4 Farm-level resilience and adaptations of agriculture to climate change
4.7 Implications and conclusion
The foregoing highlights that there are several ways to adapt to climate change at farm-level. These different ways are mainly complementary as they address different components of the smallholder farming system. It also shows that adaptation is a continuum that ranges from activities that are predominantly developmental to those that focus on reducing climate change impacts.
No one single measure is sufficient to adapt to climate change. Rather, a mix of measures is needed which targets the various farm variables –
wa-ter, soil, micro-climate, seeds and crops as well as labour and capital. The integrated approaches discussed can offer desired pathways to achieving adaptation. Achieving a balance between efficiency of resources use, envi-ronmental integrity and social and economic viability hints at a system shift in agricultural production, but in the SSA context, such a shift must not be at the expense of sustained food production.
This chapter also illustrated the close link between climate change adapta-tion and mitigaadapta-tion in the agricultural sector. Many of the adaptaadapta-tion prac-tices like mixed cropping, green manures that fix nitrogen, agro-forestry and improved range land management sequester carbon, thereby reducing greenhouse concentrations in the atmosphere. Other measures like rain water harvesting and soil conservation measures reduce soil erosion and the silting of rivers. Considering these environmental services and the pecuniary circumstances of the smallholders, providing smallholders in-centives or compensation for good land management practices holds po-tentials for poverty reduction, environment and climate protection. Devel-opment policy and develDevel-opment cooperation need to exploit these poten-tials.
A challenge remains regarding how to manage the competing uses of bio-mass in drylands. Competition for crop residues remains a challenge to using crop residues for soil and water conservation in the drylands of SSA.
A possible solution could be in planting trees which produce a lot of bio-mass that can be used for fodder.
There is a need to examine the trade-offs and synergies between interna-tional climate and trade policies as these can impede or enhance adapta-tions. Such tradeoffs frame the conditions of adaptation. They contribute to "double exposure" (O'Brien / Leichenko 2000; O’Brien et al. 2004;
Eakin 2005) and are part of the "dynamic pressures" (Wisner / Blaikie / Cannon 2004), and "vulnerability context" (Chambers 1989; Watts / Bohle 1993; DFID 2000) that smallholders face. This means that any introduced adaptation measures should be tested through the whole chain from smallholder producers to consumers in order to ensure that adaptation practices are really providing layers of resilience against climate change.
The elaborations also highlighted that the continuum from conventional to organic agriculture shows that mechanisation, though not a direct
adapta-holder farmers are to increase productivity despite climate change, mecha-nisation is one key to achieving this goal. However, it must be ensured that the mode of mechanisation has a low net energy balance and not overtly increase GHG emissions. In this sense, the transfer of appropriate technol-ogy is an adaptation strategy that development cooperation should address and support the climate policy to implement.
Generally, the drylands have lower agricultural potential compared to the more humid areas. Within these low potential areas, islands of high re-source potential exist. The contextual conditions also vary. This means that the appropriateness of farm management such as organic production, integrated crop management, conservation agriculture or conventional agriculture has to be evaluated based on the contextual conditions. Discus-sions in this chapter have shown that irrespective of the type of farm man-agement chosen, that resource use efficiency is critical both for maintain-ing or increasmaintain-ing production in the face of climate change as well as for protecting the environment and mitigating climate change. In many cases, an integrated management approach, in which farmers choose bundles of practices applicable to their context, is key to improving adaptation ac-tions.
The resilience check developed in Chapter 3 was used to analyse the con-tributions of the adaptation practices to climate resilience (as defined in Chapter 3). The resilience check was fully used in two examples for illus-tration and analysis. In other cases, only results using the resilience-check were discussed. This was done to save space as displaying the resilience check for each practice would cover several pages and reduce the reader-friendliness of this chapter. The analysis showed that it is possible to cap-ture the contributions of adaptation to climate resilience. Each adaptation practice contributes to the resilience of smallholder farming to climate change in one or several dimensions (ecological, economic and social).
Notable is the fact that building resilience in one dimension may have significant positive (mostly) or negative effects in other dimensions. Thus, using the resilience check in field data collection and analysis will provide more detailed and differentiated data and insights about the contribution of adaptation practices to resilience at farm-level.
Table 8 provides a summary of the benefits and costs of adaptation and related mitigation benefits based on the discussions carried out in Chapters 4.1 to 4.4. Ordinarily, not all adaptation measures would be found within
the same farm and at the same time. Rather, farmers will adopt certain adaptation measures based on their utility at the point in time and may switch to others as opportunities arise.
From Table 8, it is evident that some adaptation practices contribute to mitigating climate change. Many practices sequester carbon. However, the contributions of the few adaptation measures and strategies to reducing nitrous oxide emissions are only partial and depends greatly on good agement practices, whether for organic agriculture or for rangeland man-agement. The few studies on methane emission in SSA agriculture did not provide an adequate basis for an assessment in Table 8.
In addition, the time and labour costs of each adaptation practice or strat-egy is estimated to provide an overview. While some adaptations are rela-tively quick (several weeks to one year) to be established, others require longer periods or continuous adjustments. For example, assuming that heat-tolerant crops or varieties are available to the farmer, the farmer will gradually test these seeds over a period of two to six seasons (ca. 3 years) and will successively increase the acreage covered depending on their performance and social acceptability. Similarly, the generic costs (labour and capital) of each adaptation practice or strategy is estimated. Compared to capital, smallholder farmers have better access to labour (own and so-cial network). It is likely that smallholders will be slower to adopt those adaptations that are cost-intensive compared to those that are labour-inten-sive, although labour is also a constraint and motivation to adopt certain adaptation practices also plays a role. Table 8 also offers a framework that can be validated and improved on through empirical data collection.
– Many of the farm practices analysed are dependent on local knowledge, which makes important contributions to resilience. Local production should not be primarily reliant on external inputs as this is one factor that already spells the failure of adaptations. Input in this sense covers both factors of production as well as the knowledge and skills needed to run the agricultural system. This does not mean that all the knowledge should remain with the farmers at the local level but, for adaptation to be sustainable, local knowledge should be combined with other knowledge systems. As will be discussed in the following chapter on policy, and institutional level adaptations, a system of cascading and overlapping knowledge systems, in which the various national to local
Table 8: Summary of adaptation and mitigation benefits and costs
Farm-Level Adaptations of Agriculture to climate change
Rainwater
content/infiltration x x
Increased resilience to
heat/high temperature x x
Increased resilience to high
evaporation x x
Increased resilience to drought x x
Increased resilience to flood x
Increased resilience to rainfall
variability x x
Increased yields x x
Increases soil fertility x x
Adaptation benefits
Time to establish Several weeks to
1 year 1 year
Time and labour costs Labour / capital costs
Labour Source: Author / Based on literature
Legend: x :significant contribution, ~: partial contribution, empty cells: no contribution
Table 8 continued
Soil management practices
Farm-Level Adaptations of
Agriculture to climate change Mulching Organic
Increased resilience to high
evaporation x x x
Increased resilience to drought x x x
Increased resilience to flood ~ x
Increased resilience to rainfall
variability x x x x
Time and labour costs Labour / capital costs Labour
intensive Labour
intensive Labour
intensive Labour intensive Source: Author / Based on literature
Legend: x :significant contribution, ~: partial contribution, empty cells: no contribution
Table 8 continued
Seed management practices
Farm-Level Adaptations of Agriculture to climate change
heat/high temperature x x x
Increased resilience to high
evaporation x x x
Increased resilience to drought x x x
Increased resilience to flood
Increased resilience to rainfall
variability x x x
Time to establish 2–6 seasons 1–2 seasons 1–2 seasons
Time and labour costs
Labour / capital costs
Requires Source: Author / Based on literature
Legend: x :significant contribution, ~: partial contribution, empty cells: no contribution
Table 8 continued
Crop/trees management practices Farm-Level Adaptations of
Agriculture to climate change Crop
content/infiltration x x x
Increased resilience to
heat/high temperature x x
Increased resilience to high
evaporation x x
Increased resilience to drought x x x
Increased resilience to flood x x
Increased resilience to rainfall
variability x x x
Time to establish 1–2 years 1–2 years 1–many years
Time and labour costs Labour / capital costs Labour
intensive
Labour intensive
Labour intensive Source: Author / Based on literature
Legend: x :significant contribution, ~: partial contribution, empty cells: no contribution
Table 8 continued
Increased resilience to
high evaporation x x x
Time and labour costs Labour / capital costs Cost
intensive Labour
intensive Labour
intensive Cost intensive Source: Author / Based on literature
Legend: x :significant contribution, ~: partial contribution, empty cells: no contribution
institutional frameworks and actors play their expected roles, is needed.
Thus, the following chapter analyses adaptation practices at the levels of institutions and policies, with the aim of elucidating how they build or support farmers to build the resilience of smallholder farming systems.
Contributions to ecological resilience
– Farmers use information and advice from the extension services to improve their land and resources management strategies, which often result in improved soil fertility and higher yields. Thus, farmers derive benefits from the extension services and through use of this information protect the environment from soil erosion and degradation. In this way, extension services contribute to increasing the resilience of smallholder farming systems to climate change impacts.
Contributions to economic resilience
– The extension services promote the spread of farmer-based innovations, thereby empowering farmers. For example, through farmer-exchange visits, farmers observe the adaptations practised by fellow farmers first hand and are more likely to adopt them. Reviews of the diffusion of new technologies show that access to extension services is one of the major determinants of adoption (Maddison 2006). Since extension services disseminate information and knowledge to farmers, free extension advice specifically related to climate change shapes farmer perception of climate change and positively influences farmer adaptation processes and resilience (Maddison 2006; CEEPA 2006).
The information and advice (for example information on new crops) that the extension services provide to the farmers increase farmers’ livelihood options.