Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of Climate ...

1 Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of Climate resilience of farmerS and paStoraliStSBiodiverSitY & ecoSYStem ServiceS in aGricultural production SYStemSSelf- evaluation and Holistic Assessment of Climate resilience of farmerS and paStoraliStSJohn Choptiany Graub Phillips David Colozza Jami Dixon (University of fooD anD aGriCulture orGanization of the uniteD nationS, rome 2015 BiodiverSitY & ecoSYStem ServiceS in aGricultural production SYStemSthe designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the food and agriculture organization of the united nations (fao) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.)

2 The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by fao in preference to others of a similar nature that are not views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of fao. fao, 2015fao encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of fao as the source and copyright holder is given and that fao s endorsement of users views, products or services is not implied in any requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via or addressed to information products are available on the fao website ( ) and can be purchased through page picture: txaran BasterretxeaBack cover photos (left to right): John Choptiany; ibrahim hama; John Choptiany.

3 Caroline haywoodaCknowleDGementS ..viiaCronymS ..xikey termS ..xiiiexeCutive Summary ..xvii01 BackGround ..102 identifYinG the need for Sharp .. tool gaps .. lessons learned ..1103 Scientific BackGround and theoretical framework .. vulnerability and resilience .. limitations to resilience .. farming systems and resilience .. operationalizing resilience ..2004 Self-evaluation anD Holistic Assessment of Climate resilience of farmerS anD paStoraliSt S (Sharp) .. SharP goals .. evolution of SharP .. what is SharP? .. the purpose of SharP .. the Conceptual Basis .. Participation ..2705 methodoloGY .. indicators .. Scoring ..4706 implementinG Sharp .. facilitated baseline self - Assessment (Phase 1).

4 Participatory gap analysis (Phase 2) .. rapid Assessment .. Cross-sectional regional Assessment .. Specific strategies (Phase 3) .. Considerations on the different phases ..60taBle of contentSiiiSelf- evaluation and Holistic Assessment of Climate resilience of farmerS and paStoraliStS07 Sharp self - Assessment SurveY ..6208 Sharp timeline ..98referenceS ..100annex 1 compariSon of Sharp with other Assessment methodS ..111examples of existing instruments ..111 Sustainability Assessment of food and agriculture systems (Safa) ..111iuCn s toP-SeCaC ..113 Climate -Proofing ..115maSSCote: mapping System and Services for Canal operation techniques ..116laDa: land Degradation Assessment in Drylands ..117 CSa: Climate -Smart agriculture.

5 119the household economy approach (hea/ aem) ..120 Community-Based resilience analysis (CoBra) ..121annex 2 SummarY of exiStinG toolS uSed to inform the development of Sharp ..125annex 3 analYSiS of exiStinG toolS, includinG leSSonS learned, to inform the development of Sharp ..130annex 4 difference Between claSSical project m&e and oBServatorY monitorinG ..135examples of hierarchical orders for Domain, themes, objects, indicator ..136annex 5 Scope of Climate resilience ..137annex 6 Sharp conceptual framework 7 liSt of workShop participantS ..141 BiodiverSitY & ecoSYStem ServiceS in aGricultural production SYStemSivliSt of fiGureSfigure 1. Phases of SharP process ..xviiifigure 2. ranking of tools according to resilience score (n=24).

6 8figure 3. Classification of the approaches used by existing tools showing the number of tools assessed in each category ..11figure 4. Definitions of resilience ..14figure 5. Scope of resilience ..15figure 6. resilience may prevent improvements in farmers or pastoralists situations. examples are shown of two hypothetical farm systems (a and b) with high and low resilience respectively. in this case the resilient system may actually hinder development in the first case. the second case shows a more developed system that is not resilient. the ideal situation shown in figure 7 would be high development and high resilience ..16figure 7. Conceptualization of resilience and development. in this visualization an impact would move a farm household upwards along the y axis proportional to its size.

7 In a resilient system, an impact that would in a low resilience system move the farming household out of their stable system not greatly impact the farming household..17figure 8. visualization of the goals of SharP and fao (among other development organizations) to both increase resilience and development of farmers and pastoralists through moving the system to the right..17figure 9. working definition of resilience for SharP ..19figure 10. the Purpose of SharP ..24figure 11. Conceptualization of farming systems and resilience adapted from Dixon et al. (2001) and the agro-ecosystem resilience indicators proposed by Cabell and oelofse (2012). the figure shows that a farming system is comprised of multiple interacting farm systems, embedded in an external environment.

8 The resilience of both individual farm systems and farming systems could be assessed to determine a level of resilience . the focus of SharP will be individual farm/ pastoral system resilience ..26figure 12. Sample SharP question framework showing the general structure of most questions. emphasis is placed on situations where the response is either good or bad . we want to highlight situations where practices are resilient and to better understand situations where they are not so as to find ways to improve them..46figure 13. example of the calculations used to assess the resilience of a farm system component and its relative ranking of importance to address..47figure 14. Phases of SharP process ..51figure 15. Crop calendar for cotton, rain fed sorghum and transplanted sorghum in Cameroon.

9 68figure 16. Sorghum cropping calendar for Senegal indicating sowing/planting periods and harvesting periods (fao, 2010) ..69figure 17. Sample community map (Senegal, 2013) ..69figure 18. Sample Safa spider diagram (el-hage Scialabba, 2013) ..112figure 19. the 6 stages of toP-SeCaC (Somda 2013) ..114figure 20. overview of possible policy-solutions to existing Climate change-related challenges (Soumar 2013) ..115figure 21. main steps in the laDa local 22. a simplified illustration of the hea analytical framework (Save the Children fund and feG Consulting, 2008) ..120figure 23. CoBra conceptual framework (unDP, 2014) ..121 Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of Climate resilience of farmerS and paStoraliStSvfigure 24. the seven steps outlined within the CoBra framework.

10 122figure 25. hea emergency response thresholds compared to total income levels ..122figure 26. five sustainable livelihoods framework categories and 17 community resilience characteristics ..123figure 27. overview of three hierarchical levels of a monitoring system..136figure 28. Potential events and impacts from Climate change on crop production (iPCC, 2007; fao, 2008a; fao, 2013b) ..138liSt of taBleStable 1. key selection criteria and search terms used to identify tools and assign relevance score..4table 2. overview of existing tools identified through selection process. tools presented at the stakeholder workshop in Burkina faso are in white boxes, those identified through the internet search in are shaded in light green boxes and additional fao tool recommendations are in dark green boxes.