Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTMachine learning methods are currently the object of considerable study by the artificial intelligence community. Research on machine learning carries implications for decision making in that it seeks computational methods that mimic input‐output behaviors found in classes of decision‐making examples. At the same time, research in statistics and econometrics has resulted in the development of qualitative‐response models that can be applied to the same kind of problems addressed by machine‐learning models—particularly those that involve a classification decision. This paper presents the theoretical structure of a generalized qualitative‐response model and compares its performance to two seminal machine‐learning models in two problem domains associated with audit decision making. The results suggest that the generalized qualitative‐response model may be a useful alternative for certain problem domains.

A consortium of national and international partners worked from 2016 to 2020 to strengthen the climate information available to the Rwanda's farmers and agriculture sector through the Rwanda Climate Services for Agriculture (RCSA) project, funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). It was launched at a workshop in Kigali on World Meteorological Day, March 23, 2016, with the goal to transform Rwanda's rural farming communities and agricultural economy through improved climate services and climate risk management. Efforts towards this goal were organized around four target outcomes: 1. Climate services for farmers; 2. Climate services for government and institutions; 3. Climate information provision; and 4. Climate services governance. A final project evaluation used a mix of quantitative and qualitative analyses to assess the influence of the RCSA interventions, in particular PICSA and Radio Listeners Clubs (RLCs), on farmers' awareness, access and use of climate information; and resulting welfare impacts. The quantitative evaluation was based on a survey of 1,525 farmers sampled from 15 districts. The qualitative component used 32 focus groups and 24 key informant interviews to provide deeper understanding of how women and men have used and benefitted from climate services as a result of project interventions.

AbstractThis study aims to understand how Rwandan farmers value the improved characteristics of climate services introduced to them in a choice experiment setting. Data were collected from 1,525 household heads in November 2019. A random parameters logit model was used to analyze the data. Results suggest that Rwandan farmers value forecast accuracy, dissemination through a combination of extension agents and the Participatory Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture process, and bundling with market price information. This study suggests that to improve agricultural management planning and food security of farmers through the provision of climate services, these services need to be accurate, user-tailored, and accessible.

The Accelerating Impacts of CGIAR Climate Research for Africa (AICCRA) project works to make climate information services and climate-smart agriculture more accessible to millions of smallholder farmers in Senegal and five other target countries). The AICCRA strategy to achieve this goal includes building the capacity of next users to use climate services and support implementation of climate-smart agriculture. Although Senegal has a strong foundation for climate services, the benefits that farming and agropastoral populations obtain from climate services could potentially be limited by insufficient capacity to understand, communicate and apply climate information within these populations and at critical points within the agricultural system, for example, the network of organizations (ANCAR, NGOs, producer organizations) that provide extension and advisory services, local GTPs, university agriculture programs, and rural communities themselves. AICCRA-Senegal held a workshop in Dakar on 9 May 2022 to inform its capacity development strategy. The workshop convened a set of stakeholders representing government, academia and NGOs to identify priority capacity gaps, and opportunities for training and curriculum to address these gaps.

This report presents final findings from the baseline data collection exercise conducted for the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) Adaptation Programme in Africa. The GFCS programme seeks to improve climate services for agriculture, food security, heath and disaster risk reduction in Tanzania and Malawi. Under the auspices of this GFCS project, the CGIAR research program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) is responsible to support baseline data collection and monitoring and evaluation to evaluate climate services for farmers and pastoralists in both countries. The purpose of this report is to inform national partners on farmers' current needs and access to climate information services. Households interviewed in Malawi are mostly crop farmers, and have access to conventional climate information. However, they rely more on indigenous knowledge, personal experience and traditional cropping calendar than on climate information for their farm decision-making. Respondents would like to receive more advice about improved cropping practices, and better communication of climate information through village meetings and in their local languages. The climate information farmers would like to receive includes forecasts of extreme events, onset of the rains, seasonal rainfall, daily weather, and pest and diseases. These forecasts should be timely. Seasonal forecasts should be available preferably months before the start of the season to allow farmers to integrate them in their farm management decisions. The preferred communication channels were visits from extension agents, radio messages and SMS in cell phones. Farmers trust information from government extension agents, radio presenters and NGOs. Women particularly trust NGO workers.

Actions on climate change (SDG 13), including in the food system, are crucial. SDG 13 needs to align with the Paris Agreement, given that UNFCCC negotiations set the framework for climate change actions. Food system actions can have synergies and trade-offs, as illustrated by the case for nitrogen fertiliser. SDG 13 actions that reduce emissions can have positive impacts on other SDGs (e.g. 3, 6, 12, 14, 15); but such actions should not undermine the adaptation goals of SDG 13 and SDGs 1, 2, 5 and 10. Balancing trade-offs is thus crucial, with SDG 12 central: responsible consumption and production. Transformative actions in food systems are needed to achieve SDG 13 (and other SDGs), involving technical, policy, capacity enhancement and finance elements. But transformative actions come with risks, for farmers, investors, development agencies and politicians. Likely short and long term impacts need to be understood.

Actions on climate change (SDG 13), including in the food system, are crucial. SDG 13 needs to align with the Paris Agreement, given that UNFCCC negotiations set the framework for climate change actions. Food system actions can have synergies and trade-offs, as illustrated by the case for nitrogen fertiliser. SDG 13 actions that reduce emissions can have positive impacts on other SDGs (e.g. 3, 6, 12, 14, 15); but such actions should not undermine the adaptation goals of SDG 13 and SDGs 1, 2, 5 and 10. Balancing trade-offs is thus crucial, with SDG 12 central: responsible consumption and production. Transformative actions in food systems are needed to achieve SDG 13 (and other SDGs), involving technical, policy, capacity enhancement and finance elements. But transformative actions come with risks, for farmers, investors, development agencies and politicians. Likely short and long term impacts need to be understood.

This report explores evidence and insights from five case studies that have made significant recent progress in addressing the challenge of insuring poor smallholder farmers and pastoralists in the developing world. In India, national index insurance programmes have reached over 30 million farmers through a mandatory link with agricultural credit and strong government support. In East Africa (Kenya, Rwanda and Tanzania), the Agriculture and Climate Risk Enterprise (ACRE) has recently scaled to reach nearly 200,000 farmers, bundling index insurance with agricultural credit and farm inputs. ACRE has built on strong partnerships with regional initiatives such as M-PESA mobile banking. In Ethiopia and Senegal, the R4 Rural Resilience Initiative has scaled unsubsidized index insurance to over 20,000 poor smallholder farmers who were previously considered uninsurable, using insurance as an integral part of a comprehensive risk management portfolio. With strong public and private sector support, the Mongolia Index-Based Livestock Insurance Project (IBLIP) insures more than 15,000 nomadic herders and links commercial insurance with a government disaster safety net. Finally, the Index-Based Livestock Insurance (IBLI) project in Kenya and Ethiopia demonstrates innovative approaches to insuring poor nomadic pastoralists in challenging circumstances. A few common features appear to have contributed to recent progress within these case studies: explicitly targeting obstacles to improving farmer income; integration of insurance with other development interventions; giving farmers a voice in the design of products; investing in local capacity; and investing in science-based index development. Evidence from these case studies can inform the ongoing debate about the viability of scaling up index-based insurance for vulnerable smallholder farmers in the developing world. The rapid progress observed in recent years suggests that index insurance has the potential to benefit smallholder farmers at a meaningful scale, and suggests the need to reassess arguments that lack of demand and practical implementation challenges prevent index-based insurance from being a useful tool to reduce rural poverty.

Climate variability is a major source of risk to smallholder farmers and pastoralists, particularly in dryland regions. A growing body of evidence links climate-related risk to the extent and the persistence of rural poverty in these environments. Stochastic shocks erode smallholder farmers' long-term livelihood potential through loss of productive assets. The resulting uncertainty impedes progress out of poverty by acting as a disincentive to investment in agriculture – by farmers, rural financial services, value chain institutions and governments. We assess evidence published in the last ten years that a set of production technologies and institutional options for managing risk can stabilize production and incomes, protect assets in the face of shocks, enhance uptake of improved technologies and practices, improve farmer welfare, and contribute to poverty reduction in risk-prone smallholder agricultural systems. Production technologies and practices such as stress-adapted crop germplasm, conservation agriculture, and diversified production systems stabilize agricultural production and incomes and, hence, reduce the adverse impacts of climate-related risk under some circumstances. Institutional interventions such as index-based insurance, adaptive safety nets and climate services play a complementary role in enabling farmers to manage risk, overcome risk-related barriers to adoption of improved technologies and practices, and protect their assets against the impacts of extreme climatic events. While some research documents improvements in household welfare indicators, there is limited evidence that the risk-reduction benefits of the interventions reviewed have benefited significant numbers of chronically poor farmers. We discuss the roles that climate-risk management interventions can play in efforts to reduce rural poverty, and the need for further research on identifying and targeting environments and farming populations where improved climate risk management could accelerate efforts to reduce rural poverty.

Climate variability is a major source of risk to smallholder farmers and pastoralists, particularly in dryland regions. A growing body of evidence links climate-related risk to the extent and the persistence of rural poverty in these environments. Stochastic shocks erode smallholder farmers' long-term livelihood potential through loss of productive assets. The resulting uncertainty impedes progress out of poverty by acting as a disincentive to investment in agriculture – by farmers, rural financial services, value chain institutions and governments. We assess evidence published in the last ten years that a set of production technologies and institutional options for managing risk can stabilize production and incomes, protect assets in the face of shocks, enhance uptake of improved technologies and practices, improve farmer welfare, and contribute to poverty reduction in risk-prone smallholder agricultural systems. Production technologies and practices such as stress-adapted crop germplasm, conservation agriculture, and diversified production systems stabilize agricultural production and incomes and, hence, reduce the adverse impacts of climate-related risk under some circumstances. Institutional interventions such as index-based insurance and social protection through adaptive safety nets play a complementary role in enabling farmers to manage risk, overcome risk-related barriers to adoption of improved technologies and practices, and protect their assets against the impacts of extreme climatic events. While some research documents improvements in household welfare indicators, there is limited evidence that the risk-reduction benefits of the interventions reviewed have enabled significant numbers of very poor farmers to escape poverty. We discuss the roles that climate-risk management interventions can play in efforts to reduce rural poverty, and the need for further research on identifying and targeting environments and farming populations where improved climate risk management could accelerate efforts to reduce rural poverty.