Kenya CSA Workshop 8-9 Oct 2014

Sharing Evidence and Experience on

Climate-Smart Agriculture in Smallholder Integrated Farming

Systems

Introduction

• Summary of results and recommendations from Working Group sessions of over 40 research and development projects and 50 experts on climate change and agriculture in Kenya

• Working Groups: – Climate information and insurance – Aquaculture and livestock – Cropping systems – Conservation agriculture with trees – Energy – Farmer adoption, capacity development and gender

Cropping Systems, Climate Information and Insurance

3

Cropping Systems

4

Projects Name Institution Project title

Jeske van de Gevel Bioversity International (Kenya, Tanzania)

Varietal Diversification to manage climate risks

Sika Gbegbelegbe CIMMYT (Kisumu: Nyando, Makueni)

Foresight modelling / CCAFS

Mary Njuguna SNV (Narok, Bomet) Income, food, and climate solutions for smallholders farmers

Anthony M. Kibe & Stephen Mwiru Karanja

Egerton University (Nakuru: Rongai)

Manipulation of intercrop density and row orientation

Patrick Ooro KALRO (Nakuru: Njoro) CSA Technologies for smallholder farmers

Peterson Njeru KALRO / Kenyatta University Central Kenya

Integrating farmers perception and scientific methods for evaluating climate change

Cyrus Githunguri

KALRO (Kitui: Mutomo)

Cassava farming transforming livelihoods among smallholder farmers in Mutomo a semi-arid district in Kenya

Michael Okumu GIZ / MOALF, Homa Bay Enhancing Farmers’ Adaptive capacity

Daniel Gichuhi KENFAP Composting; Water conservation, Water harvesting etc.

5

Introduction 1. Crop failure and thus risks are caused by increased

temperature (heat) & dry spells; decreased rainfall and change in rain onset and/or cessation;

2. Adaptation options are changes in crop and livestock-related management and collective action (group formation);

3. Barriers to adaptation include lack of access to resources and knowledge needed for adaptation

4. Farmers’ perception of climate risks are many times not consistent with measured risks; there is need for variable combinations of climate smart agricultural practices, skill-based seasonal crop timing (climate information for farmers) and supple gender-sensitive strategies

6

7

Queries to be

answered:-

• What traits are

farmers looking

for in climate

smart varieties?

•How does climate

change affect varietal

diversification

strategies?

•Are farmers planting

different crops or

varieties in order to adapt to CC?

8

Enhance adaption and mitigation capacity across agricultural landscapes with solutions that go beyond climate change, to include food and nutrition security, biodiversity conservation, and poverty alleviation

Objective

Adaptive Strategies identified included

1. Crop specific strategies: Maize, Sorghum, Cassava, Sweet potato, and Groundnut, cowpea, P. Pea, Sugar snaps, Baby Corn; Avocado, Irish potato

2. Strategies not specific to any particular crop :

Crop diversification: Adoption of Drought tolerance, early maturing crops & varieties

Conservation agriculture; Agroforestry farming systems, Tied ridges

Integrated pest management (Pest & disease resistance /

Good agricultural/agronomic practices: Integrated Nutrient management

Financial services: Risk transfer strategies (Insurance-WIBI & Agriculture Credit

9

Project results • Integration of oxen plough with an Intension of making furrows for

rain water harvesting and soil erosion control

Farmers adapted the furrow tillage practice

10

• Tied ridges had a positive increased Soil moisture accumulation

• Green manure resulted in increased soil moisture

Recommendations

• Promotion of agroforestry trees (Horti-silviculture) is required in smallholder farms because they are multi-purpose advantage

• Research studies are needed to evaluate interaction of tied ridges and green manure at more sites

11

12

Growth of sorghum-cowpea under N-S rows; 55,555 Cp plants/ha

Growth of sorghum-cowpea: E-W rows at 166,666 Cp plants/ha

Sorghum-cowpea: E-W rows at 55,555 Cp plants/ha

Sorghum-cowpea: E-W rows at 111,111 CP plants/ha

Manipulation of intercrop population and row orientation Sorg + C-pea system

BEST for wetter & cooler Apr – Aug climate

BEST for drier & hotter Dec –Apr climate

13

1. WUE of 4.0 and 5.5 kg S-grain/ha-mm water use determined for drier and wetter environments

2. E- W row arrangement was good for intercropped cowpea (29 -31% light penetration) and

3. The N–S orientation was good (27 – 30% LP) for sole sorghum & combined crops.

4. A crop intensification (LER) of 123% & 1.25 % was achieved for SC55,555 and SC111,111, respectively.

Results (continued)

Conclusions and Recommendations (Implications for CSA Programming)

• Climate smart agricultural practices are essential to facilitate adaptation to climate change in the short and long term

• CSA practices are not enough by themselves: • They need to be delivered in association with

climate-related information targeting farmers (that provides advice on when to plant, crops choice, varieties to plant; management; etc.) and

• Apply Gender-sensitive strategies (especially where men migrate leaving women as decision-makers).

• Integrate research to back-up development work.

14

Farmer participation is paramount to successful CSA adoption

Integrating all Value chain actors: PPP required from input suppliers, producers, processors, to markets & consumer. It incentivizes players, enables informed planning for increased profits (Finance & Insurance) 15

Climate Information and Insurance

16

Projects and institutions

Name Project Institution

Shadrack Kipkemoi, Maren Amoko

Agro weather information for adapting to climate change (capacity development)

Agricultural Sector Development Support Programme (ASDSP)

Jeanne Coulibaly Climate Information Services for farmers in Kenya (research; development)

ICRAF (Kisumu: Nyando)

Lydia Index Based livestock Insurance (development)

World Vision Kenya (Isiolo: Garbatula)

Bernard Mbogo Kilimo Biashara : Credit provision (capacity development)

CARE-Kenya (Nyandarua: Kinangop)

Michael Okumu Enhancing farmers’ adaptive capacity (the adaptation to climate change and insurance project) – (Capacity building)

MALF (climate change unit) (Site: Homa Bay, Busia)

17

Objective/purpose

• Provide weather information to farmers that is accessible and useful to make timely farm level decisions

“Bottom Up Approach”

Included determine farmers needs

18

What do farmers need? • Access and use climate information that is:

– Downscaling weather information (KMD)

– Site / Field-specific, Reliable & Timely

– Communicated in their own local languages

• Efficient communication channels:

– Radios, cell phones (sms), social networks

• Information on best agricultural practices

– Improved crop management systems, climate smart technologies; coupled with

• Support system to help them act on climate information

– Local validated studies (to demonstrate reliability)

– Credit for inputs; Market access, etc.

19

Pilot 1: Factors that make climate information accessible to farmers

• Partnerships: a. A multi-stakeholder platform enables sharing, collective understanding,

interpreting and communicating climate information, by

b. giving space for dialogue on local adaptation issues and options.

c. Synergizing across stakeholders is essential for responding to the

challenge of unknown futures.

• Combining local and scientific knowledge systems is

a. important for making climate information relevant locally; it also

b. empowers communities.

• Including communication and use of climate information in adaptation planning processes, enabling communities to live with the

uncertainty and risks that climate change presents. Local adaptive capacity is enhanced by

20

Pilot 1: Results of effective partnerships (fwd)

Effective partnerships and combined CSA on banana production in Meru 21

Pilot 2: Weather Index Based Livestock Index (NDVI)

• Purpose: To use a risk-management solution (Weather Index-based livestock insurance) that is proactive and more focused on the provision of complementary services that could enhance pastoralist livelihood

• Key challenges: – Use of NDVI: coverage of vegetation (including unpalatable

plants & shrub) is correlated with drought; applied on large-scale (not on small farms)

– Weather forecasts: we need to up the game on spatial data (meteorological data)

– Validation studies locally are lacking (research)

– Interpretation of results on NDVI: not easy for researchers (what about livelihood promoters & livestock-keepers?)

22

Pilot 3: Kilimo Biashara Project

• Purpose: To improve the livelihoods of out-growers through addressing bottlenecks in the vegetable value chains for sugar snaps, green beans and baby corn

• Key results:

– Increased Credit access (capacity + proximity) to credit for farm inputs from farmer groups

– More resilient livelihoods: Crop diversification, agro-forestry (pension insurance) and crop rotation.

– Crop insurance failed to take off.

23

Pilot 3: Kilimo Biashara Project Conclusion (& tensions)

1. Take into account external regulations and policies affecting marketing e.g. EU regulations

• Europ-GAP; Minimum Residue Levels; C -miles; Trade tarrifs

1. Continued and increased financial & resource Investments:

a. require for managing partnerships- e.g., differences in resource allocation & payments for CSO viz a viz private sector;

b. Preference by farmer of less labour intensive technologies but can’t access them (e.g., mechanization) &

c. Requirement to lower input costs (e.g., seed; fert & irrigation equipment and water).

24

Recommendations (Implications for CSA Programming)

Climate smart intervention that can help farmers to better cope with climate variability/change

• Design relevant, tailored climate information products and services to the scale of farmers’ decision making

• Use local radios, ICT to reach farmers at scale

• Inclusion of climate information into agricultural extension services

25

Aquaculture-Livestock

Todd Rosenstock, Todd Crane, Dawood Idenya, Margaret Gatonye, Cyrus Githunguri, Miyuki Iiyara, Bethuel Omolo, Inger

Haugsgjerd, Jackson K., Carolyn Opio

Institutions and projects Institutions Projects

Aquacultural Association of Kenya KAPP– Kenya Agricultural Productivity Program (Aquaculture Value Chain, ,new technologies)

NARDTC KAPP– Kenya Agricultural Productivity Program (Aquaculture Value Chain, ,new technologies)

Food and Agriculture Organization Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture East African Dairy Development Program

World Agroforestry Centre Partnerships for scaling CSA (ICRAF-CIAT) EC-Low emission development (ICRAF)

East African Dairy Development Agricultural Sector Development Support Program (cow, milk, aquaculture value chain platform), NRM, climate change with a view to mitigation, social inclusivity.

International Livestock Research Institute

ILRI-ICRAF-CIFOR program on mitigation

KARI Cassava Dairy Feeds – KARI

Household level: Small-scale integrated aquaculture systems

1,035 1,047 1,012

4,245 4,452 4,895

12,153

19,585

21,487

23,501

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Qu

anti

ty in

met

ric

ton

nes

Year

Production 2004 - 2013 in metric tons • Since 2009, more

than 70,000 farmers

have installed ponds

• Since 2009, number

of hatcheries has

increased: 8 to 150

• Ponds constructed

from 7000 to 69194

• Area: 722 to 2,076

• 4 Fish processing

plants.

Farm level:

Accounting for multiple

functions changes

valuation of livestock

Distribution and variation in EI

Targeted

interventions - Agroforestry in Kaptumo

- Variation in household

resources

Onesmus Chepkorio

Average milking herd size/HHs 2 3

Milk production (kg/cow/year)

1,773 (784 – 3221)

2,226 (1088 – 4351)

Age at first calving (months) 30 (12-96)

28 (14-48)

Feeding

Pasture consumption (kg DM/cow)

1.3 (0.0-8.3)

1.6 (1.2-3.4)

Other roughage (kg DM/cow) 7.1

(0.5-10.8) 5.8

(3.1-12.1)

Concentrates (kg DM/ cow) 0.3

(0.0-2.2) 1.6

(0.0-3.4)

Pasture in diet (%) 15

(0-94) 18

(13-34)

Other roughage in diet (%) 81

(6-100) 63

(43-84)

Concentrate in diet (%) 4

(0-24) 19

(0-39)

Digestibility of ration (%) 56

(54-60) 62

(54-67)

Efficiency, kg FPCM/kg DMI

0.55 (0.24-1.18)

0.71 (0.2-1.63)

Input use

Synthetic N fertilizer (kg N applied/year)

30.0 (0.0-185)

25 (0.0-126)

Energy use (# of farms processing feed)

3 17

Variation between and

within landscape

Recommendations

• Need a full value chain and whole-farm integrated approaches to identify best climate-smart livestock and aquaculture opportunities

• Climate-smart extend beyond technologies and includes institutions and capacities and so need awareness, capacity building and exposure

Information gaps Research level • Small scale low tech postharvest handling of fish • Improving breeds of Tilapia and Catfish,

domesticating other species • Emissions factors from livestock and aquaculture • Real value of cattle in multifunctional smallholder

systems • Actual feed base of cattle and fish • Heterogeneity of household resources • Need to understand incentives to intensify

inputs- especially feeds

Knowledge gaps Practice level

• Training in marketing

• Inputs supply

• Information sharing on aquaculture

• Biogas in smallholder less intensive system

• Institutional strengthening

• Regulations and policy

• Access to credit facilities

Conservation Agriculture With Trees

Institution Location Research Topic

ICRAF E. & S. Africa Conservation agriculture and agroforestry practices for improved nutrition , household income, & landscape health in ESAF

MICCA Kenya & Tanzania Is CA also Climate-Smart?, Targeting CA based on sites, Baselines for Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture

CIAT/CCAFS East Africa Increasing food security and farming system resilience through wide scale adoption of CSA

Vi Agroforestry Kitale and Kisumu Sustainable Agriculture Land Management Practices (SALMs) or CSA for increased farm productivity, Food security and climate resilience.

World Vision Kenya Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration Rain Water Harvesting/Conservation Agriculture

KALRO Lower Narok, Eastern Mau

Enhancing Soil and Water Management Strategies in small scale Wheat farming The Effect of Tillage on Moisture Retention in Soils.

DFBA Kaptumo Bulking and Marketing of Milk within Dairy Value Chains

FAO Siaya, Bungoma, Embu and Machakos

Climate change adaptation through soil and water management and strengthening capacity

Nasirembe Wanjala (KALRO), Ermias Betemariam (ICRAF), Richard Biwoff (DFBA), Moses Karanja(EADD/ICRAF), Christine Lamanna (ICRAF), Oscar Masika (ICRAF), Beatrice Mnede (WorldVision), Joseph Mumu (ALF), Matthew Murhor (EADD), Sylvia Nanjekho (ICRAF), Barrack Okuba (FAO), Joan Sang (World Vision), Emmanuel Wachiye (ViAgro), Leigh Winowiecki (CIAT)

Kenya National Climate Change and Agriculture Workshop 9 October 2014

Conservation Agriculture in a Nutshell

FAO

CAWT Increases Soil Moisture Synergistically

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Call at1.5

Call at 3 Call at4.5

Notrees

Glir at1.5

Glir at 3 Glir at4.5

P.peasat 1.5

P.peasat 3

P.peasat 4.5

Mo

istu

re (

% V

ol)

Treatment

COA CAConventional CA

With Calliandra

With Glirisidia

With Pigeon Peas

ICRAF

CAWT Increases Agricultural Yields

1167

1594

2171

2415

1023 10451223

1578

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2009 2010 2011 2012

ProjectFarmers

ControlFarmers

Mai

ze Y

ield

kg

/ha

CA Conventional

Like

liho

od

IDEAL

Average

Vi Agroforestry MICCA

Yield Increase Yield Decrease

CAWT Increases Yield Across Crop Systems

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Maiz

e g

rain

yie

ld (

t/h

a)

2012 LR 2013 LR

Baseline yield for CA 4t/ha

Conventional Tillage Conservation Agriculture

FAO

CSA increases pasture for livestock production

Managing tree regeneration increases forage for livestock

WorldVision

Healthy soil increases farmer self-sufficiency

Soil Organic Carbon

Self

Su

ffic

ien

cy

Self

Su

ffic

ien

cy

Erosion % CIAT

CSA must be site and farming specific

Terraces work on large farms Zai pits work on small farms

KALRO WorldVision

Key Messages

• Conservation Agriculture With Trees is managing land to increase soil carbon & increasing water holding capacity to prevent degradation

• CAWT must be tailored to the local soil, rainfall, and farming conditions or be site specific.

• Benefits are not just increased yield, also reduced labor, reduced inputs, fodder, firewood, fruit, other economic benefits

PATIENCE, PATIENCE…. CA is not an instantaneous. Results take time to be visible, soils take a while to recover.

Key Messages for CAWT

Knowledge Gaps • Reliable climate forecasts • Inadequate awareness on CA • Missing baseline info on measuring CA effectiveness

in different farming systems • Inadequate training for farmer facilitators (lack of

capacity) • Costs/benefits of implementing CA • How long before benefits are realized for CA • Role of gender in CA adoption • Livestock and CA interaction • Suitable tree species for different farming systems

and farm sizes

Recommendations

• Farmers should pilot CA projects, must be a learning process

• Develop support, extension & farmer training for CA adoption

• Enhance information flow from Research to ToTs to farmers

• Enhance information sharing among stakeholders

• Enhance Farmer-to-Farmer extension

• Frequent review of CA best practices and climate info

• Improve accessibility of seeds/seedlings of agroforestry tree species

Energy

Peter Malomba, Miyuki Iiyama, Kenda Mwenja, Daniel Gichuhi, Carolyn Opio

Focus

• Improved cook stoves

• Biogas (domestic)

• Briquette technology

• Solar

Institutions and Projects

• Improved Stoves Association of Kenya (ISAK)

• KENAFF (Kenya National Farmers Federation)

• SNV Kenya (Netherlands Development Organisation)

• EnDev/GIZ (solar and cook stoves)

• SLU, ICRAF and IITA (Institute of Tropical Agriculture)

Results • Income

– Stoves

• 1.5 million households with improved stoves

• Savings on wood fuel (40%)

• Job creation for installers (more than 1,100 installers in the market)

• Stove enterprises (production centres for liners etc)

– Briquettes

• Gasifiers 30% of fuel and 40% of cooking time

• Saved expenses (9 and 15 times cheaper than charcoal and kerosene respectively)

• Employment (mainly in urban settings)

– Biogas

• Nationally more than 15,000 domestic biogas systems installed

• Pay back period is 2-3 years

• Savings on wood fuel, kerosene, time and in-organic fertilizers

• Increased agricultural productivity through use of slurry

• Job creation for installer equipment suppliers

– Solar

Results (contd)

• Adaptation – Slurry from biogas systems, improves soils (soil conditioning and increasing C

content) – Access to readily available cheaper energy (biogas) and convenience

• Health and Livelihoods – Reduced in-door pollution – Reduced eye and respiratory diseases – Reduced burden on women and children for fuel-wood collection

• Mitigation potential – Stoves

• Reduced emissions (saved biomass, one improved cook-stove reduces 1.4 tons of CO2 equivalent)

– Briquettes • Recycling waste and replacing biomass demand

– Biogas • 1 cubic metre of biogas reduces 1.8 tons of CO2 (biomass, fossil fuels savings)

Information and Knowledge Gaps

• Understanding the multi-dimensional needs of users (e.g. cultural) and farming systems

• Awareness levels still low among potential users • Extension and technology knowhow is still limited • Financial (credit) – procurement of technology • Evidence of climate mitigation impacts in larger value

chains (wider socio-economic contexts) • Applicability of biogas in different farming systems

(confined livestock production) • Capacity to adapt biogas technology to other organic

wastes • Quality standards, regulations and enforcement

Recommendations

• Integration of renewable energy issues in climate change policies

• Address inconsistences between policies and regulations (e.g. charcoal making is illegal while usage is legal)

• Holistic approach to energy issues (farming system, landscape, national etc)

• Support research to improve evidence of energy interventions (livelihoods, mitigation impacts, health, etc)

• Address education and extension capacities • Engagement at county level

Farmer Adoption, Capacity Development and Gender

Projects and institutions

• The role of grassroots institutions in enhancing adaptation to climate variability in small-holder farmer systems – Douglas Bwire et al. (ICRAF)

• Accelerating Adoption of Agroforestry in Western Kenya (AAA) – Lisa Fuchs (ICRAF)

• Climate Smart Agriculture Rapid Appraisal (CSA-RA) – Caroline Mwongera (CIAT)

• Farmer Field Schools for CSA – Deborah Duveskog (FAO) • Adoption of CSA practices and lessons learned in Kenya – Morgan Mutoko

(MICCA) • Increasing dairy productivity using CSA practices – Josephine Kirui (MICCA) • Integration of Climate Change Adaptation strategies through a Collective

Learning Community in Mauche Ward, Nakuru County – Rael Taiy (Egerton University)

• CSA and gender - Christine Jost (ICRAF) • Joyce Kweyu (Land O Lakes)

Indicative results

• Many local solutions exists – solutions are context-, site- and gender-specific

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Soil and water conservationChanging crop varietyChanging planting dateChanging crop type Planting trees on farm

Women Nyando

Women Wote

Men Nyando

Men Wote

Percent of respondents reporting making these changes in response to climate change

source: CSA and gender – ICRAF/CCAFS

Indicative results (cont’d)

• There are context-specific barriers/constraints to well-being and CSA adoption, i.e. gender and cultural norms, weakened traditional institutions but also biophysical context etc.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

po

or

per

son

al p

lan

nin

g

po

or

(psy

cho

-so

cial

) h

ealt

h

po

or

edu

cati

on

po

or

fin

ance

s

thef

t

lan

d is

sues

mis

tru

st a

nd

gre

ed

lack

of

init

iati

ve

lack

of

sup

po

rt

ove

r-d

epen

den

ce

alco

ho

l an

d d

rugs

un

fait

h-f

uln

ess

gen

der

ineq

ual

ity

lazi

nes

s

po

or

fam

ily p

lan

nin

g

po

or

agri

cult

ura

l pra

ctic

es

po

or

farm

inp

uts

po

or

bu

sin

ess

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

po

or

emp

loym

ent…

po

or

fin

anci

al a

lter

nat

ives

po

litic

al c

on

flic

t

lack

of

serv

ices

clim

ate

chan

ge

po

or

wat

er s

up

ply

de

fore

stat

ion

lack

of

cap

ital

no

t at

trac

tive

envi

ron

men

tal c

on

dit

ion

s

con

fusi

on

con

flic

t

lack

kn

ow

led

ge m

issi

on

lack

kn

ow

led

ge r

igh

ts/d

uti

es

dis

tan

ce e

lite/

mem

ber

s

elit

e ca

ptu

re r

eso

urc

es/i

nfo

lack

of

tim

e/in

tere

st

personal socio-cultural economic institu-tional

environ-mental

general factors group dynamics

barriers to well-being barriers to knowledge implementation

source: AAA - ICRAF

Indicative results (cont’d 2)

• There are successful gender-sensitive tools and processes that allow understanding the local context, i.e. stakeholder mapping to understand linkages (readily available)

Acknowledge gendered institutional linkages & information flow

source: CIAT – CSA-RA

Indicative results (cont’d 3)

• Local experimentation and testing of CSA practices facilitate analytical capacity of farmers which enhances uptake, i.e. through action research, farmer field schools etc.

Plot 1: Mulching

Plot 2: No mulching

source: FFS for CSA - FAO

Indicative results (cont’d 4)

Item

Component

1 2 3 4

Skills and knowledge sharing 0.816 Collective decision making on group matters 0.895 Sharing income from group activities 0.814

Resource mobilization e.g. finance, credit, assets 0.932 Managing group assets including finance, group property 0.86 Market information sourcing

0.851 Collective marketing of produce

0.812 Formulating rules for management of natural resources 0.79

Labour sharing 0.616

• Adaptation (adoption of CSA?) facilitated by collective action and strong local institutions

source: Role of grassroots institutions - ICRAF

Information and knowledge gaps

• Finding the balance between external incentives and local ownership (what are sensible and sustainable incentives?)

• Defining ways of measuring and monitoring ‘soft skills’ (empowerment, gender dynamics etc.)

• Success indicators are not universal (how can local interests and indicators be matched with technical priorities and objectives in research and development? How to ensure harmony between global frameworks and local indicators?)

• Which ‘best practices’ actually qualify as CSA and do we have robust evidence?

Recommendations/messages

• Deliberate efforts to ensure better understanding of the socioeconomic and biophysical context and constraints that inform farmers’ decision-making.

• There is need for genuine recognition of the role of culture and norms in uptake of CSA practices.

• Initiation and strengthening of inclusive local stakeholder platforms (i.e. across value-scales; linking research and extension; landscape level) is crucial for local CSA uptake.

• Serious commitment needed for multi-level and multi-sectoral interaction and joint planning processes.

• Capacity development needed for soft skills (facilitation, leadership, group dynamics etc.) alongside continual enhancement of hard skills.

• Efforts needed to upscale successful and proven participatory approaches – Action research – Community planning/PRA – Gender disaggregated data collection and analysis – Farmer led- and farmer-driven extension services

• Farmer field schools • Lead-farmer approach

• Need for a consistent policy and regulatory framework to create an enabling environment.

Gender and Climate Change - Vulnerability

• Rural women at high risk from climate change – Household responsibilities such as childcare and the

collection of firewood and water are particularly climate-sensitive

– Taking on more agricultural work as men migrate for labour

– Have less access to agricultural resources such as land, extension services and inputs with which to adapt to variability and change

– Gendered social norms and roles can inhibit women’s adaptive capacity

Gender and Climate Change - Opportunity

Gender and Climate Change – Key Findings

Nyando and Wote

• Very low awareness of CSA practices

– Significantly lower for women

• Women and men are adapting

– More so in Wote than Nyando

– But doing the ‘small stuff’ – shifts in timing of planting or crops

• Very little adoption of the ‘big stuff’ – water harvesting, mulching, composting, zero till, rangeland management

• Women are constrained in adopting CSA. practices

– Lack of cash, assets, access to information, cultural norms, labour issues, low literacy, etc.

• Both men and women are accessing CSA or climate info via radio and extension

– But only 40% in Nyando vs. all in Wote

– 45% of men in Nyando access from TV vs. 15% of women

– Few access from newspapers, cell phones or internet

• Groups and farmer field schools are important for women and men

• Men migrate for labour – women left as ag. decision makers

Nandi

• Lower rates of CSA (improved fodder, agroforestry, manure management) for women than men

Gender and Climate Change - Recommendations

• Focusing CSA information, resources, technologies and practices on women is an important strategy for catalysing adoption and ensuring rapid and flexible adaptation to climate change.

• Targeting women and other vulnerable groups with CSA increases the likelihood of achieving the sustainable development goals.

• A focus on women will only be successful when gender norms are addressed.

Summary of Recommendations

• Integration at different levels – Systems, value chains – Whole-farm approach – Landscape level – Adaptation / low-emission development – Agriculture / environment / society – Research / development / policy

• Integrating CSA in whole farm systems and landscapes builds synergies and addresses trade offs

• Knowledge generation and sharing • Importance of well functioning markets and access to inputs • Access to financing for appropriate CSA implementation • CSA interventions are context specific and impacted by cultural norms • Capacity development and gender are cross-cutting