Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 78–91

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

Developing local adaptation strategies for climate change in

agriculture: A priority-setting approach with application to
Latin America
David R. Lee a,*, Svetlana Edmeades b, Erwin De Nys c, Andrew McDonald d,e,
Willem Janssen b
a
Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, 435 Warren Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
b
Global Practice for Food and Agriculture, The World Bank, 1818 H St., NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA
c
World Bank Brazil, SCN Qd. 2, Lt. A, Ed. Corporate Financial Center, Cj. 702/703, Brası´lia, DF 70712-900, Brazil
d
New York State Water Resources Institute, 1023 Bradfield Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
e
South Asia Regional Office, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), P.O. Box 5186, Singha Durbar Plaza Marg, Kathmandu, Nepal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Even with substantially increased attention to climate adaptation in developing countries in recent
Received 15 October 2010 years, there are a number of important remaining research needs: better incorporating stakeholder
Received in revised form 21 August 2014 input; using replicable methodologies to provide comparability across different settings; assuring that
Accepted 25 August 2014
stakeholder input reflects the results of climate science, not simply perceptions; and effectively linking
Available online
stakeholder input with the regional and national levels at which policy changes are made. This study
reports the results of a methodology for identifying and prioritizing local, stakeholder-driven response
Keywords:
options to climate change in agriculture. The approach is based on multi-criteria scoring methods
Climate change
previously applied to research planning and priority-setting in agricultural and natural resource
Agriculture
Adaptation management research, public health, and other areas. The methodology is a sequential approach built
Priority-setting around needs assessments by local stakeholders; the incorporation of climate science results; the
Latin America sharing of these results and climate adaption response options with stakeholders at a series of
Rural stakeholders workshops; stakeholder priority-setting exercises using multi-criteria scoring; and validation with
policymakers. The application is to three diverse agroecosystems in Mexico, Peru and Uruguay. Among
the many findings is that, notwithstanding the wide diversity of agro-ecosystems, there are numerous
similarities in the agricultural adaptation responses prioritized by local stakeholders.
ß 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction environmental vulnerability have a direct impact on agricultural

Climate adaptation practices, programs and policies have
assumed an increasingly prominent place on the agenda of
policymakers and practitioners in recent years (Pielke et al.,
2007; Adger et al., 2009; Nelson et al., 2009; Evans et al., 2014;
IPCC, 2014). No sector has more at stake with regard to successful
adaptation strategies than does agriculture, as do the many rural
households and communities that depend on it. Agriculture is
inherently tied to the underlying climate and natural resource base
which supports it, thus the many sources of climatic change and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 607 255 7685; fax: +1 607 255 9984.
E-mail address: DRL5@cornell.edu (D.R. Lee).
productivity and its future potential. Moreover, agriculture is the
principal livelihood of most of the world’s poor (World Resources
Institute, 2005; FAO, 2006), making them especially vulnerable to
climate change. For the rural poor – many of whose livelihoods are
already precarious – maintaining a viable, productive agricultural
sector resilient to climatic changes is crucial to rural poverty
alleviation (World Bank, 2007). Finally, ‘‘good development policy
is good adaptation policy’’ (de la Torre et al., 2009). This is true at
many levels. There is great scope for reducing the adverse impacts
of climate change with informed, fully implemented adaptation
strategies (Mendelsohn and Dinar, 1999; Moser and Boykoff, 2013;
IPCC, 2014). This is not only true at the local level where climatic
change directly affects farmers and households; given the many
spatial and intertemporal externalities that are involved with

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.002
0959-3780/ß 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 D.R. Lee et al. / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 78–91
climate change, institutional coordination and collaboration is
critical to generating more efficient and sustainable outcomes that
would otherwise result from unilateral actions. And in areas where
public goods are involved – assuring adequate water supplies,
reducing air and water pollution, maintaining climatic regulatory
processes – the public sector has a critical role to play.
Policy and institutional changes to address climate change are
commonly formulated at the national and international levels,
where formal collective action is required and where regulatory
and legal frameworks are frequently available. Particularly for
climate mitigation efforts, national-level policies are necessary and
inevitable. However, as emphasized in numerous recent wide-
ranging assessments, the impacts of climate change in agriculture
are location- and context-specific (Christensen et al., 2007; World
Bank, 2008; Padgham, 2009; Verner, 2010). Accordingly, successful
adaptation responses to climate change must respond to distinct
local and regional needs, vulnerabilities, copying strategies and
adaptive capacities (Lobo, 2011; UNDP-UNEP, 2011). Ultimately, it
is the individual farmers, households and resource managers
operating at the micro-level who make most of the key land use
and resource allocation decisions to adapt to the threats and
opportunities posed by a changing climate. Thus, it is imperative
that the views and priorities of the local stakeholders who
significantly influence land, water and other resource use decisions
be considered in formulating adaptation responses. These per-
spectives are frequently given inadequate attention at the national
policymaking level where climate change policies are developed.
This study reports the results of a priority-setting methodology
for identifying and prioritizing local, stakeholder-driven response
options to climate change in agriculture. The approach employs a
participatory priority-setting framework previously developed for
use in areas such as agricultural research and public health
interventions, here modified to deal with climate adaptation. The
priority response options that result form the basis of local Action
Plans that can be used to address agricultural adaptations to
climate change. The applications are to three highly diverse
regional agroecoystems in Mexico, Peru and Uruguay. The study
has three major objectives. The first is to adapt a methodology for
assessing agricultural vulnerability to climate change and for
formulating response strategies to inform private and public sector
decisions in the Latin America region. The pilot methodology
translates local knowledge about weather variability, expected
climate changes and agricultural systems into a coherent
framework for local and regional decision-making. The second
objective is to formulate preliminary recommendations for
investments in the selected agroecosystems in areas such as
agricultural technology adaptation, infrastructure investments,
public and private sectoral support activities, and institutional and
policy changes. The ‘‘bottom-up’’ focus of this research assures that
the input of farmers and other local stakeholders is incorporated in
the design of adaptation measures from the outset. The final
objective is to strengthen the emphasis on action in the
formulation of climate adaptation measures in agriculture. The
approach developed here can potentially be used by governments
and development organizations in helping define response
strategies, signing related investment projects, and formulating
policy changes.
2. Climate change and agriculture in Latin America
Latin America – and the livelihoods of its people – is likely to be
significantly affected by climate change. In agriculture specifically,
projected effects include: declining productivity of important crop
and livestock systems, with adverse impacts on food security;
changes in precipitation patterns and the disappearance of
glaciers, in turn affecting water availability for agriculture, human
79
consumption and energy generation; degradation (and loss) of
coastal farming systems; and an overall rise in the number of
people at risk of hunger (IPCC, 2007; Padgham, 2009). Recent
comprehensive studies of climate change impacts on Latin
American agriculture by the World Bank (de la Torre et al.,
2009; Fernandes et al., 2012) suggest that the sum effects of these
impacts are likely to be highly deleterious, including a ‘‘precipitous
fall’’ in agricultural productivity in many regions, with resultant
adverse – though highly regionally-specific – impacts on GDP and
rural poverty (de la Torre et al., 2009).
Coping with climatic variability is nothing new to farmers, who
have long made behavioral and management changes in response
to changes in precipitation patterns, soil moisture conditions, and
growing conditions (FAO, 2007; Adger et al., 2007; Smith and
Malik, 2012). To maintain production levels and yields, farmers
commonly adjust planting dates, crop varieties, cattle stocking
rates and water use, among other factors, in response to short-
term climatic variability. In addition to these autonomous
adjustments, as climatic changes become more severe and
pervasive, long-term planned adaptations will become increas-
ingly important in helping anticipate and minimize the effects of
adverse conditions and long-run climate changes (Fankhauser
et al., 1999; FAO, 2007; Howden et al., 2007). These longer term
adaptations include those directly relevant at the farm level – new
technologies and management techniques, increasing efficiency
of water use and distribution systems, changes in inputs and
practices (fertilizer, tillage methods, irrigation) – but also include
wider public investments, policy changes and other strategies for
fostering adaptation. While the focus of this study is on
agricultural adaptation specifically, climate change is a complex
phenomenon, simultaneously incorporating multiple stressors
and sources of risk and vulnerability – sometimes in areas that
appear peripheral but that ultimately can be critically important
(O’Brien et al., 2009). Accordingly, efforts to build broad
ecosystem resilience to better cope with climate variability are
increasingly viewed as a vital first step toward adapting to future
climate challenges (Cooper et al., 2008; World Bank, 2009a;
Meybeck et al., 2012).
All three of the countries represented in this study have in
recent years made major strides in planning their national
responses to climate change (World Bank, 2009c). Mexico released
a National Climate Change Strategy (ENACC) in 2007, identifying
opportunities for emissions reductions on a voluntary basis and
proposed adaptation and mitigation measures for many sectors; a
Special Climate Change Program (PECC) followed in 2009. Mea-
sures to address climate change were also identified as strategic
priorities in Mexico’s Agricultural Sector Program 2007–2012 and
the National Water Program 2007–2012. Most recently, a General
Climate Change Law was passed in 2012 and a revised national
strategy the following year (IMCC, 2013). Peru formulated its
National Climate Change Strategy (ENCC) in 2003 to develop
policies and measures to enhance adaptation capacity; this
national strategy was subsequently revised in 2009. Peru’s
measures built on a 2002 law requiring each region to develop
a Regional Climate Change Strategy. The Regional Government of
Junı́n, within which our study site, the Mantaro Valley, is located,
was the first in Peru to elaborate such a strategy in 2007. Uruguay
formulated a national climate change program, the General
Program for Mitigation and Adaptation (PMEGEMA), in 2004,
proposing a set of response measures for climate change
mitigation and adaptation in key economic sectors, including
agriculture, forestry, water resources, fisheries and biodiversity.
The Uruguayan National Response Plan to Climate Change (PNRCC)
followed in 2010, identifying key sources of climate vulnerability
in the country and priority adaptation measures. Notwithstanding
these positive developments, there remains much to be done to
80 D.R. Lee et al. / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 78–91
operationalize these strategies and translate plans into action in all
three countries.
A central tenet across both the academic literature on climate
adaptation and the emerging body of practitioner experience is
that adaptation strategies are much more likely to be effective if
developed in a manner that is cognizant of, and sensitive to, local
conditions (World Bank, 2008; UNDP-UNEP, 2011; IPCC, 2014).
This means not just the biophysical and climatic conditions that
define climate change and circumscribe local response, but also
institutional frameworks (Agrawal et al., 2008; Rhodes et al.,
2014). The importance of location-specificity in climate adaption
is illustrated, for example, by two of the ‘‘principles of effective
adaption’’ highlighted in the IPCC’s recent Fifth Assessment
Report (2014): ‘‘Adaptation is place- and context-specific,’’ and
‘‘Decision support is most effective when it is sensitive to context
and the diversity of decision types, decision processes, and
constituencies.’’
In agriculture specifically, there is widely growing recognition
of the importance of developing local and regional climate
adaptation strategies that build on local conditions (Padgham,
2009; Nelson et al., 2009; Verner, 2010). Alternative approaches for
building local context-specific information and stakeholder input
into a form useful for climate adaptation analysis and action are
varied and include: local vulnerability assessments, often based on
past experience with disaster risk assessment and using a variety
of quantitative indices and indicators, model-based approaches
and qualitative assessments (IIED, 2009; UNITAR, 2011; Ringler
et al., 2011; Fellman, 2012); focus groups and stakeholder
consultations (Bartels et al., 2013; Lundaka et al., 2013);
participatory scenario development (Bizikova et al., 2010; Faysse
et al., 2014); stakeholder mapping approaches (Aberman et al.,
2011; Sova et al., 2013); expert-based climate inventories and
ranking (de Bruin et al., 2009); ‘‘deliberative workshops’’ to
enhance social learning (McCrum et al., 2009); community-based
adaptation climate monitoring and information management
efforts (IISD, 2007); and various other decision-support tools
and approaches (Smit and Wandel, 2006; Adger et al., 2007; UNDP-
UNEP, 2011). Notwithstanding the widely recognized importance
of context-specificity of climate impacts and incorporating
stakeholder input and local knowledge in adaptation responses,
most attempts to develop actionable adaptation strategies
addressing these needs have suffered from one or more of several
challenges and limitations: (1) most studies have been singular,
one-off, case study-driven approaches, which mitigates against a
common analytical framework and replicability; (2) fundamental
scientific knowledge on climate change and its impacts needs to be
brought to bear in the developing adaptation responses, rather
than solely relying on local perceptions and experiences; (3) weak
formal linkages often exist between local NGOs and civil society
organizations and regional and national authorities which have the
power to make policy decisions and allocate resources; and (4) a
limited ability often exists to ‘‘scale-up’’ local experience to a
broader level more appropriate to policy interventions. There have
been few attempts to develop formal, replicable participatory
approaches for developing countries that address each of these
challenges and that explicitly link local stakeholder-driven climate
adaptation strategies to actionable strategies and Action Plans of
regional and national authorities; this is the major goal of this
study. Several exceptions, using a variety of approaches, include
the work of FAO and the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center
on community-level climate risk assessment in Bangladesh
(Ramamasy and Bass, 2007), stakeholder-based cost-benefit
analysis of water management in five developing countries
(Lundaka et al., 2013), a recent World Bank study of climate
adaptation in Albania (Sutton et al., 2013), and participatory
groundwater management in Morocco (Faysse et al., 2014).
3. Priority-setting for climate adaptation
Given the breadth and severity of climate change-related
problems in many agricultural systems, farmers, households, and
the private and public institutions that support them face difficult
choices among many different possible adaptation pathways. As
in other cases where resources are constrained, an analytical
methodology may be used to establish priorities among
competing alternatives in order to meet private or social
objectives. Formal priority-setting methodologies have been
widely employed in a number of areas, including the allocation of
resources in research programs in agriculture (Alston et al., 1995;
Byerlee, 2000), biotechnology (Falconi, 1999; Braunschweig,
2000); forest management (Fürstenau et al., 2007); the prioriti-
zation of public health interventions (Baltussen and Niessen,
2006); research in health, mental health and vaccine develop-
ment (Institute of Medicine, 1986; Rudan et al., 2006; Tomlinson
et al., 2009); and allocating amongst competing demands in
public sector budgets. Due to the relevance of priority-setting in
agricultural research to the objectives of this study, we draw
most heavily from that literature in developing the approach
summarized here.
3.1. Adapting priority-setting methods to climate change
A variety of priority-setting methods have been used in
agricultural research and related fields (Alston et al., 1995;
Hartwich, 1999; Lattre-Gasquet, 2006), which might be adapted
to prioritizing climate adaptation measures in agriculture. Among
the alternative approaches are: congruence methods, which rank
alternative choices on the basis of a single measure; multi-criteria
scoring methods, which rank alternative choices according to
multiple criteria; benefit-cost models (benefit-cost ratios, net
present value, internal rate of return), which rank alternative
choices by quantitative measures that assess the present value of a
stream of economic benefits and costs over time; economic surplus
models which use applied welfare measures based on the price
responsiveness of consumers, producers, input suppliers and
government, and the resulting net benefits, and their distribution,
among different groups; and foresight models which base resource
allocation decisions (for example, in research or technology
development) on assessing the relative economic and social
benefits of alternative measures vis-à-vis their ability to generate
future expected or desired outcomes.
There are advantages and disadvantages to each of these
approaches as they apply to priority-setting in climate change
adaptation. A key consideration is the exceptionally high degree of
complexity and multiple sources of uncertainty that characterize
climate change and climate adaption (CBO, 2005; FAO, 2008;
Randall et al., 2012; IPCC, 2014). These include: the uncertain
nature of future climate changes and the extent of their biophysical
impacts; the lengthy time-scale and lags involving both adaptation
and mitigation measures; the uncertainty of tradeoffs among
present versus future needs, particularly given the critical needs of
the poor and their typically high discount rates; and the many
actors (local, national, international) and their relative and
sometimes conflicting roles. Benefit-cost analysis is often recom-
mended but works best in a deterministic environment where the
sources of uncertainty are minimized and the potential for
catastrophic risk is low, or at least expected values based on
known distributions of possible outcomes are given (Environmen-
tal Assessment Institute, 2006; Weitzman, 2009). Such is not the
case with climate change and agriculture. Given the simplicity of
congruence methods, the application here to a wide diversity of
stakeholders with diverse backgrounds, and the limitations of
benefit-cost, economic surplus and foresight models as applied to
 D.R. Lee et al. / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 78–91
climate change, it was determined early in this study to use a
multi-criteria scoring method approach.
Typically, scoring methods involve the assessment by individ-
ual actors of alternative choices using a number of different
criteria. This may be done by matrix ranking (evaluating multiple
choices by multiple criteria) or by pair-wise ranking, in which a
ranking of options is established by a sequential evaluation of all
possible pairs. Scoring methods used in priority-setting have both
advantages and disadvantages (Alston et al., 1995; Manicad, 1997).
Advantages include the fact that the method is easy to administer,
transparent, allows for active involvement by diverse participants,
and does not require advanced quantitative skills (unlike benefit-
cost and economic surplus methods, for example). Disadvantages
include the simplicity of the method and that it does not quantify
or often make explicit economic (including welfare) measures, the
results are dependent on those doing the scoring, and there can be
problems and inconsistency in the definition of objectives and
evaluation criteria.
The use of multi-criteria scoring methods to address climate
change adaptation is part of a broader priority-setting framework
adapted from the research planning and priority-setting method-
ology developed by Janssen and Kissi (1997) as earlier applied to
agricultural productivity and natural resource management
research, and here adapted to the unique circumstances relevant
to climate adaptation in agriculture. Our approach also draws from
the participatory ‘‘interactive bottom-up’’ approach (see Com-
mandeur, 1997) and the ‘‘stepped agro-ecological’’ approach
(Thiombiano and Andriesse, 1998), developed to address priori-
ty-setting in the areas of agricultural biotechnology and agro-
ecological research, respectively. Our methodology is a sequential
approach that is built around needs assessments by local
stakeholders and that also incorporates: formation of a multi-
disciplinary local team; collection of information (scientific,
institutional, policy) by the team early in the study; sharing of
this information with stakeholders at a series of workshops;
priority-setting exercises by stakeholders using multi-criteria
scoring of possible climate adaptation response options; and a
process of substantiation and validation of the priority-setting
process that focuses on policy and implementation.
The priority-setting approach developed in this study utilized
the input of local stakeholders and experts in each of the three
regions to develop climate adaptation plans based on the
identification and prioritization of response options. This
methodology translates knowledge about the impact of projected
climate changes and their expected impacts on agricultural
systems into a template for decision-making at local and regional
levels. The methodology employs four steps incorporating
activities centered around a series of three workshops in each
country. These steps, and the formal identification of evaluation
criteria and priority responses that are involved, are discussed in
Section 4. The overall objective of this approach is to identify
feasible ‘‘bottom-up’’ strategies that can guide local resource
management decisions to address climate change and enable
them to be more informed, more reflective of local realities, and
ultimately, more effective.
3.2. Overview of the study regions
The three regions selected for this study were the Yaqui Valley
in northwestern Mexico, the Mantaro Valley in the central
Andean highlands of Peru, and the western littoral region of
Uruguay. The selection of these regions was based on three
criteria: (1) assuring a diversity of agroecological conditions and
farming systems for comparative purposes; (2) to complement
existing or potential development projects sponsored by the
World Bank (the implementing organization for this study) with
81
local collaborators; and (3) the involvement of a local institution
and interdisciplinary team to take co-leadership in implementing
the study. The farming systems of each of these regions are briefly
described below.
3.2.1. The Yaqui Valley of Northwestern Mexico
The Yaqui Valley is an area of 71,452 km2 located in the semi-
arid coastal plain of the Sonora Desert in northwestern Mexico. The
Valley is one of the most highly productive wheat-based farming
systems in the world and was the original site of the 20th century
‘‘Green Revolution’’ in wheat. Both temperatures and rainfall in the
Valley are highly variable, seasonally and inter-annually. About a
quarter of a million hectares of irrigated crops, valued at over $400
million, are grown in the Valley. About 70–75% of land is devoted to
wheat production, although a wide variety of other crops are also
grown, including safflower, corn, sorghum, garbanzo beans,
potatoes, cotton, and numerous vegetable crops, including
tomatoes, chilies, broccoli and lettuce. The cattle industry is also
important in rainfed parts of the Valley. The high productivity of
agriculture in the region is mostly attributable to its extensive
irrigation system and the broad availability and intensive use of
irrigation water. In recent years, water scarcity has grown,
especially during the prolonged drought of 2003–2008, and
groundwater sources – notably the drilling of many private
irrigation wells – have increasingly been used for supplement
surface water sources for irrigation. This is the case even though
the cost of irrigation water from groundwater sources is much
higher to farmers than that from surface water sources. Conflicts
between urban and agricultural uses of water are intensifying, and
rising sea levels and their impacts on coastal aquifers may further
complicate efforts to develop groundwater resources as a hedge
against reduced surface water availability (Schoups et al., 2006).
The challenges to agricultural adaptations in the Yaqui Valley are
further described in Castellanos et al. (2009).
3.2.2. The Mantaro Valley of Central Peru
The Mantaro Valley covers around 34,500 km2 in the central
Andes of Peru at an altitude of between 3000 and 3400 masl. A
productive highland valley surrounded by steep hills and
mountains, it is characterized by mostly small-scale producers
and highly diversified farming systems located both in the valley
bottomlands as well as the much less productive steep hillsides.
Most farms in the Mantaro Valley range in size between 0.5 and
4.9 ha; 62.9% of producers farm less than 3.0 ha. Much farm
production is used for subsistence purposes and rural poverty is
widespread, as high as 73% (Escobal and Cavero, 2007). Agriculture
accounts for 25–35% of employment, but the local economy is
highly diversified. Potatoes are the main crop grown by farmers
and a mainstay of the local diet. Other major crops include maize,
barley, peas and carrots, as well as traditional Andean crops such as
choclo (sweet corn), quinoa (grain), and the tuber crops, oca, olluco
and mashua. Dairy cattle are also an important part of the
agricultural economy. Agrobiodiversity is critical to the region and
to the diets of both rural and urban residents: there are an
estimated 300+ varieties of potato and 200+ varieties of olluco in
Peru. Agriculture in the Mantaro Valley faces many severe
constraints – soil erosion, soil degradation resulting from over-
grazing on the steep hillsides and poor land use practices, and
deforestation – however, the main overall limiting factor is water
(Cuellar, 2008). Tropical glaciers, such as those in central Peru, are
highly affected by temperature increases induced by climate
change and are widely expected to disappear in coming decades
(Vergara, 2007). Even with contributions from the meltwaters of
the retreating glaciers in the region, the region’s three main
reservoirs and many smaller reservoirs are commonly well below
capacity.
82 D.R. Lee et al. / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 78–91
3.2.3. The Western Littoral Region of Uruguay
The western littoral region of southwestern Uruguay is part of
the flat pampas region, with highly productive croplands and
rangelands producing a wide variety of cereals, oilseeds, and other
crops. Farms in the region have traditionally been mixed crop-
livestock farms, with most farmland in long-term crop-pasture
rotations. Farms in the region average about 100 ha, although the
size distribution of production is highly bimodal (Ferrari, 2008);
77% of producers cultivating less than 20 ha and 4% of producers
own or operate more than 500 ha each and collectively farm more
than 75% of the total land in the region. In recent years, global
commodity price trends have increasingly favored crop production
and land devoted soybeans, in particular, has increased sharply. In
2008, over 350,000 ha were planted to winter crops, principally
wheat, barley and oats; about 614,200 ha were planted to summer
crops, including soybeans, maize, sorghum and sunflower. The
mild climatic conditions of the region allow for double-cropping
and mixed crop-livestock production, and permit farmers a great
deal of flexibility in responding to changing market and agrocli-
matic conditions (Giménez, 2006). However, farmers consistently
identify soil erosion as a major and increasingly important
constraint to agriculture in the region (Ferrari, 2008). The causes
of erosion identified by farmers include adverse climatic events,
the use of fallows without groundcover, and the reduction of
pastures in the conventional crop-pasture rotations.
4. Methods
As indicated above, the methodological framework developed
in this study uses a multi-criteria priority-setting framework after
that of Janssen and Kissi (1997). This approach is widely used in
agricultural and natural resource management research (Alston
et al., 1995; Mills, 1998; Hartwich, 1999; Lattre-Gasquet, 2006);
we adapt this approach for prioritizing local response options for
climate adaptation in agriculture. The approach is built around the
four steps described below, centering around a series of
participatory stakeholder workshops in each country, all leading
to the final objective: the development of local Action Plans to
address climate adaptation in agriculture in each region. Further
methodological details are available in World Bank (2009b). The
workshops and other country-level activities were organized by
multidisciplinary project teams in each country.
The importance, and limitations, of participatory approaches in
natural resource management and development are well-known
(Rhoades, 1994; Pretty, 1995; Chambers, 1997; Neef et al., 2003).
In the priority-setting literature, specifically, the importance of
assuring a diversity of participants to the resultant quality of the
priorities obtained from the scoring and priority-setting methods
employed is a familiar prerequisite – and potential limitation if
poorly done – of the methodology (Alston et al., 1995; Byerlee,
2000; Lattre-Gasquet, 2006). Accordingly, following Janssen and
Kissi (1997) and Falconi (1999), we invited participation in the
three workshops in each study region from groups of stakeholders
knowledgeable (in different ways) about climate change, its
impacts, and local biophysical conditions and institutions. These
included four groups of participants: (1) farmers and representa-
tives of farmers’ organizations; (2) scientists – agronomists, crop
specialists, climatologists, technical staff from the national
agricultural research organizations (INIFAP in Mexico, INIA in
Peru and Uruguay), and others; (3) decision-makers – representa-
tives of relevant government ministries and local and regional
governments; and (4) representatives of non-governmental
organizations, universities, and other local institutions. Invitations
to the series of workshops were issued by the local country team in
each case, with the goal of assuring a wide diversity of participant
backgrounds and perspectives. Participation in the workshops
typically ranged from about 30 to 80 individuals. The third
workshop in each country involved discussion and validation of
the draft Action Plans; for this reason, we invited participation
from a broader set of higher-level decision makers representing
ministries and other national institutions.
4.1. Step 1: review and analysis of climate changes and impacts on
agriculture
The first step of the study in each country involved a
comprehensive desk review of expected climate changes over
the next 30+ years, and the identification of major future
implications for agriculture confronting each region. Prior to the
initial country workshops, the local teams reviewed the existing
scientific literature on climate changes and potential agricultural
impacts in each of the three regions. This included results from
regional and global studies, such as the 2006 regional Assessments
of Impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change (AIACC (Giménez,
2006)), the CREAS Initiative (Marengo and Ambrizzi, 2006), the
2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC, 2007), and other climate studies. In addition, the research
literature on biophysical responses to climate change (current and
future) was also reviewed in order to identify key anticipated
problems and opportunities that are likely to affect agricultural
systems in the targeted regions in the first half of this century.
These results were presented and discussed in the first workshop
in each country in order to create a shared understanding of these
scientific results among all workshop participants.
4.2. Step 2: identification of possible response options to climate
change
The second step focused on the identification of potential
response options to address the effects of climate change. After a
comprehensive review of the main predicted climate changes
outlined in Step 1, the first workshop in each country was devoted
to discussion among workshop participants (backstopped by
workshop organizers and local and regional experts in climate
science, agriculture and other relevant fields) to assess the likely
effects of climate change on agricultural production systems,
barring steps to remediate those effects. In each case, workshop
participants – farmers, technical specialists, representatives of
local institutions, and other local stakeholders – identified a
consensus set of possible options to address those effects that was
then synthesized by the country team.
4.3. Step 3: prioritization of response options
The third step of this study involved formal priority-setting of
the individual response options identified in Step 2. This involved
three specific components during the second workshop in each
country; each of these steps is summarized briefly here.
4.3.1. Identification and weighting of evaluation criteria
During the first workshop, a tentative list of proposed
evaluation criteria was discussed by participants in each country
for use in the subsequent priority-setting exercises. These criteria
included several impact criteria to assess the potential efficacy of
each response option for addressing the local effects of climate
change in each of the three country sites, and several proposed
viability criteria to assess the scope for practical implementation of
each response option. After discussion and modification by
workshop organizers between the first and second workshops,
these criteria were proposed to participants at the beginning of the
second workshop, subjected to discussion and confirmation by
participants, and then weighted by participants (100 points among
 D.R. Lee et al. / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 78–91
‘‘impact criteria’’ and 100 points among ‘‘viability criteria’’) for use
in the subsequent priority-setting exercise.
4.3.2. Development of response profiles
Between the first and second sets of country workshops, the
teams in each country developed ‘‘Profiles’’ of each of the climate
adaptation response options identified in Workshop 1 for subse-
quent discussion. These profiles contained detailed information
used subsequently by participants in Workshop 2 in evaluating the
different response options and scoring them by the above-
mentioned criteria. (These profiles were subsequently revised in
further detail in the development of the Action Plans – see Step
4 below). The profiles included information on the underlying need
for the response option, technical characteristics of the proposed
components, costs and benefits (selectively estimated), and likely
impacts.
4.3.3. Prioritization of response options
Given (1) the participants’ identification and weighting of
evaluation criteria to be used in evaluating the individual response
options, and (2) the elaboration of the potential response options in
each country, the remaining step was the actual priority-setting
process. At the conclusion of the second workshop in each country,
a priority-setting exercise was undertaken in which the individual
response options were evaluated by workshop participants
according to the previously determined criteria. Workshop
participants used a multi-dimensional matrix scoring approach
in which they were asked to assess the extent to which each
evaluation criterion was effectively addressed by each response
option. Participants’ individual ratings of each response option by
criterion were then weighted by the criteria weights previously
calculated, the scores were averaged across all participants in each
workshop, and the results normalized to a maximum value of 100.
4.4. Step 4: development of country Action Plans
The final step of this study involved the translation of the
climate change response options prioritized in Step 3 into a local
Action Plan in each country. This effort was led by the local project
team in each country. Significant attention was also given to
possible overlap of the response options as well as strategic
institutional, policy and financing considerations. In some cases,
these aspects necessitated the reframing and recombination of the
response options in different ways to enhance the likelihood of
their acceptability to local and national authorities, and, if
developed in a project format, of being of potential interest to
donors. At the third workshop in each country, the Action Plans
were presented, discussed and debated. As noted above, partici-
pation at the third workshop in each country was broadened to
include national authorities and decision-makers (representatives
of relevant Ministries, local and regional governments, etc.). The
objective was to validate and critique the Action Plans from a
broader set of perspectives than were reflected in the first two
workshops, and address institutional and political constraints, not
only the technical and economic issues that had been the primary
focus of the first two workshops.
5. Results
5.1. Climate changes and impacts on agriculture
The results of the reviews and syntheses of climate changes and
their likely impacts on the agricultural sectors in each study site
were summarized and presented at the first workshop in each
country. One of the key results of the 2007 IPCC study, gained from
simulations from 21 global circulation models (GCMs) and ratified
83
by considerable other research, is the recognition that projected
climatic changes are characterized by great spatial heterogeneity;
forecasted changes are sensitive to the individual GCM model used,
assumptions about future greenhouse gas emissions, the time
period of interest, within-year seasonal differences, and other
factors. In general, there is a higher level of agreement among
model projections for temperature than precipitation in most
regions. Over the next 30+ years (the time frame for this study),
average annual temperatures are likely to increase by around 1 8C
over historical means (Ruosteenoja et al., 2003). GCM model
projections generally agree that Northwest Mexico (the site of the
Yaqui Valley) will be significantly drier by the end of the century
whereas Uruguay is likely to be significantly wetter, with greater
variability of precipitation patterns. For Peru, model results are
mixed with regard to projected precipitation patterns (Silva et al.,
2006; Haylock et al., 2006; IPCC, 2007). In one area, however, there
is little disagreement: glacial melting and the loss of ice mass are
expected to accelerate. The retreat of the glaciers on Peru’s
Huaytapallana peak is widely expected to result in increasing
water scarcity in the future in the Mantaro Valley. It is estimated
that, just between 1970 and 1997, Peru’s glaciers declined by 22%
in surface area from 2041 km2 to 1595 km2 (GEF, 2007).
Just as changes to the climate systems will not be uniform, the
impacts on agriculture will be spatially, temporally, and enter-
prise-specific. (This was the primary reason for the multiple sites
chosen for this study). There is a growing consensus that changes
in the frequency and severity of extreme events are likely to have
more impacts on agricultural systems than are changes in longer-
term climate means (Porter and Semenov, 2005). Crop yield
responses from various impact studies are widely variable,
depending on crop type, time period, geographic location, emission
scenario, and choice of crop and climate models. For example,
Hijmans (2003) evaluated the likely impacts of climate change on
potato yields around the globe, and projected average yield
decreases in the range of 18% to 32% without adaptation and
9% to 18% with adaptive measures. In general, moderate
warming (to 3 8C) is expected to benefit crop productivity in the
mid to high latitude regions, but any amount of warming in lower
latitudes may significantly reduce yields for crops like wheat (IPCC,
2007). It is important to recognize, however, that these types of
generalizations understate the importance of future extreme
weather events and associated responses. Only a few climate
change studies to date have assessed the impact of future trends in
climate variability on crop productivity (Tubiello et al., 2007).
While much uncertainty surrounds projections of future climate
and its associated impacts on regional and local agricultural
systems (Barros, 2006), there is a growing recognition that we are
committed to a certain amount of warming in the coming decades
and that this will inevitably affect agriculture (Howden et al., 2007;
Nelson et al., 2009). Thus agricultural adaptations are inevitable,
and indeed are already autonomously occurring in many locations.
5.2. Identification of potential response options
Participants in the first workshop in each country identified a
set of consensus possible response options to address climate
change impacts on agriculture. Due to space limitations, we do not
review all of the results for all three countries here; further
country-level details are available in World Bank (2009b).
However, Table 1 is illustrative and identifies the set of possible
response options that emerged from the first workshop for one
study location, Mexico’s Yaqui Valley. As expected, the potential
response options identified by stakeholders in each study site were
specific to that site and the climatic, biophysical, resource
management and other factors that were perceived by stake-
holders to limit the current and future agricultural production
84 D.R. Lee et al. / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 78–91
Table 1
Possible response options to climate change in Yaqui Valley Agriculture, Mexico.
1. Integrated watershed management
 Objective is to promote climate adaptation through optimal water
management to improve decision-making and facilitate better functioning of
watershed agroecosystems: agriculture, livestock, natural environment and
urban areas.
 Primary focus on adaptation to drought and extreme climatic events, to avoid
rural-urban migration and urbanization of peri-urban areas. Water availability,
storage and use are major limiting factors in the watershed, affecting
agriculture, livelihoods, and socio-economic development.
 Projects proposed to improve watershed conservation and management
planning; encourage reforestation and revegetation; build water retention
ponds and reservoirs; facilitate best management practices for water use;
improve water monitoring.
2. Improve water use efficiency in irrigation in Yaqui Valley Irrigation
District 041
 Goal is to improve–ideally, double–water use efficiency and the economic
feasibility of water use in irrigation.
 Support actions to improve irrigation management practices, including
greater water use efficiency, use of ferti-irrigation, conservation tillage and
other practices.
 Promote modernization and public sector reinvestment in irrigation
infrastructure, main and feeder canals, serving 7500 ha (with detailed cost
estimates).
3. Climate early warning system
 Objective is to reduce risks to farmers arising from drought, extreme weather
events and pest and disease outbreaks.
 Components include: risk mapping; monitoring and forecasting of weather
events and pest and disease outbreaks; system of disseminating information
through early warning system; adoption of appropriate methods to respond to
these alerts.
4. Crop genetic improvement
 Principal objective is adaptation to drought and improving crop productivity.
 Obtain advanced genetic lines for crop varietal improvement.
 Develop varieties with drought tolerance and resistance to rust disease
(wheat), bushy stunt mycoplasma (maize), and other pests and diseases.
 Develop experimental varieties for field and farmer trials.
5. Agricultural technology development
 Objective to improve adaptation to drought and improve crop and animal
productivity.
 Alternatives include: technologies to improve irrigation efficiency, ferti-
irrigation, conservation tillage, retention and storage ponds for water,
promotion of best management practices in irrigation and land management,
technologies for monitoring and improving water quality.
6. Market feasibility studies for fair trade products
 Objective: examine potential market feasibility of high-value ‘‘fair trade’’
products which are facing high demand in international markets, given both
climate change and reduced profitability of basic agricultural commodities
(maize, wheat).
 Capitalize on interest among producer groups (already 50 producer groups in
Mexico are certified for fair trade production), and potential benefits to
smallholders in the Valley due to potential to generate revenues on small
landholdings, diversify income sources, improve incomes, and rural to urban
migration.
 Products to examine include: Yori muni beans, potatoes, honey, etc.
7. Economic feasibility studies for market diversification
 Objective is to encourage diversification into non-traditional (especially, non-
wheat) products and markets, particularly those with prospects for high market
demands, in response to constraints of climate change, water availability,
challenge of maintaining high yields in an intensive system, slow growth in
demand, growing international competition in wheat, etc.
 Options include: grains – corn, sorghum, rice; oilseeds – safflower, canola
(rapeseed), soybeans, sesame; legumes – beans, garbanzo; vegetables: potato,
tomato (red and green), chilies, watermelon, melon, eggplant, pepper, broccoli;
biocombustibles – agave, sugarcane and beet, sweet sorghum, castor bean,
jatropha, crambe; fruits – pineapple, mango, oranges, mandarins, grapefruit,
lemons, olives; pastures: alfalfa, zacates (long grass).
Source: Adapted from World Bank (2009b).
potential of that region, given anticipated climatic changes.
Although the agro-climatic conditions and cropping systems and
structure of agriculture differed dramatically across the study sites,
there were numerous commonalities that emerged in the response
options identified by stakeholders. In all three countries, priority
response options were identified that focused on soil and water
management; crop management practices; improving climate
monitoring and prediction; innovations in agricultural technology
(from irrigation systems to biotechnology); and a wide range of
institutional and policy innovations. These are discussed in more
detail below.
5.3. Prioritization of response options
The second workshop in each country engaged participants in the
following three steps, the results of which are summarized here.
5.3.1. Weighting of evaluation criteria
Table 2 shows the final list of evaluation criteria used in the
priority-setting exercises in each country and the associated
average weights assigned by participants (in the final prioritization
calculations below, 50% of the weights were proportionately
assigned to the impact criteria, with the other 50% assigned
proportionately to the viability criteria). The weights of the
evaluation criteria show both similarities and differences across
the three countries. In all three countries, the perceived economic
benefits of the response option were weighted the highest among
the impact criteria. In both Mexico and Uruguay, the potential of
the response option to contribute to adaptation to climate change
was ranked second highest, while in Peru, ‘‘other environmental
effects’’ – notably, biodiversity conservation, given the importance
of potato biodiversity – received the second highest weight among
participants. The economic costs of each response option were
ranked highly as an evaluation criterion in all countries. The
importance of the response option to local poor and indigenous
groups was more highly weighted among participants in the Peru
workshop, reflecting the much smaller farms in the Mantaro Valley
compared to the other two study areas, and the much greater
prevalence of poverty. Among the viability criteria, in all three
countries, the technical viability of the response option was by far
the most heavily weighted criterion, while in both Mexico and
Uruguay, potential public support and public acceptance ranked
second. In Peru, participants’ weights of the other viability criteria
were more evenly distributed.
5.3.2. Development of response option profiles
Profiles of each response option were prepared by the country
teams prior to the second workshop in each country and presented
to participants at the second set of workshops. An example of a
typical such profile is presented in Table 3. This table summarizes
one of seven response options developed for Mexico – the genetic
improvement of wheat, maize and oilseeds. This response option
was ultimately ranked as the top response option for Mexico in the
prioritization exercise described below, and was one of the key
components of the Action Plan developed for the Yaqui Valley in Step
4 (below). Similar profiles were developed for all response options
discussed in each country; space limitations preclude presenting
others here.
5.3.3. Priority-setting of response options
The final results from the priority-setting exercises in each
country are shown in Tables 4a–4c. The differences in scores across
the response options in each country are relatively modest; the
scores are both weighted (across evaluation criteria) and averaged
(across participants in each study site), which reduces the
variability evident in the individual scores. Although the full sets
of response options bear many similarities across the three cases,
the options that ranked the highest in each country were quite
different: genetic improvement for wheat, maize and oilseeds in
Mexico (in part reflecting the region’s key role in the Green
 D.R. Lee et al. / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 78–91 85

Table 2
Impact and Viability criteria, and ave. participants’ weights used in priority-setting.

Mexico (n = 53) Peru (n = 44) Uruguay (n = 18)

Impact criteria
1. Economic benefits of the response option (including both private benefits and local economic benefits) 22.5 16.7 30.6
2. Economic costs of the response option 12.0 14.0 13.9
3. Spillover effects in other regions or sectors 6.9 7.1 11.1
4. Importance of the response option to the local poor and indigenous groupsa 10.8 13.7 8.1
5. Adaptation potential: potential of the response option to promote adaptation to climate change 13.1 10.5 15.3
6. Mitigation potential: potential of the response option to promote mitigation of climatic change 12.5 10.6 9.7
7. Capacity to reduce damage resulting from extreme events induced by climate change 11.4 11.9 11.4
8. Other environmental effects: maintaining biodiversity, etc. 10.8 15.6 n/a

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Viability criteria
1. Technical viability of the response option 23.4 21.8 32.5
2. Availability and confidence in the information necessary to evaluate the response option 17.2 16.7 17.2
3. Compatibility of response option with country’s climate change strategy 14.8 17.1 10.0
4. Potential public support and general public acceptance 18.0 15.7 16.4
5. Necessity of public sector intervention 16.3 17.4 13.6
6. Existing level of development of response option at regional and national levels 10.3 11.2 10.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Adapted from World Bank (2009b).
a
In Peru (only), gender-related constraints.

Table 3
Proposed response option for Mexico: genetic improvement of wheat, maize and oilseeds.
Objectives: Genetic improvement and varietal development through plant breeding and applications of biotechnology (including use of molecular markers), in order to
reduce the impacts of climate change, foster continued yield growth for major crops, and maintain a competitive and viable commercial agriculture.
Wheat. Climate change has the potential to threaten the dominance of wheat in the Yaqui Valley, along with its important economic contributions and the key role it plays
in national food security. The focus is on developing wheat varieties which can thrive in a hotter, dryer climate and which are resistant to disease and insects, including
those new to the region. A parallel focus also on developing varieties which can withstand and thrive given new climatic conditions and changing production cycles.
Maize. Often considered an alternative to wheat in the Valley, maize’s viability in the face of climate change will require varietal improvements which are resistant to high
temperatures and which are more efficient in nitrogen use and the utilization of water resources. Maize hybrids grown in the summer season should be resistant to rust,
micoplasmosis and fungus, and achieve yields of 8 ton/ha.
Oilseeds. Climate change, accompanied by rising temperatures and lower precipitation, should still leave oilseeds with significant production and economic potential
given their relatively low water needs and ability to adapt to different seasonal production cycles (autumn-winter and spring-summer). The chief challenges for crop
improvement are creating varieties and hybrids which are adapted to local climatic and ecological conditions.

Costs and Benefits: The following table shows estimated research costs and impacts:

Crop Research costs 2010–2025 (1000 Pesos) Impact on farmers returns (1000 Pesos)

Equipment Operation

Maize 5889 21,744 663,750

Oilseeds 5889 21,985 656,250
Wheat 5889 27,603 1,375,000
Subtotal 17,666 71,332

Total 88,997 2,695,000

Long-term Goals:
 New crop varieties. After 15 years, develop: three white maize and three yellow maize varieties tolerant to high temperatures and hydrological stress; five new varieties of
safflower, canola and soybeans; and eight new varieties of wheat. Yield targets established for each.
 Institutions and partnerships. This response option and action plan are based on the potential for a strategic alliance between the federal and state governments, producers
associations and research and training institutions.
 Impacts and other social aspects. Aim to restore the soybean crop which disappeared from the Yaqui Valley during the 1990s by creating a summer planting level of 30,000 ha.
Source: Adapted from Castellanos et al. (2009).

Revolution); integrated sustainable management of micro-water-
sheds in Peru, likely reflecting the vulnerable soil and water
resources of the Mantaro Valley; and information and decision
support systems in Uruguay, likely reflecting the strong private
farming sector in that country and the widespread belief that
information provision is an appropriate role to deal with climate
change impacts. Despite these differences, at all study sites,
integrated management of water and watershed resources ranked
among the top two priorities.
5.3.4. Country Action Plans
In the third set of country workshops, participation was, by
design, broadened to a wider set of local and national institutions –
Ministries of Agriculture and the Environment; key government
agencies with responsibilities for climate change policy, water,
forest and land management; local and national producer
associations; local and regional governments; disaster manage-
ment institutions; and other organizations. Participation ranged
from 35 (Uruguay) to 80 (Mexico). Many of these organizations had
been represented in the earlier workshops, but in general,
participation in the third workshop was broader and higher level
officials participated. The objectives of these workshops, as
mentioned above, were to present the results of the local Action
Plans which were developed based on the response options
previously prioritized, and to discuss and debate, with high-level
officials and policymakers, the institutional and political con-
straints to accomplishing the goals and activities set out in the
Action Plans.
86 D.R. Lee et al. / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 78–91

Table 4a Table 5a
Results of priority-setting process for climate change response options: Mexico. Components of climate change Action Plan for Yaqui Valley, Mexico.

Response option Final score 1. Integrated management of the Rı́o Yaqui watershed: Efficient use of
(max = 100) watershed resources and long-term planning for water demands
(n = 52) a. Develop plan for integrated management of watershed resources.
b. Improve monitoring and management of natural resources and valuation of
1. Genetic improvement – wheat, maize, oilseeds 83.0 ecosystem services (especially forests, water and biodiversity).
2. Integrated watershed management 81.0 c. Institutional strengthening, planning, monitoring, and modeling, with a
3. Improvement to irrigation systems 77.2 water focus.
4. Revalidation of agricultural technologies 77.0 d. Improve efficiency, management and use of water resources.
5. Early alert system 75.7
6. Feasibility study for crop diversification 72.0 2. Early warning system to confront climate and phytosanitary risk
7. Feasibility study for ‘‘fair trade’’ products 67.8 a. Develop an automated network of meteorological stations in the Valley
b. Use models to estimate climate risks, including pests and disease
c. Improve and disseminate agro-meteorological and other information to
support decision-making and reduce risk
d. Dissemination of information and maps re. climate, yield and phytosanitary
Table 4b risk.
Results of priority-setting process for climate change response options: Perú.
3. Transformation of agriculture through (a) genetic improvement and (b)
Response option Final score improvement of irrigation systems.
(max = 100) a. Genetic improvement of cereals and oilseeds (wheat, maize, canola,
(n = 44) safflower, and soybeans), especially for drought and heat tolerance
b. Improvements in the irrigation system: investments to modernize
1. Integrated sustainable management of 76.6 infrastructure; improve water use efficiency; promote conservation tillage
micro-watersheds
2. Mini-reservoirs for water storage and 74.7 4. Market diversification and new options for crop farming in the Yaqui
training Valley
3. Technology adaptation for crop 69.4

production and management

4. Technology adaptation for livestock production 67.0 Table 5b
and management Components of climate change Action Plan for Mantaro Valley, Peru.
5. Agro-biodiversity monitoring of native 63.3
1. Improving legal and institutional frameworks, and information systems
potato varieties
a. Establish an integrated regional database on natural resources, climate, and
6. Strengthening of institutions and regulatory 62.1
vulnerability.
framework
b. Integrate the different existing early warning systems to enhance inter-
institutional collaboration to manage emergency situations.
c. Align the national and regional institutional and legal frameworks to deal
with the expected effects of climate change in the Mantaro Valley.
Table 4c 2. Improving the management of natural resources and related
Results of priority-setting process for climate change response options: Uruguay. infrastructure to reduce vulnerability
a. Integrated and sustainable management to reduce vulnerability to climate
Response option Final score
change in selected small watersheds – Shullcas, Yacus, Achamayo and Cunas –
(max = 100)
including reforestation, soil conservation, terrace management, monitoring
(n = 18)
systems, and capacity building of communities.
1. Information and decision support systems 78.9 b. Construction of small structures for water storage and distribution, and
2. Water management 77.2 improved infrastructure and management of irrigated areas (in Hualhuas and
3. Agricultural insurance 75.3 Cajas watersheds).
4. Support for technology and information transfer 72.9
5. Stimulating best management practices in agriculture 69.9 3. Adaptation of Mantaro Valley agricultural and livestock production
6. Improving climate forecasts 69.2 systems to climate change
7. Design of production systems to reduce climate risk 67.2 a. Monitor and conserve the rich biodiversity of native potato varieties in the
8. Traditional crop genetic improvement and use of 63.8 district of Comas.
biotechnology b. Design and implement integrated pest management practices and
monitoring systems to deal with the emergence of new crop diseases and pests.
Source: Adapted from World Bank (2009b). c. Design and implementation of agricultural techniques and practices for
livestock systems, including improved pastures and fodder conservation.

The key components of the three Action Plans are listed in

Tables 5a–5c. As the Action Plans were derived directly from the
response options developed in the previous step of the study, there
is a high overlap with those options. In two of the countries, Mexico
and Peru, specific plans for follow-up were developed at the
workshop, and in the case of Mexico, a committee of interested
institutions was formed to spearhead these activities. The Action
Plan for the Yaqui Valley closely adheres to established Federal
measures for climate change adaptation in the agricultural sector,
and importantly, also provides a sub-national perspective for
implementation of these measures. Discussion at the workshop
centered, in part, on the Yaqui Valley as a regional pilot, which
could subsequently be extended to other sectors or regions. In
Peru, the Regional Government representatives from Junı́n
expressed strong interest in the specific proposals developed in
this study, especially the public investment priorities which
aligned with the region’s climate change strategy (Enfrentando el
Cambio – Estrategia Regional de Cambio Climático – 2007). At the
workshop, a plan was developed to work with the Regional
Government of Junı́n to move the Action Plan forward, in
collaboration with governmental and producers’ groups. In
Uruguay, the Plan identified specific action steps for the
agricultural sector that were highly consistent with national
initiatives, announced previously in 2009, to promote national
attention to climate change adaptation, including: a fund for
climate-related disasters, improved management of water
resources, and creation of a national working group on risk
prevention and climate change adaptation. The Action Plan
developed in this study was expected to facilitate the knowledge
generation and implementation process within the agricultural
sector, and help identify needed financial backing for climate
change investments.
 D.R. Lee et al. / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 78–91
Table 5c
Climate Change Action Plan for Western Littoral Region, Uruguay.
1. Information and decision support system
a. Define agroecological zones and economically productive activities through
climate and land-use mapping.
b. Analyze physical and economic factors that quantify extreme climatic events,
agroclimatic risk, and that affect the variability of production systems.
c. Incorporate agroclimatic, economic and management factors in improved
crop models to help reduce risks associated with climate change.
d. Institutionalize the monitoring of agronomic and climatic factors that can be
used in developing early alert and decision support system for farmers.
e. Establish pre-conditions for insurance and risk management systems
through developing relevant climatic and economic indicators.
f. Implement an early alert and monitoring system for use by government
agencies in assisting forecasting and response to emergencies.
2. Improved water management Support and strengthen institutions
responsible for improved water management, especially at watershed level,
and including improved support for irrigation management and land-use
planning
a. Invest in new information, tools and technologies used in improved and
more efficient water management, including supplemental irrigation, and
improved production systems.
b. Support human capital development, including specialized training for
improved water management.
c. Improve technology transfer through private and public institutions,
including ‘‘technology roundtables’’.
3. Develop insurance and other financial instruments for improved risk
management
a. Support the development and use of agricultural insurance systems for
improved risk management, including catastrophic risk insurance based on
improved measurements of agroclimatic risk, and the use of index-based
mechanisms.
b. Create an emergency or contingency disaster compensation fund to help
cover risks not covered by private insurance.
Source: Adapted from World Bank (2009b).
6. Discussion and conclusions
In general, we found that the use of a ‘‘bottom-up’’ participatory
priority-setting methodology provides a valuable starting point in
the design of proactive local and regional adaptation strategies in
agriculture. The methodology is relative easy and inexpensive to
apply; is highly transparent; can readily incorporate a diverse set
of evaluation criteria; is highly participatory and flexible in
operation; and focuses directly on incorporating the views of
diverse local stakeholders – farmers, landowners, resource
managers – whose decisions are at the forefront in dealing with
climate change. Moreover, the approach outlined in this pilot study
addresses all three of the limitations which have often character-
ized one-off efforts to incorporate participatory input in formulat-
ing action-oriented climate change adaptation strategies: (1) Step
1 in the approach provides a formal mechanism to incorporate
climate change science – not just participants’ views and opinions
– in the design of adaptation response options; (2) the diverse
representation in the workshops and the focus on identifying and
prioritizing adaptation response options by consensus provided a
way to involve – but not permit the domination of – government
agency representatives and other experts, while at the same time
allowing, in the third workshop, the involvement of high-level
officials who could help translate the recommendations into
actionable measures; and (3) the methodology provides mecha-
nisms for ‘‘scaling up,’’ whether through involvement of regional
governments (Peru), a regional ‘‘pilot’’ study (Mexico), or applica-
tion elsewhere (see below).
It is also possible to identify a number of broader conclusions
and practical lessons, as well as limitations that emerged from this
study. First, as stated above, one of the most distinctive aspects of
climate change is the high degree of complexity and multiple
sources of uncertainty surrounding it (CBO, 2005; World Bank,
87
2009a; Randall et al., 2012). The priority-setting methodology
employed here helps break up the decision process into manage-
able parts, adapting to these multiple sources of uncertainty and
reducing the impact of individual assumptions that may later
prove inaccurate. In such an environment, where reliable data for
key biophysical and economic variables are absent, more
deterministic, quantitative assessments such as cost-benefit
analysis and economic welfare analysis may be problematic, both
conceptually and in practice (Pizer, 2005; EAI, 2006; Weitzman,
2009); the resulting policy recommendations can be highly varied,
even contradictory. For instance, we found the estimated costs of
response options to be much easier to estimate than the estimated
benefits; in the latter case, many outcomes are unknown, such as
the net yield effects of higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere (Ziska
and Bunce, 2007) and the economic benefits resulting from
unknown future prices. A priority-setting approach such as that
used here is not a substitute for, but is compatible with, benefit-
cost and other standard economic assessment measures; indeed,
preliminary estimates of costs and benefits were incorporated in
the profiles developed for evaluation of most of the response
options considered.
A second important result of this study is that, although the
three production environments and associated institutional
contexts were dramatically different, the types of response options
that were prioritized by emerged across the three countries were
highly similar. These included:
 Soil and water management, particularly in the context of
integrated systems of watershed management;
 Crop management, including the identification of best manage-
ment practices which respond to climate changes;
 Improving weather prediction and monitoring, and disseminating
results to stakeholders;
 Agricultural technology innovation, including a wide range of
options, from improved irrigation and water storage, to
fertilization technologies, to biotechnology; and
 Institutional and policy innovations, including market feasibility
analysis, agricultural insurance mechanisms, improved frame-
works for biotechnology regulation, and overall institutional
strengthening to deal with expected climate changes in
agriculture.
These commonalities may due to several reasons. They are
largely ‘‘no regrets’’ options which make sense even in the absence of
climate change (World Bank, 2009a). The advantages and dis-
advantages of ‘‘no regrets’’ options have been explored widely in the
literature (Cameron et al., 1999; IPCC, 2007), their key advantage
being that they contribute toward building general climate
resilience even in the absence of perfect information and foresight
about future climatic changes and their impacts (Heltberg et al.,
2009). An alternative view is that since the participants in the study
workshops were mostly farmers or otherwise connected in one way
or another with agriculture (as researchers, extensionists, NGO
representatives, etc.), they may share an implicit mindset of
response options and fail to prioritize options with which they
are not familiar or which ultimately might have greater impact.
Although we sought (and achieved) highly diverse participation in
the workshops, an even greater diversity of participants might have
identified and prioritized response options further ‘‘outside the
box.’’ Notwithstanding the similarities across prioritized interven-
tions in the different study countries, substantial differences exist in
their particular forms, implementation mechanisms and institu-
tional configuration, particularly at the micro-level. In any case, this
common set of response options could be considered a first
approximation to a regional adaptation strategy in agriculture,
one built, at least in part, from the ‘‘ground up.’’
88 D.R. Lee et al. / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 78–91
Third, a clear role for the public sector was identified in all three
cases. The bottom-up priority-setting process that is the center-
piece of this study inherently prioritizes the responses identified
by private resource managers. However, even in Mexico and
Uruguay where the private sector exhibits strong leadership in
agricultural and resource management and policy, it was widely
recognized that the private sector is challenged in responding to
climate change and that those responses can be greatly facilitated
by selected public sector investments and institutional and policy
changes. We conclude that the public sector can play a major role,
at a minimum, in three key areas: (1) infrastructure investment,
such as with respect to irrigation systems (this was a high priority
in Mexico); (2) providing information to facilitate private decision-
making, such as through climate change information systems and
early warning systems; and (3) institutional innovations to help deal
with environmental externalities and imperfect markets. Interest-
ingly, these coincide with the recent conclusions of Hallegatte et al.
(2011), who examine multi-sectoral climate adaptation and
recommend these same roles for the public sector – plus a fourth
role of establishing regulations, standards and fiscal policies – in
facilitating climate adaptation more broadly. It is also possible to
differentiate the types of public investments that deal with climate
change adaptation – in particular by the cost of the intervention
and the time horizon of the expected effects, both of which are
important to policymakers concerned with planning and costs and
to farmers concerned with the impacts of these investments on
yields and productivity. In reality, of course, the public sector is
highly constrained, in Latin America and elsewhere, in executing
these roles, but the outcomes of this study provide clear guidance
in terms of how limited public resources might be allocated in
support of climate adaptation in agriculture in the study regions.
Fourth, it is worth emphasizing that many of the response
options identified and prioritized by workshop participants in all
three countries focused on decision support systems and improv-
ing the information base available to farmers and land managers.
Mechanisms include early warning and climate information
systems (for climate forecasts, extreme weather events, pests
and disease outbreaks, etc.), climate risk maps and geographic
information systems. In comparison with major infrastructure
investments, such as investment in irrigation systems, these are
relatively inexpensive options. They still leave the key resource
allocation decisions in the hands of farmers but focus on solving
the information externalities that would otherwise lead to sub-
optimal resource use in a changing climate. This finding aligns with
recommendations from the IPCC’s Assessment Reports (Adger et al.,
2007; IPCC, 2007, 2014) as well as those from a variety of global
and regional institutions – UNDP, World Bank, Stockholm
Environment Institute, CSIRO-Australia, and others – that have
prioritized information provision and decision support as ways to
address climate change adaptation.
Fifth, our experience with the pilot priority-setting methodol-
ogy in the three countries led to several conclusions regarding its
usefulness and potential applicability elsewhere. We concluded,
for example, that the methodology is mostly useful as a ‘‘first step’’
in the identification, screening and initial prioritization of
adaptation responses. Particularly where large public investments
are involved – such as in the investments in irrigation infrastruc-
ture prioritized in the Yaqui Valley study site–cost-benefit analysis
or more detailed economic evaluation and assessment are
necessary prior to the commitment of funds. We observed that
the methodology seems more suitable for consensus-building than
for conflict resolution; the three workshops, separated in time by
several months to permit the completion of intervening tasks, did
not permit the extended interactions among participants and
opportunity for rapid follow-up that would have been necessary to
reach true consensus should the workshops have generated major
disagreements. Having a diverse multidisciplinary team we found
was necessary, as expected, not only to adequately address what is
inherently a complex, wide-ranging set of problems, but to help
achieve broad ‘‘buy-in’’ among diverse stakeholders. We concluded
that the optimal organizational mix of implementing partners was
tripartite – (1) a government agricultural research institution,
bringing technical knowledge to bear as well as a familiarity with
local agricultural systems and government institutions; (2) a
university, bringing technical capacity, a research focus and, where
possible, technical modeling capacity, and (3) a farmer organiza-
tion, representing the needs and views of producers.
A number of the outcomes of the methodology depended on the
functioning of the country workshops and some highly practical
considerations. We found that, as expected, the number and mix of
workshop participants makes a difference in the outcomes (Alston
et al., 1995; Janssen and Kissi, 1997; Byerlee, 2000; Lattre-Gasquet,
2006). All the participating parties contributed something unique
to the fluency of the information exchange, as was intended. In
particular, the views of farmers, farmer organization representa-
tives and field-level practitioners (agricultural extensionists, NGO
representatives, etc.) are a necessary offset to those of scientists,
academics and bureaucrats who, though highly knowledgeable,
often did not have the grounding and practical experience in
dealing with the sometimes sobering local realities of climate
change and its impacts. We observed that having roughly one-third
or more of workshop participation by farmers and farmers’
organization representatives seemed ideal to generate the desired
input by practitioners; when in a majority – especially in the
presence of Ministry and government representatives – the
workshop discussions too often broke down into ‘‘gripe sessions.’’
Finally, the quality of workshop facilitation played a very
substantial role in the ability to generate consensus on response
strategies and steer the groups of participants toward collective
decision-making.
The workshops also revealed some ambiguity and short-
comings in how farmers view climate change that are relevant
to conceiving appropriate solutions, both in the study regions and
elsewhere. For example, as is common in other contexts and even
among some scientists, we found that many workshop participants
often confuse short-term climatic variation, with which they are
familiar, with long-term climate change (Hulme et al., 1999;
Lundaka et al., 2013). Many participants also implicitly used
historical analogs in considering future climatic changes, when the
two need not be equivalent. We observed that many participants,
over the course of the workshops, shifted from viewing the
challenges as those of ‘‘climate adaptation’’ to those of achieving
‘‘climate resilience’’. This shift – consistent with the growing
scientific emphasis on building climate resilience – has the
advantage of emphasizing the ability of an agroecosystem to
recover from shocks and stresses induced by climate change (e.g.,
‘‘resilience’’), and can serve to make the challenges represented by
climate change more immediately addressable in the short run.
However, this perspective may also serve to deemphasize the focus
on unforeseen but potentially critical long-term changes.
Finally, we found the overall approach undertaken as a pilot
study has much to recommend it and, with appropriate adjust-
ments based on the local setting, can be highly applicable to other
country and agroecosystem settings in helping craft local
responses to the challenges posed by climate change. The basic
approach summarized in this paper has recently been used in
climate adaptation studies supported the World Bank and the
Global Environment Facility (GEF) in several countries, including
Lebanon, Jordan, and Kenya (Verner et al., 2013; NEMA, 2013). The
extension of this approach to climate change mitigation is certainly
possible, although some macro-level mitigation strategies may not
emerge from local priority-setting. It is important to note,
 D.R. Lee et al. / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 78–91
however, that most of the adaptation strategies prioritized in this
study are highly consistent with measures promoting mitigation.
Further extensions to policy and institutional mechanisms to
promote climate change adaptation and mitigation are also
important. As climate change intensifies and its impacts become
more pervasive, there is likely to be increasing pressure on farmers,
landowners and resource managers everywhere to significantly
modify their management practices. Attention needs to be given to
new policies and instruments that provide incentives for farmers
to modify land and resource use: regulatory and enforcement
approaches; taxes and subsidies; input pricing that reflects true
scarcity values (e.g., for water) and that fully incorporates
environmental externalities (e.g., fertilizer); payments for envi-
ronmental services (PES) programs; innovations in carbon offset
projects; better monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions in crop
and animal systems; and closer harmonizing of production-
oriented agricultural programs with environmental regulations.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the institutions and associated country team
members for their leadership and invaluable help in the research
reported here; in Mexico: the Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones
Forestales, Agrı́colas y Pecuarias (INIFAP), the Universidad
Nacional de Sonora, and the Coordinadora Nacional de Funda-
ciones Produce (COPFUPRO) and team members Alejandro
Castellanos, Erasmo Valenzuela, Raúl Romo and César Ocaña; in
Peru: the Instituto Nacional de Innovación Agrária (INIA) and team
members Julio Toledo, Miguel Barandarian and Carlos Aguirre; and
in Uruguay: the Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria
(INIA), and team members Augustı́n Giménez, Bruno Lanfranco
and Jorge Sawchik. We also want to acknowledge the following
individuals for their many contributions to this study: Franz Drees-
Gross, Indira Ekanayake, Beatriz Franco, Alexandra Horst, Michel
Kerf, Beatriz Nussbaumer, K.V. Raman, Ana Francisca Ramirez,
Susan Riha, Gustavo Saltiel, Ethel Sennhauser, and Laura Tuck. For
valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper, we thank
three anonymous reviewers and Jo Albert, Erick Fernandes, Gretel
Gambarelli, Michel Kerf, John Nash, William Sutton and Ernesto
Viglizzo.
References
Aberman, N., Birner, R., Ali, S., 2011. A Stakeholder Map for Climate Change in
Bangladesh’s Agricultural Sector. International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, DC.
Adger, W.N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M.M.Q., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty,
R., Smit, B., Takahashi, K., 2007. Assessment of adaptation practices, options,
constraints and capacity. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., Linden,
P.J.v.d., Hanson, C.E. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 717–743.
Adger, W.N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D.R., Naess,
L.O., Wolf, J., Wreford, A., 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate
change? Climatic Change 93, 335–354.
Agrawal, A., McSweeney, C., Perrin, N., 2008, July. Local Institutions and Climate
Change Adaptation. The Social Dimensions of Climate Change, No. 113. Social
Development Notes. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Alston, J., Norton, G., Pardey, P., 1995. Science Under Scarcity: Principles and
Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Baltussen, R., Niessen, R., 2006. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for
multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff. Res. Alloc. 4, 14.
Barros, V., 2006, September. Adaptation to Climate Trends: Lessons from the
Argentine Experience. AIACC Working Paper No. 38. International START
Secretariat.
Bartels, W.-L., Bartels, C.A., Furman, D.C., Diehl, F.S., Royce, D.R., Dourte, B.V., Ortiz,
D.F., Zierden, T.A., Irani, C.W., Fraisse, J.W. Jones, 2013. Warming up to climate
change: a participatory approach to engaging with agricultural stakeholders in
the Southeast US. Reg. Environ. Change 13 (Supplement), 45–55.
Bizikova, L., Boardley, S., Mead, S., 2010, December. Participatory Scenario
Development (PSD) Approaches for Identifying Pro-Poor Adaptation Options.
89
Development and Climate Change Discussion Paper 18. World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Braunschweig, T., 2000. Priority Setting in Agricultural Biotechnology Research.
Research Report 16. International Service for National Agricultural Research.
The Hague, The Netherlands.
Byerlee, D., 2000. Targeting poverty alleviation in priority setting for agricultural
research. Food Policy 25, 429–445.
Cameron, L.J., Montgomery, W.D., Foster, H.L., 1999. The economics of strategies to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Stud. Rev. 9 (1), 63–73.
Castellanos, A.E., Valenzuela, E., Ocaña, C., Romo, R., 2009. Vulnerabilidad al cambio
climático en Sistemas Agrı́colas en Latinoamérica: Construyendo las estrategias
de Respuesta: El caso de la agricultura en el Valle del Yaqui en el Noroeste de
México. Report to World Bank. Ciudad de Obegon, Mexico.
Chambers, R., 1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the Last First. Intermediate
Technology Publications, London.
Christensen, J.H., Hewitson, B., Busuioc, A., Chen, A., Gao, X., Held, I., Jones, R., et al.,
2007. In: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B.,
Tignor, M., Miller, H.L. (Eds.), Regional climate projections, Climate Change
2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge.
Commandeur, P., 1997. The DGIS special programme on biotechnology. Biotechnol.
Dev. Monit. 31, 611.
Congressional Budget Office, 2005, January. Uncertainty in Analyzing Climate
Change: Policy Implications. U.S. Congress, Washington, DC.
Cooper, P.J.M., Dimes, J., Rao, K.P.C., Shapiro, B., Shiferaw, B., Twomlow, S., 2008.
Coping better with current climatic variability in the rain-fed farming systems
of sub-Saharan Africa: an essential first step in adapting to future climate
change? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 126, 24–35.
Cuellar, E., 2008. Descripción y Caracterización de la Cuenca del Mantaro. Presen-
tation at INIA-World Bank Workshop on ‘‘Vulnerability of Agricultural Systems
to Climate Change’’, October 2, 2008, Huancayo, Peru.
de Bruin, K., Dellink, R.B., Ruijs, A., Bolwidt, L., van Buuren, A., Graveland, J., de Groot,
R.S., Kuikman, P.J., Reinhard, S., Roetter, R.P., Tassone, V.C., Verhagen, A., van
Ierland, E.C., 2009. Adapting to climate change in The Netherlands: an inventory
of climate adaptation options and ranking of alternatives. Climatic Change 95,
23–45.
de la Torre, A., Fajnzylber, P., Nash, J., 2009. Low Carbon, High Growth: Latin
American Responses to Climate Change – An Overview. World Bank Latin
American and Caribbean Studies, Washington, DC. http://elibrary.worldban-
k.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/978-0-8213-7619-5.
Environmental Assessment Institute, 2006. Risk and Uncertainty in Cost-Benefit
Analysis: A Toolbox Paper. Copenhagen, Denmark.
Escobal, J., Cavero, D., June 2007. Transaction Costs and Institutional Arrangements
in Potato. Marketing by Small Producers in Rural Peru,’’ Research Programme
Consortium for Improving Institutions for Pro-Poor Growth, Discussion Paper
Series No. 12, Manchester, U.K. .
Evans, L., Milfont, T.L., Lawrence, J., 2014. Considering local adaptation increases
willingness to mitigate. Global Environ. Change 25, 69–75.
Falconi, C., 1999. Methods of priority setting in agricultural biotechnology research.
In: Cohen, J.I. (Ed.), Managing Agricultural Biotechnology – Addressing Research
Program Needs and Policy Implications. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon,
UK (Ch. 4).
Fankhauser, S., Smith, J.B., Tol, R.S.J., 1999. Weathering climate change: some simple
rules to guide adaptation decisions. Ecol. Econ. 30, 67–78.
Faysse, N., Rinaudo, J.-D., Bento, zs., Richard-Ferroudji, A., Errahj, M., Varanda, M.,
Imache, A., Dionnet, M., Rollin, O., Garin, P., Kuper, M., Maton, L., Montginoul, M.,
2014. Participatory analysis for adaptation to climate change in Mediterranean
agricultural systems: possible choices in process design. Reg. Environ. Change
14 (Supplement), 57–70.
Fellman, T., 2012. The assessment of climate change related vulnerability in
the agricultural sector: Reviewing conceptual frameworks. In: FAO-OECD
Workshop on ‘‘Building Resilience for Adaptation to Climate Change in the
Agriculture Sector,’’, 23–24 April, 2012. Rome, Italy.
Fernandes, E.C.M., Soliman, A., Donatelli, M., Confalonieri, R., Tubiello, F., 2012.
Climate Change and Agriculture in Latin America, 2020–2050: Projected
Impacts and Response to Adaptation Strategies. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Ferrari, J.M., 2008. Agricultura de Secano: Evolución, Situación Actual y Algunos
Interrogantes. Presentation at INIA-World Bank Workshop on ‘‘Vulnerability to
Climate Change,’’, September 29, Montevideo.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), 2006. Unequal
Access to Natural Resources Available at:In: www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/
2006/1000342/index.html.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), 2007. Adaptation
to Climate Change in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Perspective, Frame-
work and Priorities. Interdepartmental Working Group on Climate Change,
Rome, Italy.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), 2008. In: Issues
Paper: Expert Meeting on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, Rome,
Italy, March, 2008.
Fürstenau, C., Badeck, F.W., Lasch, P., Lexer, M.J., Lindner, M., Mohr, P., Suckow, F.,
2007. Multiple-use forest management in consideration of climate change and
the interests of stakeholder groups. Eur. J. For. Res. 126 (2), 225–239.
Giménez, 2006. Climate Change and Variability in the Mixed Crop/Livestock Pro-
duction Systems of the Argentinean, Brazilian and Uruguayan Pampas: Final
Report, submitted to Assessments of Impacts and Adaptations to Climate
90 D.R. Lee et al. / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 78–91
Change (AIACC). Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria, International
START Secretariat, Washington, DC.
Global Environment Facility, 2007, January. Adaptation to the Impact of Rapid
Glacier Retreat in the Tropical Andes, Project Executive Summary.
Hallegatte, S., Lecocq, F., de Perthuis, C., 2011. Designing Climate Change Adaptation
Policies: An Economic Framework. Policy Research Working Paper 5568. The
World Bank, Washington, DC. http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/
1813-9450-5568.
Hartwich, F., 1999. Weighting of Agricultural Research Results: Strength and
Limitations of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Discussion Paper 09-99. Univer-
sity of Hohenheim Available at: entwicklungspolitik.uni-hohenheim.de/
uploads/media/DP_09_1999_Hartwich.pdf.
Haylock, M.R., et al., 2006. Trends in total and extreme South American
rainfall in 1960–2000 and links with sea surface temperature. J. Clim. 19,
1490–1512.
Heltberg, R., Siegel, P.B., Jorgensen, S.L., 2009. Addressing human vulnerability to
climate change: toward a ‘‘No Regrets’ approach. Global Environ. Change 19 (1),
89–99.
Hijmans, R.J., 2003. The effect of climate change on global potato production. Am. J.
Potato Res. 80, 271–280.
Howden, S.M., Soussana, J.-F., Tubiello, F.N., Chhetri, N., Dunlop, M., Meinke, H.,
2007. Adapting agriculture to climate change. PNAS 104, 19691–19696.
Hulme, M., Barrow, E.M., Arnell, N.W., Harrison, P.A., Johns, T.C., Downing, T.E., 1999.
Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate vari-
ability. Nature 397, 688–691.
Institute of Medicine, 1986. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities, vol.
2. Committee on Issues and Priorities for New Vaccine Development. National
Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. In: Pachauri, R.K., Rei-
singer, A. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contributions of
Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergov-
ernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team. IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014. Summary for policy-
makers. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D.,
Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel,
E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R., White, L.L. (Eds.), Climate
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and
Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge/United Kingdom/New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–32.
International Institute for Environment and Development, 2009. Community-based
Adaptation to Climate Change. Participatory Learning and Action No. 60,
Stevenage, U.K. .
Inter-Ministerial Commission on Climate Change, 2013. National Climate Change
Strategy: 10-20-40 Vision. Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources.
Federal Government of Mexico, Mexico, D.F..
International Institute for Sustainable Development, March 2007. Summary of the
Second International Workshop on Community-Based Adaptation to Climate
Change. Commun. Based Adapt. Climate Change Bull. 135 (1) .
Janssen, W., Kissi, A., 1997. Planning and Priority Setting for Regional Research: A
Practical Approach to Combine Natural Resource Management and Productivity
Concerns. Research Management Guidelines No. 4. International Service for
National Agricultural Research, The Hague.
Lattre-Gasquet, M., 2006. The use of foresight in setting agricultural research
priorities. In: Box, L., Engelhard, R. (Eds.), Science and Technology Policy for
Development, Dialogues at the Interface. Anthem Press, London.
Lobo, C., 2011. Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation: The Need and Role of
Civil Society Organizations. World Resources Report. World Resources Institute
Accessed at:In: www.worldresourcesreport.org/responses/mainstreaming-cli-
mate-change-adaptation-need-and-role-civil-society-organisations.
Lundaka, R., Bezabih, M., Chaudhury, A., 2013. Stakeholder-based Cost-Benefit
Analysis in the Water Sector: Synthesis Report. International Institute for
Environment and Development, London, UK.
Manicad, G., 1997. Priority setting in agricultural research: a brief conceptual
background. Biotechnol. Dev. Monit. 31, 26.
Marengo, J., Ambrizzi, T., 2006. Use of regional climate models in impact assess-
ments and adaptations studies from continental to regional and local scales:
The CREAS (Regional Climate Change Scenarios for South America) initiative in
South America. In: Proceedings of 8 ICSHMO, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, April 24–28,
2006, pp. 291–296.
McCrum, _G., Blackstock, K., Matthews, K., Rivington, M., Miller, D., Buchan, K., 2009.
Adapting to climate change in land management: the role of deliberative
workshops in enhancing social learning. Environ. Policy Gov. 19, 413–426.
Mendelsohn, R., Dinar, A., 1999. Climate change, agriculture, and developing
countries: does adaptation matter? World Bank Res. Obs. 14, 277–293.
Meybeck, A., Lankoski, J., Redfern, S., Azzu, N., Gitz, V., 2012.In: Building Resilience
for Adaptation to Climate Change in the Agriculture Sector: Proceedings of a
Joint FAO/OECD Workshop. 23–24 April 2012. Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion of the United Nations/Organization for Economic Cooperation and Devel-
opment, Rome.
Mills, B. (Ed.), 1998. Agricultural Research Priority Setting: Information Invest-
ments for Improved Use of Resources. International Service for National Agri-
cultural Research, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Moser, S.C., Boykoff, M.T. (Eds.), 2013. Successful Adaptation to Climate Change:
Linking Science and Practice in a Rapidly Changing World. Routledge, London.
National Environment Management Authority, Kenya, 2013. Technology Needs
Assessment and Technology Action Plans for Climate Change Adaptation.
Technology Needs Assessment Project, Government of Kenya.
Neef, A., Heidhues, F., Neubert, D., 2003. Assessing success of participatory agricul-
tural research – indicators, methods, limitations. Paper presented 25th Inter-
national Conference of the International Association of Agricultural Economists,
Durban, South Africa, August.
Nelson, G.C., Rosegrant, M.W., Koo, J., Robertson, R., Sulser, T., Zhu, T., Ringler, C.,
Msangi, S., Palazzo, A., Batka, M., Magalhaes, M., Valmonte-Santos, R., Ewing, M.,
Lee, D., 2009. Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation.
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
O’Brien, K., Quinlan, T., Ziervogel, G., 2009. Vulnerability interventions in the
context of multiple stressors: lessons from the Southern Africa Vulnerability
Initiative (SAVI). Environ. Sci. Policy 12, 23–92.
Padgham, J., 2009. Agricultural Development Under a Changing Climate: Oppor-
tunities and Challenges for Adaptation. Joint Discussion Paper. Agriculture and
Rural Development & Environment Departments. The World Bank, Washington,
DC. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/
WDSP/IB/2012/08/03/000356161_20120803030735/Rendered/PDF/
716320WP0Box370mate0change0combined.pdf.
Pielke Jr., R., Prins, G., Rayner, S., Sarewitz, D., 2007. Climate change 2007: lifting the
taboo on adaptation. Nature 445, 597–598.
Pizer, W., 2005. Climate Policy Design Under Uncertainty. Discussion Paper 05-44.
Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Porter, J.R., Semenov, M.A., 2005. Crop responses to climatic variation. Philos. Trans.
R. Soc. B 360, 2021–2035.
Pretty, J., 1995. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev. 23 (8),
1247–1263.
Ramamasy, S., Bass, S., 2007. Climate Variability and Change: Adaptation to Drought
in Bangladesh. Institutions for Rural Development 9. FAO and Asian Disaster
Preparedness Center, Rome.
Randall, A., Capon, T., Sanderson, T., Merrett, D., Hertzler, G., 2012. Choosing a
Decision-making Framework to Manage Uncertainty in Climate Adaptation
Decision making: A Practitioner’s Handbook. National Climate Change Adapta-
tion Research Facility, Gold Coast, Australia 25 pp.
Rhoades, R.E., 1994. Farmer participation in priority setting. In: Meindertsma, J.D.
(Ed.), Setting Research Priorities – Towards Effective Farmer-oriented Research.
Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, pp. 65–76.
Rhodes, E.R., Jalloh, A., Diouf, A., 2014. Review of research and policies for climate
change adaptation in the agriculture sector in West Africa. In: Africa Interact
Working Paper 090, International Development Research Centre, Dakar,
Senegal.
Ringler, C., Bryan, E., Hassan, R.M., Alemu, T., Hillesland, M., 2011. How Can African
Agriculture Adapt to Climate Change? Insights from Ethiopia and South Africa.
Research Brief Series, vol. 15. International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, DC.
Rudan, I., Arifeen, S.E., Black, R.E., 2006. A systematic methodology for setting
priorities in child health research investments. Presentation at Global Forum for
Health Research, Cairo, Egypt.
Ruosteenoja, K., Carter, T., Jytha, K., Tuomenvirta, H., 2003. Future Climate in World
Regions: An Intercomparison of Model-based Projections for the New IPCC
Emissions Scenarios. Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland.
Schoups, G., Addams, C.L., Minjares, J.L., Gorelick, S.M., 2006. Sustainable conjunc-
tive water management in irrigated agriculture: model formulation and appli-
cation to the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. Water Resources Research 42, 1–19.
Silva, Y., Takahashi, K., Cruz, N., Trasmonte, G., Mosquera, K., Nickl, E., Chavez, R.,
Segura, B., Lagos, P., 2006. Variability and Climate Change in the Mantaro River
Basin, Central Peruvian Andes. In: Proceedings of 8 ICSHMO, Foz do Iguaçu,
Brazil, April 24–28, 2006. INPE, pp. 407–419.
Smit, B., Wandel, J., 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability. Global
Environ. Change 16, 282–292.
Smith, S.C., Malik, A.S., 2012. Adaptation to Climate Change in Low-income Coun-
tries: Lessons from Current Research and Needs from Future Research. In:
Institute for International Economic Policy Working Paper IIEP-WP-2012-08,
Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University,
Washington, DC.
Sova, C.A., Helfgott, A., Chaudhury, A.S., 2013. Multilevel stakeholder influence
mapping in climate change adaptation regimes. Working Paper No. 46. CGIAR
Research Program on Climate Change. Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS),
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sutton, W.R., Srivastava, J.P., Neumann, J.E., Strze˛pek, K.M., Droogers, P., 2013.
Reducing the Vulnerability of Albania’s Agricultural Systems to Climate
Change: Impact Assessment and Adaptation Options. World Bank, Washington,
DC.
Thiombiano, L., Andriesse, W., 1998. Research priority setting by a stepped agro-
ecological approach: case study for the Sahel of Burkina Faso. Netherlands J.
Agric. Sci. 46, 5–14.
Tomlinson, M., Rudan, I., Saxena, S., Swartz, L., Tsai, A.C., Patel, V., 2009. Setting
priorities for global mental health research. Bull. World Health Org. 87, 438–
446.
Tubiello, F.N., Soussana, J., Howden, S.M., 2007. Crop and pasture response to
climate change. PNAS 104, 19686–19690.
United Nations Institute for Training and Research, 2011. Description of Nineteen
Pilot Actions in Asia and Africa. Advancing Capacity for Climate Change
Adaptation, UNITAR Accessed at:In: www.acccaproject.org/accca/files/
ACCCA_Brochure_19pilotactions.pdf.
 D.R. Lee et al. / Global Environmental Change 29 (2014) 78–91
United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme, 2011. Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation into Development
Planning: A Guide for Practitioners. UNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment Facility,
Nairobi, Kenya.
Verner, D. (Ed.), 2010. Reducing Poverty, Protecting Livelihoods, and Building
Assets in a Changing Climate: Social Implications of Climate Change in Latin
America and the Caribbean.World Bank, Washington, DC. ßWorld Bank.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2473, License: CC BY
3.0 IGO.
Verner, D., Lee, D.R., Ashwill, M., Wilby, R., 2013. Increasing Resilience to Climate
Change in the Agricultural Sector of the Middle East: The Cases of Jordan and
Lebanon. Middle East and North Africa Division. World Bank, Washington, DC.
ßWorld Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/13123, Li-
cense: CC BY 3.0 IGO.
Vergara, W., November, 2007. Visualizing Future Climate in Latin America: Results
from the Application of the Earth Simulator. LAC Region Sustainable Develop-
ment Working Paper 30. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Weitzman, M.L., 2009. On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic
climate change. Rev. Econ. Stat. 91 (1), 1–19.
91
World Bank, 2007. Agriculture for Development. World Development Report
2008. Washington DC. ßWorld Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
handle/10986/5990, License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.
World Bank, July 2008. ‘‘Local Institutions and Climate Change Adaptation’’. Social
Development Notes – The Social Dimensions of Climate Change. No. 113,
Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/
10986/11145/4489100BRI0Box31te0Change0Adaptation.pdf?sequence=1.
World Bank, 2009a. Development and Climate Change. World Development Report
2010. Washington, DC. ßWorld Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
handle/10986/4387, License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.
World Bank, 2009b. ‘‘Building Response Strategies to Climate Change in Agricultural
Systems in Latin America.’’ Latin American and Caribbean Region. Washington,
DC. ßWorld Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/
12473, License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.
World Bank, 2009c. ‘‘Climate Change Aspects in Agriculture.’’ Country Notes Series.
World Resources Institute (WRI), 2005. The World Resources 2005 – The Wealth of
the Poor. Washington, DC.
Ziska, L., Bunce, J., 2007. Predicting the impact of changing CO2 on crop yields: some
thoughts on food. New Phytol. 175, 607–618.