Working Paper- Climate Smart Agriculture Pakistan: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Crop Rotation Practice in the Rainfed Areas Abdul Wajid Rana Sitara Gill Iqra Akram International Food Policy Research Institute, Pakistan Funded by Consortium for Scaling-up Climate Smart Agriculture in South Asia 2 INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), established in 1975, provides research- based policy solutions to sustainably reduce poverty and end hunger and malnutrition. IFPRI’s strategic research aims to foster a climate-resilient and sustainable food supply; promote healthy diets and nutrition for all; build inclusive and efficient markets, trade systems, and food industries; transform agricultural and rural economies; and strengthen institutions and governance. Gender is integrated in all the Institute’s work. Partnerships, communications, capacity strengthening, and data and knowledge management are essential components to translate IFPRI’s research from action to impact. The Institute’s regional and country pro-grams play a critical role in responding to demand for food policy research and in delivering holistic support for country-led development. IFPRI collaborates with partners around the world. AUTHORS Abdul Wajid Rana (a.w.rana@cgiar.org) is the Program Leader and Chief of Party, Pakistan Agriculture Capacity Enhancement project (PACE) in the Development Strategy and Governance Division of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Sitara Gill (Sitaragill@gmail.com) was the Senior Research Analyst in the Development Strategy and Governance Division of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Islamabad, Pakistan Iqra Akram (I.Akram@cgiar.org) was the Research Analyst in the Development Strategy and Governance Division of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Islamabad, Pakistan Notices 1 Working Paper contain preliminary material and research results and are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment. They have not been subject to a formal external review via IFPRI’s Publications Review Committee. Any opinions stated herein are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily representative of or endorsed by IFPRI. 2 The boundaries and names shown, and the designations used on the map(s) herein do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) or its partners and contributors. 3 Copyright remains with the authors. The authors are free to proceed, without further IFPRI permission, to publish this paper, or any revised version of it, in outlets such as journals, books, and other publications. mailto:a.w.rana@cgiar.org mailto:Sitaragill@gmail.com mailto:I.Akram@cgiar.org 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was carried out under the Consortium for Scaling-up Climate Smart Agriculture in South Asia (C- SUCSeS) Project. We are grateful for the support of C-SUCSeS Project Fund Contributors. We also acknowledge the support of Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC) and National Agricultural Research Council (NARC), particularly Dr. Muhammad Asim, Director (CG&MOU), in organizing field survey, Focal Groups Discussions, and their advice. This work will certainly help in adopting the Climate Smart Agriculture Practices in Pakistan. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the CGIAR. 4 1. Introduction Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges confronting our global system today (Arora, 2019). The scientific community has clearly established that global temperatures are rising and the consequences of climate change may swiftly transition from an environmental risk to an economic threat (Throp, 2023). Agriculture sector is particularly vulnerable to changes in weather and climatic condition (Parker et al., 2019; Syed et al., 2022; OECD, 2022; Arora, 2019). Over 60% of the yield variability is chalked upto to climate change; significantly affecting food production and farmer income (Reidsma et al., 2009; Osborne and Wheeler 2013; Ray et al., 2015; Matiu et al., 2017). Changes in climate affect the onset and duration of crop growing cycle (Fiwa et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2015; Lemma et al., 2016), and the extent and duration of heat and water stress impact agriculture production (Lobell et al., 2015; Saadi et al., 2015; Schauberger et al., 2017). Moreover, it may trigger pest and disease outbreaks causing significant production losses (Chakraborty and Newton, 2011). Small-scale farmers in rain-fed areas of Pakistan face the severe susceptibility to the challenges brought about by climate change (Saqib et al., 2019). This vulnerability stems from their heavy dependence on traditional farming methods and their limited ability to adapt, exacerbated by their limited access to advanced technologies and high levels of poverty. Worldwide, crop yields from rainfed farming are approximately 50 percent less than those achieved through irrigated methods (Jaramillo et al., 2020). In the absence of adaptation measures to cope with climate change, a potential decline of around 50 percent in rain-fed agricultural yields could potentially occur within the next 30-35 years (Dube et al., 2016). Promoting climate smart agricultural practices appears to be a dependable strategy for addressing risks posed by climate change (Ng’ang’a et al., 2020). Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) has been proposed as “an approach for transforming and reorienting agricultural development under the new realities of climate” (Lipper et al., 2014). Examples of CSA practices include the use of drought-tolerant, high yielding, or early maturing varieties, minimum tillage, cover crops, intercropping, crop rotation, soil management using organic fertilizers such as compost and manure. One of the proposed methods for enhancing food production in an ecologically sustainable manner is crop rotation (Lin, 2011; Gaudin et al., 2015), as changing cropping patterns continuously increase soil fertility and microbial community stability (Song et al., 2018). Crop rotation is a beneficial management practice in which legumes are planted to enhance yield of successive cereal crops especially wheat (Zhao et al., 2015; Ilyas et al., 2018; Galantini et al., 2000). Scientific research underlines that incorporating legume plants into crop rotation substantially boosts biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) (MacMillan et al., 2022; ; Evans et al., 2001), enhances plant yield (Shafi et al. 2006; Yaqub et al. 2010), breaks pests cycles (MacWilliam et al., 2014; Peralta et al., 2018; Diaz- Ambrona and Minguez, 2001; Pala et al., 2007), boost soil water conservation (Gan et al., 2015), and improve nitrogen recycling through their residual effect on the soil (Cazzato et al., 2012 ; Danga et al., 2009). Legumes because of their ability to improve soil properties (Becker and Johnson, 1999) are often referred to as the 'soil- building’ crop (Zeng et al., 2016). Nitrogen stands out as a crucial nutrient for plants (Makino, 2011), and effective nitrogen management is a vital practice for maximizing wheat production, particularly in soils with limited nitrogen availability (Bakht et al., 2009). It is widely acknowledged that residual retention of legume plants adds organic nitrogen, leading to increase in soil organic matter and improvement of soil structure and microbial activity (Chu et al., 2004; Rahman et al., 2014; Rochester and Peoples, 2005; McDaniel & Grandy, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.656005/full#B31 5 2016; Poeplau & Don, 2015; Campbell & Zentner,1993;), and greater crop productivity (Kumar and Goh, 2000). Inclusion of legumes in the soil results in elevated concentrations of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and zinc (Zn) and high wheat yields (Li et al., 2011). Kumar and Goh (2002) found that wheat grain yields were notably higher in rotations involving leguminous crops when compared to rotations with non-leguminous crops. The process of nitrogen fixation by leguminous crops offers a cost-effective alternative to nitrogen fertilizers and particularly important in developing countries where many farmers have limited access to inorganic fertilizers, because of their limited availability, high cost, and low return on investment (Njunie et al., 2004). Commonly, legumes such as mung bean, bush bean, long bean, soybean, sesbania are used in rotation with other crops (Rahman et al., 2014; Khan et al., 2010). The primary reason for choosing legumes as a rotational crop during fallow periods is their ability to withstand moderate water stress conditions (Abhiram and Eeswaran, 2022). 2. Types of Legumes Soybeans are grown in diverse climatic conditions worldwide and serve as a significant and affordable source of both high-quality protein and oil (Graham and Vance, 2003). Soybean cultivation is cost-effective method for enhancing soil fertility through nitrogen fixation (Chianu et al., 2009; Kasasa et al., 2000; Tran, 2004; Agomoh et al., 2021). The mutual association between soybean and rhizobium bacteria lowers production expenses because of the lesser use of N fertilizers for cereal crops following soybean cultivation, rendering soybean an excellent choice for rotation with nitrogen-intensive crops (Varvel and Peterson, 1992). Growing wheat followed by soybean cultivation is expected to be more profitable than growing either corn or soybeans (Schnitkey et al., 2022). Yang et al., (2014) found that crop rotation of soybean green manure with wheat led to increases in yield of wheat crop when compared to fallow-wheat rotation. These benefits became more pronounced over time with a 21 percent higher yield in the second year and 12 percent higher yield in the third year in comparison to the highest wheat yield in fallow-wheat rotation. Furthermore, employing soybean in crop rotation with wheat led to a decline in the usage of nitrogen fertilizers. Mung bean is a rapidly sprouting plant with a brief life cycle, which consumes relatively less water when compared to numerous other agricultural crops grown in fields. Mung bean cultivation is known to increase nitrogen availability in soil (Alvey et al. 2001; Rahman et al. 2014), enhance micronutrient availability and total organic carbon in soil (Surekha et al., 2003; Shafi et al., 2006), reduce pest infestation (Nadeem et al., 2019; Peiris et al., 2016), consequently improving the soil structure (Hayat and Ali 2004). Wheat cultivated after mung bean and proper fertilization exhibits superior growth compared to wheat following a period of fallow (Sharma, Prasad, and Singh 1996; Hayat and Ali 2004; Rahman et al. 2014). Ilyas et al., (2018) found positive effects of rotation of wheat and mung bean on physiochemical and biochemical parameters of soil in terms of increase in soil organic matter, water content, nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, phosphorus and sugar content when compared to the fallow treatment. 17.8 percent increase in wheat yield was reported which was cultivated after mung bean and fertilized with NPK in comparison to wheat cultivated on fallow land. Bakht et al., (2009) reported that rotation of mung-bean with wheat increased the yield of wheat by 2.09 times. Ahmad et al. (2001) reported that incorporating mung bean and black gram into the rotation led to an increase in wheat yields ranging from 600 to 1100 kg per hectare compared to yields obtained from a cereal-cereal rotation. Shah et al., (2003) reported that grain yields were higher after retaining the residues of mung-bean. 6 Sesbania (commonly known as Jantar in Pakistan) is a versatile green manure crop primarily cultivated during the summer season. Green manuring involves cultivating crops, particularly legumes, and incorporating them into the soil when they are fresh and decomposed at the reproductive phase of their growth cycle, for the purpose of soil improvement by protecting it against erosion and enhancing the overall quality (Khan et al., 2010; Fageria, 2007; Sajjad et al., 2019). Green manure acts as an organic fertilizer (Yang, 2014), and aids in preservation of soil moisture (Sajjad et al., 2018), and is regarded as a feasible substitute to summer fallowing in agricultural systems (Mooleki et al., 2016). Sesbania incorporation in soil adds 60–80 kg per hectare nitrogen (Qazi et al., 2023). They report enhanced yield of wheat and rice grain after applying sesbania with the recommended dose of fertilizer along with increased profits. Incorporation of green manure in the form of green gram and sesbania led to improvement in soil aggregation, reduced bulk density, and enhancement of water flow properties, ultimately increasing crop growth (Mandal et al., 2003). 3. Purpose of the Study This study has been conducted in the selected areas of the rain-fed zone in Pakistan. The study aims to investigate three crop rotation treatments (1) soybean-wheat, (2) mung bean-wheat, and (3) sesbania-wheat impact on the yield of subsequent wheat crop and assess the feasibility of these interventions based on benefit- cost ratios (BCR). For this purpose, 15 farmers were targeted after consultation with the concerned agriculture extension department. The Legume-based fallow system is ideal for smallholder farming and nutrient-depleted soils due to continuous cultivation. Instead of employing a traditional bare summer fallow period, catch crops can be sown and subsequently integrated into the soil before planting winter wheat. This approach aims to reduce reliance on chemical fertilizer inputs (Yang et al., 2014). We hypothesize that legume-wheat rotation leads to an increase in wheat crop yield resulting in higher income for the farmer. The study is organized as follows: section 4 introduces the study sites and describes the methodology. Section 5 highlights the findings, and the discussions and section 6 conclude the study. 4. Methodology 4.1. Study areas The Consortium for Scaling-up Climate Smart Agriculture (C-SUCSeS) project has been implemented by Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC) in Pakistan. The project aims at improving the resilience of smallholder farmers by promoting the uptake of climate smart pro-poor innovations that increase productivity and water management efficiency. Under the project, three crop rotation experiments were carried out in 5 cities that characterize a rain-fed (barani) cropping system located in the Northern Punjab region of Pakistan, commonly known as the Potohar Plateau: Attock, Chakwal, Gujjar Khan, Kallar Syedan, and Taxila. The plateau constitutes Pakistan's largest block of rain-fed agriculture as 96 percent of the agriculture production is dependent upon rain while the remaining 4 percent of the cultivated land is irrigated (Majeed et al., 2010). The streams are deeply entrenched and not very suitable for irrigation purposes. The area is located between the Indus River and the Jhelum River and stretches from the salt range northward to the foothills of the Himalayas and is approximately between 32.5°N and 34.0°N latitude and 72°E and 74°E longitude (Amir et al., 2019). The total area of the region is approximately 13,000 square kilometers, and its altitude ranges from 305 to 610 meters above sea level (Amir et al., 2019). The region has a varied topography with highly rolling terrain. The region experiences a semi-arid to humid climate and is characterized by low fertility and erratic rainfall. About 80 percent of the rain fall occur during July through October (Sarwar et al., 2016). The annual 7 precipitation ranges from 250 mm in the southern region of the Salt Range to more than 1500 mm in Islamabad. The winter temperature typically ranges between 4°C and 25°C while in summer, the temperature is between 15° C and 40° C. Major crops cultivated in the region include wheat, maize, barley, millet, gram, groundnut (Rashid and Rasul, 2011). Attock is situated near the Haro River, 80 kilometers (50 miles) from Rawalpindi and 100 kilometers (62 miles) from Peshawar. Hills, plateaus, and divided plains make up most of the district’s topography. The district receives rainfall throughout the year with varying intensity. The annual temperature varies from 39°F4°C to 104°F.1 Chakwal district is bordered by Rawalpindi on the northeast, Attock district on the northwest, by Jhelum district on the east, by Khushab district on south and the Mianwali district on the west. The district spans a total area of 7,547 square kilometers. Chakwal is a barani (rain-fed) district located in the Potohar plateau. The landscape is hilly, covered with scrub forest in the southwest, and flat plains with dry rocky patches in the north and northeast. 2 3 Gujar Khan is situated in the southeast of Islamabad (Hussain, 2004) with Jhelum River on the east. The climate in the region is characterized as subtropical desert, with an annual temperature of 32oC which is higher than the average temperature in Pakistan, and an annual precipitation of 48.99 rainy days.4 5 Kallar Sayedan is located northeast of Rawalpindi, approximately 4.5 kilometers away. The region has a subtropical humid climate. 6 7 Taxila is located off the Grand Trunk Road, 32 kilometers to the northwest of Islamabad Capital Territory and Rawalpindi. Taxila lies 549 meters (1,801 ft) above sea-level. The winters are calm and pleasant with temperatures ranging from 5° to 15° C. The summers are extremely hot, with temperatures rising to a maximum of over 40° C.8 4.2. Experiment set-up and treatments Farmers keep their land fallow and plough up the land numerous times to conserve soil moisture for wheat crop cultivation during Kharif season in rainfed areas. The predominant system for the past decades has been fallow-wheat. The traditional practice of fallow system involves leaving the land uncultivated for a specific duration to replenish soil nutrients and moisture. This approach, however, renders the land unproductive and unprofitable for farmers during this period. Cultivation of legume crops in the fallow period is an effective alternative strategy to conserve soil moisture as a mitigation for erratic rainfall (Abhiram and Eeswaran, 2022). The experiment for conducting soil amendments through legume-wheat rotation commenced in June 2022 with legume crop cultivation in summer and wheat cultivation in winter. The three crop rotation experiments were laid out according to randomized complete block design under a split-plot arrangement where two sets of wheat crops were grown, one was grown after the selected legume crop cultivation and second after the 1 Available at: https://attock.punjab.gov.pk/climate 2 Available at: https://chakwal.punjab.gov.pk/geography 3 Available at: https://www.findpk.com/cities/explorer-pakistan- chakwal.html#:~:text=Lying%20at%20the%20beginning%20of,in%20the%20north%20and%20northeast. 4 Available at: https://www.prideofpakistan.com/pakistan-city-details/Do-you-know-Gujar-Khan-is-also-referred-to-as-the-Land-of- the-Shaheeds/23 5 Available at: https://tcktcktck.org/pakistan/punjab/gujar-khan#google_vignette 6 Available at: https://rawalpindi.dc.lhc.gov.pk/PublicPages/HistoryOfDistrict.aspx 7 Available at: https://en.db-city.com/Pakistan--Punjab--Rawalpindi--Kallar-Syedan 8 Somuncu, M., & Khan, A. A. (2010). Current Status of Management and Protection of Taxila World Heritage Site, Pakistan. Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi, 2(1), 45-60. https://attock.punjab.gov.pk/climate https://chakwal.punjab.gov.pk/geography https://www.findpk.com/cities/explorer-pakistan-chakwal.html#:~:text=Lying%20at%20the%20beginning%20of,in%20the%20north%20and%20northeast https://www.findpk.com/cities/explorer-pakistan-chakwal.html#:~:text=Lying%20at%20the%20beginning%20of,in%20the%20north%20and%20northeast https://www.prideofpakistan.com/pakistan-city-details/Do-you-know-Gujar-Khan-is-also-referred-to-as-the-Land-of-the-Shaheeds/23 https://www.prideofpakistan.com/pakistan-city-details/Do-you-know-Gujar-Khan-is-also-referred-to-as-the-Land-of-the-Shaheeds/23 https://tcktcktck.org/pakistan/punjab/gujar-khan#google_vignette https://rawalpindi.dc.lhc.gov.pk/PublicPages/HistoryOfDistrict.aspx https://en.db-city.com/Pakistan--Punjab--Rawalpindi--Kallar-Syedan 8 fallow period. Crop rotation treatments included: (1) soybean-wheat, (2) mung bean-wheat, and (3) sesbania- wheat. All the three legume crops were sown in end June – beginning of July and harvested in the soil in end August - beginning of September. Sesbania and mung-bean were used as green manure, a rotovator was used to mix sesbania and mung-bean in the soil. Technical support was provided to farmers by the agriculture scientists at PARC and department of extension representatives such as information regarding timely planting of crops, timely and judicious application of different inputs such as fertilizers and weedicides. A field demonstration was held on each farmer’s land, and farmers were provided with free of cost seeds and fertilizers to expand the experiment on their total land area. Capacity building of farmers was done through participatory farmer field days. One farmer-field day was held in each targeted city for knowledge sharing. Moreover, four monitoring visits were conducted on each site to assess if the rates and timing of the fertilizers were as per the recommendations made by the PARC team. These crop rotation experiments were designed to study the effects of growing legume crops on the yield of subsequent wheat crops. 4.3. Benefit-Cost Analysis of the CSA Intervention Numerous studies on climate adaptation research have employed cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to gauge the profitability of climate related interventions (Akinyi et al., 2022; Ng’ang’a et al., 2017a; Ng’ang’a et al., 2017b; Kashangaki and Ericksen, 2018; Daigneault et al., 2016; Boardman, 2004). CBA helps determine the efficiency of a climate-smart agriculture (CSA) approach when compared to Business-as-Usual (BAU) scenario (Ng'ang'a et al., 2020), and helps farmers in selection of the best strategy given the scarce resources (Chanda et al., 2019). The Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) greater than 1 implies that benefits obtained through the adoption of CSA strategy completely offset the incurred costs while also leaving some residual benefits (Gittenger,1982; Kanton et al., 2017; Fürtner et al., 2022). Literature highlights that CSA practices are adopted mainly for economic reasons. (Emmanuel at al., 2016; Tsinigo and Behrman, 2017; Kassie et al., 2013). In July 2023, the research team at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Pakistan, visited the farmers in their fields in each of the 5 cities to collect data on economic yield, input usage, as well as the associated costs and benefits to assess the feasibility of the intervention. In addition, a Focal Group Discussion (FGD) was conducted at PARC, Islamabad which was attended by a total of 07 farmers from Attock, Gujjar Khan, Taxila and Chakwal. Farmers were provided with a stipend to cover their travel costs and were provided with refreshments. The second FGD was conducted in Kallar Syedan with a total of 05 farmers. The data was analyzed using STATA 2019. Farmer recall information was used to collect data on costs and benefits associated with CSA and BAU practices. One acre of land per farmer in the study was used as the unit of analysis for comparing the profitability with and without the CSA practices. The profitability of these CSA practices (legume-wheat) was evaluated by determining increase in productivity (yield multiplied by the market price (PKR) of output) compared to the Business-as-Usual (BAU) scenario (fallow-wheat). The costs included expenses implementation, operational and maintenance costs and did not include fixed costs such as land value, interest on capital and depreciation. Benefit-cost ratio (BCR) was calculated by dividing the total income by total expenditure. 9 5. Findings 5.1. Characteristics of the participants All the participants in our survey were male and were serving as household heads. Of all the participants, 1 farmer had completed primary education, 2 had completed elementary education, 8 farmers were matriculate (less than high school), and 4 had university degree. The average age of the respondents was 51 years, with a minimum age of 35 years and a maximum age of 69 years. In terms of land ownership, respondents, on average possessed approximately 13.46 acres (5.5 hectares) of land, with the largest landholding being 50 acres (20.2 hectares) and the smallest at 2.5 acres (1 hectare). Most of the respondents (8 out of 15) reported that the rainfall in their region to be sporadic, unpredictable, and often characterized by sudden cloud bursts. All the respondents in the survey were found to be aware of the crop rotation practice and had been implementing the crop rotation practice in the previous years. Furthermore, a substantial majority of 14 out of 15 respondents expressed their intention to continue implementing crop rotation in the future. 5.2. Benefit cost analysis of BAU (fallow-wheat) vs. CSA Practice (legume-wheat rotation) We find that the benefit-cost ratio for 14 out of 15 farmers who adopted the legume-wheat rotation was greater than 1. This implies that benefits accrued with the implementation of CSA practice can fully cover the associated costs (see Figures 1, 2 and Table 1). The yield of wheat increased considerably for twelve out of fifteen farmers in the legume-wheat rotation. Figure 1: Wheat Yield/Acre for BAU and CSA Practice Figure 2: Benefit Cost Ratio for BAU and CSA Practice Source: Data collected through Field Survey Farmers reported that soybean-wheat rotation benefitted them through cost cutting in terms of decreased use of urea and di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) fertilizers. The farmers shared that soybean cultivation has drastically improved the quality of soil. Two out of three farmers experienced an increase in the yield of subsequent wheat crop. Farmers highlighted that they were unaware of any soybean markets to sell their produce, leading them to utilize their produce for domestic purposes such as cooking oil. They considered 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. W h ea t Y ie ld T o n s/ A cr e Respondent Farmers BAU CSA 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. B C R R at io Respondent Farmers BAU CSA 10 formation of strong community groups and linkages with the cooperatives important for marketing their soybean produce. At the household level, soybean cultivation boosted food and nutritional security. Table 1: Benefit cost analysis of fallow-wheat (BAU) vs. CSA Practice (legume-wheat rotation) ID of Farmers City CSA practice Total costs Yield Price of wheat/ton (PKR) Gross benefits Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) (PKR per acre) (Tons per acre) (yield * Price) BAU CSA BAU CSA BAU BAU CSA CSA A. Gujjar Khan Soybean 75,248 82,453 1.2 1.32 113398 136,078 149,685 1.81 1.82 B. Attock Sesbania 63,287 73,615 0.6 0.8 117934 70,760 94,347 1.12 1.28 C. Attock Soybean 66,987 72,610 0.6 0.6 90718 54,431 54,431 0.81 0.75 D. Attock Mung bean 63,287 72,055 0.68 1.2 117934 80,195 141,521 1.27 1.96 E. Chakwal Sesbania 63,068 63,608 1.28 1.44 90718 116,120 130,635 1.84 2.05 F. Chakwal Mung bean 63,568 62,048 1.28 1.28 90718 116,120 116,120 1.83 1.87 G. Kallar Syedan Sesbania 75,425 58,465 0.92 1.6 79379 73,028 127,006 0.97 2.17 H. Kallar Syedan Mung bean 106,580 62,048 1.4 1.52 90718 127,006 137,892 1.19 2.22 I. Kallar Syedan Mung bean 70,725 64,055 1.2 1.32 102058 122,470 134,717 1.73 2.10 J. Gujjar Khan Sesbania 61,330 69,808 1.4 1.92 102058 142,882 195,952 2.33 2.81 K. Kallar Syedan Mung bean 67,037 57,705 1.52 1.84 88451 134,445 162,749 2.01 2.82 L. Gujjar Khan Sesbania 69,630 78,108 1.48 2.04 90718 134,263 185,066 1.93 2.37 M. Gujjar Khan Sesbania 46,230 54,708 0.8 1.4 88451 70,760 123,831 1.53 2.26 N. Taxila Mung bean 53,425 56,905 2.32 2.16 124738 289,392 269,434 5.42 4.73 O. Attock Soybean 84,425 62,610 1.2 2 108862 130,635 217,724 1.55 3.48 Source: Data collected during field survey Farmers unanimously agreed that residue incorporation of mung bean and sesbania resulted in considerable soil improvement. Three out of six farmers who adopted sesbania-wheat rotation reported that they reduced application of inorganic fertilizers such as urea and DAP to their soil. Others who continued with applying DAP reduced the usage to half in comparison to the BAU scenario. The limited to no use of urea and DAP led to huge cost savings for the farmers as it was reported that on average one bag of urea costs PKR 3,000 and one bag of DAP costs PKR 14,000. Farmers raised the concern that prices of fertilizers are often at the discretion of dealers in the market, with the prices of DAP sometimes getting raised overnight. The farmers reported that, apart from high cost of fertilizers, sub-standard quality of fertilizers available in the market as well as the timely availability of fertilizers, such as DAP, are other issues. All the farmers reported that crop-rotation practices has eliminated the ploughing costs incurred during the fallow period. Farmers expressed satisfaction with the cost-effectiveness of crop rotation practices when it comes to operational and maintenance expenditures. After the adoption of crop-rotation practice, the operational costs incurred due to ploughing dropped significantly as it required 10 ploughing before sowing wheat under BAU. However, with legume-wheat rotation, the number of ploughing have declined from three to zero. Legume-wheat rotation practice was deemed a much better alternative than the fallow-wheat practice by all the participating farmers except one. They reported soil improvement and higher wheat yield after legume 11 cultivation as a major reason behind their willingness to continue with the legume-wheat rotations in the next seasons. Some farmers believed that if they had received the seeds a little earlier, the yield increases could have been greater. A farmer dissatisfied with the legume (mung bean)-wheat rotation in Chakwal region cited no change in yield and unavailability of the fertilizers at the time of cultivation as reasons for his decision to discontinue with the legume-wheat rotation in the next cropping cycle. Soybean cultivation was relatively new for the targeted farmers but its adoption is expected to increase as it was regarded by as a reliable alternative soil fertility management approach by the farmers. The establishment of effective marketing channels to facilitate the sale of soybean produce in the market at a reliable price may further accelerate the adoption process. Farmers reported that effects of climate changes such as increase in temperatures and variability in rainfall over the years has made it difficult for them to manage their farms. The unavailability of canal water was highlighted as a major concern by most of the farmers. They highlighted their increasing reliance on groundwater extracted through tube wells. Farmers were of the view that there is a disconnect between the government, research departments, extension departments, and the farmers. Crop rotation receives substantial attention at the policy level and is actively adopted by large-scale farmers. However, small-scale farmers with limited resources often struggle to implement these innovative solutions. All participating farmers unanimously considered the targeting approach employed in the program to be ineffective, as they believed it overlooked small-scale farmers during program execution. The farmers who took part in the program noted that nearby farmers have begun adopting crop rotation practices after witnessing the significant improvements in wheat yield after legume-wheat rotation. Research departments have embarked on initiatives to educate farmers on the proper utilization of urea and DAP and planting dates, but their efforts have thus far only reached a fraction of the farming community. One major constraint pointed out by all the farmers was the unavailability of quality seed of mung-bean in the market. Farmers believed that the government should facilitate by setting up seed distribution centers for ensuring timely availability of quality seeds. Research centers act as a linchpin in the agricultural system, and it is imperative that they focus on producing high-quality seeds capable of withstanding the evolving climatic conditions. Farmers highlighted that inadequate seed quality in previous cycles led to diminished crop yields. Another issue considered significant by the farmers was the decline in the availability of agricultural land. They pointed out that housing societies are acquiring land at a greater speed forcing them to come up with innovative and efficient ways for improving yield per unit area on the limited land available for agriculture. Capacity building programs were considered crucial by the participant farmers for building adaptive capacity as the weather conditions in rain-fed areas are unpredictable. Engaging farmers with extensive firsthand knowledge and decades of practical experience in designing agricultural activities, policy making, and program implementation is essential. 6. Conclusion Our findings suggest that legume-wheat rotation stimulated wheat yield in comparison to wheat crop grown after the fallow period. The BCR analysis revealed that all the three treatments: soybean-wheat, -mung bean- wheat and sesbania-wheat, are viable with a benefit-cost ratio greater than 1 (except for one farmer). A comparison of BAU (fallow-wheat) with CSA (legume-wheat) practice revealed that BCR for thirteen out of 12 fifteen participants is higher in under CSA scenario compared to BAU scenario. The highest BCR of 3.48 was observed with wheat-soybean-wheat rotation in Attock District. It is acknowledged that soybean fixes nitrogen in the soil leading to increase in productivity while reducing fertilizer usage (Kasasa et al., 2000; Chianu et l., 2009). Farmers reported that soybean consumption for domestic purposes boosted food and nutritional security at the household level. Worldwide, soybean is considered a major source of protein and cooking oil (Graham and Vance, 2003; Orf, 2010; Pagano & Miransari, 2016). A lack of awareness about soybean management in terms of processing and marketing was reported by the participating farmers. Using mung bean and sesbania benefited farmers through increases in wheat yield and cost-saving from reduction in usage of fertilizers. Farmers were satisfied with the nitrogen fixing properties of the legumes. The results indicate that employing mung-bean and sesbania as a green manure in soil during wheat cultivation is a viable environmentally friendly alternative to chemical fertilizers and is an easy and practical approach for improving crop production in a cost-effective manner. Our findings resonate with previous studies. Shah et al., (2003) reported that grain yields were higher after retaining the residues of mung-bean. Green manuring has proven to be beneficial in substantially increasing wheat grain yield in four of the six growing seasons (Ghuman and Sur, 2006). The improvement in wheat yield resulting from the incorporation of green manure could be attributed to the enhanced efficiency of fertilizers, particularly phosphorus (P), along with an increase in organic matter content (Sultani et al., 2004). Sharma and Prasad (1999) reported that incorporation of sesbania or mung bean residues into the soil resulted in a notable productivity of rice-wheat cropping by 0.5 to 1.3 t ha -1 y-1. Based on our findings, we suggest that an integrated approach of wheat cultivation with crop rotation using legumes should be adopted for sustainable food production and preserving soil characteristics while reducing the usage of chemical fertilizers. Based on our discussions with the farmers, we propose that for successful adoption of crop rotation practices, a multifaceted approach is required, that includes necessary action at all tiers, namely research, extension, policy and development. A concerted strategy in needed to promote crop-rotation practices encompassing: i. Development of improved seed varieties can result in higher crop yields especially in the face of changing climate conditions. ii. Development of appropriate seed varieties for minor crops. iii. Ensure timely availability of quality seed, fertilizers, and pesticides. iv. Establish community-based mechanisms to pool resources such as farmer cooperatives and village-based organizations. v. Provide oil-expeller machines at the community or domestic level for extracting soybean oil. This would help the rural population by substituting soybean oil for more expensive cooking oil available in the market. This will also help in saving foreign exchange spent on importing cooking oil. vi. Periodic capacity building training to educate farmers on climate smart practices. This training must also include knowledge building on crop processing, value addition and marketing channels. 13 Bibliography Abid, M., U.A. Schneider and Scheffran, J. 2016. Adaptation to climate change and its impacts on food productivity and crop income: perspectives of farmers in rural Pakistan. J. Rural Stud. 47:254-266 Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., & Tompkins, E. L. (2005). Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global environmental change, 15(2), 77-86. Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., Paavola, J., Rosendo, S., and Seyfang, G (2003). Governance for sustainability: towards a ‘thick’analysis of environmental decision making. Environ. Plann. A 35, 1095–1110. doi: 10.1068/a3528 Aggarwal, P.K., Bhatta, G.D., Joshi, P.K., Prathapar, S.A., Jat, M.L. and Kadian, M. (2013) ‘Climate smart villages in South Asia’, Climate Smart Agriculture Learning Platform, South Asia. Ajayi, O.C.; Catacutan, D. Role of externality in the adoption of smallholder agroforestry: Case studies from Southern Africa and Southeast Asia. In Externality: Economics, Management and Outcomes; Sunderasan, S., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 167–188. Alem, Y.; Eggert, H.; Ruhinduka, R. Improving welfare through climate-friendly agriculture: The case of the system of rice intensification. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2015, 62, 243–263. Amare, G., & Gacheno, D. (2021). Indigenous Knowledge for Climate Smart Agriculture—A Review. International Journal of Food Science and Agriculture. 5(2), 332-338 Antwi-Agyei, P., & Stringer, L. C. (2021). Improving the effectiveness of agricultural extension services in supporting farmers to adapt to climate change: Insights from northeastern Ghana. Climate Risk Management, 32, 100304 Armah FA, Yengoh GT, Luginaah I, Chuenpagdee R, Hambati H, Campbell G (2015) Monitored versus experience-based perceptions of environmental change: evidence from coastal Tanzania. J Integr Environ Sci 12(2):119–152 Arora, N. K. (2019). Impact of climate change on agriculture production and its sustainable solutions. Environmental Sustainability, 2(2), 95-96. Aryal, J. P., Sapkota, T. B., Khurana, R., Khatri-Chhetri, A., Rahut, D. B., & Jat, M. L. (2019). Climate change and agriculture in South Asia: Adaptation options in smallholder production systems. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(6), 5045-5075. Aryal, J. P., Sapkota, T. B., Rahut, D. B., & Jat, M. L. (2020). Agricultural sustainability under emerging climatic variability: the role of climate-smart agriculture and relevant policies in India. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 14(2), 219-245. Asian Development Bank & International Rice Research Institute. (2019). Climate-Smart Practices for Intensive Rice-Based Systems in Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Nepal. https://dx.doi.org/10.22617/TCS190468- 2 Autio, A., Johansson, T., Motaroki, L., Minoia, P., and Pellikka, P. (2021). Constraints for adopting climate- smart agricultural practices among smallholder farmers in Southeast Kenya. Agricultural Systems. 194. Available at: https://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook/enabling-frameworks/module-c2- supporting-rural-producers/chapter-c2-4/en/ Averchenkova, A., & Lazaro, L. (2020). The design of an independent expert advisory mechanism under the European Climate Law: What are the options?. London: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and https://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook/enabling-frameworks/module-c2-supporting-rural-producers/chapter-c2-4/en/ https://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook/enabling-frameworks/module-c2-supporting-rural-producers/chapter-c2-4/en/ 14 the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science. Belay, A.; Recha, J.W.; Woldeamanuel, T.; Morton, J.F. Smallholder farmers’ adaptation to climate change and determinants of their adaptation decisions in the central rift valley of Ethiopia. Agric. Food Secur. 2017, 6, 24. Bendito, A., & Twomlow, S. (2015). Promoting climate smart approaches to post-harvest challenges in Rwanda. International journal of agricultural sustainability, 13(3), 222-239. Bizimungu, E., Sparrow, R. A., & Ruben, R. Value Chain Services for the Adoption of Climate-Smart Agricultural Innovations: Experimental Evidence from Uganda. Available at SSRN 4570871. Branca, G., Tennigkeit, T., Mann, W., & Lipper, L. (2012). Identifying opportunities for climate-smart agriculture investment in Africa (p. 132). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Brandt, P.; Kvaki´c, M.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Rufino, M.C. How to target climate-smart agriculture? Concept and application of the consensus-driven decision support framework “target CSA”. Agric. Syst. 2017, 151, 234–245. Cai, Y., Bandara, J. S., & Newth, D. (2016). A framework for integrated assessment of food production economics in South Asia under climate change. Environmental Modelling & Software, 75, 459-497. Campbell, B.M.; Vermeulen, S.J.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Corner-Dolloff, C.; Girvetz, E.; Loboguerrero, A.M.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Rosenstock, T.; Sebastian, L.; Thornton, P.; et al. Reducing risks to food security from climate change. Glob. Food Secur. 2016, 11, 34–43. Carter, R., T. Ferdinand, and C. Chan. 2018. “Transforming Agriculture for Climate Resilience: A Framework for Systemic Change.” Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available online at www.wri.org/ CCAFS. 2016. Climate-Smart Villages. An AR4D approach to scale up climate-smart agriculture. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Available online at: www.ccafs.cgiar.org Chakraborty, S. and Newton, A.C. (2011) ‘Climate Change, Plant Diseases and Food Security: An Overview’, Plant Pathology 60(1): 2–14 Chandra, A., McNamara, K. E., & Dargusch, P. (2018). Climate-smart agriculture: perspectives and framings. Climate Policy, 18(4), 526-541. Chandra, A., McNamara, K. E., Dargusch, P., Damen, B., Rioux, J., Dallinger, J., and Bacudo, I. 2016. Resolving the UNFCC divide on Climate-Smart Agriculture. Carbon Management, 7, 295–299. Chandra, A., McNamara, K.E., and Dargusch, P. (2018). Climate-smart agriculture: perspectives and framings. Climate Policy, 18 (4), 526-541. Chhetri, N., Chaudhary, P., Tiwari, P. R., and Yadaw, R. B. (2012). Institutional and technological innovation: understanding agricultural adaptation to climate change in Nepal. Appl. Geograp. 33, 142–150. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.10.006 Chikaire, J. U., Ani, A. O., Atoma, C. N., & Tijjani, A. R. (2015). Capacity building: key to agricultural extension survival. Scholars Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, 2(1A), 13-21. Christoplos, I. 2010. Mobilizing the Potential of Rural and Agricultural Extension. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations and the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services. http://www.wri.org/ http://www.ccafs.cgiar.org/ https://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1444e/i1444e00.pdf 15 CIAT; FAO. 2018. Climate-Smart Agriculture in Punjab, Pakistan. CSA Country Profiles for Asia Series. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), FAO, Rome, 36p. CIAT; World Bank. 2017. Climate-Smart Agriculture in Pakistan. CSA Country Profiles for Asia Series. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT); The World Bank. Washington, D.C. 28 p Cooper, P. J., Cappiello, S., Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M., Zougmoré, R. B., & Kinyangi, J. (2013). Large-scale implementation of adaptation and mitigation actions in agriculture. CCAFS Working Paper. Dehlavi, A., Groom, B., & Gorst, A. (2015). Climate change adaptation in the indus ecoregion: a microeconometric study of the determinants, impacts, and cost effectiveness of adaptation strategies. Islamabad: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Pakistan. Dinesh D, Campbell B, Bonilla-Findji O, Richards M (eds). 2017. 10 best bet innovations for adaptation in agriculture: A supplement to the UNFCCC NAP Technical Guidelines. CCAFS Working Paper no. 215. Wageningen, The Netherlands: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Available online at: www.ccafs.cgiar.org Dinesh, D., Frid-Nielsen, S., Norman, J., Mutamba, M., Loboguerrero Rodriguez, A. M., & Campbell, B. M. (2015). Is Climate-Smart Agriculture effective? A review of selected cases. CCAFS Working Paper. Dossou-Yovo E, Tchetan B, Guindo J, Kone P. 2022. Training report in Climate-Smart Agriculture and Climate Information Services Prioritization. AICCRA Activity Report. Accelerating Impacts of CGIAR Climate Research for Africa (AICCRA) Dossou-Yovo E, Arouna A, Bryan E, Ringler C, Mujawamariya G, Benfica R, Freed S, Yossa R. 2022. Barriers, incentive mechanisms, and roles of institutions in scaling climate smart agriculture and climate information services. AICCRA Activity Report. Accelerating Impacts of CGIAR Climate Research for Africa (AICCRA). Dougill, A. J., Hermans, T. D., Eze, S., Antwi-Agyei, P., & Sallu, S. M. (2021). Evaluating climate-smart agriculture as route to building climate resilience in African food systems. Sustainability, 13(17), 9909. Dougill, A. J., Whitfield, S., Stringer, L. C. Vincet, K., Wood, B. T., Chinseu, E. L., Steward, P., and Mkwambisi, D. D. (2017). Mainstreaming conservation agriculture in Malawi: Knowledge gaps and institutional barriers. Journal of Environmental Management, 195, 25-34. Economic Survey of Pakistan, 2021-22. Agriculture Chapter. Available at https://www.finance.gov.pk/survey_2022.html Faling, M., & Biesbroek, R. (2019). Cross-boundary policy entrepreneurship for climate-smart agriculture in Kenya. Policy Sciences, 52(4), 525-547. Faling, M. (2020). Framing agriculture and climate in Kenyan policies: a longitudinal perspective. Environmental Science & Policy, 106, 228-239. FAO (2013). Climate-smart agriculture sourcebook. Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. Retrieve from https://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook/en/ FAO. (2017). The impact of disasters on agriculture: Addressing the information gap. Available at https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/impact-disasters-agriculture-addressing-information-gap FAO (2018). Emissions due to agriculture Global, regional and country trends 2000–2018. ISSN 2709 Feliciano, D., Recha, J., Ambaw, G., MacSween, K., Solomon, D., & Wollenberg, E. (2022). Assessment of agricultural emissions, climate change mitigation and adaptation practices in Ethiopia. Climate policy, 22(4), 427-444. http://www.ccafs.cgiar.org/ https://www.finance.gov.pk/survey_2022.html https://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook/en/ https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/impact-disasters-agriculture-addressing-information-gap 16 Fischer, H.W.; Reddy, N.L.N.; Rao, M.L.S. Can more drought resistant crops promote more climate secure agriculture? Prospects and challenges of millet cultivation in Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh. World Dev. Perspect. 2016, 2, 5–10. [CrossRef] Fiwa, L., Vanuytrecht, E., Wiyo, K. A., & Raes, D. (2014). Effect of rainfall variability on the length of the crop growing period over the past three decades in central Malawi. Climate Research, 62(1), 45-58. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2013. Climate Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. Fusco, G., Melgiovanni, M., Porrini, D., and Ricciardo, T. M. (2020). How to improve the diffusion of climate- smart agriculture: what literature tells us? Sustainability, 12, 5168; doi:10.3390/su12125168 Gautam, M. (2000): Agricultural extension: the Kenya experience: an impact evaluation, Washington, DC: World Bank Gebreeyesus, K.., Ludovic, T., Vaast, P., and Iglesias, A. (2019), Innovation Systems to Adapt to Climate Change: Lessons from the Kenyan Coffee and Dairy Sectors. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-71025-9_25-1 Gezie, M.; Tejada Moral, M. Farmer’s Response to Climate Change and Variability in Ethiopia: A Review. Cogent Food Agric. 2019, 5, 1613770. Ghaffar, A., Rahman, M. H. U., Ahmed, S., Haider, G., Ahmad, I., Khan, M. A., Hussain, J., Ahmad, S., Afzal, M., Fahad, A., and Ahmed, A. (2022). Adaptations in cropping system and pattern for sustainable crops production under climate change scenarios. In Improvement of plant production in the era of climate change (pp. 1-34). CRC Press. Ghimire, R., Khatri-Chhetri, A., and Chhetri, N. (2022). Institutional Innovations for Climate Smart Agriculture: Assessment of Climate-Smart Village Approach in Nepal. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6:734319. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.734319 Gjengedal, M. (2016). Conservation Agriculture; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Ginbi, Ethiopia, 2016; p. 119. Gourdji, S. M., Sibley, A. M., & Lobell, D. B. (2013). Global crop exposure to critical high temperatures in the reproductive period: historical trends and future projections. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024041. Habib-ur-Rahman, M., Ahmad, A., Raza, A., Hasnain, M. U., Alharby, H. F., Alzahrani, Y. M., Bamagoos, A. A., Hakeem, R.K., Ahmad, S., Nasim, W., Ali, S., Mansour, F., and El Sabagh, A. (2022). Impact of climate change on agricultural production; Issues, challenges, and opportunities in Asia. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13, 925548. Hellmuth, M.E., Moorhead, A., Thomson, M.C., and Williams, J. (eds) 2007. Climate Risk Management in Africa: Learning from Practice. International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI), Columbia University, New York, USA. Hussain, M. (2004). Poverty among farming community in marginal areas of Punjab. Poverty Reduction through Improved Agricultural Water Management, 137. Huyer, S., & Nyasimi, M. (2017). Climate-smart agriculture manual for agriculture education in Zimbabwe. Ifeanyi-Obi, C. C., Issa, F. O., Aderinoye-Abdulwahab, S., O. Ayinde, A. F., Umeh, O. J., & Tologbonse, E. B. (2022). Promoting uptake and integration of climate smart agriculture technologies, innovations and management practices into policy and practice in Nigeria. International Journal of climate change strategies and management, 14(4), 354-374. 17 IFPRI. 2017. IMPACT Model. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Available at https://www.ifpri.org/project/ifpri-impact-model Imran, M. A., Ali, A., Ashfaq, M., Hassan, S., Culas, R., and Ma, C. (2019). Impact of climate smart agriculture (CSA) through sustainable irrigation management on Resource use efficiency: A sustainable production alternative for cotton. Land Use Policy, 88, 104113. Imran, M. A., Ali, A., Ashfaq, M., Hassan, S., Culas, R., and Ma, C. (2018). Impact of Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) Practices on Cotton Production and Livelihood of Farmers in Punjab, Pakistan, Sustainability 2018, 10(6), 2101. Iqbal, M. M., Goheer, M. A., & Khan, A. M. (2009). Climate-change aspersions on food security of Pakistan. Science Vision, 15(1), 15-23. Jayne, T. S., Sitko, N. J., & Mason, N. M. (2017). Can Input Subsidy Programs Contribute To Climate Smart Agriculture? (No. 1879-2018-2136). Jha, S., & Singh, S. (2021). Role of Agriculture Extension for Climate Smart Agriculture. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shivani-Jha- 2/publication/353305266_Role_of_Agriculture_Extension_for_Climate_Smart_Agriculture/links/61fe9d3f8 70587329e943f41/Role-of-Agriculture-Extension-for-Climate-Smart-Agriculture.pdf Jirata, M.; Grey, S.; Kilawe, E. Ethiopia Climate-Smart Agriculture Scoping Study; FAO: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016. Juvvadi, D. P., Rao, C. S., Shankar, A. K., Rao, A. K., Wani, S. P., Sehgal, V. K.,Pathak, H., Singh, S.D., Ramanjaneyulu, G.V., Pramanik, P. and Juvvadi, D.P and Wani, S. P. (2013). Capacity Building in Extension: Key to Climate Smart Agriculture. Center for Good Governance, Hyderabad. Khatri-Chhetri, A., Aggarwal, P. K., Joshi, P.K., Vyas, S. (2017). Farmers’ prioritization of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) technologies. Agricultural systems, 151, 184–191. Khatri-Chhetri, A., Pant, A., Aggarwal, P. K., Vasireddy, V. V., and Yadav, A. (2019). Stakeholders prioritization of climate-smart agriculture interventions: evaluation of a framework. Agricultural systems, . 174, 23–31. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2019.03.002 Kombat, R., Sarfatti, P., Fatunbi, O. A. (2021). A Review of Climate-Smart Agriculture Technology Adoption by Farming Households in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability 2021, 13(21), 12130. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112130 Kuehne, G., Llewellyn, R., Pannell, D, J., Wilkinson, R., Dolling, P., Ouzman, J., Ewing, M. (2017). Agricultural Systems, 156, 115-125. Leal Filho, W., Azeiteiro, U. M., Balogun, A. L., Setti, A. F. F., Mucova, S. A., Ayal, D., Totin, E.,Lydia, M. A., Kalaba, F.K., and Oguge, N. O. (2021). The influence of ecosystems services depletion to climate change adaptation efforts in Africa. Science of The Total Environment, 779, 146414. Lee, D. R., Edmeades, S., Nys, E. D., McDonald, A., Janssen. (2014). Developing local adaptation strategies for climate change in agriculture: A priority-setting approach with application to Latin America. Global Environmental Change, 29, 78-91. Leeuwis, C. & Hall, A. 2013. Facing the challenges of climate change and food security. The role of research, extension and communication for development. https://www.ifpri.org/project/ifpri-impact-model https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shivani-Jha-2/publication/353305266_Role_of_Agriculture_Extension_for_Climate_Smart_Agriculture/links/61fe9d3f870587329e943f41/Role-of-Agriculture-Extension-for-Climate-Smart-Agriculture.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shivani-Jha-2/publication/353305266_Role_of_Agriculture_Extension_for_Climate_Smart_Agriculture/links/61fe9d3f870587329e943f41/Role-of-Agriculture-Extension-for-Climate-Smart-Agriculture.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shivani-Jha-2/publication/353305266_Role_of_Agriculture_Extension_for_Climate_Smart_Agriculture/links/61fe9d3f870587329e943f41/Role-of-Agriculture-Extension-for-Climate-Smart-Agriculture.pdf https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112130 https://www.fao.org/3/a-i3334e.pdf 18 Lemma, M., Alemie, A., Habtu, S., & Lemma, C. (2016). Analyzing the impacts of on onset, length of growing period and dry spell length on chickpea production in Adaa District (East Showa Zone) of Ethiopia. Journal of Earth Science and Climatic Change, 7(5), 349. Lipper, L., McCarthy, N., Zilberman, D., Asfaw, S., & Branca, G. (2017). Climate smart agriculture: building resilience to climate change (p. 630). Springer Nature. Lipper, L, Thornton, P, Campbell, B.M, Baedeker, T, Braimoh, A, Bwalya, M, Caron, P, Cattaneo, A, Garrity, D, Hottle R, Jackson L, Jarvis A, Kossam F, Mann W, McCarthy N, Meybeck A, Neufeldt H, Remington T, Sen PT, Sessa R, Shula R, Tibu A, Torquebiau EF. 2014. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nature Climate Change 4:1068–1072 Lobell, D. B., Hammer, G. L., Chenu, K., Zheng, B., McLean, G., & Chapman, S. C. (2015). The shifting influence of drought and heat stress for crops in northeast Australia. Global change biology, 21(11), 4115- 4127. Lynch, J., Cain, M., Frame, D., & Pierrehumbert, R. (2021). Agriculture's contribution to climate change and role in mitigation is distinct from predominantly fossil CO2-emitting sectors. Frontiers in sustainable food systems, 4, 518039. Maharaj, R.; Singh-Ackbarali, D.; Sankat, C.K. Postharvest management strategies. In Impacts of Climate Change on Food Security in Small Island Developing States; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2015; pp. 221– 254. Majeed, S., Ali, I., Zaman, S. B., & Ahmad, S. (2010). Productivity of mini dams in Pothwar Plateau: a diagnostic analysis. Research Briefings, Natural Research Division, PARC, Islamabad, 2, 208-214. Maka, L., Ighodaro, I. D., & Ngcobo-Ngotho, G. P. T. (2019). Capacity development for scaling up Climate- Smart Agriculture (CSA) innovations: Agricultural Extension’s role in mitigating climate change effects in Gqumashe Community, Eastern Cape, South Africa. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension, 47(1), 45-53. Matiu, M., Ankerst, D. P., & Menzel, A. (2017). Interactions between temperature and drought in global and regional crop yield variability during 1961-2014. PloS one, 12(5), e0178339. Mohammed, E. Opportunities and Challenges for Adopting Conservation Agriculture at Smallholder Farmer’s Level: The Case of Emba Alage, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia; Addis Ababa University: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016. Mtega, W. P., & Ngoepe, M. (2018). Strengthening the flow of agricultural knowledge among agricultural stakeholders: The case of Morogoro region in Tanzania. In Ontology in Information Science. Intech Open Science. Nagothu, S. N., Kolberg S., and Stirling, C M. (2016). Climate smart agriculture. Is this this the new paradigm of agricultural development? In S. N. Nagothu (Ed.), Climate change and agricultural development: Improving resilience through climate smart agriculture, agroecology and conservation (pp. 1–20). Oxon: Routledge. Nasim, W., Amin, A., Fahad, S., Awais, M., Khan, N., Mubeen, M., Abdul, W., Veysel, T., Habibur- Rehman,M., Zahid, M., Shakeel,A.,Sajjad, M.,Ahmad, M, Bushra, K., and Jamal, Y. (2018). Future risk assessment by estimating historical heat wave trends with projected heat accumulation using SimCLIM climate model in Pakistan. Atmospheric Research, 205, 118-133. Neufeldt, H., Jahn, M., Campbell, B. M., Beddington, J. R., DeClerck, F., De Pinto, A., Gulledge, J., Hellin, J., Herrero, M., Jarvis, A., LeZaks, D., Meinke, H., Rosenstock, T., Scholes, R., Vermeulen, S., Wollenberg, 19 E., and Zougmoré, R. (2013). Beyond climate-smart agriculture: Toward safe operating spaces for global food systems. Agriculture and Food Security, 2(12), 1–6. doi:10.1186/2048-7010-2-12 Neufeldt, H., Negra, C., Hancock, J., Foster, K., Nayak, D., & Singh, P. (2015). Scaling up climate-smart agriculture: lessons learned from South Asia and pathways for success. ICRAF Working Paper-World Agroforestry Centre, (209). Ngoma, H., Mason-Wardell, N. M., Samboko, P. C., & Hangoma, P. (2019). Switching Up Climate-Smart Agriculture Adoption: Do'Green'Subsidies, Insurance, Risk Aversion and Impatience Matter. Njeru, E.; Grey, S.; Kilawe, E. Eastern Africa Climate-Smart Agriculture Scoping Study: Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda; FAO: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016. Noble, I. R., Huq, S., Anokhin, Y. A., Carmin, J. A., Goudou, D., Lansigan, F. P.,Osman-Elasha, B., Villamizar, A., Patt, A., Takeuchi, K., and Chu, E. (2015). Adaptation needs and options. In Climate Change 2014 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects (pp. 833-868). Cambridge University Press. p’Rajom MO, Oroma GW, Osumba J, Recha J. 2020. Climate resilient farmer field schools handbook. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security. OECD 2022. Meeting with Agriculture Ministers. Available from https://www.oecd.org/agriculture/ministerial/documents/Agriculture%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf Osborne, T. M., & Wheeler, T. R. (2013). Evidence for a climate signal in trends of global crop yield variability over the past 50 years. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024001.s Osorio-Garcia, A. M., Paz, L., Howland, F., Ortega, L. A., Acosta-Alba, I., Arenas, L., ... & Andrieu, N. (2020). Can an innovation platform support a local process of climate-smart agriculture implementation? A case study in Cauca, Colombia. Agroecology and sustainable food systems, 44(3), 378-411. Parker, L., Bourgoin, C., Martinez-Valle, A., & Läderach, P. (2019). Vulnerability of the agricultural sector to climate change: The development of a pan-tropical Climate Risk Vulnerability Assessment to inform sub- national decision making. PloS one, 14(3), e0213641. Partey, S.T., Zougmore, R. B., Ouedraogo, M., and Campbell, B. M. (2018). Developing climate-smart agriculture to face climate variability in West Africa: challenges and lessons learnt. Journal of Cleaner Production., 187, 285-295. Quail, S., Onyango, L., Recha, J., Kinyangi, J. (2016). Private Sector Actions to Enable Climate-Smart Agriculture in Small-Scale Farming in Tanzania. In: Lal, R., Kraybill, D., Hansen, D., Singh, B., Mosogoya, T., Eik, L. (eds) Climate Change and Multi-Dimensional Sustainability in African Agriculture. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41238-2_28 Rao, N. H. (2018, September). Big data and climate smart agriculture-status and implications for agricultural research and innovation in India. In Proceedings Indian National Science Academy, Forthcoming (Vol. 84, No. 3, pp. 625-640). Ray, D. K., Gerber, J. S., MacDonald, G. K., & West, P. C. (2015). Climate variation explains a third of global crop yield variability. Nature communications, 6(1), 5989. Reidsma, P., Ewert, F., Boogaard, H., & van Diepen, K. (2009). Regional crop modelling in Europe: the impact of climatic conditions and farm characteristics on maize yields. Agricultural Systems, 100(1-3), 51-60. Rodima-Taylor, D., Olwig, M. F., and Chhetri, N. (2012). Adaptation as innovation, innovation as adaptation: an institutional approach to climate change. Appl. Geograp. 33, 107–111. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.10.011 https://www.oecd.org/agriculture/ministerial/documents/Agriculture%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41238-2_28 20 Rosenstock TS, Wilkes A, Nowak A, Akamandisa VM, Bondo A, Kimaro AA, Lucas I, Makoko K, Masikati P, Malozo M, Morongwe S, Ngwira G, Njoloma J, Nyoka I, Pedzisa T, Shoo A, Temu E, Fay J. 2018. Measurement, reporting and verification of climate-smart agriculture: Change of perspective, change of possibilities? CCAFS Info Note. Wageningen, Netherlands: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)Ruben, R., Wattel, C., & Van Asseldonk, M. (2019). Rural finance to support climate change adaptation: Experiences, lessons and policy perspectives. The Climate-Smart Agriculture Papers, 301. Saadi, S., Todorovic, M., Tanasijevic, L., Pereira, L. S., Pizzigalli, C., & Lionello, P. (2015). Climate change and Mediterranean agriculture: Impacts on winter wheat and tomato crop evapotranspiration, irrigation requirements and yield. Agricultural water management, 147, 103-115. Sarwar, M., Hussain, I., Anwar, M., & Mirza, S. N. (2016). Baseline data on anthropogenic practices in the agro-ecosystem of Pothwar Plateau, Pakistan. J. Anim. Pl. Sci, 26, 850-857. Scarano, F. R. (2017). Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change: concept, scalability and a role for conservation science. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 15(2), 65-73. Schauberger, B., Archontoulis, S., Arneth, A., Balkovic, J., Ciais, P., Deryng, D., Elliott, J., Folberth, C., Khabarov,N., Müller, C., Pugh, A. M., Rolinski, S., Schaphoff, S., Schmid, E., Wang, X., Schlenker, W., and Frieler, K. (2017). Consistent negative response of US crops to high temperatures in observations and crop models. Nature communications, 8(1), 13931. Scholtz, M.M.; Schönfeldt, H.C.; Neser, F.W.C.; Schutte, G.M. Research and development on climate change and greenhouse gases in support of climate-smart livestock production and a vibrant industry. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 44, S1–S7. Shaheen, T., Pasha, Y. N., & Adnan, S. (2021). The Architecture of Rani Mongho Tomb, Kallar Sayedan, Punjab-Pakistan. Elementary Education Online, 20(5), 6727-6727. Speranza, C. I. (2010). Resilient Adaptation to Climate Change in African Agriculture. German Development Institute. Syed, A., Raza, T., Bhatti, T. T., & Eash, N. S. (2022). Climate Impacts on the agricultural sector of Pakistan: Risks and solutions. Environmental Challenges, 6, 100433. Tanti, P. C., Jena, P. R., & Aryal, J. P. (2022). Role of institutional factors in climate‐smart technology adoption in agriculture: Evidence from an Eastern Indian state. Environmental Challenges, 7, 100498. Taylor, M. (2018). Climate-smart agriculture: what is it good for?. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(1), 89- 107. Throp, H. (2023). What the IPCC report means for global action on 1.5°C. Available from https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/03/what-ipcc-report-means-global- action?gclid=Cj0KCQjwi7GnBhDXARIsAFLvH4lwINbpmJy44-KxwT61NQ0Cc_7sbFRYv_Sw- 35jswQJKeQQ_wxsW4gaAkZvEALw_wcB Totin, E., Segnon, A. C., Schut, M., Affognon, H., Zougmore, R. B., Rosenstock, T., and Thornton, P. K. (2018). Institutional Perspectives of Climate-Smart Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 10. doi:10.3390/su10061990 Uddin, M.N.; Bokelmann, W.; Entsminger, J.S. Factors affecting farmers’ adaptation strategies to environmental degradation and climate change effects: A farm level study in Bangladesh. Climate 2014, 2, 223–241. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/03/what-ipcc-report-means-global-action?gclid=Cj0KCQjwi7GnBhDXARIsAFLvH4lwINbpmJy44-KxwT61NQ0Cc_7sbFRYv_Sw-35jswQJKeQQ_wxsW4gaAkZvEALw_wcB https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/03/what-ipcc-report-means-global-action?gclid=Cj0KCQjwi7GnBhDXARIsAFLvH4lwINbpmJy44-KxwT61NQ0Cc_7sbFRYv_Sw-35jswQJKeQQ_wxsW4gaAkZvEALw_wcB https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/03/what-ipcc-report-means-global-action?gclid=Cj0KCQjwi7GnBhDXARIsAFLvH4lwINbpmJy44-KxwT61NQ0Cc_7sbFRYv_Sw-35jswQJKeQQ_wxsW4gaAkZvEALw_wcB 21 Ullah, A., Ahmad, I., Ahmad, A., Khaliq, T., Saeed, U., Habib-ur-Rahman, M., Hussain, J.,Ullah, S., and Hoogenboom, G. (2019). Assessing climate change impacts on pearl millet under arid and semi-arid environments using CSM-CERES-Millet model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 6745- 6757. UNECSO (2018). Climate change raises conflict concerns. Available from https://en.unesco.org/courier/2018- 2/climate-change-raises-conflict-concerns Wakweya, R. B. (2023). Challenges and prospects of adopting climate-smart agricultural practices and technologies: Implications for food security. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 14, 100698. World Bank Group (2016). Climate information services, agriculture global practical assistance paper. The World Bank, Washington, DC World Bank Group (2021). World Bank Group Climate Change Action Plan 2021-2025: South Asia Roadmap. © World Bank, Washington, DC. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/36321 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. Zerssa, G., Feyssa, D., Kim, D., Eichler-Löbermann, B. (2021). Challenges of Smallholder Farming in Ethiopia and Opportunities by Adopting Climate-Smart Agriculture, Agriculture 2021, 11, 192. https://doi. org/10.3390/agriculture11030192 Zhao, J., Yang, X., Dai, S., Lv, S., & Wang, J. (2015). Increased utilization of lengthening growing season and warming temperatures by adjusting sowing dates and cultivar selection for spring maize in Northeast China. European Journal of Agronomy, 67, 12-19. Zougmoré, R.; Partey, S.; Ouédraogo, M.; Omitoyin, B.; Thomas, T.; Ayantunde, A.; Ericksen, P.; Said, M.; Jalloh, A. Toward climate-smart agriculture in west Africa: A review of climate change impacts, adaptation strategies and policy developments for the livestock, fishery and crop production sectors. Agriculture Food Security. 2016, 5, 26. https://en.unesco.org/courier/2018-2/climate-change-raises-conflict-concerns https://en.unesco.org/courier/2018-2/climate-change-raises-conflict-concerns http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo https://doi/ Appendix 1- Climate Smart Technologies Identified for Adoption in South Asia Bangladesh Bhutan India Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka 1 Bed planting (BP) Protected Agriculture technology Direct Seeded Rice Crop system (DSR in Rice-wheat system + Brown manuring-Sesbania) Zero Tillage Wheat Planting in Rice-Wheat Cropping System Crop diversification - Sandwich cropping systems using short-aged legume types (third-season cultivation) 2 Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) Sustainable Land Management Laser Land Levelling Laser land leveling Direct Seeding of Rice in Rice-Wheat Cropping System Multi-purpose soil conservation bunds 3 Zero tillage (ZT) or strip planting (ST) Automated/Smart Irrigation Technology (SIT) Broad Bed Furrow (Soybean) Alternate wetting and drying Alternate Wetting and Drying of Rice in Rice-Wheat Cropping System Solar-powered water pumping systems/ micro irrigation 4 Mixed or intercropping Conservation Agriculture Zero tillage wheat Zero Tillage Happy Seeder / Pak Seeder Wheat Planting in Rice-Wheat Cropping System 'Parachute” method of paddy seedling broadcasting 5 Mulch and residue retention Zero tillage Maize based intercropping Raised Beds / Ridge Planting of Wheat in Rice-Wheat Cropping System Protected agriculture for high-value crops 6 Agroforestry system Micro irrigation (Drip) in cotton Drought-tolerant varieties in rice Resilient Cropping Systems (Mung-Wheat, Soybean-Wheat) in Rainfed Areas Rainwater harvesting techniques 7 Quesungual Slash and Mulch (QSMAS) Plastic Mulching Green manuring in rice Resilient Cropping Systems (Sesbinia- Wheat) in Rainfed Area Cultivation of climate-smart crops - Stress resistant varieties 8 Resilient intercropping system Flood tolerant Drought-Tolerant Varieties in Rainfed Area Application of biochar 9 Improved seed variety (Foxtail millet (SIA-3085)) Integrated nutrient management Alternative Drying and Wetting irrigation in paddy cultivation 10 Drip irrigation Climate forecasting based Agro-met advisory & alerts 11 Raised bed planting Home gardening with self-produced organic manure 12 Conservation agriculture