www.fao.org/climatechange/micca The presentation gives a 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. The working groups covered the following areas: - Climate information and insurance - Aquaculture and livestock - Cropping systems - Conservation agriculture with trees - Energy - Farmer adoption, capacity development and gender. © FAO: http://www.fao.org

1. Kenya CSA Workshop
8-9 Oct 2014
Sharing Evidence and Experience on
Climate-Smart Agriculture in
Smallholder Integrated Farming
Systems

2. 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

3. Cropping Systems, Climate
Information and Insurance
3

4. Cropping Systems
4

5. 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

6. 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. 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. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. • 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. 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. 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)

14. 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

15. 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

16. Climate Information and
Insurance
16

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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)19

20. 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

21. Pilot 1: Results of effective partnerships (fwd)
Effective partnerships and combined CSA on banana production in Meru 21

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Aquaculture-Livestock
Todd Rosenstock, Todd Crane, Dawood Idenya, Margaret
Gatonye, Cyrus Githunguri, Miyuki Iiyara, Bethuel Omolo, Inger
Haugsgjerd, Jackson K., Carolyn Opio

27. 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

28. 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
Quantityinmetrictonnes
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.

29. Farm level:
Accounting for multiple
functions changes
valuation of livestock

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. Conservation Agriculture in a Nutshell
FAO

36. CAWT Increases Soil Moisture Synergistically
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Call at
1.5
Call at 3 Call at
4.5
No
trees
Glir at
1.5
Glir at 3 Glir at
4.5
P.peas
at 1.5
P.peas
at 3
P.peas
at 4.5
Moisture(%Vol)
Treatment
COA CAConventional CA
With Calliandra With Glirisidia With Pigeon Peas
ICRAF

37. CAWT Increases Agricultural Yields
1167
1594
2171
2415
1023 1045
1223
1578
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2009 2010 2011 2012
Project Farmers
Control Farmers
MaizeYieldkg/ha
CA
Conventional
Likelihood
IDEAL
Average
Vi Agroforestry MICCA
Yield IncreaseYield Decrease

38. CAWT Increases Yield Across Crop Systems
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Maizegrainyield(t/ha)
2012 LR 2013 LR
Baseline yield
for CA 4t/ha
Conventional Tillage Conservation Agriculture
FAO

39. CSA increases pasture for livestock production
Managing tree regeneration increases forage for livestock
WorldVision

40. Healthy soil increases farmer self-sufficiency
Soil Organic Carbon
SelfSufficiency
SelfSufficiency
Erosion %
CIAT

41. CSA must be site and farming specific
Terraces work on large farms Zai pits work on small farms
KALRO WorldVision

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. Energy
Peter Malomba, Miyuki Iiyama, Kenda
Mwenja, Daniel Gichuhi, Carolyn Opio

46. Focus
• Improved cook stoves
• Biogas (domestic)
• Briquette technology
• Solar

47. 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)

48. 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

49. 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)

50. 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

51. 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

52. Farmer Adoption, Capacity
Development and Gender

53. 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)

54. 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

55. 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
poorpersonalplanning
poor(psycho-social)health
pooreducation
poorfinances
theft
landissues
mistrustandgreed
lackofinitiative
lackofsupport
over-dependence
alcoholanddrugs
unfaith-fulness
genderinequality
laziness
poorfamilyplanning
pooragriculturalpractices
poorfarminputs
poorbusinessopportunities
pooremployment…
poorfinancialalternatives
politicalconflict
lackofservices
climatechange
poorwatersupply
deforestation
lackofcapital
notattractive
environmentalconditions
confusion
conflict
lackknowledgemission
lackknowledgerights/duties
distanceelite/members
elitecaptureresources/info
lackoftime/interest
personal socio-cultural economic institu-
tional
environ-
mental
general factors group dynamics
barriers to well-being barriers to knowledge implementation
source: AAA - ICRAF

56. 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

57. 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

58. 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

59. 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?

60. 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.

61. 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

62. Gender and Climate Change -
Opportunity

63. 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

64. 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.

65. 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