Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Planning, implementing and evaluating Climate-Smart Agriculture in smallholder farming systems

775 views

Published on

http://www.fao.org/in-action/micca/

This presentation by Janie Rioux, FAO, outlines the experience of the Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture (MICCA) pilot projects in Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Planning, implementing and evaluating Climate-Smart Agriculture in smallholder farming systems

  1. 1. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Planning, implementing and evaluating Climate-Smart Agriculture in smallholder farming systems The experience of the MICCA pilot projects in Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania Janie Rioux, NRC Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN
  2. 2. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Content • MICCA pilot projects in Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania: Background and objectives • Approach – Identifying the climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices with smallholder farmers – Implementing and promoting adoption of CSA – Evaluating CSA for targeted scaling-up and informed decision making: Adoption determinants/ benefits analysis • Up-scaling strategies • Lessons learned 2
  3. 3. www.fao.org/in-action/micca MICCA Pilot Projects The MICCA pilot projects aimed to: • Integrate CSA practices into on- going development activities to test and demonstrate the synergies and trade offs between agricultural productivity, resilience and GHG emission reduction • Provide quantifiable evidence on CSA to farmers, national and local decision makers and international organizations and donors 3
  4. 4. www.fao.org/in-action/micca MICCA Pilot Projects Putting climate-smart agriculture into practice Programme: FAO MICCA Programme Partners: ICRAF, CARE, EADD and SUA Timeframe: Jan 2011 to Dec 2014 Donor: The Government of Finland Locations: • Kaptumo, Western Kenya, • Uluguru Mountains, Morogoro district , United Republic of Tanzania 4
  5. 5. www.fao.org/in-action/micca What is CSA? • CSA is an approach to address the interrelated challenges of food security and climate change in agricultural development • CSA is integrated, multi-sectors and multi-levels • CSA is inclusive, context-specific and sustainable • CSA provides co-benefits and synergies with development outcomes  In the MICCA pilot projects, CSA promoted integrated and diversified farming systems and agro-ecological principles and the main goal was to improve food security and livelihoods of smallholder farmers, while testing synergies and trade-offs with climate change mitigation 5
  6. 6. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Source: Rioux et al., FAO 2016. Framework of the MICCA pilot projects 6
  7. 7. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Situation Analysis • Socio-economic baseline: – Representative households survey – To identify farming practices, climate risks, socio-economic conditions (inc. gender role, availability of/access to labour and land) • Capacity needs assessment: – Multi-levels capacity assessments at national, district and project level – To identify farmer needs and policy and institutional environment • Carbon-balance analysis: – To identify the mitigation potential of current and future farming scenarios • Consultations with farmers: – To discuss on different suitable practices and gather their perceptions and preferences 7
  8. 8. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Conducting scientific research Field tested mitigation options and quantifiable evidence of their carbon sequestration and reduced GHG emissions potentials (Rosenstock et al., FAO 2014) • Conducted in parallel with the implementation of the practices. • Objectives: 1) Understand GHG emissions from various cropping systems 2) Elucidate how yield, RUE and incomes can be increased while GHG emissions can be reduced 3) Determine how GHG emissions can be minimized when farmers adopt climate-smart agriculture 8
  9. 9. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Conducting scientific research: Variables 9
  10. 10. www.fao.org/in-action/micca MICCA Pilot Project in Kenya: Integrated crop-livestock system of Western Kenya Improving milk yield and income of dairy producers while reducing the climate change “footprint” of dairy production systems 10
  11. 11. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Kenya: Baseline Results • Livestock feeding practices were evolving: – natural pasture all year, only grazing 34% – mainly grazing with some stall feeding (9 months pasture) 50% – mainly stall feeding and some grazing 15% – zero grazing (stall feeding only) < 1% • Women were involved in 50% of decisions on agricultural practices and management, but less regarding livestock • Farmer interests in participating in the project were to gain access to loans 37% and improve income 24% (only 4% to gain knowledge) 11
  12. 12. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Kenya: Baseline Results Main changes in climate: - more erratic rainfalls - a longer dry season - rivers drying up - problems with watering cattle - decreases in soil fertility 22 % did not know what to do 12 Main impacts of climate change on farmers’ livelihoods Main coping strategies by farmers
  13. 13. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Kenya: Portfolio of selected CSA practices 13
  14. 14. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Kenya: Implementation Strategy • Through East Africa Dairy Development Project (EADD) and district extension services • As part of the Kaptumo Dairy Farmer Business Association (3 450 members) Farmer-to-farmer training approach: Research showed that farmer trainers in the area can disseminate their knowledge up to 20 new farmers each month Trainings and workshops with the dairy association, the district officers of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock and other development partners 14
  15. 15. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Kenya: Implementation Strategy 15
  16. 16. www.fao.org/in-action/micca MICCA Pilot Project in Tanzania: Cereal-based family farming in the highlands Combining conservation agriculture practices with agroforestry, improved cooking stoves, and soil and water conservation to improve yield and livelihoods and reduce burning, erosion and deforestation. 16
  17. 17. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Tanzania: Baseline Results • Small land size: median was 0.8 acres per farmer, but it ranged from 0.1 to 4 acres • Insecure land tenure: 50% of farmers were renting lands (33% paying fees, many lands are clan-owned) • 50% of farmers practiced slash and burn agriculture • Climate change impacts were perceived by 74% of households, e.g. prolonged dry season and crop failure -> resulting in food shortage 17 Main agricultural problems Main coping strategies by farmers
  18. 18. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Tanzania: portfolio of selected CSA practices 18
  19. 19. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Tanzania: Implementation Strategy • Through CARE HICAP project (Hillside Conservation Agriculture for Improved Livelihoods in the South Uluguru) and district extension services 19 • Training of trainers and farmer-led extension approaches • Demonstration plots at Kolero Community Center and in farmer trainers’ fields • 786 improved cooking stoves built, inc. 50 for brew making • Exchange visits and agricultural exhibitions
  20. 20. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Tanzania: Implementation Strategy 20
  21. 21. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Evaluating the adoption and benefits of CSA • To gather information on the determinants (barriers and incentives) and benefits of the adoption of CSA practices • Structured household interviews and focus group discussions using a proportionate random sampling among the project participants and across location • Kenya: Household interviews (n=150 people, 35 % women) and 5 FGDs in 6 locations in the Kaptumo division, Nandy County • Tanzania: Household interviews (n=170, 50 % women) and 5 FGDs in 8 villages in the Uluguru Mountains, Morogoro district • Correlations generated between CSA practices and these variables:  farmer and farm characteristics  social, economical and institutional context  practice and technology characteristics 21
  22. 22. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Kenya: Adoption of CSA practices Adoption of improved fodder grasses was associated with the use of livestock manure, price of milk in the dry season, land tenure and education of household head Agroforestry adoption was associated with secured land tenure and the price of milk in the wet and dry season Participation in trainings increased significantly the adoption of improved fodder, agroforestry, composting and tree nursery 22
  23. 23. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Kenya: Benefits of CSA practices 23 • Almost all (95 %) of all of the farmers surveyed perceived benefits from CSA • The main benefit that farmers perceived from the whole set of CSA practices was improved farm income (38 %)
  24. 24. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Tanzania: Adoption of CSA practices • Insecure land tenure and small land size were barriers to adoption of agroforestry and soil-water conservation measures • Availability of labor and capacity to hire labor were incentives for uptake of double digging and crop rotation, as these practices are labor demanding • Access to information, farmer to farmer learning and trainings were determinants of adoption for all practices 24 2 CA among 3: min. tillage, mulching and cover crops
  25. 25. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Adoption of individual and combined conservation agriculture practices • However, the adoption rate was lower for the three main plots, and even more for combined conservation agriculture practices 25 • A high number of farmers reported practicing individual practices of conservation agriculture
  26. 26. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Tanzania: Benefits of CSA practices 26 • Main benefit perceived by farmers (29%) was increased food production • Maize yields obtained by CSA practices were two times higher compared to those obtained using conventional practices • Improved cook stoves reduced the amount of fuelwood needed by 30–50%
  27. 27. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Approach for scaling-up in the MICCA pilot projects 27
  28. 28. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Scaling up strategies with partners from local to national levels • Mainstreaming CSA into large scale development programme: E.g. EADD integrated CSA into their Phase II (2014-2018) in Kenya, United Republic of Tanzania, Uganda reaching out to > 130,000 farmers (25M Gates Foundation) • Catalytic effect to link science with CSA development: E.g. ICRAF developed a project for scaling climate-smart agriculture (2015- 2018) to support the African Union’s NEPAD and African CSA Alliance (CCAFS funds) • Informing decision makers at national levels for better programming E.g. CSA day, CSA scoping studies, CSA national workshops 28
  29. 29. www.fao.org/in-action/micca National Level Actions Multi-stakeholders national workshops to share evidences and experiences: – Kenya: Climate-Smart Agriculture in Smallholder Integrated Crop- Livestock Farming Systems with MALF/CC unit, CCAFS, ICRAF and FAO – United Republic of Tanzania: Workshop to Share Evidence and Experience on CSA with MAFSC/env. unit, CARE, ICRAF- United Republic of Tanzania and FAO Follow up actions and supports on: – Kenya: Capacity building on NAMA in the context of the Dairy sector NAMA with SDL, CCAFS, UNIQUE and FAO – United Republic of Tanzania: Technical support on the development of CSA Guidelines by agro-ecological/livelihoods zones (2015-2016) with MAFSC/env. unit 29
  30. 30. www.fao.org/in-action/micca MICCA Pilot Projects- Lessons Learned • Important to target and tailor CSA to site-specific farming system, socio- economic conditions and farmers needs • Farmers and local level decision makers need to be engaged in the participatory planning of climate-smart agriculture and work jointly with technical specialists and extensionists to develop the set of locally- relevant CSA practices • Sustainable extension approaches are key, as adoption of CSA practices is highly influenced by trainings and farmer-to-farmer learning Smallholder farmers can be part of the solution to climate change, and increase food production and resilience while mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. 30
  31. 31. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Results to inform CSA programming • Main benefits of CSA perceived by farmers are increases in productivity, income from farming, and food availability- so CSA seems an effective approach to improve food security and alleviate poverty in rural areas • It is important to link the promotion of specific climate-smart practices and technologies with sustainable extension services and incentives (e.g. high value crop on terraces, stable market for milk, income generating activities, access to seeds and loans, group learning, etc.) • Land tenure and size can promote or constrain the uptake and scaling-up of climate-smart agriculture and it can vary by practice • Transformational changes in agriculture take time, so important to plan coherent and long term programme aligned with policies 31
  32. 32. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Thank you For more information, please visit: www.fao.org/in-action/micca/knowledge/climate-smart- agriculture/en/
  33. 33. www.fao.org/in-action/micca Publications of the MICCA Pilot Projects • MICCA Adoption study in Kenya: • www.fao.org/3/a-i4396e.pdf • FAO MICCA 10: Science to support climate-smart agricultural development: www.fao.org/climatechange/micca/87906/en/ • Kenya CSA scoping study: www.fao.org/3/a-i4367e.pdf • CSA national workshop technical reports: www.fao.org/climatechange/micca/87624/en/ • Kenya CSA Policy Brief: www.fao.org/climatechange/42101- 052030dc948c02b143ca95a7f96cdc7bb.pdf • FAO MICCA 11: The experience of the MICCA pilot projects www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/2ac2b364-41b1-42de- a049-720542f18a2c/

×