142
Climate Fund). The aim is to help smallholder farmers (1) sustainably increase productivity and incomes, (2) adapt to climate variability and change and (3) mitigate
climate change where possible (FAO 2013). With planned investments, political
will and implementation capacity, CSA is emerging as a mechanism for coherent
and coordinated action on climate change adaptation and mitigation for
agriculture.
Farm- and field-level management technologies are a core component of most
planned CSA investments (Thierfelder et al. 2017; Kimaro et al. 2015). Farm-level
technologies represent a broad category of direct activities that farmers can undertake on their fields, in livestock husbandry, or through management of communal
lands. Climate-smart actions may include both the adoption of new/improved inputs
and new/improved application methods, such as adopting drought resistant crop
varieties, reducing stocking rates of animals, changing harvesting and postharvest
storage techniques (Lipper et al. 2014). The vast number of farm-level options that
might meet CSA objectives coupled with the large number of possible outcomes
that fit under the three pillars of CSA, has led many development practitioners, scientists and governments to the question: “What is CSA and what is not CSA?”
(Rosenstock et al. 2015a).
This question, however, presents a false dichotomy. By definition, CSA is context specific and subject to the priorities of farmers, communities and governments
where it is being implemented. Until now, little empirical evidence has been provided to systematically evaluate which CSA practices work where (see Branca et al.
2011 for a first attempt). Instead, CSA is often supported with case studies, anecdotes, or aggregate data, which paint an incomplete picture of both the potential and
challenges of CSA (e.g., FAO 2014; Neate 2013). The lack of comprehensive information on CSA is not surprising, given the fact that it includes a wide diversity of
solutions at the farm production and rural livelihood levels. Consequently many
interventions that increase productivity are labelled as “CSA” without evidence on
the other two objectives of CSA, at least one of which would need to be also documented to qualify any intervention as CSA. Although “triple win” interventions at
the field level may be the exception rather than the rule, evidence has to be provided
on all objectives to support policies and programmes that may wish to promote CSA
(Arslan et al. 2017).
There is an urgent need to provide decision-makers—including investors—with
information to help them design programmes and policies, as well as to increase the
effectiveness of development programming. In response and in this paper, we have
conducted a quantitative and systematic review to map the evidence published in
peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of technologies and management practices to achieve the objectives of increased productivity, resilience and mitigation
for the five countries in East and Southern Africa: Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique,
Zimbabwe and Zambia. Our systematic map sets the benchmark on what data and
evidence are available on how farm and field management practices affect indicators of CSA outcomes.
T. S. Rosenstock et al.
Climate Fund). The aim is to help smallholder farmers (1) sustainably increase productivity and incomes, (2) adapt to climate variability and change and (3) mitigate
climate change where possible (FAO 2013). With planned investments, political
will and implementation capacity, CSA is emerging as a mechanism for coherent
and coordinated action on climate change adaptation and mitigation for
agriculture.
Farm- and field-level management technologies are a core component of most
planned CSA investments (Thierfelder et al. 2017; Kimaro et al. 2015). Farm-level
technologies represent a broad category of direct activities that farmers can undertake on their fields, in livestock husbandry, or through management of communal
lands. Climate-smart actions may include both the adoption of new/improved inputs
and new/improved application methods, such as adopting drought resistant crop
varieties, reducing stocking rates of animals, changing harvesting and postharvest
storage techniques (Lipper et al. 2014). The vast number of farm-level options that
might meet CSA objectives coupled with the large number of possible outcomes
that fit under the three pillars of CSA, has led many development practitioners, scientists and governments to the question: “What is CSA and what is not CSA?”
(Rosenstock et al. 2015a).
This question, however, presents a false dichotomy. By definition, CSA is context specific and subject to the priorities of farmers, communities and governments
where it is being implemented. Until now, little empirical evidence has been provided to systematically evaluate which CSA practices work where (see Branca et al.
2011 for a first attempt). Instead, CSA is often supported with case studies, anecdotes, or aggregate data, which paint an incomplete picture of both the potential and
challenges of CSA (e.g., FAO 2014; Neate 2013). The lack of comprehensive information on CSA is not surprising, given the fact that it includes a wide diversity of
solutions at the farm production and rural livelihood levels. Consequently many
interventions that increase productivity are labelled as “CSA” without evidence on
the other two objectives of CSA, at least one of which would need to be also documented to qualify any intervention as CSA. Although “triple win” interventions at
the field level may be the exception rather than the rule, evidence has to be provided
on all objectives to support policies and programmes that may wish to promote CSA
(Arslan et al. 2017).
There is an urgent need to provide decision-makers—including investors—with
information to help them design programmes and policies, as well as to increase the
effectiveness of development programming. In response and in this paper, we have
conducted a quantitative and systematic review to map the evidence published in
peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of technologies and management practices to achieve the objectives of increased productivity, resilience and mitigation
for the five countries in East and Southern Africa: Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique,
Zimbabwe and Zambia. Our systematic map sets the benchmark on what data and
evidence are available on how farm and field management practices affect indicators of CSA outcomes.
T. S. Rosenstock et al.