping seasons, namely the dry (kharif) season and the wet (rabi) season in districts of the Punjab and Sindh provinces, which are highly vulnerable to climate change and among the most vulnerable districts within the Indus Basin. Cost–benefit analyses were conducted over six seasons, where seven types of farm-level DRR good practicesao were tested both under hazardap and non-hazard conditions. Practices that performed best under both hazard and non-hazard conditions included vegetable cultivation with multicropping, ridge sowing, farmyard manure and integrated pest management.
Results indicate that every USD 1 invested in this good practice package will generate USD 8.18 and USD 6.78 in benefits under non-hazard and hazard conditions, respectively. Other practices that showed a higher benefit–cost ratio included the good practices of cotton cultivation with laser levelling, ridge sowing, integrated pest management, and compost application and wheat cultivation with levelling and integrated pest management. In this case, every USD 1 invested in cotton and wheat cultivation practices will generate USD 4.69 and USD 3.89 for cotton and USD 3.22 and USD 2.67 for wheat under non-hazard and hazard conditions, respectively.
The net present values of the tested good practices showed positive results with increases ranging from 3 percent to 99 percent. Rice cultivation and the alternate wet and dry method in Pakistan showed the highest increase in net present value under both non-hazard (86 percent) and hazard (85 percent) conditions, followed by wheat cultivation with levelling and integrated pest management with 54 percent and 53 percent, under both non-hazard and hazard conditions, respectively. These positive results provide insight into the scale of absolute benefits that farmers can achieve when investing in these tested good practices. For instance, the alternate wet and dry method requires less water, resulting in water savings as well as other benefits, such as lower methane emissions and higher soil fertility.
Moreover, the results from implementing the ridge sowing practice for cotton with integrated pest management showed that the highest increase of 99 percent in the net present value for the DRR good practices was observed as compared to the previously used practices under hazard conditions, in contrast to a net present value increase of 3 percent under non-hazard conditions (FIGURE 40). High temperatures were experienced during the hottest month of June in Pakistan when the cotton was at its flowering stage, which can lead to severe flower shedding, stunted plant growth, reduced number of cotton balls and weight, resulting in significant yield losses. The farmers interviewed after the good practices were tested also indicated that using yellow card double-sided insect traps helped protect from pests at a minimum cost. In addition to increasing production and income, this good practice also reduced the labour and time required for crop irrigation, resulting in cost savings due to increased efficiency and water conservation.
FIGURE 40 BENEFIT–COST RATIOS AND NET PRESENT VALUES OF THE DISASTER RISK REDUCTION GOOD PRACTICE OF RIDGE SOWING OF COTTON COMBINED WITH INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT IN THE MUZAFFARGARH DISTRICT OF PAKISTAN DURING KHARIF IN 2021
Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on FAO data.
In terms of farmers’ feedback and potential uptake, three good practices that obtained a 5 out of 5 score, included rice cultivation using the alternate wet and dry method, wheat cultivation with levelling and integrated pest management, and vegetable cultivation with ridge sowing, farmyard manure, multicropping and integrated pest management. Farmers indicated that these good practices produced higher benefits, such as higher production and more income while using less labour, they grew better and more diverse foods, increased resistance to climate constraints such as dry spells/drought, heavy rainfall and floods, and were better able to control pests by using integrated pest management techniques. They also shared their willingness to replicate these good practices in the future.
In the Philippines, green super rice (GSR) cultivation in the Bicol region was tested over three successive seasons (the 2015 dry and wet seasons, and the 2016 dry season). Results showed clear economic benefits, along with an increased agricultural productivity when adopting the multistress tolerant crop variety compared to the local varieties under both hazard and non-hazard conditions. The benefit–cost ratio of adopting GSR varieties was higher than that of cultivating local varieties in both the wet and dry seasons. FIGURE 41 demonstrates the high profitability of adopting GSR during non-hazard conditions in the wet season. GSR-adopting farms saw nearly a 60 percent increase in net benefits compared to farms that did not adopt it. The benefit–cost ratio for cultivating GSR was 6.1, while it was 4.6 for local rice varieties. The adaptive rice line also had a remarkably higher benefit–cost ratio of 3.5 compared to 2.8 for local rice varieties in hazard conditions in the dry season, when GSR-adopting farms had over 50 percent higher net benefits compared to other farms.228
FIGURE 41 BENEFIT–COST RATIOS AND NET PRESENT VALUES OF THE GREEN SUPER RICE AND LOCAL RICE VARIETY UNDER NON-HAZARD AND HAZARD CONDITIONS IN THE BICOL REGION OF THE PHILIPPINES
Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on FAO data.
FIGURE 42 DIFFERENCE IN RETURNS FROM RICE PRODUCTION, GSR SCALING UP VERSUS PREVIOUS PRACTICE SCENARIO
A simulation scaling up analysis was conducted, given the high return of cumulative net benefits. It showed that scaling up GSR cultivation in the Bicol region would bring an increase in annual average net benefits in both the dry and wet season compared to continuing with the status quo. By adopting GSR, the annual average net benefits gained from rice production in the Bicol region, in a scenario where there is a high frequency of hazards, would be up to 71 percent higher during the dry season and 42 percent higher during the wet season (FIGURE 42).
Compared to the usual crops, GSR lines perform remarkably better in hazard conditions and would prevent a sizeable share of losses when dry spells affect farms. If scaled up, the potential losses that could be avoided in the Bicol region would be between USD 33 million and USD 129 million per year.
Following a suggestion for a vertical scaling up of GSR cultivation in the region, the Government of the Philippines has integrated the promotion of this type of cultivation in targeted areas of the country as part of its flagship rice programme. It is important to note that a key enabling factor of the transition to the vertical or government-led scaling up of this good practice was the extensive state presence in the Bicol region offering agricultural services.
Overall, the analysis of the 1 112 farms shows that on average, farm-level DRR good practices make good economic sense and are proven effective in providing added benefits even in the absence of hazards. These practices perform on average 2.2 times better than the usual practices under hazard conditions (low intensity, high frequency hazards). Not only do almost all good practices show positive net present values, but they also exhibit large net present value percentage increases versus previously used practices in most cases. In monetary terms (USD), the benefit–cost ratio was 3.6 under hazard conditions and increased to 4.3 under non-hazard conditions (FIGURE 41).
To realize the full potential of risk reduction measures such as those analysed here, they must be broadly scaled up and replicated. As a result, addressing challenges and barriers encountered by farmers in adopting these measures requires supportive policies.
In this vein, it must also be made clear that good practices and technologies can only be scaled up if they constitute viable business opportunities for farmers, and particularly for smallholders and the most vulnerable communities engaged in agriculture. Often these farmers are forced to operate in challenging conditions, with no markets and limited availability of key inputs in production. Innovations and good practices must demonstrate economic and social viability to ensure sustainable scalability beyond specific incentives or projects.
For the scaling up of disaster risk reduction measures, involved government institutions must be informed and be prepared to buy-in the associated social, economic, and environmental benefits, including so that they can be sustained beyond donor support. Training and awareness-raising exercises can be useful tools to discuss and demonstrate the viability of the proposed measures in specific contexts. Extension support packages for farmers can be useful vehicles to roll out disaster risk reduction practices and technologies.
The integration of DRR measures and social protection programmes can also offer important opportunities. Social protection can support comprehensive, inclusive and cost-effective disaster risk management practices by: (i) channelling support either in anticipation of or in response to a shock or disaster; (ii) enabling post-disaster rehabilitation and reconstruction, for instance through public work programmes; and (iii) supporting the government disaster management preparedness efforts, especially in ensuring that systems are prepared and ready to act in case of shocks.
In Ethiopia, for instance, social protection programmes include a public work scheme component that works to reduce the vulnerability and exposure of participants, communities and local livelihoods by addressing environmental degradation among other things. This integration could be modelled in other contexts.
More broadly, it is important for DRR practices to be developed and mainstreamed within the policy and institutional environment. Understanding the political economy underpinning the functioning of DRR and climate change adaptation through governance analysis, including support to their integration when relevant – with a view to reducing agricultural production loss attributed to disasters and climate change – can reveal opportunities for integrated action where bottlenecks are present.
