169
The framework incorporates input from farmers through a pairwise comparison
of indicator importance and indicator scoring, which involves the careful process of
allocating weights (Notenbaert et al. 2010). Here farmers were responsible for allocating the weights of the indicators. In particular, the process represents a challenge
when farmers are unable to count and translate their assessments into a 1–9-point
scale. This problem necessitated frequent repetition to ensure an acceptable consistency ratio for each pillar. Calculations of the consistency ratio for each pillar were
carried out with an expert during the process.
14.3.3 Performance of CSA Interventions Across Two Pillars
Of the six different interventions that were implemented as part of CCAFS’s projects and assessed by farmers in terms of their impacts on food security and adaptation, only composting, improved drought-tolerant varieties and improved forages
interventions represent true win-win scenarios. This means that they contribute significantly to food security through their ability to increase productivity while ensuring adaptation to climate variability and change. As a result, the Lushoto farmers
valued these interventions because they contributed to improving soil fertility and
structure, reducing surface runoff, and reclaiming degraded land due to their positive impact on yield and off-season crop agriculture. This result is corroborated by
Nyasimi (2017) who mentioned that improved crop varieties and composting were
the most commonly implemented CSA interventions by the smallholder farmers.
On the other hand, a clear trade-off is observed between the two pillars when
implementing tree planting (Fig. 14.3). According to the farmers, tree planting
failed to contribute to food security. This is in contrast with several studies (Murthy
et al. 2016; Verchot et al. 2007) which have shown that a combination of beneficial
trees on farms tends to increase soil fertility and farm production, while protecting
crops from climate risk. In addition, the continued use of these interventions ensures
the diversification of farmers’ incomes as well as minimising monetary risk. The
fact that such evidence is not taken into account by the farmers, points to a weakness
in this type of participatory assessment. It is potentially biased as a result of social
conditioning and basing results on anecdotes instead of hard evidence (Sen 1999).
Participatory assessments, however, elicit the views of the actual beneficiaries and,
therefore, ensure the use of locally relevant indicators as well as the assessment of
context-specific impacts. It also increases the likelihood of longer term buy-in and
farmer-to-farmer promotion of positively assessed interventions. In addition, it can
contribute to capacity-building and the empowerment of smallholder farmers in
relation to choosing suitable CSA interventions (Williams et al. 2015). In addition,
the approach can have broader implications in managing trade-offs in the perceptions of smallholder farmers and policymakers.
The scarceness of win-win interventions, on the other hand, raises a question
around whether every activity undertaken by every farmer in every field should
generate double or triple wins. According to the FAO (2014), the short answer is no.
14 A Participatory Approach to Assessing the Climate-Smartness of Agricultural…
The framework incorporates input from farmers through a pairwise comparison
of indicator importance and indicator scoring, which involves the careful process of
allocating weights (Notenbaert et al. 2010). Here farmers were responsible for allocating the weights of the indicators. In particular, the process represents a challenge
when farmers are unable to count and translate their assessments into a 1–9-point
scale. This problem necessitated frequent repetition to ensure an acceptable consistency ratio for each pillar. Calculations of the consistency ratio for each pillar were
carried out with an expert during the process.
14.3.3 Performance of CSA Interventions Across Two Pillars
Of the six different interventions that were implemented as part of CCAFS’s projects and assessed by farmers in terms of their impacts on food security and adaptation, only composting, improved drought-tolerant varieties and improved forages
interventions represent true win-win scenarios. This means that they contribute significantly to food security through their ability to increase productivity while ensuring adaptation to climate variability and change. As a result, the Lushoto farmers
valued these interventions because they contributed to improving soil fertility and
structure, reducing surface runoff, and reclaiming degraded land due to their positive impact on yield and off-season crop agriculture. This result is corroborated by
Nyasimi (2017) who mentioned that improved crop varieties and composting were
the most commonly implemented CSA interventions by the smallholder farmers.
On the other hand, a clear trade-off is observed between the two pillars when
implementing tree planting (Fig. 14.3). According to the farmers, tree planting
failed to contribute to food security. This is in contrast with several studies (Murthy
et al. 2016; Verchot et al. 2007) which have shown that a combination of beneficial
trees on farms tends to increase soil fertility and farm production, while protecting
crops from climate risk. In addition, the continued use of these interventions ensures
the diversification of farmers’ incomes as well as minimising monetary risk. The
fact that such evidence is not taken into account by the farmers, points to a weakness
in this type of participatory assessment. It is potentially biased as a result of social
conditioning and basing results on anecdotes instead of hard evidence (Sen 1999).
Participatory assessments, however, elicit the views of the actual beneficiaries and,
therefore, ensure the use of locally relevant indicators as well as the assessment of
context-specific impacts. It also increases the likelihood of longer term buy-in and
farmer-to-farmer promotion of positively assessed interventions. In addition, it can
contribute to capacity-building and the empowerment of smallholder farmers in
relation to choosing suitable CSA interventions (Williams et al. 2015). In addition,
the approach can have broader implications in managing trade-offs in the perceptions of smallholder farmers and policymakers.
The scarceness of win-win interventions, on the other hand, raises a question
around whether every activity undertaken by every farmer in every field should
generate double or triple wins. According to the FAO (2014), the short answer is no.
14 A Participatory Approach to Assessing the Climate-Smartness of Agricultural…