Annex C1.2 A field level capacity assessment for climate-smart agriculture
Effective and systemic capacity development is essential for the adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA). It embodies a complex process that involves not only technical, but also essential socio-cultural and political aspects. Accordingly, the assessment and analysis of the existing situation and related gaps and opportunities for tailored capacity development interventions to address adaptation and mitigation in agriculture must be grounded in a sound understanding of local knowledge, perceptions, behaviours and values. Hence the importance to complement a national level capacity assessment with conducting a participatory capacity assessment at the field/project level, and to share insights on how to identify and prioritize the capacity needs that must be addressed to mainstream CSA into smallholder farming systems.
Three simple steps
Complex questionnaires and methodologies are often not adapted to the flexibility that community capacity assessments require. Open discussions are indeed at the heart of participatory rural appraisals, with the objective of allowing the local actors to identify, share and analyse their own individual and organizational conditions, needs and capacities. The participatory methods used generally vary between key informant interviews, facilitated community focus group discussions, and field observations, depending on the local specificities. In this context, three simple steps can lead this process in identifying: 1) the main problems faced by the project’s beneficiaries (e.g. farmers are insecure to invest in land management practices as they do not have land titles), 2) the capacity strengths, gaps and opportunities that need to be filled to solve the identified problems (e.g. poor implementation of land reform and lack of awareness of farmers regarding their rights in relation to the land), and 3) the entry points and recommendations for the project development and implementation (ex. land use plans and environmental by-laws).
Key guiding concepts for field level CSA capacity assessment: participation, ownership and commitment
The participatory methods used enable local actors to make their implicit knowledge explicit, in order to strengthen local ownership and leadership over the CSA initiatives promoted. The capacity assessment is indeed much stronger and more legitimate if it is appropriated by local partners. In addition, developing a shared understanding and trust among all actors involved in the diagnostic process influences the quality of the diagnosis. It is thus important to use effective dialogue and participatory approaches to uncover reliable information about the local context as well as skilled and trusted facilitators.
Key informants and thematic areas
CSA insights
Such an approach can help develop initiatives that are tailored to farmer’s needs and adapted to local contexts. For example, in the context of the MICCA pilot project in Tanzania (FAO 2016c; FAO, 2016f), field visits and interviews with farmers has allowed the trainers to realize that some farmers practicing Conservation Agriculture (CA) were intercropping maize with pumpkin, which is not a nitrogen-fixer legume. As intercropping with leguminous crop is central to improving soil fertility, this showed the need for strengthening the training on CA, strengthening networks and institutional linkages between villages, increasing the number of villages with demonstration plots, the number of demonstration plots in each village and the number of contact farmers supporting farmers in the implementation of CA on their lands.
The present section provides some insights on commonly identified problems, needs and opportunities, as well as suggestions for entry points to improve the situation while undertaking capacity assessment for CSA projects at the field level.
Common climate change and agriculture related problems | Common capacity needs | Suggestions for Entry points |
---|---|---|
Climate change
Detrimental practices
Other structural problems
Interlinked impacts and consequences of behaviours and climate change
|
|
|
Source: Authors