4. Insights from country case studies for building agricultural resilience to natural hazard-induced disasters

4.1. Introduction

Managing natural hazard risk is inherent in agriculture, given the sector’s reliance on climate and weather conditions and the natural resource base. However, more frequent and intense natural hazards,1 and the compounding and systemic nature of that risk, pose a challenge for the sector – for farmers in developing countries, who often bear the brunt of natural hazard impacts (FAO, 2021[1]), but also for farmers in OECD countries. Around the world, recurrent and more severe natural hazards are challenging even experienced and innovative farm managers. More frequent and intense natural hazard-induced disasters (NHID) – implying higher costs in terms of direct impacts on agriculture, as well as from the cascading effects of disruptions to farm operations and in related sectors – also present a policy challenge for governments, who face a greater burden if a “business-as-usual” approach continues for disaster risk management2 (DRM) in agriculture (OECD, 2020[2]).

These trends in natural hazard risks and impacts underscore the need for DRM frameworks that build agricultural resilience, defined here as the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, respond, recover from, and more successfully adapt and transform in response to natural hazards (and other risks) (OECD, 2020[2]). Recognising this, in 2017, G7 Agriculture Ministers in Bergamo noted the effects of natural hazards on farmers’ lives, agricultural production productivity, agro-food systems in regions all over the world, and that climate change is projected to amplify many of these impacts. Ministers also noted the importance of strengthening the resilience of farmers to natural hazards (G7 Agriculture Ministers, 2017[3]).

In this context, the joint OECD-FAO project on Building Agricultural Rresilience to Natural Hazard-Induced Disasters: Insights from Country Case Studies examined DRM frameworks in seven countries – Chile, Italy, Japan, Namibia, New Zealand, Turkey and the United States – to identify what governments and agricultural sector stakeholders can do to build the resilience of farmers and the agricultural sector to NHID. This report syntheses the good practices identified in the seven case study countries,3 including policy measures, governance arrangements, on-farm strategies and other initiatives that provide incentives for, or support the capacities of public and private stakeholders to prepare and plan for NHID, absorb and recover from their impacts, and to adapt and transform in order to increase resilience to future disaster risks.

Good practices were identified according to principles in key international frameworks for managing the risks posed by disasters and other shocks, including OECD recommendations and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction,4 where the principles provide a roadmap for DRM frameworks that build agricultural resilience to NHID (Chapter 3). Based on these frameworks, each case study assessed the country-specific situation according to the following four Principles for Effective DRM for Resilience, as set out in Chapter 3:

• An inclusive, holistic and all-hazards approach to natural disaster risk governance for resilience.

• A shared understanding of natural disaster risk based on the identification, assessment and communication of risk, vulnerability and resilience capacities.

• An ex ante approach to natural disaster risk management.

• An approach emphasising preparedness and planning for effective crisis management, disaster response, and to “build back better”5 to increase resilience to future natural hazards.

Good practices encompass policy measures and governance arrangements that encourage public and private stakeholders – including farmers – to address gaps in their resilience levels. This can be done by helping stakeholders understand the risks that they face from natural hazards and their responsibilities for managing the risks they pose to their assets. For example, while rarer catastrophic risks such as NHID may require public intervention, on-farm strategies and the individual farmer’s overall capacity to manage risk also play a critical role in reducing risk exposure to catastrophic events, particularly over the long term (OECD, 2009[4]; OECD, 2020[2]). Specifically, the policy measures, governance arrangements, on-farm strategies and other initiatives highlighted in the country case studies and this synthesis were identified as “good practices” because they:

• Encourage public and private sector actors – including farmers – to consider the risk landscape over the long term, including to take into account the potential future effects of climate change on the agricultural sector, and to place a greater emphasis on what can be done ex ante to reduce risk exposure and increase preparedness.

• Provide incentives and support the capacity of farmers to prevent, mitigate, prepare and plan for, absorb, respond, recover from, and more successfully adapt and transform in response to natural hazards.

• Consider a wide range of future scenarios, including expected environmental, economic and social structural change, and contribute to agricultural productivity and sustainability, even in the absence of a shock or stress.

• Take into account the trade-offs inherent in natural disaster risk management, including between measures to build the capacities of the sector to absorb, adapt, or transform in response to natural disaster risk, and between investing in risk prevention and mitigation ex ante and providing ex post disaster assistance.

• Were developed with the participation of a wide range of actors, to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are equally involved in the design, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of interventions; and share a common understanding of the risk landscape and their respective responsibilities for managing natural disaster risk (OECD, 2020[2]).

4.2. Overview of the agricultural context and natural hazard profile

The seven countries – Chile, Italy, Japan, Namibia, New Zealand, Turkey and the United States – represent different regions of the world and different stages of development. Differences in geography and climatic patterns in these countries contribute to diverse agricultural characteristics. For example, with limited arable land, grass-fed livestock products are the backbone of New Zealand’s agriculture, whereas in Japan, rice paddy fields make up more than half of the county’s agricultural land.

Nonetheless, agriculture plays a key economic role in all of these case study countries. For example, the share of agriculture in the economy (gross domestic product, GDP) and in total employment is high in Chile, Namibia, New Zealand and Turkey. Chile is a net exporter of agro-food products with a surplus of USD 5 billion. In Namibia, agriculture is a key source of income and livelihoods for the majority of the population, and agricultural exports are an important source of foreign exchange revenues. New Zealand’s economy is strongly supported by agriculture, which accounts for 7.2% of GDP, 5.8% of employment and 63% of total exports. In Turkey, more than 18% of the workforce is employed in agriculture and the country’s export earnings depend on agriculture. In contrast, agriculture accounts for a small share of GDP and employment in Italy, Japan, and the United States. However, Italy leads the European Union in terms of gross value added in agriculture, and Italy’s agro-food system6 accounted for 15% of GDP in 2018. Similarly, the agro-food sector7 accounts for 10% of GDP in Japan. Finally, the United States is the world’s major producer of agricultural goods and ranks as one of the world’s primary exporters of a diverse array of agricultural products (OECD, 2020[5]; World Bank, 2021[6]).

Similar to other sectors – and indeed, the wider community – the agricultural sector must manage risks from a range of sources, including risk due to fluctuations in weather; market risk due to price volatility; financial risk resulting from the need to borrow funds to finance operations; and institutional or political risks from changes in policy. But given agriculture’s reliance on climate and weather conditions and the natural resource base, the sector is particularly vulnerable to natural hazards. The seven case study countries are exposed to a range of natural hazards, including droughts, floods, animal pests and diseases, and severe storms, among others, which can have significant and long-lasting impacts on agriculture, irrespective of countries’ level of development, climatic conditions or natural resource base. Drought – the focus of the case studies on Italy, Namibia and Turkey – causes large losses in most of the case study countries. For example, drought can substantially reduce crop yields, particularly in rain-fed systems, and cropped area, and have negative impacts on livestock production and health (OECD, 2016[7]). Floods and water-related natural hazards as a result of severe storms or heavy rain events – the focus of the case studies on Japan, New Zealand and the United States – also have significant impacts on agriculture. In addition to crop and livestock losses, floods can cause extensive damage to farm equipment and infrastructure, and also degrade farmland through erosion, contamination and sediment deposits from upstream sources.

The scale of recent natural hazards, in terms of both their frequency and intensity, is particularly concerning for the agricultural sector. Turkey is currently experiencing its driest weather since 2015, driving groundwater levels across the entire territory to the lowest percentiles and dramatically reducing grain harvests (NASA, 2021[8]). In the United States, the 2019 Midwest Floods disrupted agricultural production in a number of states and caused an estimated USD 1 billion agricultural damage in Nebraska and USD 2 billion in Iowa (Reuters, 2019[9]; AGU, 2019[10]). In Japan, the top four most damaging typhoons since 1950 have occurred since 2018 (EMDAT, 2020[11]), causing damage and losses to the agricultural sector of USD 4.7 billion in 2018, the highest in the last ten years, and USD 4.5 billion in 2019 (MAFF, 2020[12]).

Climate-related hazards are expected to intensify and become more frequent in all case study countries as a result of climate change, posing a significant challenge to the agricultural sector. In some cases, climate change will also mean that areas that had not historically experienced natural hazards will be more exposed in the future (CPD, 2018[13]; IPCC, 2014[14]; Knutson et al., 2019[15]; Zucaro, Antinoro and Giannerini, 2017[16]).

These trends mean that strengthening the agricultural sector’s resilience to NHID is ever more important. In doing so, stakeholders will also have to take into account the country-specific contexts that affect the sector’s vulnerability to NHID. For example, the majority of farmers in Chile are small scale and are more vulnerable to the adverse impacts of natural hazards than the larger, commercial farms. Most farmers in Namibia and Turkey are also small scale or subsistence farmers, and disparities in income and education in rural communities may also hinder farmers’ capacity to better manage natural hazard risks. In Japan, ageing and depopulation in rural areas can constrain community-based agricultural risk management and the adoption of innovations that build resilience. For this reason, applying a resilience approach to managing natural disaster risks requires both short-term strategies and investments to prevent and mitigate risks, and support a more resilient recovery, but also long-term investments that increase the agricultural sector’s capacity to manage those risks in the context of existing structural, economic and demographic conditions.

4.3. How can countries shift from being reactive to being proactive on natural hazards: Insights from country case studies

This section synthesises the seven country case studies according to the four Principles for Effective DRM for Resilience, highlighting the good practices identified in each country. Reflecting the fact that resilience to NHID is an outcome of measures put in place before, during and after an extreme event, good practices undertaken by governments, farmers and other stakeholders were identified at each stage of the DRM cycle, and include efforts to identify, assess and raise awareness of natural disaster risks; to prevent or mitigate those risks and their impacts; to prepare for likely or imminent NHID; to manage crises and disaster response efforts; and to support recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction.

Six of the country case studies focused on a particular type of natural hazard in order to explore how different policy measures, governance arrangements, on-farm strategies and other initiatives contribute to building resilience. The Italy and Turkey case studies focused on drought; the Namibia case study focused on drought and animal pests and diseases; the Japan case study focused on typhoons and heavy rains; and New Zealand and the United States focused on floods – in the United States case study, extreme floods associated with Hurricane Florence in 2018 and the 2019 Midwestern Floods. In contrast, the Chile case study focused on the country’s national agroclimatic risk information system, and the different financial instruments available to support agricultural producers in Chile. Although the specific natural hazards differed across the case studies – and despite the different structural, economic and demographic conditions in the seven countries – the key insights and lessons for what governments and agricultural sector stakeholders can do to build the resilience of farmers and the agricultural sector to NHID are consistent across the seven countries. These are explored in the following sections.

4.4. An inclusive, holistic and all-hazards approach to natural disaster risk governance for resilience

As noted in Chapter 3, strong and effective governance frameworks are crucial for building agricultural resilience to natural hazard-induced disasters. Institutions and policy frameworks influence decisions by farmers, government agencies and other stakeholders on whether or not to invest in building resilience, by defining stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities for managing natural disaster risk, and by providing incentives to invest in disaster risk reduction (DRR), including after a disaster (OECD, 2014[17]; UNISDR, 2015[18]). Establishing and enhancing governance frameworks for agricultural DRR and DRM, as well as resilience building, also represents a core step for national governments to achieve the Sendai Framework and move towards more disaster-resilient agricultural systems (FAO, 2021[1]).

In all seven case study countries, national frameworks for governing disaster risks are characterised by a multi-hazard and multi-sectoral approach, where the focus is shifting towards managing disasters by proactively reducing their risk, lowering vulnerability, and enhancing resilience before they occur. Reflecting this, the case study countries increasingly emphasise measures to prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts of disasters and be better prepared to respond to disasters, including structural measures, such as protective and other infrastructure; non-structural measures, such as risk and vulnerability assessments, hazard mapping, natural resource management, and early warning systems; and by building the capacities of key public and private stakeholders in DRM.

Multi-hazard and multi-sectoral DRM frameworks allow interactions and trade-offs between disaster risks (and the potential for compounding impacts), strategies to manage those risks and wider DRM policies to be taken into account (OECD, 2009[4]; OECD, 2018[19]). For this reason, it is important that agricultural sectors are integrated into these wider frameworks, to ensure that DRM priorities for agriculture are aligned with those of other sectors and government agencies. The extent to which agriculture is integrated into national DRM frameworks varies across the seven case study countries. In Japan, the agricultural sector is fully integrated into the country’s overarching frameworks for governing disaster risks – the Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act, which focuses on hazard-specific ex ante and ex post countermeasures; and the Basic Act for National Resilience, which focuses on building the resilience of critical infrastructure. In particular, these frameworks recognise that DRM measures implemented in the agricultural sector can contribute to disaster risk mitigation more broadly, tasking the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) with managing and investing in agricultural land and infrastructure to reduce flood risks (Shigemitsu and Gray, 2021[20]). In Chile, agriculture is integrated into the country’s national DRM policies, strategies and plans, and the national civil protection system (SNPC) has an active, multi-sectoral, multi-stakeholder, national DRR platform through which the sector can put forward its needs and priorities. The Ministry of Agriculture’s (MINAGRI) Agricultural Emergency and Risk Management Section (SEGRA) has disaster risk management responsibilities, including monitoring and issuing agricultural emergency and risk warnings; providing training; and designing and implementing emergency response actions. SEGRA also coordinating and providing technical assistance to implement regional agricultural emergency and agroclimatic risk management plans that are developed for each region (FAO, 2021[21]).

Agricultural policy frameworks predominantly shape DRM activities in some countries.8 In Italy and the United States, for example, DRM in agriculture is mainly addressed through agricultural risk management policies. In Italy, this includes the portfolio of subsidised insurance policies in the National Risk Management Plan, ex post disaster assistance under the National Solidarity Fund, and programmes that help farmers to prevent or mitigate their natural hazard risk (Baldwin and Casalini, 2021[22]). In the United States, for example, this includes a suite of agricultural risk management and disaster assistance programmes,9 as well as various conservation programmes to restore damaged farmland and prevent or mitigate natural disaster risks (Gray and Baldwin, 2021[23]). DRM priorities are also explicitly integrated into Japan’s ten-year agricultural policy agenda, the Basic Plan for Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas, which explicitly recognises the need for ex ante efforts to reduce the risks to the agricultural sector from large-scale natural hazards (Shigemitsu and Gray, 2021[20]).

Governance frameworks for managing specific natural hazard risks and resources also influence how some natural hazards are managed in agriculture. This includes drought strategies and plans, governance arrangements for managing flood risks, water governance frameworks, and animal health-related legislation. In Turkey, for example, drought risks are primarily managed through the country’s Strategy for Combatting Agricultural Drought and Action Plan (the Drought Strategy) (OECD, 2021[24]). In New Zealand, different government agencies have responsibility for different risks, albeit under a single overarching governance framework. For example, the Ministry for Primary Industries is the lead agency for drought and biosecurity risks, while floods are a responsibility of local and regional actors (Casalini, Bagherzadeh and Gray, 2021[25]).

Finally, countries can benefit from synergies and complementarities among policy approaches by increasing the coherence of their approaches to disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and sustainable development (UNISDR, 2015[18]). In Namibia, the agricultural sector is considered a priority in the country’s 2011 National Disaster Risk Management Plan and National DRM Framework and Action Plan 2017-2021, reflecting the sector’s importance for food security and livelihoods, however, DRR is not integrated into the country’s key agricultural policy frameworks, although the country is currently finalising its first agriculture-specific DRM strategy, which is led by the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR) (FAO, 2021[26]).

DRM frameworks influence decisions by government agencies, farmers and other stakeholders on whether or not to invest in prevention and mitigation by defining stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities for managing natural disaster risk. In general, national frameworks establish the roles and responsibilities of all levels of government in DRM, with clear co-ordinating structures at each stage of the DRM cycle. However, while the responsibilities and roles of public actors are well defined, including those of agricultural ministries, the responsibilities of private agricultural sector stakeholders – farmers in particular, but also farm and industry organisations – are less well defined. An exception is New Zealand, where both the National Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Plan and agricultural policy frameworks – specifically, the Primary Sector Recovery Policy – send clear and consistent signals to the agricultural sector that individuals and communities are primarily responsible for managing their own risk (Casalini, Bagherzadeh and Gray, 2021[25]). In other countries, farmers’ responsibilities are defined in the context of particular natural hazards. For example, Namibia’s National Drought Policy and Strategy 1997 aimed to shift responsibility for managing drought risk from the government to the farmers, while in the area of animal health, farmers are responsible for reporting disease outbreaks and conditions, and complying with disease control measures. The country is currently updating this national drought policy based on its lessons learned from the 2018/2019 drought (FAO, 2021[26]).

Barriers to engagement in DRM can also contribute to a lack of clarity over public and private actors’ responsibilities for managing disaster risks. All of the case study countries have systems in place to engage with key agricultural sector stakeholders, for at least some hazards or stages of the DRM cycle or in the governance of specific natural hazards. For example, the United States’ National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) establishes a formal mechanism for engaging with the private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure – including the food and agriculture sector – and guides how the government works with private actors to manage risks and achieve security and resilience outcomes (Gray and Baldwin, 2021[23]). In Italy, the system of Permanent Observatories on Water Use (OWUs) has provided a platform for stakeholders at the river basin level to engage in water governance and define strategies for mitigating the impacts of drought, with participants from relevant ministries – including the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policie (MiPAAF) –, national agencies, research institutes, irrigation consortia and water utilities (Baldwin and Casalini, 2021[22]). In Turkey, Agricultural Drought Provincial Crisis Centres have provided a valuable interface between the national and local government and local actors when planning drought responses (OECD, 2021[24]).

4.5. A shared understanding of natural disaster risk based on the identification, assessment and communication of risk, vulnerability and resilience capacities

Information and data on climate and natural disaster risks, and the impacts of NHID on the agricultural sector, are essential for effective governance of natural disaster risks (OECD, 2020[2]; FAO, 2021[1]). To be effective, national strategies for DRR, emergency response, resilience and climate change adaptation must be firmly grounded in a comprehensive understanding of the particular impact disasters have on agriculture (FAO, 2021[1]). Gaps in agricultural resilience – for example, due to deficiencies in protective or other critical infrastructure, or other preparedness capacities – and gaps in DRM frameworks may be due to stakeholders in government bodies, industry organisations or individual farmers lacking awareness of their exposure or vulnerability to NHID, or the particular impact NHID have on agriculture. At the farm level, information gaps on climate and natural hazard risks, and strategies for reducing that risk, can constrain decision-making as well as adaptation to climate change and weather-related hazards.

Across the case study countries, research and analyses at the national and regional levels – for example, national and subnational risk and vulnerability assessments, climate and natural hazard modelling, and foresighting exercises – play an important role in increasing risk awareness across the whole community, and supporting long-term planning for those hazards. In particular, these exercises play a role in identifying priorities, capability gaps, and ensuring that resources are allocated to disaster risks and measures that are the most significant (OECD, 2009[4]; OECD, 2018[19]). In Japan, for example, the government is required to undertake a vulnerability assessment before formulating the Fundamental Plan for National Resilience (Box 4.1). This assessment focuses on the risk that certain impacts occur regardless of the type of hazard that causes them, which is then used to guide disaster risk prevention and mitigation efforts. More generally, Japan regularly reviews hazard risks and vulnerabilities, and uses that information when developing and revising DRM frameworks and systems. This helps to ensure that DRM is responsive to a changing risk landscape, focuses attention on the most significant risks, and guides resource allocation (Shigemitsu and Gray, 2021[20]).

While national risk and vulnerability assessments generally focus on hazards that could result in loss of life or property, all case study countries undertake risk assessments focused on the natural hazards that pose a significant threat to their agricultural sectors. In particular, most of the case study countries direct significant efforts towards monitoring and understanding the impacts of drought on agriculture (and other stakeholders). In Turkey, research institutes of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) and the Agricultural Drought Provincial Crisis Centres use modelling to determine the vulnerability of different regions to drought, and to produce maps showing drought sensitive locations (OECD, 2021[24]). Chile’s national agroclimatic risk information system includes the online Agroclimatic Risk Observatory Platform, which provides an early warning and monitoring system for drought. It also provides information, monitoring and forecasts on El Niño, hydrological updates on the flow rates of most major rivers and reservoirs, and updated forest fire information (FAO, 2021[21]). In Namibia, active and passive surveillance programmes for key animal diseases and the national livestock traceability system allow stakeholders to continuously monitor the occurrence or continued absence of animal diseases in the country (Box 4.2).

Research undertaken at public agricultural research institutes also raises awareness of the local impacts of natural hazards on the agricultural sector. In Italy, research undertaken at public research institutes – including the Italian Institute of Services for the Agricultural Food Market (ISMEA) and the Research Center for Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy of the Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA-PB) – aims to better understand the impacts of drought on agriculture at a local level (Baldwin and Casalini, 2021[22]). CREA-PB also manages the linked National Information System for Agriculture Water Management (SIGRIAN) and National Database of Investment for Irrigation and Environment (DANIA).10 Among other uses, these databases can be used to support economic evaluations of proposed interventions aimed at improving water resource management. In the United States, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Climate Hubs develop regional vulnerability assessments that provide stakeholders with a baseline “snapshot” of current climate vulnerabilities, along with specific adaptive management strategies to increase the resilience of working lands in different regions (Gray and Baldwin, 2021[23]).

Data on disaster impacts – damage and losses in agriculture11 – are a valuable risk management tool, as knowledge of past events can help identify vulnerabilities, and inform agricultural risk management and disaster assistance policies, and investments to prevent or mitigate future impacts. A lack of data on disaster damage and losses can also constrain hazard analysis and foresighting exercises.

Japan has comprehensive time series data on damage and losses caused by natural hazards in both qualitative and quantitative terms, in part because sector stakeholders – the local authorities, agricultural co-operatives (that is, Japan Agricultural Co-operatives or JA) and farmers – collaborate with the national government to provide and develop the data after a NHID (Shigemitsu and Gray, 2021[20]). In other case study countries, however, data collection and reporting efforts are more fragmented or remain under development. For example, information on disaster losses is available for insured production in several countries, including Italy, Turkey and the United States. In the United States, agricultural impact data are also available to varying extents for some states. For example, the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) Economic Impact Analysis Program regularly reports estimates of the agricultural damage and losses associated with NHID (Gray and Baldwin, 2021[23]).12 Several case study countries, including Chile and Italy, are in the process of setting up their systems to assess damage and losses caused by disasters, in order to comply with the 2015-2030 Sendai Framework for Risk Reduction and the Sustainable Development Goals.

To be usable and useful to farmers, information must be tailored to the needs of the sector, by region and natural hazard. This includes information on climate and natural hazard risks, as well as options to manage those risks. In the United States, farmers and other agricultural stakeholders, such as county extension and local USDA staff, have access to extensive science-based and targeted information and online tools on climate and extreme weather events, and strategies for reducing natural hazard risk. This includes information and tools developed by the USDA Climate Hubs (Box 4.3), universities and government agencies, as well as tools and services offered by the private sector (Gray and Baldwin, 2021[23]). In New Zealand, the Land and Environment Plans promoted by Beef + Lamb NZ translate available information on climate and natural hazard risks into a farm-scale picture of the risks that farmers face (Casalini, Bagherzadeh and Gray, 2021[25]).

Chile’s national agroclimatic risk information system provides farmers and other agriculture stakeholders with free, real-time information and forecasts for their area, as well as various agroclimatic information bulletins and tools for monitoring, identifying, assessing and communicating agroclimatic risks to stakeholders (Box 4.4) (FAO, 2021[21]).

4.6. An ex ante approach to natural disaster risk management

There is a need to shift the focus from coping with NHID in agriculture to integrated and anticipatory disaster risk management based on trends and losses (Chapter 3). An ex ante approach means considering the risk landscape over the long term in order to achieve an appropriate balance between ex ante measures such as structural and non-structural measures for disaster risk prevention and mitigation, including opportunities for nature-based solutions (OECD, 2020[27]), versus ex post disaster assistance. Agricultural DRM policies that focus on coping with the impacts of NHID, rather than mitigating risk and preparing for future hazards, may undermine the sector’s resilience to natural disaster risk in the future (OECD, 2020[2]). Moreover, reducing natural disaster risk and increasing preparedness can be a cost-effective investment in preventing future losses in agriculture, particularly in developing countries (FAO, 2019[28]).

Countries use a combination of structural and non-structural measures to prevent and mitigate natural disaster risks. For example, water infrastructure is prioritised in Italy and Turkey – both at the sectoral and farm levels – to manage the agricultural sector’s water needs, including in the context of increasing drought risks (Baldwin and Casalini, 2021[22]; OECD, 2021[24]). In the United States, publicly and privately managed levees and other flood control structures prevent and mitigate flood risks in rural areas (Gray and Baldwin, 2021[23]). However, in all countries, this can lead stakeholders to under-emphasise alternative, more sustainable strategies (for example, adoption of water-saving practices and less water-intensive crops) or under-estimate residual risks (for example, of levee failures), and can encourage development in natural hazard-prone areas.

In some countries, structural measures are complemented by non-structural measures, in order to manage risks more effectively and at a lower cost. For example, in Japan’s Fundamental Plan for National Resilience, infrastructure plays a critical role in minimising damage caused by natural hazards, including in agriculture. However, the government’s recent reform of agricultural reservoir management took a balanced approach by mixing structural and non-structural measures, namely physical rehabilitation of reservoirs as well as establishing hazard maps and clarifying the responsibilities of reservoir owners and local authorities (Shigemitsu and Gray, 2021[20]). In Namibia, prevention and control of animal diseases is supported through a combination of structural and non-structural approaches. A Veterinary Cordon Fence divides the country into different zones to help prevent, control and manage outbreaks of FMD among cattle that may be infected by wild buffalos that graze along the country’s open border with Angola. In addition, a zoning strategy13 allows Namibia to distinguish distinct animal sub-populations with respect to animal health status, which allows parts of the livestock sector to participate in international trade (FAO, 2021[26]).

Countries also increasingly recognise that nature-based solutions can be physically effective and cost-efficient alternatives to grey infrastructure in preventing and mitigating natural disaster risk (OECD, 2020[27]). A range of initiatives are underway in the case study countries, including within agricultural policy frameworks. In the United States, several USDA conservation programmes directly target improved disaster prevention and mitigation, particularly for floods. Three programmes – the Emergency Watershed Protection Program – Floodplain Easements Option (EWPP-FPE), the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program – Agricultural Land Easements (ACEP-ALE), and the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) programme – provide support for preventative structural and non-structural measures to reduce flood damage (Gray and Baldwin, 2021[23]). In New Zealand, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) programmes also promote strategies to prevent and mitigate the impacts of floods on production, through co-funding and grant schemes for nature-based solutions such as tree planting and soil erosion control (Casalini, Bagherzadeh and Gray, 2021[25]). In Japan, the government is promoting on-farm measures to maximise potential paddy field water storage for flood control (Box 4.5) (Shigemitsu and Gray, 2021[20]).

Farm-level practices and technologies to reduce natural hazard risks and impacts can also generate productivity and sustainability benefits, even in non-disaster contexts (FAO, 2019[28]; UNISDR, 2015[18]; UNDP, 2012[31]). For example, there is increasing recognition in the United States of the role that healthy soil can play in mitigating flood risks and impacts on-farm, with a number of public and joint public-private initiatives aiming to address constraints to their adoption on farms (Box 4.6) (Gray and Baldwin, 2021[23]). In New Zealand, industry-led initiatives to improve the environmental sustainability of production, such as the 2013 Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord, have led to practices that also reduce natural hazard risks (Casalini, Bagherzadeh and Gray, 2021[25]).14

Publicly-supported risk management tools also help farmers to mitigate the financial impacts of NHID, and can help to discipline and reduce reliance on ad hoc disaster assistance. In many of the case study countries, farmers can obtain subsidised insurance for losses caused by NHID (among other causes of loss). Subsidised insurance is a pillar of Chile’s agricultural DRM strategy, and a range of financial instruments are available to support farmers, including smallholder and subsistence farmers (FAO, 2021[21]). In Italy, MiPAAF provides a variety of risk management tools for mitigating the financial impacts of adverse events on the sector under the National Risk Management Plan, with subsidised insurance the most widely utilised (Baldwin and Casalini, 2021[22]). In Japan, MAFF is encouraging farmers to subscribe to a commodity insurance programmethat provides insurance for yield losses and production equipment damaged by natural hazards; or a revenue insurance programme that compensates farmers for revenue losses, including those caused by NHID, relative to a benchmark based on the previous five years’ revenue (Shigemitsu and Gray, 2021[20]).15 In Turkey, the agricultural insurance pool TARSIM offers multiple subsidised products, including crop insurance that provides coverage for losses caused by hail, storms, whirlwinds, fire, landslides, floods and earthquakes. Losses caused by drought are covered by a district-based drought yield insurance scheme (OECD, 2021[24]).16 In the United States, the Federal Crop Insurance Program offers subsidised insurance policies for both yield and revenue losses, including losses caused by natural disasters, and Whole-Farm Revenue Protection, which covers all commodities on the farm under one insurance policy. For producers of crops that are not covered by federal crop insurance, the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program provides a basic level of coverage for when low yields, loss of inventory, or prevented planting occur due to natural disasters (Gray and Baldwin, 2021[23]).

4.7. An approach emphasising preparedness and planning for effective crisis management, disaster response, and to “build back better” to increase resilience to future natural hazards

Ex ante disaster preparedness and planning are crucial for effective crisis management – by public and private stakeholders with a role in disaster response, and on farms. Preparedness activities are an important and necessary complement to risk prevention and mitigation efforts, such that when natural hazards inevitably occur and disrupt agricultural activities, stakeholders have the networks, capacities and resources in place to manage a crisis effectively, minimise the disruptions to agricultural activities, and ensure a quicker and more resilient recovery (UNISDR, 2015[18]). Moreover, following a NHID, recovery and reconstruction efforts offer an opportunity for public and private stakeholders to “build back better” by addressing underlying vulnerabilities, and building the capacities needed to manage natural disaster risks in the future (FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2019[32]).

Across the seven case study countries, various channels build the preparedness capacities17 of public and private actors with a role in disaster preparedness, response and recovery, as well as farmers.

In several countries, formal networks and co-ordinating structures allow stakeholders to develop relationships and build preparedness capabilities before an event occurs, strengthening disaster response and recovery. In the United States, the Critical Infrastructure Sectors framework connect public and private actors before a hazard occurs, and enhances collaboration and communication between government agencies and owners and operators of food and agriculture critical infrastructure, and with stakeholders in other critical infrastructure sectors. At the state level, networks such as the Extension Disaster Education Network (EDEN) and the Multi-State Partnership for Security in Agriculture build the disaster preparedness and response capabilities of the extension service and other public actors, and minimise the duplication of effort across states (Gray and Baldwin, 2021[23]). In Japan, prefectural governments created a system to ‘pair up’ prefectures and share experience and resources for responding to large-scale NHID.18 During crises, Japan Agricultural Co-operatives (JA) leverages its network to send volunteers to affected regions to assist in disaster recovery efforts.19 In New Zealand, an inter-agency Community Resilience Group was initiated in 2018 to strengthen the capacity of local governments to build community resilience to natural hazards and the effects of climate change (Casalini, Bagherzadeh and Gray, 2021[25]). In Namibia, the DVS co-ordinates and build the capacities of a wide range of stakeholders with a role in animal disease prevention, control and management (FAO, 2021[26]).

Industry and locally-based organisations, such as extension service providers and agricultural co-operatives, are also important and trusted sources of information for farmers. In the United States, co-operative extension agents, Farm Bureaus and local USDA staff are trusted sources of information on disaster preparedness due, to a significant extent, to having local knowledge of issues and established relationships with farming communities. In particular, co-operative extension is an important source of non-formal education and information on natural hazard preparedness, providing research-based information to stakeholders through its connection to the US land-grant colleges and universities (Gray and Baldwin, 2021[23]). In New Zealand, industry groups, such as Beef + Lamb NZ, Dairy NZ and Federated Farmers support farmers with information and programmes that improve their capacities to plan, prepare for, respond to, and recover from, a range of risks (Casalini, Bagherzadeh and Gray, 2021[25]). In Japan, JA provides significant support to help restart farming operations, and maintain members’ livelihoods (Shigemitsu and Gray, 2021[20]).

Finally, agricultural ministries and their locally-based staff are also important sources of information for farmers on disaster preparedness. In Chile, MINAGRI organises capacity building events and training to raise stakeholders awareness of the various agroclimatic information bulletins and tools available through the national agroclimatic risk information system, as well as how to access and use them (Box 4.4) (FAO, 2021[21]). In New Zealand, MPI has re-entered the extension services space in order to help farmers make decisions that support sustainable land use, and improve farming outcomes and resilience (Casalini, Bagherzadeh and Gray, 2021[25]). In the United States, the USDA Climate Hubs (Box 4.3) provide science-based, and region- and hazard-specific resources on disaster preparedness, including decision-support tools and information on good practices (Gray and Baldwin, 2021[23]).

Disaster response and recovery efforts in the case study countries are also supported by a range of processes and policies.

Contingency planning20 and simulation exercises are prioritised in many of the case study countries. For example, in Namibia there are contingency plans in place for key animal diseases (FMD, BSE, avian influenza) to support a rapid transition from preparedness to action in the event of an outbreak, including by ensuring that equipment, materials, and inputs are available. Real-time or “table-top” simulations are also carried out to maintain staff and community awareness when there are no disease outbreaks (FAO, 2021[26]). In Japan, New Zealand and the United States, farmers are encouraged to develop their own contingency or emergency plans, and provided with guidance on how to do so. Also in Japan, the agricultural sector is also required to develop contingency and response plans for key agricultural facilities, including wholesale markets, slaughterhouses and dairy facilities (Shigemitsu and Gray, 2021[20]).21 Table-top and simulation exercises are also carried out in other countries. For example, in the United States, the food and agriculture critical infrastructure sector participates in exercises to test the effectiveness of resilience procedures, with the outcome of each scenario providing feedback on how to enhance the protection of critical infrastructure (Gray and Baldwin, 2021[23]). Finally, early warning systems for natural hazards are in place in most of the countries, including for slow onset events such as drought.

In some countries, disaster response is also supported by decision-support tools and platforms for facilitating disaster response efforts. In Italy, the Veterinary Information System for Non-Epidemic Emergencies (SIVENE) is a two-way communication tool that provides a unified portal for collecting and transmitting information on conditions at the farm level to authorities from a wide range of stakeholders (Baldwin and Casalini, 2021[22]). In the United States, the National Business Emergency Operations Center (NBEOC) is a virtual platform for two-way information sharing between public and private sector stakeholders. The NBEOC integrates private sector stakeholders into disaster operations and facilitates information sharing between public and private sector actors on existing needs and capabilities (Gray and Baldwin, 2021[23]).

Increasingly, the case study countries are prioritising business continuity and the quicker recovery and return to normal farm operations. Italy’s approach to disaster response in rural areas prioritises business continuity (Box 4.7) (Baldwin and Casalini, 2021[22]). In Japan, MAFF promotes the early recovery of damaged agricultural land and facilities by allowing reconstruction work to start without first conducting a disaster assessment, if doing so would help restart farming operations in the next cropping cycle (Shigemitsu and Gray, 2021[20]). In Chile, the Agricultural Development Institute (INDAP) provides assistance to smallholders to support production continuity, in the form or financial aid or in-kind support (for example, agricultural inputs, supplementary pastures and infrastructure repair) (FAO, 2021[21]).

For farmers, financial concerns can be a significant barrier to recovery after a NHID. Farmers can access ex post disaster assistance in some form in all of the case study countries, including through disaster assistance programmes established in ex ante frameworks; insurance; and ad hoc programmes. The United States has comprehensive disaster assistance policies that provide compensation for losses caused by natural hazards, including crop insurance, Emergency Disaster Loans and support provided through the Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Programs; cost-shared assistance is also available for farmland rehabilitation.22 In recent years, farmers have also received support through ad hoc programmes that were implemented in response to hurricanes and wildfires in 2017, and hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, typhoons, volcanic activity, snowstorms and wildfires in 2018 and 2019 (Gray and Baldwin, 2021[23]). In Italy, farmers can subscribe to and receive assistance from a range of ex ante risk management programmes, including insurance, an income stabilisation tool, and mutual funds. For adverse events that are not covered by the country’s National Risk Management Plan, ad hoc assistance is also available through the National Solidarity Fund (FSN) for damage to production, structures or infrastructure (Baldwin and Casalini, 2021[22]). In Japan, farmers are provided support to facilitate a quick recovery through ad hoc programmes that are announced for most disasters, including to restore damaged production (for example, farmland, orchards and rice paddy fields), agricultural machinery and facilities (Shigemitsu and Gray, 2021[20]). In Namibia, drought relief includes transport subsidies for farmers willing to move their livestock to areas where there is grazing, and subsidies for grazing leases (FAO, 2021[26]). In Turkey, disaster assistance includes credit subsidies, direct payments, technical assistance and support to repair equipment (OECD, 2021[24]). In contrast, in New Zealand most support is directed towards funding the Rural Support Trusts to provide psychosocial support, and co-ordination and information services in affected communities (Box 4.8). However, farmers can also access assistance that is available under the CDEM system to support society-wide recovery, and sector-specific support may be provided for medium and large-scale events, including to access advisory services for reducing exposure and vulnerability to future risks (Casalini, Bagherzadeh and Gray, 2021[25]).

4.8. Remaining challenges

The case studies on Chile, Italy, Japan, Namibia, New Zealand, Turkey and the United States have shown that governments, farmers and other stakeholders are using innovative policy measures, governance arrangements and on-farm strategies to increase the agricultural sector’s resilience to natural hazards. In particular, four good practices stand out.

• Farmers increasingly have access to science-based and targeted information and decision-support tools on climate and extreme weather events, and options and strategies for reducing and adapting to those risks, which are tailored to the needs of the sector, and by region and natural hazard. These tools, which are being developed by both public and private actors, encourage farmers and other stakeholders to consider the risk landscape over the long term by helping them to understand the risks that they face from natural hazards, and support risk-informed decision-making on farm. In some countries, these tools are co-produced with farmers and other stakeholders to ensure their usability and usefulness on farm.

• Countries are implementing physically effective and cost-efficient nature-based solutions to prevent and mitigate natural hazard risks and impacts. Agriculture is a significant land user in all seven case study countries, and risk reduction practices in the sector can prevent and mitigate the risks and impacts of NHID, including to non-farming activities, assets and properties. This includes solutions that leverage the potential of agricultural land to reduce specific natural hazard risks, such as the risk of flooding, but also on-farm practices that prevent and mitigate the impacts of NHID such as floods and droughts, and generate productivity and sustainability benefits even in non-disaster contexts, such as by improving soil health and enhancing the health and diversity of ecosystems.

• Agricultural sector stakeholders are also collaborating and building relationships to better prepare for and respond to NHID via formal networks of public and private stakeholders. Wider agro-food sector stakeholders – the private sector, farm and industry organisations, and indeed, farmers themselves – are an important source of information, resources, capabilities and expertise for disaster preparedness, response and recovery activities. These networks offer an opportunity for stakeholders to develop relationships and build capabilities before a disaster, improving the effectiveness of disaster preparedness and response – on farm, and for the wider agro-food sector.

• Finally, countries are prioritising contingency planning and simulation exercises to help enhance the preparedness of all relevant stakeholders to respond to NHID. These exercises ensure that DRM frameworks, measures and stakeholders remain flexible and have the capacity to respond to unanticipated events, and can help to identify and manage potential cascading effects.

While good progress has been made, recent and projected trends in natural hazard risks and their impacts on agriculture underscore the need to do more to build the sector’s resilience to NHID. Across the seven case study countries, policy frameworks and stakeholders emphasise approaches and policies for coping with and responding to NHID, with relatively less attention given to practices for preventing and mitigating natural hazard risks, or for ensuring a more resilient recovery – including through adapting and transforming farm operations (Chapter 3).

Specifically, governments and agricultural sector stakeholders need to shift from an approach that emphasises coping with the impacts of NHID, to being better prepared ex ante to prevent, mitigate and recover from them, and to adapt and transform in order to be better placed to manage future natural hazards; that is, to move from a risk coping to a resilience approach. This approach entails a shift from ex post government disaster assistance to building the capacity of stakeholders to manage risks. Frameworks that strengthen the ability of farmers and other stakeholders to prepare and plan for natural hazards; to absorb, respond to and recover from their impacts; and to more successfully adapt and transform in response to the risk of future NHID, are essential to build a more resilient agricultural sector.

4.9. Recommendations

Applying a resilience approach requires stakeholders to prepare for natural hazards and implement strategies to reduce the risks and impacts, but also to learn from disasters in order to increase resilience for future shocks and recover more quickly the next time. This means helping stakeholders understand the risks that they face from natural hazards and their responsibilities for managing those risks; and supporting their capacity to manage risk, and to adapt and transform to be better positioned to face future risks. To this end, this report proposes three main areas for action.