160
farming systems. The suppression of yields of intercropped cassava (43–79%) during the first season suggests that the benefits of intercropping may take time to be
realised and/or may be comprised by the poor selection of companion crops and
farm management practices, such as intercropping, crop rotation, and plant spacing.
Trends of CSA benefits in research and farmer-managed experiments were similar,
although absolute values of yields (maize, cassava or fuelwood) were higher in
research plots. Thus, participatory evaluation of technology is critical for validating
and downscaling research results under farmer management conditions and for
farmers to appreciate the benefits of CSA prior to wide scaling. Overall results of
our analysis of CSA benefits illustrate key principles when considering the multidimensionality of CSA, including the need to: select appropriate indicators, ensure
designs are robust for heterogeneity, examine trade-offs, and conduct participatory
evaluation of CSA on farmers’ field sites. Together, these factors provide more
robust evidence for CSA programming and help practitioners and policymakers to
be on the lookout for such issues and support evidence-based scaling initiatives.
Unfortunately, so many practices and technologies have been labeled CSA in the
past few years that some would say it is just rebranding. Accounting for the principles highlighted here, and explicitly considering the multidimensionality of CSA
objectives in decision-making, will go a long way to improving implementation and
achieving outcomes for farmers.
Acknowledgements We thank Nictor Namoi and Mary Ng’endo for conducting focus group discussions in Tabora as well as farmers and extension officers in Chamwino and Kongwa Districts
for supporting this study. The participatory CSA trials in Tabora were funded by the United States
Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service and is part of the CGIAR Research
Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security’s Partnerships for Scaling Out
Climate-Smart Agriculture project. Research in Kongwa district, Dodoma was funded by the
United States Agency for International Development’s Feed the Future initiative through Africa
RISING; while in Chamwino District, Dodoma it was funded by Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) as ICRAF support to Trans-SEC and was co-financed by
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) and Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ). The views expressed in this chapter are those of the
authors and may not under any circumstances be regarded as stating official positions of the
funders.
References
Charles RL, Munishi PKT, Nzunda EF (2013) Agroforestry as adaptation strategy under climate
change in Mwanga District, Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Int J Environ Protect 3(11):29–38
Coe R, Njoloma J, Sinclair F (2016) Loading the dice in favour of the farmer: reducing the risk of
adopting agronomic innovations. Exp Agric:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479716000181
Hafner J, Uckert G, Graef F et al (2018) A quantitative performance assessment of improved
cooking stoves and traditional three-stone-fire stoves using a two-pot test design in Chamwino,
Dodoma, Tanzania. Environ Res Lett 13(2):025002
Hansen J, Hellin J, Rosenstock T , Fisher E, Cairns J, Stirling C, Lamanna C, van Etton J, Rose A,
Campbell B (2018) Climate risk management and rural poverty reduction. Agric Syst. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.019.
A. A. Kimaro et al.
farming systems. The suppression of yields of intercropped cassava (43–79%) during the first season suggests that the benefits of intercropping may take time to be
realised and/or may be comprised by the poor selection of companion crops and
farm management practices, such as intercropping, crop rotation, and plant spacing.
Trends of CSA benefits in research and farmer-managed experiments were similar,
although absolute values of yields (maize, cassava or fuelwood) were higher in
research plots. Thus, participatory evaluation of technology is critical for validating
and downscaling research results under farmer management conditions and for
farmers to appreciate the benefits of CSA prior to wide scaling. Overall results of
our analysis of CSA benefits illustrate key principles when considering the multidimensionality of CSA, including the need to: select appropriate indicators, ensure
designs are robust for heterogeneity, examine trade-offs, and conduct participatory
evaluation of CSA on farmers’ field sites. Together, these factors provide more
robust evidence for CSA programming and help practitioners and policymakers to
be on the lookout for such issues and support evidence-based scaling initiatives.
Unfortunately, so many practices and technologies have been labeled CSA in the
past few years that some would say it is just rebranding. Accounting for the principles highlighted here, and explicitly considering the multidimensionality of CSA
objectives in decision-making, will go a long way to improving implementation and
achieving outcomes for farmers.
Acknowledgements We thank Nictor Namoi and Mary Ng’endo for conducting focus group discussions in Tabora as well as farmers and extension officers in Chamwino and Kongwa Districts
for supporting this study. The participatory CSA trials in Tabora were funded by the United States
Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service and is part of the CGIAR Research
Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security’s Partnerships for Scaling Out
Climate-Smart Agriculture project. Research in Kongwa district, Dodoma was funded by the
United States Agency for International Development’s Feed the Future initiative through Africa
RISING; while in Chamwino District, Dodoma it was funded by Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) as ICRAF support to Trans-SEC and was co-financed by
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) and Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ). The views expressed in this chapter are those of the
authors and may not under any circumstances be regarded as stating official positions of the
funders.
References
Charles RL, Munishi PKT, Nzunda EF (2013) Agroforestry as adaptation strategy under climate
change in Mwanga District, Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Int J Environ Protect 3(11):29–38
Coe R, Njoloma J, Sinclair F (2016) Loading the dice in favour of the farmer: reducing the risk of
adopting agronomic innovations. Exp Agric:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479716000181
Hafner J, Uckert G, Graef F et al (2018) A quantitative performance assessment of improved
cooking stoves and traditional three-stone-fire stoves using a two-pot test design in Chamwino,
Dodoma, Tanzania. Environ Res Lett 13(2):025002
Hansen J, Hellin J, Rosenstock T , Fisher E, Cairns J, Stirling C, Lamanna C, van Etton J, Rose A,
Campbell B (2018) Climate risk management and rural poverty reduction. Agric Syst. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.019.
A. A. Kimaro et al.