www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Planning, implementing and evaluating
Climate-Smart Agriculture in smallholder
farming systems
The experience of the MICCA pilot projects in Kenya and the
United Republic of Tanzania
Janie Rioux, NRC
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Content
• MICCA pilot projects in Kenya and the United Republic of
Tanzania: Background and objectives
• Approach
– Identifying the climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices
with smallholder farmers
– Implementing and promoting adoption of CSA
– Evaluating CSA for targeted scaling-up and informed
decision making: Adoption determinants/ benefits
analysis
• Up-scaling strategies
• Lessons learned
2

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
MICCA Pilot Projects
The MICCA pilot projects aimed to:
• Integrate CSA practices into on-
going development activities to test
and demonstrate the synergies and
trade offs between agricultural
productivity, resilience and GHG
emission reduction
• Provide quantifiable evidence on
CSA to farmers, national and local
decision makers and international
organizations and donors
3

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
MICCA Pilot Projects
Putting climate-smart agriculture into practice
Programme: FAO MICCA Programme
Partners: ICRAF, CARE, EADD and SUA
Timeframe: Jan 2011 to Dec 2014
Donor: The Government of Finland
Locations:
• Kaptumo, Western Kenya,
• Uluguru Mountains, Morogoro
district , United Republic of
Tanzania
4

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
What is CSA?
• CSA is an approach to address the interrelated challenges of
food security and climate change in agricultural development
• CSA is integrated, multi-sectors and multi-levels
• CSA is inclusive, context-specific and sustainable
• CSA provides co-benefits and synergies with development
outcomes
 In the MICCA pilot projects, CSA promoted integrated and
diversified farming systems and agro-ecological principles and the
main goal was to improve food security and livelihoods of
smallholder farmers, while testing synergies and trade-offs with
climate change mitigation
5

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Source: Rioux et al., FAO 2016.
Framework of the MICCA pilot projects
6

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Situation Analysis
• Socio-economic baseline:
– Representative households survey
– To identify farming practices, climate risks, socio-economic conditions
(inc. gender role, availability of/access to labour and land)
• Capacity needs assessment:
– Multi-levels capacity assessments at national, district and project level
– To identify farmer needs and policy and institutional environment
• Carbon-balance analysis:
– To identify the mitigation potential of current and future farming
scenarios
• Consultations with farmers:
– To discuss on different suitable practices and gather their perceptions
and preferences
7

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Conducting scientific research
Field tested mitigation options and quantifiable evidence of their carbon
sequestration and reduced GHG emissions potentials (Rosenstock et al., FAO 2014)
• Conducted in parallel with the implementation of the practices.
• Objectives:
1) Understand GHG emissions
from various cropping systems
2) Elucidate how yield, RUE and
incomes can be increased while
GHG emissions can be reduced
3) Determine how GHG emissions
can be minimized when farmers
adopt climate-smart agriculture
8

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Conducting scientific research: Variables
9

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
MICCA Pilot Project in Kenya:
Integrated crop-livestock system of Western Kenya
Improving milk yield
and income of dairy
producers while
reducing the climate
change “footprint” of
dairy production systems
10

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Kenya: Baseline Results
• Livestock feeding practices were evolving:
– natural pasture all year, only grazing 34%
– mainly grazing with some stall feeding (9 months pasture)
50%
– mainly stall feeding and some grazing 15%
– zero grazing (stall feeding only) < 1%
• Women were involved in 50% of decisions on agricultural
practices and management, but less regarding livestock
• Farmer interests in participating in the project were to gain
access to loans 37% and improve income 24% (only 4% to gain
knowledge)
11

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Kenya: Baseline Results
Main changes in climate:
- more erratic rainfalls
- a longer dry season
- rivers drying up
- problems with watering
cattle
- decreases in soil fertility
22 % did not know
what to do
12
Main impacts of climate change on farmers’ livelihoods
Main coping strategies by farmers

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Kenya: Portfolio of selected CSA practices
13

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Kenya: Implementation Strategy
• Through East Africa Dairy Development Project (EADD) and district extension services
• As part of the Kaptumo Dairy Farmer Business Association (3 450 members)
Farmer-to-farmer training
approach:
Research showed that
farmer trainers in the area
can disseminate their
knowledge up to 20 new
farmers each month
Trainings and workshops with the dairy association, the district officers of the Ministry of Agriculture
and Livestock and other development partners
14

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Kenya: Implementation Strategy
15

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
MICCA Pilot Project in Tanzania:
Cereal-based family farming in the highlands
Combining conservation
agriculture practices with
agroforestry, improved
cooking stoves, and soil
and water conservation to
improve yield and
livelihoods and reduce
burning, erosion and
deforestation.
16

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Tanzania: Baseline Results
• Small land size: median was 0.8 acres per farmer, but it ranged from 0.1 to
4 acres
• Insecure land tenure: 50% of farmers were renting lands (33% paying fees,
many lands are clan-owned)
• 50% of farmers practiced slash and burn agriculture
• Climate change impacts were perceived by 74% of households, e.g.
prolonged dry season and crop failure -> resulting in food shortage
17
Main agricultural problems Main coping strategies by farmers

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Tanzania: portfolio of selected CSA practices
18

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Tanzania: Implementation Strategy
• Through CARE HICAP project (Hillside Conservation Agriculture for
Improved Livelihoods in the South Uluguru) and district extension
services
19
• Training of trainers and farmer-led
extension approaches
• Demonstration plots at Kolero
Community Center and in farmer
trainers’ fields
• 786 improved cooking stoves built,
inc. 50 for brew making
• Exchange visits and agricultural
exhibitions

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Tanzania: Implementation Strategy
20

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Evaluating the adoption and benefits of CSA
• To gather information on the determinants (barriers and incentives) and benefits of
the adoption of CSA practices
• Structured household interviews and focus group discussions using a proportionate
random sampling among the project participants and across location
• Kenya: Household interviews (n=150 people, 35 % women) and 5 FGDs in 6
locations in the Kaptumo division, Nandy County
• Tanzania: Household interviews (n=170, 50 % women) and 5 FGDs in 8 villages in
the Uluguru Mountains, Morogoro district
• Correlations generated between CSA
practices and these variables:
 farmer and farm characteristics
 social, economical and institutional context
 practice and technology characteristics
21

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Kenya: Adoption of CSA practices
Adoption of improved fodder grasses was associated with the use of livestock
manure, price of milk in the dry season, land tenure and education of household
head
Agroforestry adoption was associated with secured land tenure and the price of
milk in the wet and dry season
Participation in trainings increased significantly the adoption of improved fodder,
agroforestry, composting and tree nursery
22

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Kenya: Benefits of CSA practices
23
• Almost all (95 %) of all of the farmers surveyed perceived benefits from CSA
• The main benefit that farmers perceived from the whole set of CSA practices was
improved farm income (38 %)

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Tanzania: Adoption of CSA practices
• Insecure land tenure and small land size were barriers to adoption of agroforestry
and soil-water conservation measures
• Availability of labor and capacity to hire labor were incentives for uptake of double
digging and crop rotation, as these practices are labor demanding
• Access to information, farmer to farmer learning and trainings were determinants
of adoption for all practices
24
2 CA among 3:
min. tillage, mulching
and cover crops

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Adoption of individual and combined
conservation agriculture practices
• However, the adoption rate was
lower for the three main plots,
and even more for combined
conservation agriculture practices
25
• A high number of farmers reported
practicing individual practices of
conservation agriculture

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Tanzania: Benefits of CSA practices
26
• Main benefit perceived by farmers (29%) was increased food production
• Maize yields obtained by CSA practices were two times higher compared to
those obtained using conventional practices
• Improved cook stoves reduced the amount of fuelwood needed by 30–50%

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Approach for scaling-up in the MICCA pilot
projects
27

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Scaling up strategies with partners from local to
national levels
• Mainstreaming CSA into large scale development
programme:
E.g. EADD integrated CSA into their Phase II (2014-2018) in Kenya, United
Republic of Tanzania, Uganda reaching out to > 130,000 farmers (25M Gates
Foundation)
• Catalytic effect to link science with CSA development:
E.g. ICRAF developed a project for scaling climate-smart agriculture (2015-
2018) to support the African Union’s NEPAD and African CSA Alliance (CCAFS
funds)
• Informing decision makers at national levels for better
programming
E.g. CSA day, CSA scoping studies, CSA national workshops
28

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
National Level Actions
Multi-stakeholders national workshops to share evidences and
experiences:
– Kenya: Climate-Smart Agriculture in Smallholder Integrated Crop-
Livestock Farming Systems with MALF/CC unit, CCAFS, ICRAF and FAO
– United Republic of Tanzania: Workshop to Share Evidence and
Experience on CSA with MAFSC/env. unit, CARE, ICRAF- United Republic
of Tanzania and FAO
Follow up actions and supports on:
– Kenya: Capacity building on NAMA in the context of the Dairy sector
NAMA with SDL, CCAFS, UNIQUE and FAO
– United Republic of Tanzania: Technical support on the development of
CSA Guidelines by agro-ecological/livelihoods zones (2015-2016) with
MAFSC/env. unit
29

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
MICCA Pilot Projects- Lessons Learned
• Important to target and tailor CSA to site-specific farming system, socio-
economic conditions and farmers needs
• Farmers and local level decision makers need to be engaged in the
participatory planning of climate-smart agriculture and work jointly with
technical specialists and extensionists to develop the set of locally-
relevant CSA practices
• Sustainable extension approaches are key, as adoption of CSA practices is
highly influenced by trainings and farmer-to-farmer learning
Smallholder farmers can be part of the solution to climate change,
and increase food production and resilience while mitigating
greenhouse gas emissions.
30

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Results to inform CSA programming
• Main benefits of CSA perceived by farmers are increases in
productivity, income from farming, and food availability- so CSA
seems an effective approach to improve food security and alleviate
poverty in rural areas
• It is important to link the promotion of specific climate-smart
practices and technologies with sustainable extension services and
incentives (e.g. high value crop on terraces, stable market for milk, income
generating activities, access to seeds and loans, group learning, etc.)
• Land tenure and size can promote or constrain the uptake and
scaling-up of climate-smart agriculture and it can vary by practice
• Transformational changes in agriculture take time, so important to
plan coherent and long term programme aligned with policies
31

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Thank you
For more information, please visit:
www.fao.org/in-action/micca/knowledge/climate-smart-
agriculture/en/

www.fao.org/in-action/micca
Publications of the MICCA Pilot Projects
• MICCA Adoption study in Kenya:
• www.fao.org/3/a-i4396e.pdf
• FAO MICCA 10: Science to support climate-smart agricultural
development: www.fao.org/climatechange/micca/87906/en/
• Kenya CSA scoping study:
www.fao.org/3/a-i4367e.pdf
• CSA national workshop technical reports:
www.fao.org/climatechange/micca/87624/en/
• Kenya CSA Policy Brief:
www.fao.org/climatechange/42101-
052030dc948c02b143ca95a7f96cdc7bb.pdf
• FAO MICCA 11: The experience of the MICCA pilot projects
www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/2ac2b364-41b1-42de-
a049-720542f18a2c/