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.

Sharing Evidence and Experience on Climate-Smart Agriculture in Smallholder Integrated Farming Systems. Kenya CSA Workshop 8-9 Oct 2014


Published on

The presentation gives a summary of results and recommendations from Working Group sessions of over 40 research and development projects and 50 experts on climate change and agriculture in Kenya. The working groups covered the following areas:
- Climate information and insurance
- Aquaculture and livestock
- Cropping systems
- Conservation agriculture with trees
- Energy
- Farmer adoption, capacity development and gender.

© FAO:

Published in: Education
  • NOTE TO READERS: Do NOT Buy Any Shed Plans Until You've Seen This... ✔✔✔
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Want to preview some of our plans? You can get 50 Woodworking Plans and a 440-Page "The Art of Woodworking" Book... Absolutely FREE ▲▲▲
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Get access to 16,000 woodworking plans, Download 50 FREE Plans... ■■■
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Get access to 16,000 woodworking plans, Download 50 FREE Plans... ♥♥♥
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • The #1 Woodworking Resource With Over 16,000 Plans, Download 50 FREE Plans... ♣♣♣
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

Sharing Evidence and Experience on Climate-Smart Agriculture in Smallholder Integrated Farming Systems. Kenya CSA Workshop 8-9 Oct 2014

  1. 1. Kenya CSA Workshop 8-9 Oct 2014 Sharing Evidence and Experience on Climate-Smart Agriculture in Smallholder Integrated Farming Systems
  2. 2. Introduction • Summary of results and recommendations from Working Group sessions of over 40 research and development projects and 50 experts on climate change and agriculture in Kenya • Working Groups: – Climate information and insurance – Aquaculture and livestock – Cropping systems – Conservation agriculture with trees – Energy – Farmer adoption, capacity development and gender
  3. 3. Cropping Systems, Climate Information and Insurance 3
  4. 4. Cropping Systems 4
  5. 5. Projects Name Institution Project title Jeske van de Gevel Bioversity International (Kenya, Tanzania) Varietal Diversification to manage climate risks Sika Gbegbelegbe CIMMYT (Kisumu: Nyando, Makueni) Foresight modelling / CCAFS Mary Njuguna SNV (Narok, Bomet) Income, food, and climate solutions for smallholders farmers Anthony M. Kibe & Stephen Mwiru Karanja Egerton University (Nakuru: Rongai) Manipulation of intercrop density and row orientation Patrick Ooro KALRO (Nakuru: Njoro) CSA Technologies for smallholder farmers Peterson Njeru KALRO / Kenyatta University Central Kenya Integrating farmers perception and scientific methods for evaluating climate change Cyrus Githunguri KALRO (Kitui: Mutomo) Cassava farming transforming livelihoods among smallholder farmers in Mutomo a semi-arid district in Kenya Michael Okumu GIZ / MOALF, Homa Bay Enhancing Farmers’ Adaptive capacity Daniel Gichuhi KENFAP Composting; Water conservation, Water harvesting etc. 5
  6. 6. Introduction 1. Crop failure and thus risks are caused by increased temperature (heat) & dry spells; decreased rainfall and change in rain onset and/or cessation; 2. Adaptation options are changes in crop and livestock-related management and collective action (group formation); 3. Barriers to adaptation include lack of access to resources and knowledge needed for adaptation 4. Farmers’ perception of climate risks are many times not consistent with measured risks; there is need for variable combinations of climate smart agricultural practices, skill-based seasonal crop timing (climate information for farmers) and supple gender-sensitive strategies 6
  7. 7. 7 Queries to be answered:- • What traits are farmers looking for in climate smart varieties? •How does climate change affect varietal diversification strategies? •Are farmers planting different crops or varieties in order to adapt to CC?
  8. 8. 8 Enhance adaption and mitigation capacity across agricultural landscapes with solutions that go beyond climate change, to include food and nutrition security, biodiversity conservation, and poverty alleviation Objective
  9. 9. Adaptive Strategies identified included 1. Crop specific strategies: Maize, Sorghum, Cassava, Sweet potato, and Groundnut, cowpea, P. Pea, Sugar snaps, Baby Corn; Avocado, Irish potato 2. Strategies not specific to any particular crop :  Crop diversification: Adoption of Drought tolerance, early maturing crops & varieties  Conservation agriculture; Agroforestry farming systems, Tied ridges  Integrated pest management (Pest & disease resistance /  Good agricultural/agronomic practices: Integrated Nutrient management  Financial services: Risk transfer strategies (Insurance-WIBI & Agriculture Credit 9
  10. 10. Project results • Integration of oxen plough with an Intension of making furrows for rain water harvesting and soil erosion control Farmers adapted the furrow tillage practice 10
  11. 11. • Tied ridges had a positive increased Soil moisture accumulation • Green manure resulted in increased soil moisture Recommendations • Promotion of agroforestry trees (Horti-silviculture) is required in smallholder farms because they are multi- purpose advantage • Research studies are needed to evaluate interaction of tied ridges and green manure at more sites 11
  12. 12. 12 Growth of sorghum-cowpea under N-S rows; 55,555 Cp plants/ha Growth of sorghum-cowpea: E-W rows at 166,666 Cp plants/ha Sorghum-cowpea: E-W rows at 55,555 Cp plants/ha Sorghum-cowpea: E-W rows at 111,111 CP plants/ha Manipulation of intercrop population and row orientation Sorg + C-pea system BEST for wetter & cooler Apr – Aug climate BEST for drier & hotter Dec –Apr climate
  13. 13. 13 1. WUE of 4.0 and 5.5 kg S-grain/ha-mm water use determined for drier and wetter environments 2. E- W row arrangement was good for intercropped cowpea (29 -31% light penetration) and 3. The N–S orientation was good (27 – 30% LP) for sole sorghum & combined crops. 4. A crop intensification (LER) of 123% & 1.25 % was achieved for SC55,555 and SC111,111, respectively. Results (continued)
  14. 14. Conclusions and Recommendations (Implications for CSA Programming) • Climate smart agricultural practices are essential to facilitate adaptation to climate change in the short and long term • CSA practices are not enough by themselves: • They need to be delivered in association with climate-related information targeting farmers (that provides advice on when to plant, crops choice, varieties to plant; management; etc.) and • Apply Gender-sensitive strategies (especially where men migrate leaving women as decision-makers). • Integrate research to back-up development work. 14
  15. 15. Farmer participation is paramount to successful CSA adoption Integrating all Value chain actors: PPP required from input suppliers, producers, processors, to markets & consumer. It incentivizes players, enables informed planning for increased profits (Finance & Insurance) 15
  16. 16. Climate Information and Insurance 16
  17. 17. Projects and institutions Name Project Institution Shadrack Kipkemoi, Maren Amoko Agro weather information for adapting to climate change (capacity development) Agricultural Sector Development Support Programme (ASDSP) Jeanne Coulibaly Climate Information Services for farmers in Kenya (research; development) ICRAF (Kisumu: Nyando) Lydia Index Based livestock Insurance (development) World Vision Kenya (Isiolo: Garbatula) Bernard Mbogo Kilimo Biashara : Credit provision (capacity development) CARE-Kenya (Nyandarua: Kinangop) Michael Okumu Enhancing farmers’ adaptive capacity (the adaptation to climate change and insurance project) – (Capacity building) MALF (climate change unit) (Site: Homa Bay, Busia) 17
  18. 18. Objective/purpose • Provide weather information to farmers that is accessible and useful to make timely farm level decisions “Bottom Up Approach” Included determine farmers needs 18
  19. 19. What do farmers need? • Access and use climate information that is: – Downscaling weather information (KMD) – Site / Field-specific, Reliable & Timely – Communicated in their own local languages • Efficient communication channels: – Radios, cell phones (sms), social networks • Information on best agricultural practices – Improved crop management systems, climate smart technologies; coupled with • Support system to help them act on climate information – Local validated studies (to demonstrate reliability)19
  20. 20. Pilot 1: Factors that make climate information accessible to farmers • Partnerships: a. A multi-stakeholder platform enables sharing, collective understanding, interpreting and communicating climate information, by b. giving space for dialogue on local adaptation issues and options. c. Synergizing across stakeholders is essential for responding to the challenge of unknown futures. • Combining local and scientific knowledge systems is a. important for making climate information relevant locally; it also b. empowers communities. • Including communication and use of climate information in adaptation planning processes, enabling communities to live with the uncertainty and risks that climate change presents. Local adaptive capacity is enhanced by 20
  21. 21. Pilot 1: Results of effective partnerships (fwd) Effective partnerships and combined CSA on banana production in Meru 21
  22. 22. Pilot 2: Weather Index Based Livestock Index (NDVI) • Purpose: To use a risk-management solution (Weather Index-based livestock insurance) that is proactive and more focused on the provision of complementary services that could enhance pastoralist livelihood • Key challenges: – Use of NDVI: coverage of vegetation (including unpalatable plants & shrub) is correlated with drought; applied on large- scale (not on small farms) – Weather forecasts: we need to up the game on spatial data (meteorological data) – Validation studies locally are lacking (research) – Interpretation of results on NDVI: not easy for researchers (what about livelihood promoters & livestock-keepers?) 22
  23. 23. Pilot 3: Kilimo Biashara Project • Purpose: To improve the livelihoods of out-growers through addressing bottlenecks in the vegetable value chains for sugar snaps, green beans and baby corn • Key results: – Increased Credit access (capacity + proximity) to credit for farm inputs from farmer groups – More resilient livelihoods: Crop diversification, agro-forestry (pension insurance) and crop rotation. – Crop insurance failed to take off. 23
  24. 24. Pilot 3: Kilimo Biashara Project Conclusion (& tensions) 1. Take into account external regulations and policies affecting marketing e.g. EU regulations • Europ-GAP; Minimum Residue Levels; C -miles; Trade tarrifs 1. Continued and increased financial & resource Investments: a. require for managing partnerships- e.g., differences in resource allocation & payments for CSO viz a viz private sector; b. Preference by farmer of less labour intensive technologies but can’t access them (e.g., mechanization) & c. Requirement to lower input costs (e.g., seed; fert & irrigation equipment and water). 24
  25. 25. Recommendations (Implications for CSA Programming) Climate smart intervention that can help farmers to better cope with climate variability/change • Design relevant, tailored climate information products and services to the scale of farmers’ decision making • Use local radios, ICT to reach farmers at scale • Inclusion of climate information into agricultural extension services 25
  26. 26. Aquaculture-Livestock Todd Rosenstock, Todd Crane, Dawood Idenya, Margaret Gatonye, Cyrus Githunguri, Miyuki Iiyara, Bethuel Omolo, Inger Haugsgjerd, Jackson K., Carolyn Opio
  27. 27. Institutions and projects Institutions Projects Aquacultural Association of Kenya KAPP– Kenya Agricultural Productivity Program (Aquaculture Value Chain, ,new technologies) NARDTC KAPP– Kenya Agricultural Productivity Program (Aquaculture Value Chain, ,new technologies) Food and Agriculture Organization Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture East African Dairy Development Program World Agroforestry Centre Partnerships for scaling CSA (ICRAF-CIAT) EC-Low emission development (ICRAF) East African Dairy Development Agricultural Sector Development Support Program (cow, milk, aquaculture value chain platform), NRM, climate change with a view to mitigation, social inclusivity. International Livestock Research Institute ILRI-ICRAF-CIFOR program on mitigation KARI Cassava Dairy Feeds – KARI
  28. 28. Household level: Small-scale integrated aquaculture systems 1,035 1,047 1,012 4,245 4,452 4,895 12,153 19,585 21,487 23,501 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Quantityinmetrictonnes Year Production 2004 - 2013 in metric tons • Since 2009, more than 70,000 farmers have installed ponds • Since 2009, number of hatcheries has increased: 8 to 150 • Ponds constructed from 7000 to 69194 • Area: 722 to 2,076 • 4 Fish processing plants.
  29. 29. Farm level: Accounting for multiple functions changes valuation of livestock
  30. 30. Distribution and variation in EI Targeted interventions - Agroforestry in Kaptumo - Variation in household resources Onesmus Chepkorio Average milking herd size/HHs 2 3 Milk production (kg/cow/year) 1,773 (784 – 3221) 2,226 (1088 – 4351) Age at first calving (months) 30 (12-96) 28 (14-48) Feeding Pasture consumption (kg DM/cow) 1.3 (0.0-8.3) 1.6 (1.2-3.4) Other roughage (kg DM/cow) 7.1 (0.5-10.8) 5.8 (3.1-12.1) Concentrates (kg DM/ cow) 0.3 (0.0-2.2) 1.6 (0.0-3.4) Pasture in diet (%) 15 (0-94) 18 (13-34) Other roughage in diet (%) 81 (6-100) 63 (43-84) Concentrate in diet (%) 4 (0-24) 19 (0-39) Digestibility of ration (%) 56 (54-60) 62 (54-67) Efficiency, kg FPCM/kg DMI 0.55 (0.24-1.18) 0.71 (0.2-1.63) Input use Synthetic N fertilizer (kg N applied/year) 30.0 (0.0-185) 25 (0.0-126) Energy use (# of farms processing feed) 3 17 Variation between and within landscape
  31. 31. Recommendations • Need a full value chain and whole-farm integrated approaches to identify best climate-smart livestock and aquaculture opportunities • Climate-smart extend beyond technologies and includes institutions and capacities and so need awareness, capacity building and exposure
  32. 32. Information gaps Research level • Small scale low tech postharvest handling of fish • Improving breeds of Tilapia and Catfish, domesticating other species • Emissions factors from livestock and aquaculture • Real value of cattle in multifunctional smallholder systems • Actual feed base of cattle and fish • Heterogeneity of household resources • Need to understand incentives to intensify inputs- especially feeds
  33. 33. Knowledge gaps Practice level • Training in marketing • Inputs supply • Information sharing on aquaculture • Biogas in smallholder less intensive system • Institutional strengthening • Regulations and policy • Access to credit facilities
  34. 34. Conservation Agriculture With Trees Institution Location Research Topic ICRAF E. & S. Africa Conservation agriculture and agroforestry practices for improved nutrition , household income, & landscape health in ESAF MICCA Kenya & Tanzania Is CA also Climate-Smart?, Targeting CA based on sites, Baselines for Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture CIAT/CCAFS East Africa Increasing food security and farming system resilience through wide scale adoption of CSA Vi Agroforestry Kitale and Kisumu Sustainable Agriculture Land Management Practices (SALMs) or CSA for increased farm productivity, Food security and climate resilience. World Vision Kenya Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration Rain Water Harvesting/Conservation Agriculture KALRO Lower Narok, Eastern Mau Enhancing Soil and Water Management Strategies in small scale Wheat farming The Effect of Tillage on Moisture Retention in Soils. DFBA Kaptumo Bulking and Marketing of Milk within Dairy Value Chains FAO Siaya, Bungoma, Embu and Machakos Climate change adaptation through soil and water management and strengthening capacity Nasirembe Wanjala (KALRO), Ermias Betemariam (ICRAF), Richard Biwoff (DFBA), Moses Karanja(EADD/ICRAF), Christine Lamanna (ICRAF), Oscar Masika (ICRAF), Beatrice Mnede (WorldVision), Joseph Mumu (ALF), Matthew Murhor (EADD), Sylvia Nanjekho (ICRAF), Barrack Okuba (FAO), Joan Sang (World Vision), Emmanuel Wachiye (ViAgro), Leigh Winowiecki (CIAT) Kenya National Climate Change and Agriculture Workshop 9 October 2014
  35. 35. Conservation Agriculture in a Nutshell FAO
  36. 36. CAWT Increases Soil Moisture Synergistically 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Call at 1.5 Call at 3 Call at 4.5 No trees Glir at 1.5 Glir at 3 Glir at 4.5 P.peas at 1.5 P.peas at 3 P.peas at 4.5 Moisture(%Vol) Treatment COA CAConventional CA With Calliandra With Glirisidia With Pigeon Peas ICRAF
  37. 37. CAWT Increases Agricultural Yields 1167 1594 2171 2415 1023 1045 1223 1578 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 2009 2010 2011 2012 Project Farmers Control Farmers MaizeYieldkg/ha CA Conventional Likelihood IDEAL Average Vi Agroforestry MICCA Yield IncreaseYield Decrease
  38. 38. CAWT Increases Yield Across Crop Systems 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Maizegrainyield(t/ha) 2012 LR 2013 LR Baseline yield for CA 4t/ha Conventional Tillage Conservation Agriculture FAO
  39. 39. CSA increases pasture for livestock production Managing tree regeneration increases forage for livestock WorldVision
  40. 40. Healthy soil increases farmer self-sufficiency Soil Organic Carbon SelfSufficiency SelfSufficiency Erosion % CIAT
  41. 41. CSA must be site and farming specific Terraces work on large farms Zai pits work on small farms KALRO WorldVision
  42. 42. Key Messages • Conservation Agriculture With Trees is managing land to increase soil carbon & increasing water holding capacity to prevent degradation • CAWT must be tailored to the local soil, rainfall, and farming conditions or be site specific. • Benefits are not just increased yield, also reduced labor, reduced inputs, fodder, firewood, fruit, other economic benefits PATIENCE, PATIENCE…. CA is not an instantaneous. Results take time to be visible, soils take a while to recover. Key Messages for CAWT
  43. 43. Knowledge Gaps • Reliable climate forecasts • Inadequate awareness on CA • Missing baseline info on measuring CA effectiveness in different farming systems • Inadequate training for farmer facilitators (lack of capacity) • Costs/benefits of implementing CA • How long before benefits are realized for CA • Role of gender in CA adoption • Livestock and CA interaction • Suitable tree species for different farming systems and farm sizes
  44. 44. Recommendations • Farmers should pilot CA projects, must be a learning process • Develop support, extension & farmer training for CA adoption • Enhance information flow from Research to ToTs to farmers • Enhance information sharing among stakeholders • Enhance Farmer-to-Farmer extension • Frequent review of CA best practices and climate info • Improve accessibility of seeds/seedlings of agroforestry tree species
  45. 45. Energy Peter Malomba, Miyuki Iiyama, Kenda Mwenja, Daniel Gichuhi, Carolyn Opio
  46. 46. Focus • Improved cook stoves • Biogas (domestic) • Briquette technology • Solar
  47. 47. Institutions and Projects • Improved Stoves Association of Kenya (ISAK) • KENAFF (Kenya National Farmers Federation) • SNV Kenya (Netherlands Development Organisation) • EnDev/GIZ (solar and cook stoves) • SLU, ICRAF and IITA (Institute of Tropical Agriculture)
  48. 48. Results• Income – Stoves • 1.5 million households with improved stoves • Savings on wood fuel (40%) • Job creation for installers (more than 1,100 installers in the market) • Stove enterprises (production centres for liners etc) – Briquettes • Gasifiers 30% of fuel and 40% of cooking time • Saved expenses (9 and 15 times cheaper than charcoal and kerosene respectively) • Employment (mainly in urban settings) – Biogas • Nationally more than 15,000 domestic biogas systems installed • Pay back period is 2-3 years • Savings on wood fuel, kerosene, time and in-organic fertilizers • Increased agricultural productivity through use of slurry • Job creation for installer equipment suppliers – Solar
  49. 49. Results (contd) • Adaptation – Slurry from biogas systems, improves soils (soil conditioning and increasing C content) – Access to readily available cheaper energy (biogas) and convenience • Health and Livelihoods – Reduced in-door pollution – Reduced eye and respiratory diseases – Reduced burden on women and children for fuel-wood collection • Mitigation potential – Stoves • Reduced emissions (saved biomass, one improved cook-stove reduces 1.4 tons of CO2 equivalent) – Briquettes • Recycling waste and replacing biomass demand – Biogas • 1 cubic metre of biogas reduces 1.8 tons of CO2 (biomass, fossil fuels savings)
  50. 50. Information and Knowledge Gaps • Understanding the multi-dimensional needs of users (e.g. cultural) and farming systems • Awareness levels still low among potential users • Extension and technology knowhow is still limited • Financial (credit) – procurement of technology • Evidence of climate mitigation impacts in larger value chains (wider socio-economic contexts) • Applicability of biogas in different farming systems (confined livestock production) • Capacity to adapt biogas technology to other organic wastes • Quality standards, regulations and enforcement
  51. 51. Recommendations • Integration of renewable energy issues in climate change policies • Address inconsistences between policies and regulations (e.g. charcoal making is illegal while usage is legal) • Holistic approach to energy issues (farming system, landscape, national etc) • Support research to improve evidence of energy interventions (livelihoods, mitigation impacts, health, etc) • Address education and extension capacities • Engagement at county level
  52. 52. Farmer Adoption, Capacity Development and Gender
  53. 53. Projects and institutions • The role of grassroots institutions in enhancing adaptation to climate variability in small-holder farmer systems – Douglas Bwire et al. (ICRAF) • Accelerating Adoption of Agroforestry in Western Kenya (AAA) – Lisa Fuchs (ICRAF) • Climate Smart Agriculture Rapid Appraisal (CSA-RA) – Caroline Mwongera (CIAT) • Farmer Field Schools for CSA – Deborah Duveskog (FAO) • Adoption of CSA practices and lessons learned in Kenya – Morgan Mutoko (MICCA) • Increasing dairy productivity using CSA practices – Josephine Kirui (MICCA) • Integration of Climate Change Adaptation strategies through a Collective Learning Community in Mauche Ward, Nakuru County – Rael Taiy (Egerton University) • CSA and gender - Christine Jost (ICRAF) • Joyce Kweyu (Land O Lakes)
  54. 54. Indicative results • Many local solutions exists – solutions are context-, site- and gender-specific 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Soil and water conservationChanging crop varietyChanging planting dateChanging crop type Planting trees on farm Women Nyando Women Wote Men Nyando Men Wote Percent of respondents reporting making these changes in response to climate change source: CSA and gender – ICRAF/CCAFS
  55. 55. Indicative results (cont’d) • There are context-specific barriers/constraints to well-being and CSA adoption, i.e. gender and cultural norms, weakened traditional institutions but also biophysical context etc. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 poorpersonalplanning poor(psycho-social)health pooreducation poorfinances theft landissues mistrustandgreed lackofinitiative lackofsupport over-dependence alcoholanddrugs unfaith-fulness genderinequality laziness poorfamilyplanning pooragriculturalpractices poorfarminputs poorbusinessopportunities pooremployment… poorfinancialalternatives politicalconflict lackofservices climatechange poorwatersupply deforestation lackofcapital notattractive environmentalconditions confusion conflict lackknowledgemission lackknowledgerights/duties distanceelite/members elitecaptureresources/info lackoftime/interest personal socio-cultural economic institu- tional environ- mental general factors group dynamics barriers to well-being barriers to knowledge implementation source: AAA - ICRAF
  56. 56. Indicative results (cont’d 2) • There are successful gender-sensitive tools and processes that allow understanding the local context, i.e. stakeholder mapping to understand linkages (readily available) Acknowledge gendered institutional linkages & information flow source: CIAT – CSA-RA
  57. 57. Indicative results (cont’d 3) • Local experimentation and testing of CSA practices facilitate analytical capacity of farmers which enhances uptake, i.e. through action research, farmer field schools etc. Plot 1: Mulching Plot 2: No mulching source: FFS for CSA - FAO
  58. 58. Indicative results (cont’d 4) Item Component 1 2 3 4 Skills and knowledge sharing 0.816 Collective decision making on group matters 0.895 Sharing income from group activities 0.814 Resource mobilization e.g. finance, credit, assets 0.932 Managing group assets including finance, group property 0.86 Market information sourcing 0.851 Collective marketing of produce 0.812 Formulating rules for management of natural resources 0.79 Labour sharing 0.616 • Adaptation (adoption of CSA?) facilitated by collective action and strong local institutions source: Role of grassroots institutions - ICRAF
  59. 59. Information and knowledge gaps • Finding the balance between external incentives and local ownership (what are sensible and sustainable incentives?) • Defining ways of measuring and monitoring ‘soft skills’ (empowerment, gender dynamics etc.) • Success indicators are not universal (how can local interests and indicators be matched with technical priorities and objectives in research and development? How to ensure harmony between global frameworks and local indicators?) • Which ‘best practices’ actually qualify as CSA and do we have robust evidence?
  60. 60. Recommendations/messages • Deliberate efforts to ensure better understanding of the socioeconomic and biophysical context and constraints that inform farmers’ decision-making. • There is need for genuine recognition of the role of culture and norms in uptake of CSA practices. • Initiation and strengthening of inclusive local stakeholder platforms (i.e. across value-scales; linking research and extension; landscape level) is crucial for local CSA uptake. • Serious commitment needed for multi-level and multi-sectoral interaction and joint planning processes. • Capacity development needed for soft skills (facilitation, leadership, group dynamics etc.) alongside continual enhancement of hard skills. • Efforts needed to upscale successful and proven participatory approaches – Action research – Community planning/PRA – Gender disaggregated data collection and analysis – Farmer led- and farmer-driven extension services • Farmer field schools • Lead-farmer approach • Need for a consistent policy and regulatory framework to create an enabling environment.
  61. 61. Gender and Climate Change - Vulnerability • Rural women at high risk from climate change – Household responsibilities such as childcare and the collection of firewood and water are particularly climate-sensitive – Taking on more agricultural work as men migrate for labour – Have less access to agricultural resources such as land, extension services and inputs with which to adapt to variability and change – Gendered social norms and roles can inhibit women’s adaptive capacity
  62. 62. Gender and Climate Change - Opportunity
  63. 63. Gender and Climate Change – Key Findings Nyando and Wote • Very low awareness of CSA practices – Significantly lower for women • Women and men are adapting – More so in Wote than Nyando – But doing the ‘small stuff’ – shifts in timing of planting or crops • Very little adoption of the ‘big stuff’ – water harvesting, mulching, composting, zero till, rangeland management • Women are constrained in adopting CSA. practices – Lack of cash, assets, access to information, cultural norms, labour issues, low literacy, etc. • Both men and women are accessing CSA or climate info via radio and extension – But only 40% in Nyando vs. all in Wote – 45% of men in Nyando access from TV vs. 15% of women – Few access from newspapers, cell phones or internet • Groups and farmer field schools are important for women and men • Men migrate for labour – women left as ag. decision makers Nandi • Lower rates of CSA (improved fodder, agroforestry, manure management) for women than men
  64. 64. Gender and Climate Change - Recommendations • Focusing CSA information, resources, technologies and practices on women is an important strategy for catalysing adoption and ensuring rapid and flexible adaptation to climate change. • Targeting women and other vulnerable groups with CSA increases the likelihood of achieving the sustainable development goals. • A focus on women will only be successful when gender norms are addressed.
  65. 65. Summary of Recommendations • Integration at different levels – Systems, value chains – Whole-farm approach – Landscape level – Adaptation / low-emission development – Agriculture / environment / society – Research / development / policy • Integrating CSA in whole farm systems and landscapes builds synergies and addresses trade offs • Knowledge generation and sharing • Importance of well functioning markets and access to inputs • Access to financing for appropriate CSA implementation • CSA interventions are context specific and impacted by cultural norms • Capacity development and gender are cross-cutting