2011年-世界发展银行全球_Costing_Adaptation_through_Local_Institutions___Village_Survey_Results_-_Mali_140页_3mb

Summary of "Costing Adaptation through Local Institutions Village Survey Results: Mali"

Core Content

This report is part of the World Bank's Costing Adaptation through Local Institutions (CALI) project, which aims to identify the costs of climate change adaptation through local institutions and evaluate the role of these institutions in supporting households. The study was conducted in six villages in Mali, focusing on household vulnerability, adaptation strategies, and institutional support.

Main Results

Households are Extended Families

• Households in all studied villages consist of extended families, with several generations sharing a living space.
• The typical household size ranges from 13 to 16 people.
• Formal education is limited, and gender disparities are evident, with girls less likely to be enrolled in school compared to boys.

Few Sources of Income

• Agriculture is the primary source of income for most households.
• Cereals are the main crop, with cash crops, vegetables, and fruits also being cultivated.
• Livestock ownership is common in five of the six villages, but N'Tjila has a lower rate.
• Migration is another important income source, with many households having at least one member who has migrated.

Village Vulnerability Profiles

• Vulnerability is determined by exposure, sensitivity, and coping capacity.
• Kondogola and Fambougou are the most exposed and most sensitive villages due to their reliance on agriculture and livestock.
• N'Tjila, though less exposed, has limited coping capacity and is highly sensitive to climate change.
• Kandara, Touara, and Togou have medium to high exposure but good coping capacities due to migration, cash crops, and income diversification.

Cluster Analysis Defines Intervention Strategy

• Cluster analysis was used to group households based on vulnerability characteristics.

• Six distinct clusters were identified, each with different economic, social, and environmental profiles:

  1. Better educated, wealthy livestock farmers – high education, large livestock, diversified income.
  2. Diversified, rich farmers – rich in assets, land, and livestock, with diversified income.
  3. Large fisheries households – involved in fisheries, high migration rates.
  4. Larger cash-crop growing households – better educated, low migration, high cash crop production.
  5. Poor households – low education, high dependency ratio, low migration.
  6. Smallholder cash-crop growers – small landholdings, limited livestock, focus on cash crops.

• Poor households and smallholder cash-crop growers are the most vulnerable.

• Diversified rich farmers and large migrant farmers are the least vulnerable.

Adaptation Strategies

• Strategies were classified into four categories:

  1. Agricultural techniques – use of drought-resistant crops, fertilizer/pesticide application.
  2. Water management techniques – water harvesting, irrigation, drainage.
  3. Income diversification techniques – temporary migration, home-garden agriculture, use of livestock or savings.
  4. Communal pooling techniques – soil erosion prevention, communal water harvesting, irrigation.

• Most households use similar strategies, such as:

  • Improved seeds
  • Use of family manure
  • Adaptation of fertilizer/pesticide use
  • Temporary migration
  • Cereal banks

• Training is completely absent in the assistance provided by institutions.

• Assistance is limited to inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, and tools.

• Institutions are mainly NGOs and community-based organizations, while government and international institutions are underrepresented.

• Assistance is short-term, focusing on immediate needs rather than long-term development.

Main Conclusions

• Communal strategies are not often used due to a lack of ownership and training.
• Training is not emphasized by institutions, and households do not perceive it as a form of assistance.
• Institutional support is limited and focused on inputs rather than capacity building or long-term development.
• Community-based initiatives are underutilized, possibly due to family-oriented behavior and lack of institutional engagement.
• Adaptation strategies are relatively uniform across villages and households, which simplifies targeting but may lead to saturation of certain strategies.

Policy Recommendations

1. Develop new, innovative strategies that can be implemented on an individual basis, given the limited variation in current strategies.
2. Promote community ownership of adaptation strategies to enhance sustainability and effectiveness.
3. Enhance training and knowledge transfer to empower households to make informed decisions.
4. Improve institutional visibility and outreach, especially in poor and marginalized communities.
5. Encourage collaboration between formal and informal institutions to ensure comprehensive support.
6. Strengthen community-based programs to address long-term challenges such as soil erosion, water management, and market development.
7. Support institutional capacity to better facilitate community adaptation and capacity building.
8. Address the underrepresentation of government and international institutions in providing support to rural communities.