Concept Of Climate Change Adaptation

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

This section starts by suggesting some definitions of some of the key concepts regarding climate adaptation. The following theoretical discussion of adaptation to climate change is on the concept of climate adaptation and the types of climate adaptation. This involves a clear description of the process of climate adaptation and helps to answer several questions involving adaptation.

2.1.2 Concept of climate change adaptation

Human adaptation to climate change is neither a simple nor a well-defined and delimited package of activities. It involves a plethora of activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defines climate change adaptation as those adjustments in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderate harm, or exploit beneficial opportunities (IPCC, 2001). The UNDP (2005) defines adaptation as a process by which strategies to moderate, cope with and take advantage of the consequences of climatic events are enhanced, developed and implemented. As such, adaptation to climate change includes all adjustments in behaviour or economic structure that reduces the vulnerability of society to changes in the climate system (Smitet al., 1996). Adaptation therefore refers to all those responses to climate change that may be used to reduce vulnerability. Adaptation can also be understood well in context as those actions which are crafted to benefit from new opportunities that may result as a consequence of climate change.

Adaptation measures therefore include all those various practices and innovations that are intended to circumvent unfavourable climate change impacts by preventing or minimizing them, by expediting an efficient recovery from their effects, or by taking advantage of positive impacts. It is therefore important to come up with, and implement, effective adaptation measures so that climate-related risks and opportunities might support development objectives within local and policy decision making processes (Adgeret al, 2006; IPCC, 2007).

The insight into adaptation to climate change can be improved by carrying out a systematic inquiry of adaptation to the present climate as well as the future climate. Current adaptation to the prevailing climate is different from future adaptations to climate change due to climate dynamics over the years, but provided the differences are taken into account and well-catered for, a lot of knowledge can be gained about adaptation options and the process of their adoption by merely studying current adaptations to the climate. Studies of adaptation to the current climate also clearly show that human activities still have more to do in adapting as they are not as well adapted to climate as they might be.

Adaptation occurs in both natural and socio-economic systems. In natural systems, all plant and animal species are adapted, and are still adapting to the current climate, and may be expected to respond adaptively to future climate change. The more mobile species may be able to migrate fast enough, whereas the less mobile may be in danger of severe impact which may lead to their extinction. As such, the natural, unmanaged ecosystems’ adaptations do not have to be left entirely to chance. It is imperative to put in place policy instruments and measures which assist species in adapting.

In socio-economic (human) systems, adaptation is generally considered to be easier to implement when the intervention measures have a shorter product cycle. For instance, an improved maize crop can be planted and harvested yearly while a forest plantation may require several years to plant new species and harvest them due to their lengthy period to maturity. Large-scale and long-term indivisible investments, such as dams and irrigation projects, can be costly to construct to meet new climate conditions so, adaptation measures need to be considered in such investment decisions at an earlier stage. Long-term adaptation is therefore an on-going process that involves both natural and human systems in their entirety.

Any adaptation can take place before, during, or after any external stimulus or threat. It is therefore quite possible to take adaptive measures before, in anticipation of climate change. Hence these adaptation measures are called anticipatory or preventive adaptation (Smith, 1997). Such adaptation measures which are taken in anticipation of climate change can and usually should be harmonized with responses to current extreme events to have meaningful impact. Adaptation to the current extreme climatic events thus may or may not consider future climate change. Adaptation during climate change is a gradual, step-wise, and short-term measure. Adaptations which take place after the event may include the provision of assistance to the victims and measures to rehabilitate and reconstruct damaged property and communities are part of the adaptation process. Such actions may also serve as anticipatory measures for preparation for the next extreme climate event. Adaptation after climate change impacts can also thus be described as reactive or corrective.

2.1.3 Types of climate adaptation measures

An important distinction should be made between adaptation that may be expected to occur by itself, often called autonomous or spontaneous adaptation, and adaptation which requires conscious intervention or preparation, which is referred to as planned adaptation, or adaptation strategy or policy. This important distinction is given below:

Planned climate adaptations

Planned adaptation refers to actions undertaken by the government, as efficient providers of public goods, to help farmers adapt to changes in climate. Government intervention is essential because reliance on the adjustments made by individual, private agents to protect resources that have essentially the characteristics of a public good e.g. managing water resources for irrigation, maintaining soil quality, forecasting climate and research on adaptation initiatives, will typically lead to the classic problem of under-provision by the market (Leary, 1999). Due to the high information and equity requirements, or other externalities associated with adaptation, some form of government-sponsored adaptive measures therefore become necessary, which any individual farmer may not be able to cope with. Planned adaptation is determined by such factors as the institutional environment, community structure, and the existing public policies. Moreover, policy designs will need to accommodate a series of subtle changes over time as there is unlikely to be one solution that will be adequate for all time. For example, Mendelsohn (1999) stresses the need for public (or joint) adaptation to be dynamic, particularly in capital-intensive sectors or where there are long-term assets.

Autonomous climate adaptations

Autonomous adaptation refers to all those actions that farmers and individuals undertake ontheir own without government intervention. Such decisions as planting a different crop or variety, or changing the time of planting in any particular season, are therefore examples of autonomous adaptation to climate change since they do not require any government intervention. These private adaptations are thus undertaken only for the exclusive benefit of the individual decision maker, in this case the individual farmer. The adoption of these various measures will therefore be driven purely by self-interest and underlying welfare-maximizing objectives (including profit maximization and output maximization). Mendelsohn (1999), for example, argues that adoption is likely to be a function of the farmer’s own discount rate for undertaking adaptations. If the discount rate is higher then, it is less likely that ex-ante adaptations will be undertaken. In such instances, it is probable that only short-term, ad hoc, ex-post adaptations are to be adopted. Consequently, there is little evidence to suggest that only private adaptations will be adequate to counter climate impacts on agriculture. However, for poor economies, autonomous adaptations involving private arrangements by various individual farmers may be the only starting point for any meaningful adaptation strategy to be developed. While this self-interest will encourage the adoption of efficient private adaptations, public adaptation will be efficient only with government intervention. Autonomous adaptation is greatly influenced by the level of technology at the farmer’s disposal. Although considerable analysis can go into government or sector-level decisions, the main concern of this study is the identification and assessment of adaptation options at the farmer-level.

Table 2.1 General Characteristics of Climate Change Adaptation

Planned adaptation

Autonomous adaptation

• Exogenous

• Government arrangements

• Country/International level

• Group action

• High uncertainty

• Endogenous

• Private arrangements

• Local

• Individual action

• Low uncertainty

Source: Sanderson, 2002

2.2 Adaptation measures for African (smallholder farmer) agriculture

2.2.1 Characteristics of smallholder African agriculture

Smallholder farming is the major livelihood activity in most developing countries. It is a very important sub-sector in African agriculture and a major contributor to household and national food security. About two-thirds of sub-Saharan Africa’s population lives in rural areas, the majority of whom depend on smallholder farming (FAO, 2012). Much emphasis on this group is as a result of their prevalence, their role in agricultural and economic development as well as the prevalence of poverty in rural areas. They are called smallholder farmers especially because most of them have limited resource endowments as compared to other farmers in the agricultural sector.

Many smallholder farmers are usually involved in several other off-farm livelihood activities yet they have remained vulnerable to economic and climatic shocks over the years. This definition, however, varies from one country to the other and also from one agro-ecological zone to the other. As such, characteristics of these smallholder farmers also differ by country and farming agro-ecological zone. For instance, smallholder farm sizes are variable as much as their allocation of resources to food, cash crops, livestock and off-farm activities, their use of external inputs and hired labour, the proportion of food crops which are sold, and in their household expenditure pattern (FAO, 2012). The actual farming system as well as household and livelihood strategies are largely influenced by the resource endowments and institutional factors such as the access to markets, organization of markets and information, finances, public institutions and services among others. In smallholder farming, the gender of the decision-makers, for both production and consumption decisions, within the household is a critical component that determines the household strategies. In many developing countries, however, women provide much of the labour in smallholder production. For example, in Ethiopia, women are reported to provide more than 80 per cent of the labour in coffee production (Economic Report on Africa, 2009).

From this discussion on smallholder farmers, it is only reasonable to analyze the farm household as a unit within the context of the local economy, community and agro-climatic environment. More so, the variability of the nature of smallholder farmers will thus determine how each group is affected by various policies.Smallholder farmers have, however, shown much capacity to respond to incentives which improve their productivity and thereby significantly contribute to poverty reduction, food security and economic growth of the country. This was evidenced from smallholder farmers in China, Uganda and Zimbabwe who managed to improve productivities in various enterprises (Economic Report on Africa, 2009). However, it is important to realize that the extent to which this potential achieved hinges upon the nature of the economic incentive as well as the institutional environment, which are both influenced by national economic reforms and globalization.

2.2.2 Climate change adaptation under uncertainty

From the farmer’s point-of-view, as the decision-maker on farming activities, uncertainty can be understood as the vacuum between the existing knowledge and the knowledge policymakers would require so as to come up with best policy option (Walker et al., 2010). Klauer and Brown (2004) define uncertainty as the lack of confidence about the specific outcomes of an event. Klauer and Brown cite reasons for this lack of confidence as being due to partial, obscured, incorrect, unreliable, inconclusive or potentially false judgment of the information. This, however, may be an inherently subjective perspective of uncertainty. In spite of this, decision-makers aiming to design adaptation measures still face uncertainty regarding both the future climate and the optimal adaptation approach as the climate is always changing.

The presence of huge uncertainties leads to poor decisions on climate change adaptation by decision-makers. The presence of uncertainties as regards climate change variability may thus greatly influence the farmers’ perceptions as to whether the climate is actually changing or that maybe it is just an unusual event which will subdue with time. It is as such important to note that the level of certainty associated with climate change and its impact is usually important in determining the perceived worthiness of climate information in formulating adaptation strategies. A few studies have so far focused on how to integrate the approaches to dealing with uncertainties with climate change adaptation, i.e. how adaptation can be a sure success under uncertainty. Even when climate prediction is constrained by fundamental and partly irreducible uncertainties and value judgments, Dessaiet al. (2009b) believes that society can still make effective decisions by targeting those strategies that yield satisfactory, rather than optimal, outcomes.

Goodesset al. (2007) asserts that, notable adaptation under uncertainty calls for a concerted effort in edifying communication between developers and end-users of climate change information, cognizance of farmers’ information needs, clear identification of underlying assumptions and uncertainties addressed in the information, and appropriate user guidance. Uncertainty in climate change therefore renders adaptation neither dependent on choosing a single particular approach nor a single level of uncertainty. Instead, a multi-faceted approach is required which can bring a package of measures and strategies to be adapted so as to be able to cope with various levels of uncertainty, varied perceptions on the decision-situation and multiple decision-criteria.

2.2.3 Farm-level adaptation options to address climate change risks

Adaptation options at the farm-level refers to all those actions that farmers may undertake, either on their own or with government intervention, to avoid, prevent or minimize the damage from the climate risk on their crops and animals as well as their livelihoods in general. As Dolan (2001) notes, the potential strategies available at the farm-level include the planned adaptation strategies introduced at the national or local levels as well as those autonomous adaptation strategies adopted by farmers over their entire farming life, as part of their spontaneous, reactive adjustments in farming practices. Undoubtedly, multifarious factors will affect the degree and means of adaptation. Given the varied sets of interests, risks and resources for each individual decision-maker in agriculture, it becomes clear that there cannot be a single adaptive response. It therefore becomes imperative that there ought to exist various options for the different sets of farmers in and within each agro-ecological zone which caters for the variations in levels of risk faced by each farmer.

At the individual level, adaptability to climate change will also be contingent on the ability of farmers or other primary decision makers to reduce impacts, or capitalize on opportunities, associated with a changed climatic environment. This in turn is likely to be dictated by numerous key factors, including the type of local farming system, tenure system, access to financial resources, level of skills, extent of support (that is, extension), and market conditions. The success of many of the individual adaptation options will also depend on household risks being independent (Skeeset al., 2002). When there are covariate risks (as in the case of extreme climatic events), options to reduce vulnerability are limited to insurance.At the macro level however, effective adaptation to climate change in agriculture demands a combination of adjustments in the ecological, social, and economic systems. In particular, the institutional environment, as well as the prevalent economic, social, and political forces will play a significant role (Chiottiet al., 1997). Kelly and Adger (1999) maintain that numerous local factors, including economic and social considerations, human capital limitations, and institutional capacity, will have a significant role in facilitating or constraining the development and implementation of adaptation measures. Variations in these key local factors across countries mean that it is unlikely that the suite of response strategies will be the same or applied uniformly.

Table 2.2 Short-term and long-term agricultural climate adaptations

Short-term adaptations

Long-term adaptations

Farm responses

Crop and livestock diversification and changes in timing of farm operations

Improved nutrient and pest control management

Temporary migration of labour

Insurance

Changing crop type and location

Development and adoption of new technology

Improving water management

Permanent migration of labour

Source: World Bank Paper, 2003

2.2.4 Climate adaptation challenges faced by African agriculture

Adaptations to the changing climate, whether autonomous or planned, do not take place smoothly and decision-makers and policymakers are always confronted with constraints of one kind or the other. Several constraints can make even the farm level adaptations difficult. Considering the short-term responses which may be thought to be inexpensive, Skeeset al. (1999) note that each response has a cost associated with it i.e. farmers have to incur a cost in when they decide to undertake any one of these responses. For instance, diversification requires farmers to forego incomes of the current enterprises by indulging in new enterprises which they may not be sure how they will perform. After all, switching of enterprises in itself brings a cost, which may even be more than what the farmers incurred from their traditional enterprises. Tradition can also prove to be a major constraint in many rural communities where certain enterprises may be viewed to be in line with the traditions of a particular community thus making it difficult for farmers to venture into "new, unknown and alien" enterprises to that community. Some traditional leaders may even forbid their people to grow certain crops, or even change their farming systems, so as to uphold their tradition. For example, if a local region has a long and rich tradition of planting a particular crop or crop variety, say maize, the transition to a different crop or newer and more suitable crop variety, say sorghum or short-season maize variety, can be difficult.

One of the major constraints, even when the farmers are willing to diversify, is that they lack the finance to fund such operations. This is compounded by lack of lines of credit which can be extended to smallholder farmers at rates which are affordable and also with favourable terms. Many smallholder farmers are poor that they do not always have enough funds to cater for such activities and so they may be content with the current farming practices. The temporary migration of labour has had devastating results as far as household farm labour is concerned. Households in many rural areas have thus been left mainly with the very elderly people and those below the school-going age who cannot commit all their time to the fields. Even those who migrate, usually, they fail to send remittances back home to support agricultural activities thus compounding the problem hence the low productivity in those households with massive migration of able-bodied individuals. Zimmerer (1993) also notes that the resulting labour shortages will result in poor conservation measures being implemented on farms and this new clientele may not suit the existing extension support services as they are too old or too young to learn and implement new techniques. Even if they can, they may lack the energy as they are usually frail.

Poor extension services which are inflexible to suit the changing clientele in many rural areas where most smallholder farmers are situated results in poor knowledge among these farming households. This is curtailed by limited resources, institutional inefficiencies and lack of motivation for extension personnel to carry out their duties effectively. This makes it difficult for the farmers, as decision-makers, to make well-informed decisions and also to embrace current changes to boost their productivity. In many rural areas where smallholder farmers are usually situated, the areas are thus characterized by poorer technologies and insufficient innovation strategies which have also exacerbated vulnerability in the face of the changing climate. There is thus a perennial need for concerted efforts and prioritization of increased support of innovations for boosting agricultural productivities in these areas and also correcting the historical imbalances between large-scale farmers and the smallholder farmers.

The prevalence of poverty is another major challenge limiting options of many smallholder farmers to embrace new innovations on their farms. If the cycle of poverty is not addressed among the farming households, it may not be easy to accomplish any meaningful adaptations. As noted also by O’Brien et al. (2000) in a study on Tanzania, even when farmers are aware of the several adaptation strategies at their disposal, they lack money and other financial resources to adopt them. As such, they may be willing to adapt but due to the poverty cycle, they do not have the ability to do so. Farmers cannot use family savings to fund adaptations if they are poor and can only adapt if given special credit for undertaking any adaptation on their farms. It becomes important then to realize the importance of such credit if farmers have to adapt to the changing climate and improve their productivity.

Governments should also prioritize the smallholder farming sector when formulating policies so that it becomes lucrative to invest in smallholder farming. This can then provide the necessary assistance and capital for improving infrastructure in rural areas which has the potential of unlocking value in these farming areas and hence create more off-farm income which can then be used to fund farming activities, together with embracing adaptation options on farms.

Burton (2001), notes that there is poor utilization of currently available knowledge from the various researches being carried out in many countries. This poor adoption and utilization, he notes, is caused by poor distribution of knowledge. For instance, in Zimbabwe and several other African countries, there has been a lot of research going-on on developing drought-resistant crops and livestock but the uptake by farmers has not been one that can be expected especially with the climate risk looming. There is therefore need to transform information from researchers and scientists to forms which can be easily discerned by a simple farmer to improve the uptake of such innovations. The government research stations should also be capacitated to carry out such public researches so as to make the research output available to the smallholder farmers who lack financial resources to access the specialized research output by private institutions who always want to protect their intellectual property hence charge exorbitant prices to access such knowledge.

2.3 Climate adaptation issues in climate change agenda

2.3.1 Issues in climate change adaptation

Most efforts to address climate change impacts to over the years have tried to deal with climate change impacts by implementing mitigation measures which reduce GHG emissions into the atmosphere. Adaptation measures were not as popular. Lorenzoniet al. (2000) noted that more attention has been focused on climate change mitigation than adaptation measures. On-going deliberations on vulnerability and adaptation in many developing countries at various forumsmore than often point out the importance of poverty and inequality as limiting factors to effective adaptations (Adger and Kelly, 1999). Most smallholder farmers in developing countries are situated in areas of high vulnerability and hence these farmers have lower adaptive capacities. For as long as these areas remain backward, these areas will require a long time to be able to fully recover from the impacts of climate change. O’Brien and Leichenko (2000), however, argue that poverty is not the main determinant of the failure of farmers to adapt effectively to climate change since, as they say, both the poor and the rich are equally affected by the changing climate. However, the richer smallholder farmers are in a better position to set in motion those activities which can help in reducing the impacts of climate change. The other issue in developing countries is that, governments have been lagging behind the pace at which the climate is changing and have been less-motivated to implement measures to help cushion especially those living in marginal areas. These governments have failed to take advantage of the various traditional methods being implemented by farmers as well as integrate them into formalized, scientific-based adaptations.

2.3.2 Adaptation and climate change policy

One of the most significant aspects of the economics of climate change is the range of policy options that are available to ameliorate the problem. According to the Oxford dictionary, a policy is a course of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual. In this case, the government has a responsibility of crafting measures which are specifically meant to influence and enhance the adaptive capacity of individuals and organizations in the face of the climate risk.

The two major policy options for climate change in broad terms are mitigation and adaptation. In simple terminology, mitigation implies all those actions and activities aimed at reducing GHG emissions into the atmosphere so as to slow down or avoid climate change. Adaptation, however, focuses on reducing the impacts of climate change. Policies aimed at mitigation focus on addressing causes of climate change hence evaluated in terms of cost-effectiveness. However, policies aimed at adaptation focus on addressing the effects of climate change and so must be evaluated relative to the benefits they create. Mitigation thus focuses on one aspect which is reduction of GHG emissions whilst the effectiveness of adaptation is difficult to analyse by focusing on any single aspect. The very simple definitions supplied here demonstrate that whereas mitigation reduces the causes of climate change, adaptation is a reduction in the effects. The clear distinction is between cause and effect. Any action that changes the causes of climate change are mitigation related and any actions that change the effect of climate change are adaptation related.

Several important differences emerge between mitigation and adaptation as policy issues for addressing climate change which, however, seem to call for more focus and support to be shifted towards adaptation as a response to climate change more than ever. One important difference between these two policy issues is the amount of research done on each of them. From the early international conventions on climate change, mitigation has been greatly emphasized as a policy option. As such, mitigation has been widely implemented, and especially so in the developed world. Consequently, several economic studies on coping with climate change have thus been focused on mitigation and, as a result, a wide range of economic solutions have been put forward and many have been adopted as real policy options at the international level (Kayae t al., 1993). One other interesting, yet important, difference between mitigation and adaptation, particularly autonomous adaptation, concerns the incentives involved for economic agents. Mitigation requires concerted efforts as well as action at national, regional and international level as benefits from such policy actions may not directly accrue to those who undertake to reduce GHG emissions hence, there may be lack of will power among individuals to mitigate. However, autonomous adaptation by individuals is expected to be more successful as benefits of embracing such actions yield economic benefits to the same individuals. There is thus more likelihood that individuals will adapt to their full capabilities so as to reap individual benefits as compared to mitigation which has no immediately observable individual returns (Fankhauser, 1995).

From the above discussion, it is important to note that adaptation, however, is not an alternative to mitigation, but that it is a critical complement due to the low rate of return of the climate system to atmospheric GHG emission reductions. In light of this, the European Commission adopted a Green Paper entitled ‘Adapting to climate change in Europe – options for EU action’ (European Commission, 2007). The paper clearly outlines the options to assist the adaptation process and it focuses on four key areas, which include early action to avoid damage and reduce overall costs. This therefore implies that, for adaptation to be successful, effort needs to be stepped up at all levels and across all sectors, and need to be coordinated be it at individual, local or national level. However, the gender perspective is still rarely integrated in climate change policy and strategies both at international and national levels hence requires further attention as well.

2.4 Climate change adaptation and economic development

A profound relationship exists between economics and climate change and economics has exacerbated climate change but yet it is one solution to curtail the same process. As such, economics can be viewed as both a cause as well as a solution to climate change. The rapid economic growth during the industrial revolution in Europe in the 18th century can be viewed as the first major contributions to climate change due to excessive emissions of GHGs into the atmosphere. This industrialization has now spread, and is still spreading into the developing world, especially Africa and south-east Asia. Despite economics having contributed to climate change, it is high time the same subject, techniques and tools should seek probable solutions to the several aspects of climate change risk so as to benefit the present and future generations.

2.4.1 The economics of climate change adaptation

Despite the issue of climate change being largely political and scientific, these two fields however now require, more than ever, to be complemented by economics to help solve the climate change problem. Economics can, as such, be of particular importance to informing international efforts aimed at gaining more insight as well as to reduce the climate change impacts and to cope with climate change. This thesis thus focuses on one aspect of climate change economics that deals specifically with adaptation. Economics can thus provide several important practical solutions to the climate change problem which have high potential of being implemented as viable policy options at national, regional or international levels. Furthermore, economics allows the weighing of costs and benefits of various important aspects of climate adaptation which further helps crafting of better policies.

2.4.2 Linkages between climate change adaptation and economic development

The rapid change in the global climate and weather systems is one of the major challenges facing humanity today, including animals and their habitats. Climate change and global warming may be the biggest problems yet for world governments in the developing world especially, apart from other concerns such as HIV/AIDS, war, financial recession and disease. For poor developing countries the situation is compounded by the rampant poverty and hunger which make efforts to deal with the effects of climate change insurmountable. To this effect, developing countries are therefore widely recognized to be more vulnerable to the effects of climate and thus a subdued capacity to adapt. As such, adaptation to climate change is thus having a growing impetus in the international development community. The IPCC (2001) notes that very little attention has been devoted to the interaction of adaptation to climate change with the on-going development projects and programs. Established development projects and programs have always failed to recognize hazards and risks associated with climate change. This is however changing very much especially in the last decade as mainstreaming adaptation into planning or development policies is emerging as a policy strategy.

Several governments lack adequate preparedness to deal with the effects of climate change, such as droughts, which often result in acute food shortages and hunger. This has compounded the deplorable situation that most women headed families face in many rural areas. Governments of developing countries need also to pursue deliberate policies of mainstreaming climate change into the country’s rural development policies. Mainstreaming adaptation requires the integration of adaptation concerns into existing or planned policies and efforts, including also mainstreaming of adaptation policies and projects of multilateral organizations, donor agencies and other relevant bodies (World Bank, 2010). This would allow socio-economic development which can prosper in the face of climate change. It would also help cushion the poor women and child-headed households in many of Zimbabwe’s remote rural areas, who bear most the brunt of climate change. At policy level, mitigation and adaptation efforts to climate change remain very weak. Even with such interventions, the long-term prospects for women and children handling impacts of climate change look weak. It is therefore critical to enhance the capacity for developing adaptation options for rural communities, as they are mostly dangerously exposed to the impacts of a changing climate.

2.4.3 Determinants of adaptation to climate change

Several studies have focused on factors determining adoption of various agricultural technologies. As such, there is an extensive body of literature on the economic theory of technology adoption. In a way, some of these factors are most likely to significantly affect adaptation to climate and so determine the level of adaptation to the climate change and climate variability. Many factors have been found to differently affect adaptation in many African countries. These include government policies, technology and its delivery mechanism, market forces, environmental concerns, demographic as well as institutional factors.

Government policies of much importance to this study are particularly those concerned with rural development, agricultural policies as well as the climate change-related policies. Market and economic forces include factors such as cost and accessibility of technology, off-farm income, availability of hired labour, farm size, level of expected benefits and the level of effort required to implement the technology. Social factors may include the age and farming experience of adopter, wealth, education level, gender, as well as the size of the household. Institutional factors will be implied to relate to access to information and extension services together with the availability of other support services and institutions to help government efforts such as the private sector and non-governmental organizations.

Dinar et al. (2008) found great differences among eleven African countries with respect to theadoption of adaptation practices. In several countries, more than one third of respondents took no adaptive action at all although they perceived changes in the climate. By contrast, almost all respondents in Egypt and Ethiopia reported at least one adaptation. However, the specific factors behind this cross-country difference were not identified by the research design. However, at the individual level, this study suggests a number of factors affecting the probability of a farmer adapting to climate change. The study found that the more experienced and better educated farmers were more likely to take adaptive measures. This can be explained by their ability to weigh options and also willingness to reduce risks as they are able to make informed decisions than their inexperienced and less educated counterparts. Being head of household was also shown to result in higher probability of adaptation, presumably because they control household resources. Farmers working on rented land were less likely to adapt. This is mainly because they lack the incentive to make any meaningful investments on rented farmland as they are not the owners and they could lose user rights any time resulting in them losing what they invested on the land.

In a study on coffee farmers in Costa Rica, Alpizaret al., (2009) found that male farmers are more likely to adapt than female ones although he did not give an explanation for the observed results. However, this could be ascribed to the fact that male farmers usually have more time to work on the fields than female farmers (who have other chores at home) and that they also have more off-farm activities which can earn them off-farm incomes for them to invest on their farms. Moreover, male farmers are usually the heads of household hence they can easily and quickly decide to adapt as compared to their female counterparts who may require permission from their husbands or male sons who may be working elsewhere. The three authors also found that those who have previously invested in soil conservation were also more likely to adapt to risks associated with climate change. However, the same authors found that age and education of the farmer did not have any significant effect on adaptation decisions. In Mexico, Eakin (2005) observed that only high-income farmers can diversify crops away from maize and that the same farmers had less climate sensitive crops such as oat and barley, and that only the high-income households invested in human capital, which, in turn, made it possible for them to engage in other economic activities such as finding off-farm employment. The poorest, with very small landholdings, were shown to be seemingly trapped in subsistence farming with high dependence on maize.

In a study to examine the influence of farmer’s perceptions of the climate change risk and uncertainty as well as attitudes towards network effects on adaptation decision-making using a frame field experiment with coffee farmers in Costa Rica, Alpizaret al. (2009), solely examined adoption of new technologies. The study focused on three aspects: how the level of income-loss risks due to climate change affected farmers’ willingness to adapt; whether farmers were ambiguity-averse (preferring known uncertainty over unknown uncertainty) and if this could explain their adaptation behaviour; whether farmers could coordinate adaptation efforts if there were economies of scope. As one would expect, the share of farmers that would adapt increased with the level of risk; 31% adapted at 1% risk level, and this increased to 77% and 95% at the 5% and 10% risk levels, respectively. For the ambiguity aversion question, of those who chose not to adapt at the definite 5% risk level, more than half adapted when faced with ambiguity (with average risk level at the comparable 5.3%), suggesting that farmers were ambiguity averse. With regard to coordination, it was found that the cost-savings led to more adaptation, and communication was a critical variable affecting the level of coordination.

Smithers and Blay-Palmer (2001), however, point out that climate change alone is unlikely to induce the relevant technological changes. The authors state that besides the challenges posed by knowledge for scientific discovery, innovations are also deeply rooted in legal, institutional, and economic circumstances that shape and direct their path of development, all of which vary from place to place. In this regard, government policy, macroeconomic conditions, consumer demands and preferences, and science, each with its own set of driving forces, are important determinants of the rate at which technological innovations are made. Investment levels in public sector research, policies governing the granting of and use of intellectual property rights, and the role of private-sector multinationals and contemporary research interests will constitute additional factors that need to addressed with respect to how, where, what type, and rate of technological innovations.

Although advances in science and biotechnology offer powerful tools that hold much promise to overcome the many challenges posed by scarcity of resources and threats posed by pests and crop disease to the agricultural sector, there has been a debate over the advocacy of biotechnology (be it for climate or other reasons) in both industrial and developing countries. The role of multinationals and restrictive patenting practices; lack of diffusion of technologies in developing counties and the related issue of affordability of technology to poorer farmers; uncertainties about long-term implications of biotechnology on health due to use of pesticides and herbicides and resultant contamination of the ecosystem have been the focus in recent debates. McAfee (1999), for example, argues that there is evidence to doubt many of the perceived benefits of transgenic products. In particular, McAfee states (among other reasons) that the profitability criterion often dictates research goals which in turn can compromise the availability and diffusion of biotechnologies that the poor need most. While there is little doubt that concerns need to be addressed directly, the call for moratoriums on transgenic research is considered to hurt developing countries the most (Anderson, 1999). Similarly, Pardey (2001) finds that claims that patents and intellectual property rights stifle research in developing countries are speculative. Instead, it is argued the more serious issue, based on current research, is that developing countries often lack the necessary funding and scientific and technical resources to access the benefits of biotechnology.

2.5 Review of empirical studies on climate adaptation by smallholder farmers

The earlier studies on climate adaptation mainly focused on developed countries, where data is more readily available and the challenges of adaptation were recognized earlier on as an important policy issue. Many studies focused on the "planned adaptation" types of adaptation. For those which studied autonomous adaptation, such as adaptation in agriculture, very often the main interest was not on adaptation so to say, but to understand what autonomous adaptation implies for the climate change impact. In other words, the negative impact of climate change on agriculture would be smaller if farmers adapt. Therefore, autonomous adaptation by farmers is assumed for this study. In the last decade or so, interest in adaptation has grown in developing countries for reasons to do with improving smallholder productivity, and more studies have been carried out in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The various adaptations studied in the literature reviewed here are not necessarily fully consistent with the very narrow definition of adaptation or autonomous adaptation to anthropogenic climate change. For example, some research may be more accurately described as studying coping strategies as some adaptation actions are not made in response to climate change directly, but to existing natural disasters. The intention is however to keep the coverage broad enough so that ideas, analytical methods, and findings relevant to adaptation to climate change are included as much as possible.

Tolet al. (1998) noted that early studies which focused on assessing the impact of climate change overlooked adaptation as a potentialstrategy to deal with the changing climate resulting in the so-called "dumb farmer" scenarios. The IPCC (2001) viewed such "dumb farmers" as being synonymous to those farmers who do not undertake any adaptation measure so as to respond to the changing climate (IPCC, 2001). Overlooking assessing the contribution of autonomous and planned adaptations in reducing the impactsof climate change will thus fail to account for the disparity between potential and residual net impacts. The IPCC thus notes that the impact assessment models should include adaptation to climate change so as to improve their importance in assessing vulnerability.

In the last two decades, there has been an increase in the number of impact assessment studies which constitute climate adaptation in the models.Such studies focused on coastal zones (Nicholls and Leatherman, 1995), agricultural adaptations (Mendelsohn et al., 1994; Rosenzweig and Parry, 1994), and forestry adaptations(Sohngen and Mendelsohn, 1998). All these studies and many others have shown the importance of climate adaptations in minimizing the negative effects of climate change and also in taking advantage of the benefits also associated with the changing climate(IPCC, 2001).Several parts of the world experiencing climate change can substantially improve agricultural productivities, hence food production, if serious effort is put in implementing climate adaptation strategies especially at farm-level (Rosenzweig and Parry, 1994). In his study, Downing (1991) noted that adapting to climate could potentially reduce food shortages in Africa alone from 50% down to 20%. Mendelsohn and Dinar (1999) also noted that autonomous agricultural adaptations could reduce potential climate-induced damages in the Indian agriculture by 2-10% down to 15-23%.

Bradshaw et al. (2004) carried out an evaluation of the adoption of various crop diversifications between 1994 and 2002 in the Canadian prairie agriculture. The study focused on the strengths and constraints for managing climate-induced risks among other risks. The data collected from more than 15000 units showed that farmers were becoming more and more specialized in their on-farm cropping patterns since 1994 and this specialization was postulated to continue in the face of climate change and also due to the benefits associated with diversification of crops.The study noted that that it is imperative to seek more understanding of the varied strengths and constraints of various potential and appropriate adaptation measures to the changing climate. This would allow those strategies and measures which give optimal benefits to be identified and replicated to other farming units so as to significantly influence agricultural yields and food production.

In their 2006a study, Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn examined the importance of moisture availability for crop production using the Ricardian approach. The study evaluated the importance of irrigation water as an adaptation measure to cope with moisture stress associated with climate change especially in arid to semi-arid areas of the world. This study was an improvement of the previous Ricardian studies in agriculture that overlooked catering the effects of artificial moisture treatments on crop production.It was shown that irrigation was a critical adaptation strategy as it was shown to significantly cushion the potential damage of climate change-induced droughts on crops.

Hassan and Nhemachena (2008) and Seo and Mendelsohn (2006) employed multinomial logit models to analyze crop and livestock choice as adaptation options. The study byHassan and Nhemachenaanalysed the determinants of farm-level climate adaptation measures using cross-sectional data from a survey of more than 8000 farm units across 11 countries. The study found out thatthe most vulnerable agricultural practice to climate change in Africa was the specialized crop cultivation (mono-cropping).Crop choices were shown to be climate sensitive and farmers thus adapted to changes in climate by switching crops. Warmer temperatures, especially in summer, were shown to worsen the risk of crop failure hence encouragedirrigation, multiple cropping and integration of livestock with crop production. Improved access to markets, extension and credit services, technology and farm assets (labor, land and capital) were also shown to beimportant aspects for assisting climate adaptations by most African farmers. The findings from choice models from the livestock study by Seo and Mendelsohn showed that goats and sheep were popular among farmers in warmer temperatures than beef cattle and chicken sincegoats and sheep perform better under dry and harsher conditions than cattle.

In a study on the perceptions to climate change by farmers across 11 African countries, Maddison (2006) noted that a significantnumber of farmers perceive increased temperatures and decreased precipitation. More experienced farmers were more likely to notice changes in climatic conditions which according to the study are consistent with farmers engaging in Bayesian-updating of their prior beliefs. The study also noted that farmer experience, access to free extension services and markets are important determinants of adaptation.

2.6 Review of literature on analytical approaches in climate adaptation

Since the beginning of the past decade, research on climate change adaptation is emerging as a strong force in the field of applied economics. Considering that a sizeable number of economic studies on climate change adaptation have been carried out in recent years,methodological approaches and empirical techniques can therefore be compared and evaluated on their appropriateness for any given study.More so, climate change adaptation studies are, in a way, synonymous to studies on adoption of agricultural technologies as well as any other study requiring decision choices to be made from two or more options so as to achieve a certain objective.Pryanishnikov and Katarina, (2003) observed that models on the adoption of agricultural technology have behavioural foundations in farmer’s utility function. This implies that any rational farmer would consider undertaking a new innovation only if they are very certain that it maysignificantly improve their welfare (utility) as compared to their present technology, otherwise there might be no incentives for adopting the new dispensation. Despite the complexity of directly observing or determining utility, farmers reveal their utility preference through their actions and decisions on whether to adopt or not to adopt any agricultural technology.

The most widely used models in most analytical studies on agricultural technology adoption are the probit and logit models.These models allow for analysis to be done when choice has to be made from two or more options. When decision has to be made between two options, for instance, a decision on whether to adopt a new maize variety or not, binary (probit or logit) models are employed.However, when the decision options involve three or more options, extensions to the binary models are made, often called the multivariate models, become appropriate. The multinomial logit (MNL) and the multinomial probit models are the most widely used multivariatechoice models.Wu and Babcock (1998) note that the multinomial models have an edge over the binomial models in that the multinomial modelspermit exploring both factors conditioning specific options or combination of optionsas well as catering for the self - selection and interactions between options.

The multinomial probit and logit models have thus been extended to climate change adaptation studies due to the conceptual similarities between agricultural technology adoption and climate change adaptation. One similar study on climate adaptation is the 2007 study by Hassan andNhemachenawhich used the multinomial logit model to analyse the determinants of climate adaptation of farmers in 11 African countries.Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn (2006) and Seo and Mendelsohn (2006) also employed themultinomial logit model to establish whether crop choice by farmers was climate sensitive and to analyze how sensitive livestock species were to climate respectively.

Further modifications of the multinomial models can be done to cater for two-step decision processes characteristic of certain adaptation models. For instance, before adopting any new technology, farmers have to be aware of the existence as well as the benefits of such technology. As such, the first step would be the awareness (whether aware or not) while the second step would be whether to adopt or not. In such circumstances, two-stage multinomial regression models which correct for any selection bias generated during the decision making process are therefore employed. Deressa (2007)used the Heckman’s two- step procedure to analyze the factors affecting the perception and adaptation to climate change in the Nile basin of Ethiopia. In this study, the first stage was on whether farmers perceived climate change or not while the second stage was the adoption of agricultural adaptation measures by the same farmers to climate change. Other studies which employed the Heckman’s two-step procedure to analyse technology adoption in agriculture are studies byKalibaet al. (2000), Stan and William (2003), and Yirga (2007).

As Maddison (2006) argues, adaptation to climate change is usually a two-step process. Thesetwo steps involve perceiving changes in climate in the first stage with the second stage involving adapting to the changing climate.This study will therefore adopt the binomial logit model to analyse factors affecting farmer perceptions and then employ the multinomial logit to analyse the determinants of climate adaptation among smallholder farmers in Chiredzi district of Zimbabwe.