164
year 2050, causing the following estimated yield reductions: maize 13%, sorghum
8.8% and rice 7.6% (Rowhani et al. 2011). Already, as a result of warming, a
decrease in crop yield has been observed in recent years (Lobell et al. 2011).
Droughts have been experienced in many parts of the country, and the disappearance of pasture and water in Sukumaland of the Lake Zone region is well documented. This has resulted in pastoralists travelling long distances in the search for
grasses and water to nourish their animals (Kangalawe et al. 2007).
In response to the challenges climate change will present, the concept of climatesmart agriculture (CSA) was brought forward by the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (2013). CSA aims to: (a) sustainably
increase food production and income; (b) adapt and build resilience to climate variability; and (c) mitigate/reduce and/or remove greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices (FAO 2013). Under the CGIAR Research Program on Climate
Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), agricultural practices that are
climate-smart have been promoted in seven villages in Lushoto District, Tanzania.
As part of this programme, 14 farms are implementing improved forages; 21 farms
are introducing improved drought-tolerant varieties; 6 are employing terracing; 5
are using composting; 15 others are testing tree planting; and 11 more are benefitting from indigenous knowledge of weather forecasting.
There are no interventions that are climate-smart per se. An intervention’s
climate- smartness depends on whether it leads to food security, adaptation and mitigation benefits in the specific local climatic, biophysical, socio-economic and
developmental context (Williams et al. 2015). In the absence of any assessment of
the impact of CCAFS’s work in Lushoto, this study aimed to assess the climatesmartness of these interventions.
We developed a participatory protocol for assessing the climate-smartness of
innovations at farm level. This evaluates the contribution of newly introduced practices to the productivity, resilience and mitigation of agriculture. Our protocol
assesses the food security and adaptation pillars only, for two reasons. Firstly, these
pillars are deemed the most important by farmers, and are recognised by many
stakeholders as the priority in developing countries; while mitigation is often seen
as a potential co-benefit. What’s more, the impacts of interventions, across food
security and adaptation indicators, are easily observable/measurable/estimable by
farmers. Measurements of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, on the other hand, are
costly and difficult to implement. We, therefore, don’t expect farmers to be able to
make assessments of mitigation potential so, if this is deemed important within
CSA evaluations, participatory assessments should be complemented by researcherled measurements or modelling exercises.
The protocol was specifically designed for ease of adaption and implementation
across a variety of regions and farming systems. It can be applied in a monitoring,
evaluating and learning process and allows for the better prioritisation of interventions. This chapter describes the protocol and the lessons learned from its pilot in
Lushoto.
L. T. Manda et al.
year 2050, causing the following estimated yield reductions: maize 13%, sorghum
8.8% and rice 7.6% (Rowhani et al. 2011). Already, as a result of warming, a
decrease in crop yield has been observed in recent years (Lobell et al. 2011).
Droughts have been experienced in many parts of the country, and the disappearance of pasture and water in Sukumaland of the Lake Zone region is well documented. This has resulted in pastoralists travelling long distances in the search for
grasses and water to nourish their animals (Kangalawe et al. 2007).
In response to the challenges climate change will present, the concept of climatesmart agriculture (CSA) was brought forward by the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (2013). CSA aims to: (a) sustainably
increase food production and income; (b) adapt and build resilience to climate variability; and (c) mitigate/reduce and/or remove greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices (FAO 2013). Under the CGIAR Research Program on Climate
Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), agricultural practices that are
climate-smart have been promoted in seven villages in Lushoto District, Tanzania.
As part of this programme, 14 farms are implementing improved forages; 21 farms
are introducing improved drought-tolerant varieties; 6 are employing terracing; 5
are using composting; 15 others are testing tree planting; and 11 more are benefitting from indigenous knowledge of weather forecasting.
There are no interventions that are climate-smart per se. An intervention’s
climate- smartness depends on whether it leads to food security, adaptation and mitigation benefits in the specific local climatic, biophysical, socio-economic and
developmental context (Williams et al. 2015). In the absence of any assessment of
the impact of CCAFS’s work in Lushoto, this study aimed to assess the climatesmartness of these interventions.
We developed a participatory protocol for assessing the climate-smartness of
innovations at farm level. This evaluates the contribution of newly introduced practices to the productivity, resilience and mitigation of agriculture. Our protocol
assesses the food security and adaptation pillars only, for two reasons. Firstly, these
pillars are deemed the most important by farmers, and are recognised by many
stakeholders as the priority in developing countries; while mitigation is often seen
as a potential co-benefit. What’s more, the impacts of interventions, across food
security and adaptation indicators, are easily observable/measurable/estimable by
farmers. Measurements of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, on the other hand, are
costly and difficult to implement. We, therefore, don’t expect farmers to be able to
make assessments of mitigation potential so, if this is deemed important within
CSA evaluations, participatory assessments should be complemented by researcherled measurements or modelling exercises.
The protocol was specifically designed for ease of adaption and implementation
across a variety of regions and farming systems. It can be applied in a monitoring,
evaluating and learning process and allows for the better prioritisation of interventions. This chapter describes the protocol and the lessons learned from its pilot in
Lushoto.
L. T. Manda et al.