171
interventions. These insights then need to be fed back into the planning process and
used to inform adjustments to the current interventions or the design of future
investments. The application of such a monitoring, evaluation and learning process
has the potential to increase the effectiveness of a wide range of CSA initiatives in
the country.
14.5 Conclusion
Around the world, CSA has gained a lot of attention; while a variety of agricultural
interventions has been hypothesized to contribute to food security, adaptation and
mitigation. Assessment, monitoring and evaluation are integral parts of CSA planning and implementation. They are crucial for making decisions on the use of financial, natural and human resources. CSA options should therefore be assessed for
their effectiveness in achieving their intended climate change goals.
However, there is a lack of clear and workable criteria and methods for assessing
the actual climate-smartness of these interventions. In addition, often, there is limited inclusion of stakeholders’ perspectives and, therefore, little buy-in resulting in
a lack of wide scale adoption. This chapter proposes a participatory approach that—
unlike many other assessments—involves stakeholders at every stage: from indicator selection, through indicator weighing, to actual intervention evaluation. Its
application in Lushoto District, Tanzania, demonstrates that participatory assessment of the climate-smartness of agriculture interventions can be used to provide
valuable indication supporting CSA groundwork. The protocol presented ensures
the selection of locally relevant indicators and the inclusion of farmers’ experiences
through participatory monitoring of the interventions’ local impact. We recommend
its use for eliciting insights on the effectiveness of the on-farm components of CSA
initiatives beyond this study. These insights can then inform necessary adjustments
of such programmes.
The approach is easy to adapt to different types of interventions in a variety of
contexts. We believe, however, that the protocol would be easier to implement with
farmers after the adjustment of the quantitative scales used to rank indicators and
value interventions according to these indicators. We suggest the use of qualitative
descriptions of these scales for future applications.
Our framework deals with two pillars of CSA only, namely food security and
adaptation. With its standard indicators and long-term and off-farm impacts, the
mitigation potential of the interventions does not lend itself to such participatory
approaches. We, therefore, recommend complementing the participatory assessments in terms of food security and adaption with science-led GHG emissions estimations. These could be a combination if ex- and in-situ measurements and
modelling approaches. Such complementary studies would add value to the overall
assessment of climate-smartness of tested interventions.
14 A Participatory Approach to Assessing the Climate-Smartness of Agricultural…
interventions. These insights then need to be fed back into the planning process and
used to inform adjustments to the current interventions or the design of future
investments. The application of such a monitoring, evaluation and learning process
has the potential to increase the effectiveness of a wide range of CSA initiatives in
the country.
14.5 Conclusion
Around the world, CSA has gained a lot of attention; while a variety of agricultural
interventions has been hypothesized to contribute to food security, adaptation and
mitigation. Assessment, monitoring and evaluation are integral parts of CSA planning and implementation. They are crucial for making decisions on the use of financial, natural and human resources. CSA options should therefore be assessed for
their effectiveness in achieving their intended climate change goals.
However, there is a lack of clear and workable criteria and methods for assessing
the actual climate-smartness of these interventions. In addition, often, there is limited inclusion of stakeholders’ perspectives and, therefore, little buy-in resulting in
a lack of wide scale adoption. This chapter proposes a participatory approach that—
unlike many other assessments—involves stakeholders at every stage: from indicator selection, through indicator weighing, to actual intervention evaluation. Its
application in Lushoto District, Tanzania, demonstrates that participatory assessment of the climate-smartness of agriculture interventions can be used to provide
valuable indication supporting CSA groundwork. The protocol presented ensures
the selection of locally relevant indicators and the inclusion of farmers’ experiences
through participatory monitoring of the interventions’ local impact. We recommend
its use for eliciting insights on the effectiveness of the on-farm components of CSA
initiatives beyond this study. These insights can then inform necessary adjustments
of such programmes.
The approach is easy to adapt to different types of interventions in a variety of
contexts. We believe, however, that the protocol would be easier to implement with
farmers after the adjustment of the quantitative scales used to rank indicators and
value interventions according to these indicators. We suggest the use of qualitative
descriptions of these scales for future applications.
Our framework deals with two pillars of CSA only, namely food security and
adaptation. With its standard indicators and long-term and off-farm impacts, the
mitigation potential of the interventions does not lend itself to such participatory
approaches. We, therefore, recommend complementing the participatory assessments in terms of food security and adaption with science-led GHG emissions estimations. These could be a combination if ex- and in-situ measurements and
modelling approaches. Such complementary studies would add value to the overall
assessment of climate-smartness of tested interventions.
14 A Participatory Approach to Assessing the Climate-Smartness of Agricultural…