Andy Jarvis, Osana Bonilla-Findji, Anton Eitzinger, Nadine Andrieu, Ivonne Acosta,
Ngoni Chirinda, Maria Alejandra Garcia, Jennifer Twyman
Climate-Smart Village
Monitoring Plan
A Global evidence building effort
Contacts: a.jarvis@cigar.org, o.bonilla@cigar.org, a.eitzinger@cgiar,.org

• 36 CSV sites, 20 countries
• 55 field tested practices, 24 with mitigation potential
• 24 with gender impact assessed
Updated inventories
(regionals and global)
new
https://ccafs.cgiar.org/publications/inventory-csa-practices-climate-smart-villages

Objectives
Community
adoption trends
(FS/Income, Adaptive
capacity/coping strategies)
Household livelihoods
Practice
effectiveness
(vs conventional practices)
Farm
performance
(Synergies and tradeoffs)
Monitoring CSA implementation, performance and outcomes
in the CCAFS Climate-Smart Villages
• Bridge the gap on evidence on CSA options
• Provide common methods and indicators at 4 levels

Whom and How ?
Implementers and methods
Practice
effectiveness
Preset Template to report on the common indicators
(uploadable in MARLO)
Status: under development
Pillar
Indicator
(compared to control/ conventional practice) Metrics
Productivity
Yield Crop/Livestock
production unit per Ha
Cost/Benefit Analysis (Yes or No)
Adaptation
Inter-annual variation of yield %
Reduction in yield losses %
Water use efficiency
(when applicable)
Ratio
Mitigation
Amount of carbon sequestered CO2 eq per ha/kg
Amount of GHG emitted CO2 eq per ha/kg
F2 projects undertaking CSA
options evaluations

Farm
performance
Whom and How ?
Implementers and methods
CSV coordination team
(in a sub-sample of HHs)
“CSA Cool-farm Calculator tool” (above indicators)
Status: Ready + Descriptive guidelines
- Data collected for Colombia
- Ghana planned for October
Synergies and tradeoffs of CSA portfolios
P
AdAtt
Pillar Indicador Metrics
Productivity
Caloric ratio of the farm (%) Caloric supply/Caloric demand x 100
Fodder ratio of the farm (%) Fodder supply/Fodder demand x 100
Cost benefit ratio (%) Benefit/Cost x 100
Adaptation
Biodiversity index (%) Based on Gobbi, J., Casasola, F., 2003.
Water balance (%) Water supply/water demand x 100
Nutrient balance (%) Nutrient supply/nutrient demand x 100
Mitigation Emission/Sequestration of CO2 CoolFarmTool

14 Farms assessed for their CSA performance
• At farm-level same portfolio can lead to contrasting results given different ,
characteristics of the farm (size of family, type of crops) and management changes
• Portfolios implemented included 2 to 4 practices
Colombia pre-testing
Farm
performance
-6
4
14
24
34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
%ofchange
Farms
Productivity
Adaptation
Mitigation
Compost
Water harvesting
Home gardens

to address Synergies and Trade-Offs between practices
other farm characteristics and CSA Pillars
Parametrization with:
Data from CSA option performances (objective 1)
Yields of the main crops
Calorics contents of the crops used for home consumption
N and Water needs of the crops/animals
Merged!
Input data:
Size of the family, Areas of main crops, Size of batches of animals,
*Sales and purchases of crops and animals, Sale prices
+ Input from CoolFarmTool (fertilization, changes in land use or
practices, livestock feeding practices)
-5
-3
0
3
5
8
10
P
AdAtt
* Income
* Food self sufficiency
* Fodder self-sufficiency
* Nitrogen use efficiency
* Water use efficiency
* GHG emissions
* Carbon sequestration
14 Farms assessed for their CSA performance
Colombia pre-testing
Farm
performance
Productivity
Mitigation Adaptation

Community
adoption trends
Household livelihoods
CSV coordination team
(sample size: 140 HBS HHs =
280 men/women farmers) +
group of farmers involved in
evaluation)
Whom and How ?
Implementers and methods
5
1
4
0
5Q Smart-Monitoring
Automated call surveys (future)
Mobile surveys (year 1)
Questions across Modules
Gender disaggregated

Household livelihoods
20 Indicators
CSA Pillar Theme Indicator
1. Food Insecurity Access Scale Score (HFIAS)
2. Degree of un fulfillment of basic needs
3. Self-consumption “diversification” (related to changes made in crop/livestock production both climate-
induced and autonomous)
4. Perceived CSA effect on variety of products consumed (related to CSA practice)
5. Share of main food source
6. Perceived CSA effect on yield
7. Perceived CSA effect on additional income generation
1. Positive changes in HFIAS
2. Δ HHs' degree of basic needs fulfillment
3. Δ in Perceived CSA effect on access to sufficient food
4. Δ in Perceived CSA effect on variety of self-consumed products
5. Δ HH’s External food dependency
Coping Strategies
(Absortive capacity)
6. Δ HHs coping strategies (climate shock-induced)
(sell assets ; using saving/credit; reduce expenses etc... )
7. Δ HH's changes in cropping/livestock activites (climate shock-induced or automonous).
(Changing mgt practices, farm infrstructure, crops)
(Changed herd size, pasture/ feed management, sold, relocated, migrated the herd, livestock)
8. Δ HH's (climate shock-induced/automonous) crop or livestock changes
(substitution, diversification or stopping/abandonning)
9. Δ (HH's perceived) Change in ability to confront/recover from a future climate shock associated to
changes made in cropping/livestock activities (climate-induced or autonomous changes)
10. Δ (HH's perceived) Change in ability to confront/recover from future climate shock related to CSA
options
(Transformative capacity) 11. Δ (HH's perceived) Capacity to undertake radical changes (climate-induced or autonomous)
(grew/breed crops/livestock that never had before)
12. Δ (HH's perceived) Off-farm income generation source/dependency
13. Δ Farmers Ag-related income
14. Δ (farmers perceived) Effect of CSA on-farm/off-farm income share
15. Δ Farmers Saving capacities
16. Δ Farmers Investment capacities
Knowledge and learning 17. Δ in Farmers receiving value chain training , per source
18. Perceived CSA effect over labor time
19. Perceived effect over access/control over CSA generated resources
20. Participation in CSA implementation (Adoption/dis-adoption) decision making
Gender equity
Food Security
Livelihood Security
PRODUCTIVITY
ADAPTATION
Food Security Stability
(
Risk Mitigation actions
(Adaptive capacity)
- HH undertaking climate induced
or autonomous changes -
Specific questions of each
module led to key
indicators
• Look at climate-shock
related changes vs
autonomous changes
• Coping, adaptive and
transformative
capacities
• Adopters and non
adopters

Community
adoption trends
17 Indicators
1. Farmers' CSA options awareness
2. CSA interest from “non-adopters”
3. (Perceived) Frequency of non-climate related shocks reducing Hh incomes
4. (Perceived) Frequency of climate related shocks reducing Hh incomes
5. HHs/farmers implementing CSA
6. HHs/farmers dis-adopting CSA
7. HHs drivers of CSA implementation
(climate-shock, proactive adaption to future shocks, markets, learning...)
8. HHs motivation for CSA dis-adoption
9. Farmers access to weather information services (per type and channel)
10. Farmers capacity/incapacity to use weather information
11. Reasons fo inability to use weather information
12. Farmers CSA knowledge sources
13. Farmers receiving CSA/ CIS training
14. Farmers access to credit for ag. activitities (per type, source and motivation)
(e.g to recover from/prevent climate event? Make changs in crop/livestock activities?
15.Farmers access to insurance ( per source and motivation, type of risk covered)
16. Farmers receiving loans, price bonus, delivery contracts from buyers/providers
Farmer to farmer
dissemination
17. CSA farmer-to-farmer dissemination beyond the HH
CSA adoption/ dis-adoption trends
Awareness and
interest
Implementation /
dis-adoption
frequency and
motivations
Financial enablers
Shocks
Specific questions to
• Look at CSA
adoption/dis-
adoption
• Enabling factors
• Knowledge sources
• Farmer-to- farmer
dissemination

• Local GeoFarmer Field Facilitators
1st Year of Monitoring = Farmers Registration + Rounds of Monitoring Modules
5
14
0
140
Carlos Mejia
Rita Mejia
Ada Angulo
Maria
Angulo
Jarvey
Agredo
5
Carlos Mejia
Rita Mejia
Ada Angulo
Maria
Angulo
Jarvey
Agredo
139
139
M1: Climate Shocks
Status: Running
Round: 2017 (1)
Pending: 140
Completed: 0
Ghana for Plan
Field starting October
* FP2 assistance: Week1: tailoring/testing. Weeks 2 and 3: surveys

Pilot process
Sensitization
Members of board of community, Community meetings,
Flyers
Build local capacity
Train local facilitators for data collection (Youth farmers)
1
2
3
1st phase of data collection
Test survey questions, field tests
App development
Include offline functionalities (local sync) to GeoFarmer
4
Improve indicators with CCAFS experts
Questions trees, indicators
5
6 2nd phase of data collection
Finish data collection with all households
Register farmers
Test 5Q calls
GeoFarmer App M1 to M5
Collect coordinates
Points: villages, households, plots
Electronic
consent
Profiling
HH and
Community

5Q Smart-Monitoring
2nd Year : Complement Field surveys with 5Q phone surveys
Call finishes
Have you heard about manure composting?
2 = No1 = Yes
Question 1
Call starts here
Group of farmers
During the last year 2016, have you
implemented manure composting on your
farm?
Question 2a
2 = No1 = Yes
What benefits did you observe?
Question 3a
1 = less need for chemical fertilizer
2 = healthier plants
3 = I cannot see any benefits
Do you need more knowledge
about how to implement manure
composting on your farm?
Question 3b
2 = No1 = Yes
Would you like to receive information
about the climate-smart practice manure
composting?
Question 2b
2 = No1 = Yes
How would you like to receive
information?
Question 3b
1 = Demonstration & trainings
2 = Extension Service
3 = Radio and television
4 = text messages and voice calls
How many farmers have you told
about manure composting?
Question 4
1 = less than 10
2 = more than 10
3 = nobody
Group A: doing Group A: not doing Group A: need information Group A: not interested
Need to agree on critical time
of the year for key Modules

Example from Cauca CSV, 3 villages
Indicators: Coping Strategies against impact of climate shocks
• Farmers facing climate-related shocks that led to reduction in incomes
• Farmers applying different coping strategies in response to climate related shocks (CSA implementers
vs non implementers)
• Farmers implementing CSA options
Partial results
No CSA implemented

Questions
Answers
&

M0-Registration Module
TO UPDATE
Individual & HH characteristics
Gender
Age (Youth)
Level of education
Belonging to an ethnic group
Cell phone ownership
Willingness to respond to future Phone Call surveys
Relation to the HH head
HH Type – (Male headed+ adult; Female headed + adult; Single female-headed; Single male-headed)
HH size (Total # of persons living in the same house)
HH size/ active members ( # of HH members that actively participate in the farm/agricultural activities)
Gender disaggregated land ownership (Yes/No , versus rented, leased or borrowed plots)
Total productive area of the household farm; all crop/livestock plots) in Ha (Type of producers : small, medium and large; context specific)
Crops grown in the farm (Multi-choice CSV specific typology- to be updated each year)
Different types of livestock raised in the farm (Multi-choice CSV specific typology)
Crops collectively managed in the farm
Crops mainly managed by Man and by female farmer within the HH
Livestock type collectively managed in the farm
Livestock type mainly managed by Man and by female farmer within the HH
CSA options implemented in the HH’s Farm (all HH members included) - (from Typology/CSV inventory. To be updated each year)
Area covered by each CSA option in the Farm (Testing plot or up to ¼ of the Farm; ca. Half of the Farm; more than half; All the farm)