SHARP: Integrating a traditional survey with participatory self-evaluation … · 2021. 2. 8. · 1 SHARP: Integrating a traditional survey with participatory self-evaluation and

1

SHARP: Integrating a traditional survey with participatory self-

evaluation and learning for climate change resilience assessment

John M.H. Choptianya*, Suzanne Phillipsa, Benjamin E. Graeuba, David Colozzaa, William

Settlea, Barbara Herrena & Caterina Batelloa

aFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Climate change, population growth and social conflict have left many farmers and pastoralists

in sub-Saharan Africa at near constant crisis conditions. Participatory climate resilience

assessments can help farmer and pastoralist communities to identify, measure and prioritize

actions to improve the climate resilience of their agricultural systems. SHARP has been

developed as a dual-purpose tool, employing participatory methods to help farmers and

pastoralists to discuss and understand threats and opportunities, and to prioritize individual

and collective actions aimed at improving overall resilience. Additionally, SHARP provides

government and programme management with qualitative and quantitative information on a

wide variety of important economic and development factors. The development of SHARP

faces many challenges inherent to assessing resilience in terms of the complex nature and

wide-reaching impacts of climate change. SHARP presents a unique assessment that

combines resilience literature and indicators with a participatory self-assessment from the

farmers and pastoralists.

Keywords: Resilience; vulnerability; adaptive capacity, assessment; climate change

adaptation; agroecological, participatory survey, farmer field schools

This is an Author’s Accepted Manuscript of an Article published in Climate and Development on 14 May 2016,

available online at: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17565529.2016.1174661

2

I. Introduction

Climate change and variability have increasingly become concerns in development contexts

due to their potentially far-reaching impacts on human development. In sub-Saharan Africa,

large numbers of people whose livelihoods depend on rain-fed agriculture or pastoralism are

most vulnerable1 to, and at risk from, climate impacts (Morton, 2007; Cooper et al., 2008).

Improving agro-ecosystem resilience has been identified as a key and cost effective

development objective to address climate change challenges (Bene et al., 2012, Barrett and

Constas, 2013; Barrett and Headey, 2014). We use the term agro-ecosystem to refer to those

ecosystems that have intentionally been altered by human activity for the provision of food

and other products, and therefore include social, economic and environmental dimensions

encompassing infrastructure, markets, institutions, and people (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012). We

define resilience as “the capacity of social, economic, and environmental systems to cope with

a hazardous event or trend or disturbance, responding or reorganizing in ways that maintain

their essential function, identity, and structure, while also maintaining the capacity for

adaptation, learning, and transformation” (IPCC, 2014). The benefits of adopting a resilience

framework to further understand farm or pastoral systems’ responses to changes are well

established in the literature (Carpenter et al., 2001; Berkes et al., 2003; Walker et al., 2006).

Bottom-up community-based efforts supporting climate adaptation are needed to complement

national and international policy measures to increase resilience, especially in countries where

state support often fails to reach rural populations/households (van Aalst et al., 2008). Tools

are therefore needed that are able to help communities and decision-makers prioritize actions

as well as to monitor and assess trends reliably at different geographical and temporal scales,

including the national (Barrett and Headey, 2014). A number of relevant frameworks and

tools aimed at assessing resilience at different scales, contexts and purposes have been

developed (Frazier et al., 2013) and reviewed (Dixon and Stringer, 2015; ODI, 2015).

The majority of these frameworks are not operational to date or remain in the testing phase

and there is a paucity of tools operating on the national level. As resilience is complex and

difficult to measure and improve, there is no consensus on how to measure it yet (Winderl,

2014). As ODI (2015) found, the understanding of resilience as used in development circles

strongly influences the focus of the tool. Specifically, there are various understandings to

whwat degree indicators traditionally used to measure well-being and development can

contribute to measuring resilience. As these frameworks and tools move from concept to

implementation they will fill different niches, e.g. self assessments, external evaluations,

household or community levels. We hope that SHARP will be able to provide a meaningful

measurement of resilience and contribute to the resilience measurement debate. More

importantly, we hope it will prove to be a useful tool for farmer and pastoralist communities

in developing countries. In the broader context of resilience measurement tools now available

to development practitioners, we see SHARP filling a gap in tools by not only being able to

assess resilience quantitatively, but also managing to capture qualitative information and

thereby directly take into account the perceived and expressed needs of farmers and

pastoralists.

3

The Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate change Resilience of farmers and

Pastoralists (SHARP) was developed with the aim of filling the gap in current climate

resilience assessment tools that work at a local (community) scale, while combining a

scientifically rigorous foundation of resilience theory. The SHARP tool consists of a tablet-

based survey with multiple components that allows trained facilitators to support communities

to assess the climate resilience priorities of farmers and pastoralists at the individual (and

household) and community levels through discussions and survey responses, serving local

communities as well as feeding into national and regional policy discussions.

Tablets have been shown to be a cost-effective data collection tool (Barrett and Headey, 2014;

Leisher, 2014). In the field of health and biodiversity conservation surveys, the use of tablets

and electronic applications has significantly improved data quality and speed of data

collection (King et al., 2013; Leisher, 2014). SHARP is administered using tablets to ease the

data collection process while immediately providing results for discussion with the farmers

and pastoralists, such as the relative resilience ranking of components.

Over 250 experts were involved in the development and review of the conceptual framework

of SHARP. Consultations with facilitators and farmers in Uganda, Senegal, Mali and

Zimbabwe were then carried out to further improve the survey structure and strengthen the

questions followed by piloting and implementing in Angola and South Sudan. Finally, an

expert e-discussion was used to fine-tune SHARP, develop question ratings and elicit further

input and discussion. SHARP will be continually refined to adapt to local contexts and

countries.

SHARP comprises:

A tool built on a comprehensive understanding of climate resilience encompassing

social, economic and environmental aspects at multiple scales (individual, community

and regional) for a range of smallholders;

A participatory household-level assessment of climate resilience, performed over a

field school/cropping season that combines quantitative measurements of resilience

indicators with participants’ self-evaluation of the adequacy and importance of

different farm/pastoral components to their overall livelihoods;

An interactive learning and monitoring and assessment tool, using tablets that allows

for immediate access to information resources, aiding with group discussions and

identifying resilience priority actions;

A baseline assessment of climate resilience for better forecasting and countering

climate change impacts in specific areas based on community-specific vulnerabilities

and strengths.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and justify the SHARP tool in terms of the complex

challenges it aims to address and its potential contribution to the wider goal of improving

farmers’ and pastoralists’ resilience to climate change. As such, the paper harbours novelty

for academics interested in the application of resilience theory to the field as well as for

development practitioners and donors who are seeking practical tools to identify and improve

the resilience of communities affected by climate change. The tool and its accompanying

material (manuals, theoretical documents) are freely available for use2.

II. Methods

4

A. The approach

SHARP has been designed as a survey-based assessment tool that can be administered over

the course of a cropping season using a dedicated tablet application at the individual

farmer/pastoralist level, in a group or individual setting. In order to assess the multiple aspects

of resilience, questions are structured around five relevant areas: agricultural practices; and

environmental, social, and economic factors with recommended governance questions asked

directly to the project staff to better understand the local context. SHARP is ideally applied

within the framework of agro-pastoral/famer field schools (AP/FFS) in which trained

facilitators work with local communities in their local languages over an extended period of

time (van den Berg, 2004). Nevertheless, the tool is flexible enough to meet the needs of

different contexts and is being used in M&E for resilience projects.

Specifically, SHARP aims to empower farmers and pastoralists by:

Combining a quantitative assessment of agro-ecosystem resilience with the

identification of priority areas of low resilience and high importance to the participant

to determine priorities for resilience improvement;

Encouraging discussion among participants at both the individual level (e.g. by

facilitating exchanges between individuals with low and high levels of resilience in a

specific area) and group level (e.g. by pooling resources to tackle common issues

within the community) with the final aim to set goals for common problems to be

collectively addressed;

Providing information resources well-tailored to the needs of farmers and through

publications and information documents;

Providing feedback and evidence to facilitators, producers’ organizations,

governments and development organizations to better plan future activities, and;

Providing a ‘baseline’ for quantitative and qualitative measurement of trends within

the monitoring and evaluation framework of development projects.

While experts undertook the first steps of SHARP’s development, farmers and pastoralists

were involved during subsequent testing and revisions, in an effort to design the tool in a

participatory manner. This was based on the realization that adopting a participatory approach

to resilience assessment has win-win potential (Holland, 2013; Chambers, 2013) as it allows

farmers and pastoralists to better understand the rationale and methods behind the assessment

process; which, in turn, results in a tool that is more effective and better accepted by its users.

B. The conceptual foundation of SHARP

Resilience

The theory of resilience in social-ecological systems, as first described by Holling (1973),

offers a useful framework for understanding the dynamic relationship between humans and

the environment (the so-called social-ecological systems, or SESs), and provides models for

increasing capacity to manage change (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012).

Resilience can be considered as a static outcome to be assessed or measured (BRACED,

2015) (e.g. improved access to water); but also a dynamic process, i.e. the ability of an

individual, system or community to absorb disturbances, the capacity of self-organization, and

the capacity to learn and adapt to stress and change over time (IPCC, 2007; Barrett and

5

Constas, 2013). We therefore considered two types of resilience: general resilience, where the

aim is to increase the adaptive capacity of an individual or community to address any stress or

shock, and a second type of resilience that is context-specific and is considered in response to

a specific impact or shock. Resilience from an ecologist’s perspective is an intrinsic system

property or process, largely independent of exposure to a shock or stress (but resilient to

specific impacts can be impacted by shocks or stresses) (Folke, 2006). This definition is also

referred to as ‘general resilience’ (Berkes and Seixas, 2005). As the impacts of climate change

will likely be diverse, complex and interconnected, a focus on resilience to any specific

impact or shock will be difficult. Rather, SHARP aims at measuring and improving general

resilience, which is viewed as an emerging system property or process.

General resilience is argued to be a fundamental characteristic of both natural and human

systems (Holling, 1978; Gunderson et al., 2001). Resilience research demonstrates that

historically, individuals and systems have been able to successfully negotiate challenges or

adverse events. Central to this understanding is the notion that resilience is maintained by

disturbing and probing at its boundaries (Holling, 1973; 1985; 1986; Walker et al., 2006). To

strengthen the resilience of an individual or system, past exposure to shocks and stresses is

essential (Berkes and Folke, 2002). This reasoning implies that all individuals or systems can

learn from past exposure, suggesting that hands-on processes that involve exploring or testing

resilience, such as through social learning and adaptive management processes like the FFS,

are important in fostering and enabling resilience (Reed et al., 2006; Reed et al., 2010).

Strengthening general resilience is proposed as a desirable goal to cope with climate change

due to the wide ranging impacts that climate change can have (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012).

In the context of SHARP, the focus is on climate resilience of farming systems and resilience

is considered as both an outcome and an inherent ability to adapt. As such, resilience can

only be strengthened using an approach built on flexibility, learning and participation (Dixon

and Stringer, 2015). Therefore, SHARP focuses on strengthening climate resilience, this is

done through an approach emphasizing these three elements.

Defining Agro-ecosystem climate resilience indicators for SHARP

While various sets of indicators have been developed to assess resilience at large geographical

scales and in urban environments, the quantitative and qualitative indicators of resilience in

agricultural systems are often poorly defined (Carpenter et al., 2001; Bennett et al., 2005;

Cumming et al., 2005; Fletcher et al., 2006; Darnhofer et al., 2010a).

Cabell & Oelofse (2012) carried out a review of existing resilience literature aiming to

identify the properties of resilient SES across contexts. They compiled indicators by

extracting the characteristics cited most often in the literature on resilience in SESs, keeping a

focus on those pertaining to agroecosystems. As a result, they proposed 13 behaviour-based

indicators of resilience in the agro-ecosystem, which can be used to identify behaviours that

reflect high resilience when present, or low resilience when absent.

These indicators form the basis of measuring resilience in SHARP and ensuring that all

aspects of resilience are assessed. As these behaviour-based indicators encompass

environmental, social, and economic aspects of resilience at the agro-ecosystem level, they

are well suited to capture the areas that SHARP tries to measure. We found that Cabell and

Oelofse provided the most holistic and operational framework available for measuring

agroecosystem resilience, including tangible proxies and indicators of resilience. The

6

framework acknowledges the inherent complexity of agroecosystems, and focuses on

practical elements not requiring an overly unrealistic level of precise measurement. We have

worked to further operationalize and build upon their assessment using lessons learned

through other resilience assessments.

Building on the premise that agroecosystems are too complex for resilience to be measured in

any precise manner, Cabell and Oelofse use behavioral-based indicators of resilience within

agroecosystems.

SHARP’s ability to measure climate resilience at the level of socio-ecological farming

systems combines Dixon et al., (2001)’s concept of the farming system with the agro-

ecosystems resilience indicators proposed by Cabell and Oelofse (2012) – ( Figure 1).

Figure 1 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.

C. The SHARP assessment: Questions and survey structure

The questions and survey upon which the SHARP resilience assessment relies were

constructed to reflect the approach and concepts described in the previous sections.

Question structure: from qualitative understanding to quantification.

The questions in the assessment have been structured to combine quantitative information on

respondents’ resources, practices and knowledge, with their qualitative perceptions of the

adequacy and importance of given aspects of their agricultural system.

7

The first part of each question explores farming resources/practices/knowledge using a close-

ended question to collect easily quantifiable numerical or yes/no answers (e.g. “Have you

received financial support in the past 5 years?” or “How many sources of water do you have

access to?”) – (Figure 2). This section is complemented by a second open-ended question

encouraging elaboration of the first response to qualify respondents’ reasoning. This response

does not contribute to the final scoring. The third part explores participants’ perceptions of

the adequacy of the aspect of the farm/pastoral system considered (e.g. “Are your non-farm

income generating activities sufficient for your farm system needs?”) using a five point Likert

scale ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘completely’ adequate (and interpreted by the facilitator into

local languages and contexts). The last section probes the relative importance of that same

aspect as perceived by the farmers/pastoralists, using a similar five level scale.

Through this structure, the four sections composing each SHARP question allow the user to

acquire a multi-perspective understanding of the resilience of each given environmental,

social or economic aspect of the agricultural system explored by the survey.

Rating responses and calculating the resilience priority score.

The rating system for the first part of each SHARP question were designed through an

e-discussion carried out from September to October 2014, which gathered contributions from

60 experts from academia and international organizations. For each question in the survey the

suggested final score was compiled by taking into account the remarks received over the

5-week discussion and, as necessary, through further consulting experts and practitioners in

each area of research (e.g. for nutrition and gender-related questions, further consultations

took place with the respective FAO division). The rating systems used for answers to the third

(perceived adequacy) and fourth (perceived importance) components of each question do not

vary between questions.

The overall relative resilience priority score for each aspect of the farm/pastoral system is

created by summing the scores obtained by normalising (out of 10) the responses given to the

three scoring components each using the rating systems. For instance, in the first question

shown in Figure 2, the number of water sources could be four (9/10)3 which are perceived as

“completely” adequate (which gives a score of 10/10) and “a little” important (7.5/10)4 by the

respondent, resulting in a final score of 26.5. The assessment shows that the aspect considered

(water access) is therefore very resilient, very adequate and not very important to the

livelihood of the farmer/pastoralist. This result is contrasted with the sample response

obtained for ‘group membership’, with a response of two groups (6/10), “not at all” adequate

(0/10) and “average” importance (5/10) for an overall relative resilience score of 11. In this

example, the assessment highlights that group membership emerges as a greater priority for

improvement of farm/pastoral-level climate resilience and should be explored further.

This structure allows for the combining of respondents’ own assessments of importance and

adequacy of different components of their system along with the ‘academic’ resilience score

into a multi-attribute assessment of their climate resilience (Choptiany and Pelot, 2014). This

data analysis method is comparable to the one used by Jupp (2010) to quantify empowerment

outcomes in Bangladesh.

8

SHARP survey structure

The set of questions in SHARP has been designed to explore the major areas of agricultural

livelihoods through environmental, social, governance and economic aspects of climate

resilience.

The initial set of questions was first conceived at a multi-stakeholder workshop on resilience

in Burkina Faso in May 2013. The questions were then field-tested with farmers in Uganda

(twice), Senegal, Mali and Zimbabwe and reviewed to ensure their relevance and usability

followed by piloting and implementation in Angola and South Sudan. The questions were

then revised based on the technical feedback received from experts across the four question

areas, strengthening the technical quality of the survey. The 54 questions obtained were then

mapped to the 13 indicators of agro-ecosystem resilience developed by Cabell and Oelofse

(2012). This process helped determine whether any questions were missing (leaving

indicators that were not adequately addressed) or instead, were redundant (in order to reduce

the time burden on farmers and pastoralists). Each question was linked directly to a resilience

indicator - in some cases two or three indicators (see Appendix 1). Based on expert opinion of

over 250 reviewers, each question was assigned a weight relative to both its importance and

its contribution to the wider resilience indicator.

Constructing a flexible and adaptable survey

The combination of the 13 resilience indicators and the 54 questions ensures a holistic

overview of farm/pastoral-scale climate resilience. Using a multi-attribute additive model

allows one to integrate farmers/pastoralists’ prioritization of different components of their

agricultural system into the final resilience assessment, while the open-ended, descriptive

component of each question adds depth to the responses to the scoring components. These

descriptive parts are meant to provide a basis for discussions in the community during

AP/FFS activities and between facilitators and individual respondents to better understand the

results obtained. In cases of low assessed adequacy, this component will be essential to

understanding barriers to enhancing resilience. Therefore, the survey structure integrates an

expert-based approach to resilience measurement with participants’ self-assessments of their

resilience.

SHARP’s in-built flexibility allows for individual-level tailoring of the survey, as each farmer

or pastoralist does not need to answer questions that are not relevant to their specific situation.

SHARP has been and will continue to be further tailored to different countries and contexts

through supplemental questions and unique lists of options (e.g. local species names). Initial

answers on the activities and practices carried out are used to filter out subsequent questions

that are not applicable to the respondent. In addition to these automatic filters, many questions

involve an initial yes/no (e.g. do you practice intercropping?), which is followed by more

detailed questions only if the response is yes (i.e. the question has relevance to their

livelihood).

When necessary, questions and responses are gender-disaggregated and at times divided by

major practices (farming/pastoralism). However, many questions target the same information

9

regardless of gender or practice, but may be asked in slightly different ways to different

actors.

Figure 2 Sample SHARP question on breeds and varieties. There are several components of most questions, including

open and close-ended questions, and a question related to self-assessed adequacy and self-assessed importance. Red

boxes highlight points of interest of this question.

III. Discussion of implementation, challenges and conclusions

A. Discussion on SHARP’s implementation

While this article outlines the development of SHARP and its grounding in resilience theory,

the effectiveness of the tool will be tested during implementation. Efforts to systematically

measure resilience with high frequency, in a multi-dimensional manner and over the longer

term are still rare (Barrett and Headey, 2014). SHARP was designed to take advantage of the

inherent strengths of the AP/FFS participatory learning approach, which is based on weekly

meetings over the course of a full growing season, and emphasize observation,

Self-assessment of adequacy

Self-assessment of importance to livelihood

Open-ended response to expand if desired Closed-ended questions

Question symbol

10

experimentation and discussion. In this context, SHARP works as an interactive and iterative

learning tool.

The process of a carrying out a complete SHARP assessment follows three main phases

(Figure 3).

Figure 3. The three phases of the SHARP analysis

Phase 1: Facilitated baseline self-assessment in the context of an AP/FFS project

Phase 1 of the self-assessment is represented by the flowchart in Table 2 below. The overall

process (Figure 3) is designed to be suitable for working with farmers and pastoralists of any

type and from any location. The self-assessment is the first step and is meant to provide a

baseline of farmers’ and pastoralists’ past trends and current status. Ideally, SHARP is

intended to be used over the course of several seasons and years. The first iteration of Phase 1

of SHARP remains inherently the most time consuming as the questions will all be new and

some concepts may need explanation by facilitators. A facilitators’ guide and training material

have been designed, outlining the process of implementing the SHARP survey in detail (see

supplemental material 1).

Facilitators discuss and complete SHARP questions over the course of an AP/FFS or other

training sessions carried out throughout a farming season. As they proceed with the

assessment, the facilitators acquire a greater understanding of respondents’ current practices

and status of climate resilience. Therefore, the integration of SHARP within AP/FFS training

sets in place a mutually-reinforcing process, which allows the assessment to be used as an

Phase 1. Base assessment of current farmer/pastoralist

situation through self-assessment with farming/

pastoral communities

Phase 2. Gap analysis of climate change resilience

weaknesses based on output of Phase 1 and available data

on Climate Change in the relevant region

Phase 3. Specific strategies for each situation (based on

geography, practices and expected climatic changes)

11

interactive learning-AP/FFS support tool. Instead of asking a simple, straightforward

question, for instance on soil fertility, a farmer would learn through the AP/FFS hands-on

sessions about the practical aspects of soil fertility (e.g. soil structure, texture, importance of

organic matter, nutrient holding capacity, drainage rates); the SHARP question on the topic

would then reinforce their learning process and give insights that are directly relevant to their

livelihood.

• Phase 2: Participatory gap analysis of climate change resilience based on SHARP

rapid assessment

The second phase begins after the self-assessment survey is completed and aims at

determining the areas of high and low priority for action, based on the identification of

existing gaps in education, training, and practices. This analysis, using the self-assessment

results, is conducted together with farmers/pastoralists, facilitators, and any other relevant

stakeholders.

As the effects of climate change tend to be location-specific, during this phase it will be

important to consider the type of farming system as well as the expected changes in climatic

conditions in the region over time. In the third phase (see next section), available climate

scenario data will be used to identify the most important anticipated changes in climate in the

area. For example, changes in rainfall intensity and patterns, changes in temperature and in

intensity and frequency of extreme weather events – will be identified by project staff and

matched with the baseline assessment.

Rapid assessment

Having obtained the SHARP resilience score for each question asked, the tablet application

creates an initial set of results for immediate use by respondents. This identifies components

of each individual farm system that most likely will need attention – those with low scores for

resilience and adequacy and high scores for importance.

Questions pertaining to the highest and lowest resilience priority scores will be highlighted in

discussions with the farmers / pastoralists to determine what actions could be made to

improve system resilience and what components of the their system are most resilient,

respectively. This is the domain of the AP/FFS and illustrates the utility of the tool in guiding

the direction of Field School activities. As different questions refer to different parts of the

system, e.g. natural system or human capital, it should be possible to understand the relative

resilience of each component of the system.

At the group-level, especially when using a tablet, SHARP resilience scores and relative

rankings obtained by different farmers/pastoralists will be easily comparable (Leisher, 2014).

Comparing climate resilience among farmers within a community (and part of similar farming

systems) will be useful for initiating group discussions regarding the specific factors of

resilience and possible resilience-improving actions. In addition, as facilitators gain an

understanding of both community and household level resilience, they will be in a stronger

position to provide informed facilitation of group discussions on directions for improvement.

12

The possibility of using built-in functions in the tablet to disaggregate community-level

results by gender and occupation will instantly provide further useful information to the

facilitator.

The comparison among individuals will be mostly indicative as smallholders and pastoralists

may have different configurations of farm/pastoral components; and thus will likely be

responding to a slightly different set of questions. However, results can still be compared at

the resilience indicator level (see following section). It should be noted that the overall score

is also a relative score and not an absolute indication of resilience. Comparisons of resilience

levels could also be done within and among different farming systems, i.e. the type of farming

system assessed might need to be included in the analysis as an independent variable to make

comparisons more reliable.

Cross-sectional regional assessment

Mechanisms for data privacy will be strictly adhered to. The information gathered in SHARP

surveys will be centrally stored on project data servers and data only made available in an

anonymous form to be assessed in comparison with other communities or regions where

SHARP has been implemented.

Centralisation of survey results will allow a number of comparisons to be made:

Comparing resilience scores of individual farms across time at the project level. This

would be especially useful in terms of conducting before/after-assessments of

resilience;

Identifying parts of farming systems/aspects which tend to have consistently lower

resilience levels at different scales (e.g. regional, district, country) in order to make

them priorities for action;

Comparing resilience levels across villages and regions – both overall scores and

scores by indicators.

Identifying geographical areas with lowest resilience at different scales and to

communicate the results to actors at appropriate scales;

Comparing resilience of different farming systems at regional/national level;

Analysing which aspects are considered to be most relevant for resilience by farmers /

pastoralists to inform national/international policies on climate change adaptation.

The survey has a flexible format adapting to local context, allowing respondents to skip

questions that do not apply or are not of interest. However, a set of 24 key questions were

identified that are required for the rapid assessment to be considered as completed. This will

ensure comparability of surveys and resilience indicators across time and space.

Phase 3: Specific strategies

The information gathered in Phases 1 and 2 can be used in Phase 3 to provide individualized

responses for farmers and pastoralists to develop practices more resilient to climate change

and other livelihood impacts. These should be developed in collaboration with the farmers

and pastoralists, but also fit into larger regional plans to encourage synergies.

Actions that increase resilience regardless of the type of impact from climate change

experienced (short versus long term) have been referred to as “no regret” approaches to

13

reducing vulnerability (HLPE, 2012). While such no-regret adaptation measures will look

different in different locations, certain common measures are likely to be applicable in most

settings (Nhemachena and Hassan (2007). These, include “using different varieties, planting

different crops, crop diversification, different planting dates (given the high number of

statements that the timing of rains is changing), diversifying from farm to nonfarm activities,

increased use of water saving techniques, and increased use of water and soil conservation

techniques” (Nhemachena and Hassan (2007). This list can be complemented by further

practices, such as intercropping, mixing high-yield water sensitive crops with less productive,

drought-resistant varieties (Bradshaw et al., 2004) and improving agro-forestry and forestry

practices. Based on the local conditions and the climatic changes that are expected, as well as

farmers’ and pastoralists’ current state of climate-resilience, specific strategies to improve

climate resilience can be identified and included in AP/FFS curricula over the following

seasons.

B. Emerging lessons and challenges in building a resilience self-assessment tool.

We have identified a series of significant challenges involved with developing a participatory

tool for self-assessment of climate resilience for smallholder farmers and pastoralists in a

developing country context. Each of these challenges is described below, alongside potential

actions to be taken to minimize the challenge. As agriculture is not static, SHARP will

necessarily need to continually adapt both its structure and its application.

Multiple languages and differences in general and agricultural literacy across

participants

The SHARP tool was developed and written in English and translated into French, Spanish

and Portuguese. SHARP will be translated into other languages as appropriate. Facilitators

translate the questions from the national level into local languages when conducting the

survey. Translation is difficult as often a direct translation of specific terms and concepts such

as “resilience” do not exist. During the SHARP in-country trainings and during AP/FFS

sessions, time must be dedicated to agreeing on common definitions and on ways to explain

concepts and questions to the farmers and pastoralists in their local language. Jointly agreed-

to explanations, synonyms and metaphors will help to ensure that the most complex concepts

are reasonably consistent across languages (Lodge, 2003). As part of the tablet application,

there is also an option to translate the final resilience ranking resulting from the survey into

different languages.

Many of the farmers and pastoralists that were involved in the testing and piloting of SHARP

had low levels of literacy or had very low levels of formal education. Therefore “action-

learning”, such as that employed in the AP/FFS, is an adequate approach to transmit

knowledge and results to farmers and pastoralists. A learning-by-doing approach,

emphasizing social learning in an experimental approach, offers higher chances of

successfully communicating with farmers and pastoralists not aware of the conventional

vocabulary used (Norton, 2005). The fact that many farmers and pastoralists are illiterate calls

14

for facilitation when using SHARP as many are unable to read the questions. Moreover,

discussion of results obtained in terms of priorities for resilience building will also require

creative processes to ensure that there is understanding and ownership of results. Several

participatory methods such as scenario-building – i.e. analysing future events based on a

range of possible different scenarios (relating to farm systems and resilience in our case) –

already exist and can be integrated into the third phase of SHARP.

Individual vs. intra-household resilience assessment

SHARP measures the resilience to climate change and climate variability of a farm system by

asking one member of a farm/pastoralist household to make an assessment of their resilience.

This approach can mask existing differences in the resilience of different members of the

same household and can lead to adaptation strategies that mostly take into account the

interests of the person participating in SHARP, but not necessarily the others in the

household. This may significantly lower SHARP’s impact on household resilience. For

example, if nutrition is assessed by asking the head of the household about their own

nutritional intake in a household with very disparate nutritional patterns, issues of nutritional

quality of the diet at household level may be hidden. In addition, lack of acknowledgement of

such differences might actually strengthen existing intra-household inequality therefore

further reducing the well-being of the most vulnerable members of the household. If nutrition

adequacy is assessed using information collected from the most powerful person in the

household, the resilience priorities highlighted by the rapid assessment might reflect his/her

own priorities and resulting resilience-building actions further strengthen the respondent’s

position.

A set of measures have been taken during the design of SHARP to minimise issues linked to

intra-household disparities:

- We encourage SHARP to be administered through AP/FSS facilitators who have built

a relationship and trust with the community in order to elicit more honest and through

responses;

- Questions to assess the climate resilience at the level of the household have been

formulated to obtain responses which cover all the members of the household;

- Respondents are given the possibility to elaborate further on questions of interest and

potentially sensitive questions should be asked at the individual level;

- It is possible to disaggregate results of the assessment by gender and other variables in

a given community, thereby allowing detection of differences in resilience priorities

depending on gender of respondents;

- A question on household decision-making patterns has been included in the survey

acting as an indicator of the level of intra-household inequalities – independently of

the gender of the respondent.

In addition, this topic will be elaborated in depth through training and the facilitators’ training

manual. Thus, when implementing the survey:

- Survey questions will be asked in such a way as to uncover intra-household dynamics;

15

- Following preliminary individual discussions, group discussion of results and actions

at community level will be held in plenary to allow for discussion.

By becoming aware of potential gender and age-biases, facilitators and all involved will be

able to take precautions to avoid biases in the selection of participants and other actions.

Adapting to varying contexts and harmonizing AP/FFS

SHARP is being developed with a key focus on smallholder farmers and pastoralists in sub-

Saharan Africa, but is available to be tested and adapted to any context globally. The sheer

diversity of agro-ecological and socio-economic contexts will be a significant challenge to

applying the same tool in all these contexts. SHARP is being in a limited form adapted to

different localities, while allowing for enough data points to be comparable across regions.

While the individual questions may vary slightly and have different context-specific ratings,

as the questions are linked to the 13 resilience indicators, the results can be compared at the

indicator level. The changes to date focus only on different names for local species and

exploring certain questions in greater depth, as warranted (e.g. further data on irrigation).

One such adaptation could include changing the weights and scoring systems given to

questions at the country-level. This, however, would prevent inter-country comparisons. It is

obvious that a trade-off exists between the level of specificity of the survey to local realities

and the comparability of results across different localities. The more context-specific

questions and scoring are, the less comparable they will be but the better they assess resilience

in a given place. The ease with which scoring, weights, question formulation and

implementation can be changed in SHARP allows user to determine their optimal solution

One of the criticisms (and strengths) of AP/FFS is their flexibility and learning by doing

without strict curricula or rules (Braun & Duveskog, 2008). SHARP follows many of the

same principles of AP/FFS (e.g. participatory, flexible, farmer driven) but aims to unify and

standardize some of the processes (e.g. noting what was taught within the curricula each

season). This will allow for a better comparison of AP/FFS practices and curricula in order to

disseminate good practices and understand what does and does not work.

Challenges in multi-purpose data collection

The SHARP survey collects data that can be used both to prioritise actions at the household

and community level, and to obtain an understanding of resilience levels and priorities at

greater temporal and spatial scales. This means that, while the scope of questions need to be

precise and practical to be of use by farmers and pastoralists, the quality and range of

information collected needs to allow for meaningful comparison of results at larger scales.

Satisfying both needs with a single tool poses challenges in terms of number of questions,

practicality, specificity and usability of questions, and scoring. This challenge was addressed

by using two different approaches to understand collected responses:

- The rapid assessment combines responses on the level of resilience of farm/ pastoral

system with their perceived adequacy and importance of resources to obtain resilience

priorities, which can be used by farmers/ pastoralists to set goals for improvement;

16

This allows SHARP to be tailored to the specific resilience context of the respondent,

while collecting resilience information that is scored using a broad enough calibration

to be applicable to most contexts.

- A set of 26 key questions was determined that need to be answered for the survey to

be considered completed. These 26 questions cover the 13 indicators of resilience

defined by Cabell and Oelofse (2012) and therefore allow for a set of questions that is

comparable at a holistic level across time and space. As the questions still cover all the

resilience indicators, they are a reasonable set for resilience assessment to be able to

assess resilience at a broader scale using the resilience indicators’ lenses.

C. Next steps

SHARP is currently a tool that has been used in projects, but not yet fully implemented in all

three phases. Based on external and internal reviews, the tool is being updated and the

Android-based app for tablets has been used in Angola and South Sudan, and will be fully

implemented in several other countries1 in 2016. The full implementation will inform

continual updating of the tool and help to build further partnerships for further development

and application of SHARP.

IV. Conclusions

SHARP aims to be a pragmatic tool to help communities and projects to measure agro-

ecosystem resilience for both farmers and pastoralists. Geographical differences across

communities limit the capacity of any single tool to perfectly measure resilience across all

contexts while producing comparable results. The 13 indicators of resilience used as proxy

properties of resilient systems, combined with a participatory approach with farmers and

pastoralists, helps to render SHARP adaptable to different contexts while keeping its results

comparable among respondents across contexts. Participants (farmers and pastoralists) in

early field-tests of SHARP provided positive feedback, stating the tool provided a forum for

discussion of problems and helped engage the community to find solutions to common

problems. SHARP will continue to evolve in its formulation and implementation to provide a

valuable mechanism to measure, discuss and improve the climate resilience of farmers and

pastoralists.

1 Expected full implementation in: Niger, Mali, Angola, Chad, Mozambique, Uganda

17

V. Endnotes

1 Vulnerable communities are defined as those prone “to suffer harm from exposure to

external shocks and stresses” (Resilience Alliance, 2010).

2 See the SHARP website: www.fao.org/in-action/sharp

3 The scoring of 9/10 is obtained applying the rating system, which was elaborated for this

specific question of the survey during the e-discussion (see Table 1, column 4: scale/rating: if

the answer given is 4, the resulting score is 9).

4 It should be noted that importance is on an inverted scale – more important results in a lower

score and thus a higher priority.

18

V. References

References

ACCRN. (2013). What is urban climate change resilience? Retrieved from

www.acccrn.org/uccr/what-urban-climate-change-resilience

Barrett, C. B., & Headey, D. (2014). Measuring Resilience in a Volatile World: A Proposal

for a Multicountry System of Sentinel Sites. 2020 Conference Paper. IFPRI 2020

Conference: Building Resilience for Food & Nutrition Security. Retrieved from

www.ifpri.org/publication/measuring-resilience-volatile-world

Bennett, E. M., Cumming, G. S., & Peterson, G. D. (2005). A systems model approach to

determining resilience surrogates for case studies. Ecosystems, 8(8): 945-957. doi :

10.1007/s10021-005-0141-3

BRACED. 2015. The 3As: Tracking resilience across BRACED. Bahadur, A.V., Peters, K.,

Wilkinson, E., Pichon, F., Gray, K. & Tanner, T. Working paper.

www.farmafrica.org/downloads/braced.pdf

Braun, A., & Duveskog, D. (2011). The farmer field school approach: History, global

assessment and success stories. Background paper for the IFAD Rural poverty report.

Cabell, J. F., & Oelofse, M. (2012). An Indicator Framework for Assessing Agroecosystem

Resilience. Ecology and Society, 17.

Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2001). From Metaphor to

Measurement: Resilience of What to What? Ecosystems, 4, 765-781.

Cooper, P. J. M., Dimes, J., Rao, K. P. C., Shapiro, B., Shiferaw, B., Twomlow, S. (2008).

Coping better with current climatic variability in the rain-fed farming systems of sub-

Saharan Africa: An essential first step in adapting to future climate change?

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 126(1-2), 24-35.

Cumming, G. S., Barnes, G., Perz, S., Schmink, M., Sieving, K. E., Southworth, J.,

Binford, M., Holt, R.D., Stickler, C. & Van Holt, T. (2005). An exploratory

framework for the empirical measurement of resilience. Ecosystems, 8,(8): 975-987.

doi: 10.1007/s10021-005-0129-z

Dixon, J. L., & Stringer, L. C. (2014). Towards a theoretical grounding of assessment tools to

strengthen resilience of smallholder farming systems. Resources, 4(1), 128-154; doi

:10.3390/resources4010128

FAO. ND. Agroecosystem health management and livestock.

www.fao.org/3/contents/9a554089-15c4-5b02-9c72-a8e3a2db781f/X6150E00.HTM

19

FAO. (2011). Social analysis for agriculture and rural investment projects. Retrieved from

www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2816e/i2816e00.htm

FAO-NR. (2013). Land resources: farmer field schools. Retrieved from

www.fao.org/nr/land/sustainable-land-management/farmer-field-school/en/

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems

analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253-267.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C., Walker, B., Bengtsson, J.,

Berkes, F., Colding, J., Danell, K., Falkenmark, M., Gordon, L., Kasperson, R. E.,

Kautsky, N., Kinzig, A., Levin, S., Maler, K. G., Moberg, F., Ohlsson, L., Olsson, P.,

Ostrom, E., Reid, W., Rockstrom, J., Savenije, H., & Svedin. U. (2002). Resilience

and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations.

Scientific Background Paper on Resilience for the process of the World Summit on

Sustainable Development. Stockholm, Sweden: Environmental Advisory Council to

the Swedish Government.

IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working group

ii contribution to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate

change. Summary for Policymakers. Retrieved from www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-

report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf

IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of

Working Group II to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth

Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

King, J. D., Buolamwini, J., Cromwell, E. A., Panfel, A., Teferi, T., Zerihun, M., Melak, B.,

Watson, J., Tadesse, Z., Vienneau, D., Ngondi, J., Utzinger, J., Odermatt, P. &

Emerson, P. M. (2013). A Novel Electronic Data Collection System for Large-Scale

Surveys of Neglected Tropical Diseases. PLOS One. doi :

10.1371/journal.pone.0074570

Leisher, C. (2014). A Comparison of Tablet-Based and Paper-Based Survey Data Collection

in Conservation Projects. Social Sciences, 3, 264-271. doi:10.3390/socsci3020264

Lodge, D. (2003). Introduction to the special issue. From the balance to the flux of nature: the

power of metaphor in cross-discipline conversations. Worldviews: Global Religions,

Culture, and Ecology, 7(1-2), 1-4.

Morton, J. F. (2007). The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence

agriculture. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 104 (50), 19680-19685.

Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability: A Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Management.

University Of Chicago Press, Chicago.

20

ODI. 2015. A comparative overview of resilience measurement frameworks: analysing

indicators and approaches. Schipper, E.L.F. & Langston, L. Working paper 422.

www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9754.pdf

Rodima-Taylor, D., Olwig, M. F. & Chhetri, N. (2012). Adaptation as innovation, innovation

as adaptation: An institutional approach to climate change. Applied Geography, 33,

(April), 107-111.

Stern, N. (2006). The Stern Review on the Economic Effects of Climate Change. Population

and Development Review, 32, 793–798. doi : 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2006.00153.x

UNDP. (2014). Community based resilience analysis (CoBRA) conceptual framework and

methodology. Retrieved from

www.disasterriskreduction.net/fileadmin/user_upload/drought/docs/CoBRRA%20Con

ceptual%20Framework.pdf

Van Aalst, M. K., Cannon, T., & Burton, I. (2008). Community level adaptation to climate

change: the potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Global

Environmental Change. 18(1), 165-179.

Van den Berg, H. 2004. IPM farmer field schools: A synthesis of of 25 impact evaluations.

Wageningen University. Retrieved from:

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/ad487E/ad487E00.pdf.

Walker, B. H., Anderies, J. M., Kinzig, A. P., & Ryan, P. (2006). Exploring Resilience in

Social- Ecological Systems Through Comparative Studies and Theory Development:

Introduction to the Special Issue. Ecology and Society, 11.

Winderl, T. (2014) Disaster Resilience Measurements: Stocktaking of ongoing efforts in

developing systems for measuring resilience. United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP). Retrieved from:

www.preventionweb.net/files/37916_disasterresiliencemeasurementsundpt.pdf.

21

Table 1. Sample scoring. Column 1: This refers to the question within the SHARP survey – would be approximately 50 questions. Column 2: The aspect of the question that is being

measured. This is sometimes direct from the question (e.g. yes/no and sometimes inferred by counting the number of times boxes are checked). Column 3: Example of a response

(sometimes would need to be counted). Column 4: The scale and rating or scoring – the responses would be mapped on this scale (currently being refined now that the e-discussion is

complete). Column 5: This would be the corresponding score (out of 10) from each response mapped on the rating. Column 6: Self-assessed adequacy response. Column 7: Adequacy

response options and scale. Column 8: Adequacy score. Column 9: Self-assessed importance of the question. Column 10: Importance response options and scale. Column 11:

Importance score. Column 12: Cumulative sum of columns 5, 8 and 11 to give a score out of 30. Column 13: Relative resilience score. Higher score = more resilient and less important.

Low score = low resilience, low adequacy and high importance.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Question Aspect

measuring

Response Scale/

rating

(/10)

Theoretical

resilience

score

Adequacy Scale/

rating (/10)

Adequacy

score

Importance Scale/

rating

(/10)

Importance

score

Relative

resilience

(/30) –

5+8+11

Relative

resilience

ranking

Water

sources

Number of

water

sources

e.g. 4

0=0,

1=3,

2=6,

3=8,

4=9,

5+=10

9 e.g.

Completely

Not at all =

0,

A little = 2.5,

Average =5,

A lot =7.5,

Completely

=10

10 e.g. A little

Not at all =

10, A little

= 7.5,

Average,

=5, A lot

=2.5, Very

= 0

7.5 26.5 3

Group

membership

Number of

groups a

member/

involved

with

e.g. 2

0=0,

1=3,

2=6,

3=8,

4=9,

5+=10

6 e.g. Not at

all

Not at all =

0,

A little = 2.5,

Average =5,

A lot =7.5,

Completely

=10

0 e.g. Average

Not at all =

10, A little

= 7.5,

Average,

=5, A lot

=2.5, Very

= 0

5 11 1

Market

access

Access to

market e.g. yes

Yes

=10,

No =0

10 e.g. A little

Not at all =

0,

A little = 2.5,

Average =5,

A lot =7.5,

Completely

=10

2.5 e.g. A little

Not at all =

10, A little

= 7.5,

Average,

=5, A lot

=2.5, Very

= 0

7.5 20 2

22

Table 2. Overview of potential steps for implementation of SHARP (if integrated early in a project)

1 Early in the project/programme development phase meet with local staff (potentially

AP/FFS or otherwise) to discuss the objectives of carrying out the SHARP assessment.

2 Select communities/ AP/FFS where the SHARP assessment will be carried out.

Group (AP/FFS) development and pre-assessment

3 Training of facilitators and survey appropriation by local staff.

4 Before the beginning of the season, conduct a pre-assessment of needs and priorities

(needs assessment) of the community. Additional optional exercises include:

community mapping exercise, cropping calendar, others as needed.

5 Modify the AP/FFS training curriculum for the upcoming field school as needed.

6 Plan schedule for administration of the SHARP survey throughout the season.

SHARP survey and rapid assessment

7 Conduct the SHARP survey in a group setting of about 4-8 people, in conjunction

with the AP/FFS curricula.2

8 After the questions are completed, produce the rapid assessment with resilience

priority rankings. Raw data is sent to project staff or cross sectional data analysis.

9 Results discussion at individual level. A record of individual results and completion

certificate are given to respondents.

10 Results discussion at group level. Group discussions can touch on areas of low

resilience in which the group could do activities to improve their resilience. Try to

find high resilience areas of some farmers/pastoralists that others could learn from.

Analysis and planning

11 Organise periodic workshops for facilitators and monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

personnel to discuss results and better adapt tool to given context (e.g. 1-2 times per

year or following existing M&E structures).

12 Receive feedback from project managers/coordinators on recommendations and

results.

13 Discuss how to improve/modify next season’s field school curricula and/or

programme/project.

14 Repeat process in the following season.

2 The timing will vary each year depending on the knowledge, practices employed, and curricula. It will be partly

up to the facilitator to determine when best to ask the SHARP questions based on enthusiasm, time,

farmer/pastoralist knowledge and the focus of the lesson etc. Some questions will be asked in groups (e.g.

cropping calendar) and others individually (e.g. personal questions such as those related to assets). All questions

involving knowledge, which could be impacted by the field school curricula (e.g. are you aware of

environmentally friendly pesticides) should be asked at the same time for every farmer/pastoralist when possible.

Others (e.g. how long have you been farming/a pastoralist) may be asked at different times during the field

school.

23

VI. Supporting Material

Appendix 1 Table linking the 13 indicators for assessing the resilience of agro-ecosystems (Cabell and

Oelofse, 2012) to SHARP questions, including weights, measurements, sample responses and a scale

for scoring the responses.

Resilience

component

(from Cabell

and Oelofse,

2012)

SHARP

indicators SHARP questions Measurement Answers/units

Scale

(higher is

more

resilient/

better)

1. Socially self-

organized Farmers and

consumers are

able to organize

into grassroots

networks and

institutions such

as co-ops,

farmer’s markets,

community

sustainability

associations,

community

gardens, and

advisory networks

1.1 Group

membership

Are you a member of

any groups,

organizations or

associations?

+ for each give: Degree

of participation (Leader,

Very Active, quite

Active, Not active)

# of groups which

have at least

‘quite active’

participation level

# ticked from all

options given in table

0= 0,

1= 7,

2+= 10

1.2 Functions

of groups

Counted from group

membership list

# of different types

of groups

E.g. credit, seed bank,

insurance common

marketing/processing,

social insurance

scheme, food

production, food

utilisation

0= 0, 1= 4, 2=

7, 3+= 10

Were any of those

groups initiated/started

by your community?

Whether any

group was initiated

by the community

Yes/ No Yes= 10, No=

0

1.3 Access to

local farmers

markets

Do you have access to

local farmers’ market?

Degree of market

access for selling

No access, intermittent,

sustained access

No access= 0

Intermittent= 4

Sustained

access= 10

1.4 Previous

collective

action

Crop and livestock

losses:

over the past 10 years

have you

lost a significantly large

portion

of your crops/

livestock?

Whether internal

coping strategies

are used

Yes/No (N/A if did not

experience loss)

Yes= 10, No=

0

When there were

common issues in your

village or

neighbourhood that

needed attention during

the last year, how often

did you join together

with others to address

them?

Frequency (and

presence) of

collective action

Never, Rarely,

Sometimes, Frequently,

Or Not applicable

Never= 0,

Once= 4, A

couple of

times= 7,

Frequently= 10

1.5 Access to

communal

resources

Water access: number

and types of water

sources

# of water points

that are accessible

# of types, e.g. well,

dam, river, lake

0=0, 1=2, 2=6,

3+=10

Land access: total

accessible agricultural

land if applicable

(hectares)

Area of

community land

accessible

# inserted in:

‘Community land’

column,

0 ha= 0;

>0= 10

2. Ecologically

self-regulated

2.1 Perennial

crops

Do you grow perennial

crops (plants that can

live several years)?

Whether perennial

crops are grown Yes/ No

Yes= 10, No=

0

24

Farms maintain

plant cover and

incorporate more

perennials,

provide habitat

for predators and

parasitoids, use

ecosystem

engineers, and

align production

with local

ecological

parameters

2.2 Origin of

species used

Approximately what

percentage of your

crops is a newly-

introduced variety?

Approximately what

percentage of your

animal breeds is newly-

introduced?

% of non-local

species/varieties

used

Average % given across

both crops and animals

0-25%= 10,

25-50%= 6,

50-75%= 3,

75-100%= 1

2.3 Synthetic

pesticide use/

disposal

Have you used synthetic

pesticides over the last

cropping season? + Did

you look for

pests/diseases on your

crops before spraying?

Whether different

types of

pesticides are

used, and

whether the farmer

looks

for pests/diseases

before

spraying

Yes/ No

Yes/ No for different

types

of pesticide (insecticide,

herbicide, fungicide)

Use pesticide:

yes + do you

look for pest:

No= 0;

Use of

pesticide:

Yes+ do you

look for pest:

Yes= 5;

Use of

pesticide: No=

10

What do you do with

the containers after you

have used the products?

Pesticide disposal Options from list

Taken empty

to a hazardous

waste

collection

centre =

10,Thrown in

trash = 6,

Reused,

thrown in

river, thrown

on ground = 0

2.4 Use of

nitrogen fixing

legumes/ plants

and natural

fertilizers

Do you have any

leguminous plant

growing on your

farmland?

+ If yes, did you plant

it?

Presence and use

of leguminous

plants

Yes/ No answers to the

two questions

Yes to first

question+ Yes

to second

question= 10

Yes to first

question +

No to second

question = 5

No to first

question +

No to second

question =0

2.5 Buffer

zones

Is your land bordered

by wild/ unmanaged

land? If so, have you

observed many plants

and insects on that

land?

Existence of buffer

zones and

observance of wild

plant/insect

species

None of it

Some of it

Most of it

All of it

None of it = 0

Some + No = 2

Some + Yes =

5

Most + No =4

Most + Yes =

6

All + No = 7.5

All + Yes = 10

2.6 Fertilizer

use

1) Did you use synthetic

inorganic fertilisers this

season?

2) If you do use

fertilizer, do

you check the soil and

plants first

to see whether they

need it?

Type and use of

fertilizers

1) Yes/ No

2) Yes/ No

Yes synthetic

+ Yes

organic= 5

Yes synthetic

+ No organic=

2.5

No synthetic +

No organic= 0

No synthetic +

Yes organic=

10

25

Did you use natural

fertilizers this season?

Natural fertilizers

use Yes/ No

Yes synthetic

+ Yes

organic= 5

Yes synthetic

+ No organic=

2.5

No synthetic +

No organic= 0

No synthetic +

Yes organic=

10

2.7

Agroforestry

Approximately, how

many trees have you

planted in your farm

system?

# of trees planted

on farm # 0= 0, >0= 10

Have you planted more

than

one specie?

Whether more

than one specie

was planted

Yes/No Yes = 10, No=

0

In general what overall

percentage of your land

is

covered by trees –

including

natural and planted?

% of land covered

by trees #

0%= 0

1-10%= 2

11-25%= 6

>25%= 10

2.8 Energy

sources

Which energy sources

are used in your farm

system?

# of

environmentally

friendly energy

sources used

Environmentally

friendly options out of

list are: Solar, wind,

wood residues, manure,

agricultural resides and

domestic waste, wind,

biogas

0= 0

Solar= 4

Domestic

waste= 4

Agricultural

residues= 4

Wood

residues= 4

Manure= 4

Other options=

3

2+= 10

(maximum of

10)

3. Appropriately

connected

Collaborating

with multiple

suppliers, outlets,

and fellow

farmers; crops

planted in

polycultures that

encourage

symbiosis and

mutualism

3.1 Seed/breed

sources

In general which

sources do you have

access to? (seeds)

# and type of seed

sources # and type

1= 4 (if own

production), 2

(if other

sources)

2 (of any

type)= 6

3+ (of any

type)= 10

In general which

sources do you have

access to? (livestock)

# and type of

livestock sources # and type

1= 4 (if own

production), 2

(if other

sources)

2(of any

type)= 6

3+ (of any

type)= 10

3.2 Practicing

intercropping

and others

Do you grow two or

more crops in

association?

Whether

intercropping is

practiced

Yes/ No Yes= 10, No=

0

Do you grow plants in

association with

aquaculture (rice-fish

farming)?

Whether plants are

grown in

association with

aquaculture

Yes/ No Yes= 10, No=

0

3.3 Access to

information

How often did you have

access to information on

market prices over the

last season?

Access to market

information

Often, sometimes, very

rarely/never

Often= 10

Sometimes= 5

Very

rarely/never= 0

Do you have access to

weather forecast

Access to weather

forecast services Yes/ No

Yes= 10, No=

0

26

services?

Do you have access to

information on

cropping/livestock

practices?

If yes, how do you get

this information?

Access to and

sources of

information on

cropping practices

Yes/ No

# of sources

0= 0,

1= 4,

2= 8

3+= 10.

Do you have access to

ICTs: Access to ICTs

# of ’Yes’ across ICTs

options 0= 0, 1+= 10

3.4 Veterinary

access

Do you have access to

veterinary services?

Level of access to

veterinary services

Yes and it is good

quality,

Yes but it is

problematic,

No

No= 0,

Yes, but it is

problematic

(unqualified

personnel,

expensive,

distant, etc.)=

5;

Yes, and it is

of good

quality,

affordable and

nearby= 10

3.5 Trust and

cooperation

In your village/

neighbourhood do you

generally trust others in

matters of lending and

borrowing?

Level of trust in

the

community

Yes/No Yes=10, No=0

Generally speaking,

would you say that most

people can be trusted or

that you can’t be too

careful in dealing with

people?

Level of trust in

the

community

People can be trusted

(A) You can’t be too

careful (B)

A= 10, B= 0

If a community project

does not directly benefit

you but has benefits for

many others in the

village/neighbourhood,

would you contribute

time or money to the

project?

Level of

involvement in

communal

activities

Options to count from

are:

Time, Money, None,

Other.

Number of responses

(not

including “None”)

0= 0

1= 8

2= 10

4. Functional

and response

diversity

Heterogeneity of

features within

the landscape and

on the farm;

diversity of

inputs, outputs,

income sources,

markets, pest

controls, etc.

4.1. Species

diversity

Approximately, how

many animals do you

own? [per category]

# of animals

owned per

category

#species, #breeds

Species: 1= 0,

2= 4, 3= 7,

4+= 10

Breeds: 1-5=

3, 6-10= 8,

11+= 10

Do you practice

aquaculture? If yes,

what species do you

manage?

Whether they

practice

aquaculture and #

of

different managed

species

# count from first row

of table

1= 0,

2= 4,

3= 7,

4+= 10

Do you have more than

one

variety of this crop?

Whether they

practice

aquaculture and #

of

different managed

species

Yes/No Yes = 10, No =

0

Approximately how

many

trees have you planted

in your

farm system? Of which

species?

# of different

managed species # count from list

0= 1, 1= 3, 2=

5, 3= 7, 4= 9,

5+= 10

27

1) Is your land bordered

by wild/ unmanaged

land?

2) If so, have you

observed many plants

and insects on that

land?

Combination of

different option

answers given to

these two

questions

1) all of it, most of it,

some of it, none of it

2) Yes/ No

None of it= 0

Some + No= 2

Some + Yes=

5

Most + No= 4

Most + Yes= 6

All + No= 7.5

All + Yes= 10

How many types of

invasive

weed species have you

observed

in your field in the past

10 years

# of types of

persistent

and damaging

weeds

species

#

0= 10, 1= 8,

2= 6, 3= 4, 4=

2, 5+= 0

4.2 Agriculture

categories

Do you usually carry

out any of these

activities on your farm?

# of different

activities carried

out

Livestock, crops, trees,

bee keeping, fish pond-

aquaculture

1= 0, 2= 5, 3=

7, 4+= 10

4.3 Income

sources

How many different

income sources did you

have over the past year?

# of different

income sources

0,1,2,3,4,5,6+ -

Agriculture production,

labour/daily wages,

livestock, petite

trade/shop keeper

1= 0,

2= 5,

3+= 10

4.4 Types of

pest/animal

disease control

What types of animal

disease control methods

do you use?

Different types of

control used # from list

0= 0, 1= 5, 2=

7, 3+= 10

What pest control

practices did you use

over the last cropping

season?

Different types of

pest control used # from list

0= 0, 1= 5, 2=

7, 3+= 10

5. Optimally

redundant Planting multiple

varieties of crops

rather than one,

keeping

equipment for

various crops,

getting nutrients

from multiple

sources, capturing

water from

multiple sources

5.1 Varietal

diversity

Livestock

breeds/varieties - Do

you have more than one

breed of this specie?

Whether more

than one

breed per specie is

owned

Yes/No Yes= 10, No=

0

Do you practice

aquaculture?

If yes, do you manage

more than

one specie?

Whether more

than one

specie is managed

Yes/No Yes= 10, No=

0

Crop

varieties/landraces-

How many different

varieties do you

cultivate?

# of crop varieties

across crop species

Total number of crop

varieties/total number

of crop species

1= 0

2= 8

3+= 10

Have you planted

different varieties of the

same tree species?

# of different

managed varieties Yes/No

Yes= 10, No=

0

5.2 Products

sold

Last year did you sell

any of your

crops/livestock/seeds?

If yes, which ones?

Whether products

were sold and

which types

# e.g. sorghum, millet,

chickens

0= 0, 1=2, 2=

4, 3= 6, 4+=

10

N/A (if

answered ‘No’

to initial

question)

5.3 Water

sources

Water sources: types of

water source access

# of accessible

water sources

# of types; e.g. well,

dam, river, lake

0= 0, 1= 2, 2=

6, 3+= 10

5.4 Energy

sources

Which energy sources

are used in your farm

system?

# of energy

sources

# count out of all

options given in the list

0= 0,

1= 3,

2= 6,

3+= 10

5.5 Land

improving

practices

Which land

management practices

do you use?

# of land

management

practices used

# 0= 0, 1= 3, 2=

6, 3+= 10

5.6 Sources of

fertilizers

Where do you source

your fertilizer from?

# of different

sources

# selected options count

from table: Farm; Shop;

Aid; Friends.

Neighbours;

1= 0, 2= 5,

3+= 10

28

Extension worker;

Directly

from seller.

5.7 Major

productive

assets owned/

have access to

Rank by importance the

major productive assets

that you own

# of productive

assets owned

# of productive assets

owned

Land

Livestock

Seeds

Buildings

Equipment

Others

1= 4

2= 7

3+ =10

Total area of accessible

agricultural land:

private plots

Area of private

land accessible

# ha inserted in ‘Private

plots’ column, ‘Total

accessible agricultural

land, if applicable

(hectares)’row

0= 0

0.1-1= 2

1.1-5= 5

>5= 10

5.8

Seed/Livestock

access

In general which

sources do you have

access to? (seeds)

# of different

sources #of sources selected

1= 0, 2= 5,

3+= 10

In general which

sources do you have

access to? livestock)

# of different

sources # of sources selected

1= 0, 2= 5,

3+= 10

5.9 Human

nutrition

Did anyone in the

household eat the food

in question over the last

day and night?

Household Dietary

Diversity Score

(HDDS) going

from 0 to 12

Yes/No for each food

category in list.

There are 12 categories

of foods, so HDDS goes

from 0 to 12

If HHDS=

1,score= 0; if

HHDS=

2,score= 1;

HHDS= 3,

score= 2

[...]

if HHDS=

11+, score=

10.

Number of vegetables,

pulses

and fruit eaten

(inferred from above)

# of vegetables,

pulses, fruit

# of times

fruits/vegetables/pulses

were eaten during week

1= 0, 2= 3, 3=

6, 4= 8, 5+=

10

At the moment, which

are your food stocks?

Level of food

stocks Quantity in kg

0= 0

>0= 10

5.10 Animal

nutrition

Do you give food

supplements to your

animals (such as pods)?

If so, which foods?

# of different

foods (including

grazing) for top

three animals

Total # of foods

mentioned in the ‘If so,

which foods’ row for all

animals/ (total number

of animal categories

possessed)

0= 0 1= 5,

2= 7, 3+= 10

For each aquatic species

mentioned do you

provide food

supplements? If so,

which ones?

# of different

foods across

species mentioned

Total # of foods

mentioned in the ‘If so,

which foods’ row for all

animals (if /total

number of animal

categories possessed

0= 0, 1= 5,

2= 7, 3+= 10

Do you keep the

animals grazing on

pasture or agricultural

lands during part or

throughout the year?

(Tick if yes)

Access to

vegetation for feed

Yes/ No for each animal

category possessed

Average points across

animals: points for each

animal category/ # of

animal categories

Yes= 10

No= 0 for each

category.

Overall score /

# of animal

categories

5.11 Cereal

bank

What kind of

infrastructure do

you have in your

community?

Access to a cereal

bank

Yes/ No

(cereal bank access)

Yes= 10, No=

0

6. Spatial and

temporal

heterogeneity

Patchiness on the

6.1 Temporal

heterogeneity

of farm system

Which land

management practices

do you use?

Use of practices

which increase

temporal and

spatial

heterogeneity

# of practices used

among: crop rotation,

Rotational grazing,

Fallowing, Zero/

minimum tillage,

0= 0,

1= 3

2= 6,

3+= 10

29

farm and across

the landscape,

mosaic pattern of

managed and

unmanaged land,

diverse

cultivation

practices, crop

rotations

Wind break/ hedge

6.2 Trees on

farm

In general, what overall

percentage of your land

is covered by trees

(natural and planted)?

% of land covered

by trees

%: 0, 1-10, 11-20, 21-

40,

41-60, 60+

0= 0, 1-10%=

2, 11-20%= 7,

21-40%= 10,

41-60%= 7,

60%+= 1

6.3 Types of

soil

How many different

types of soil can you

observe on your field

(approximately)?

# of different types

of soil observed

# of types observed:

types include sandy,

loamy, clay, stony.

1= 0, 2= 5,

3+= 10

6.4 Land

improving

practices

Which land

management practices

do you use?

# of land

improving

practices used

# 0= 0, 1= 3, 2=

6, 3+= 10,

6.5

Heterogeneity

of farm and

landscape

Total number of fields

you have access to:

# of separate

fields(across

private,

community and

government)

# of separate fields for

each category

1 field= 0,

2= 7,

3+= 10

6.6

Intercropping

What percentage of

your cultivated crops is

intercropped?

% of land

intercropped

Score=%/ 10

100%= 10

6.7 Invasive

species

Approximately, what

percentage of your land

is covered by weeds?

Level of invasive

weeds

% of cultivated land

cover by weeds

100-75%= 0

75-50%= 2

50-25%= 4

25-10%= 6

10-0= 10

6.8 Perennials

Do you grow perennial

crops (plants that can

live several years)?

Whether perennial

crops are grown Yes/No

Yes= 10, No=

0

7. Exposed to

disturbance Pest management

that allows a

certain controlled

amount of

invasion followed

by selection of

plants that fared

well and exhibit

signs of resistance

7.1 Invasive

species

How many types of

invasive weed species

have you observed in

your field in the past 10

years?

# of types of

persistent and

damaging weeds

species

#

0= 0,

1= 2,

2= 4,

3= 6,

4= 8,

5+= 10

7.2

Disturbances

Over the last ten years,

have you observed any

changes

relating to the weather?

If yes,

what changes have you

noticed?

# of changes

observed #

0= 0, 1= 8, 2=

10, 3= 6, 4= 4,

5+= 0

What types of

disturbances have you

experienced in the past

10 years?

# of types of

disturbances

selected from

options

+ for each

disturbance

experienced the

number of times it

was experienced

# Add together the total

number of times a

disturbance was

experienced (across

types)

0= 5, 1= 10,

2= 8, 3= 6, 4=

4, 5+= 0

Over the past 10 years

have you lost more than

50% of your crops?

# of severe

disturbances Yes/ No

Yes= 0, No=

10

Over the past 10 years

have you lost more than

50% of your livestock?

# of severe

disturbances Yes/ No

Yes= 0, No=

10

7.3 Breeding

for resistance

Have you tried breeding

your animals to obtain

improved varieties?

Knowledge on

breeding animals Yes/ No

Yes= 10, No=

0

7.4 Buffer

zones

Is your land bordered

by wild/ unmanaged

land?

Existence of buffer

zones

All of it, most of it,

some of it, none of it

None of it= 0

Some + No = 2

Some + Yes =

30

If so, have you observed

many plants and insects

on that land?

5

Most + No = 4

Most + Yes =

6

All + No = 7.5

All + Yes =

10

7.5

Combination

local/exotic

species

Approximately what

percentage of your

crops is a newly-

introduced variety?

% of non-local

species/varieties

used Average % given across

both crops and animals

0%= 0

1-10%= 4,

10-20= 6,

20-30= 8,

30+= 10

Approximately what

percentage of your

animal breeds is newly-

introduced?

% of non-local

species/varieties

used

8. Coupled with

local natural

capital Builds

(does not deplete)

soil organic

matter, recharges

water, little need

to import

nutrients or export

waste

8.1 Land

quality

On average, how rich in

Soil Organic Matter is

your soil?

Level of soil

quality

Not at all, Very little,

average, Quite rich, A

lot/

Very, Don’t know

Not at all= 0,

Very little=

2.5,

Average = 5,

Quite rich=

7.5, A

lot/very= 10,

Don’t know=5

8.2 Health of

soil/ water

quality

Have you observed one

or several of the

following soil

degradation these last

five years

# of types of land

degradation

occurring

# of problems options

selected from list

0= 10, 1= 7,

2= 4, 3= 1,

4+= 0

Have you encountered

any of the following

water quality problems:

# of problems

observed

# of problems options

selected from list

0= 10, 1= 7,

2= 4, 3= 1,

4+= 0

8.3 Land

improving

practices

Which land

management practices

do you use?

# of land

improving

practices in use

# of practices selected

from list

0= 0,

1= 3,

2= 6,

3+= 10

Do you have any

leguminous plant

growing on your

farmland?

+ If yes, did you plant

it?

Presence and use

of leguminous

plants

Yes/ No answers to the

two questions

Yes to first

question+ Yes

to second

question= 10

Yes to first

question +

No to second

question= 5

No to first

question +

No to second

question= 0

Did you use natural

fertilizers this season?

Use of natural

fertilizers Yes/ No

Yes synthetic

+ Yes

organic= 5

Yes synthetic

+ No organic=

2.5

No synthetic +

No organic= 0

No synthetic +

Yes organic=

10

31

8.4 Energy

conservation

Do you use energy

conservation practices

to reduce

energy cost in the

household?

Whether energy

conservation

practices are

used

Yes/No No= 0, Yes=

10

Which energy

conservation methods

do you use?

# of types of

energy

conservation

methods

used

# of practices used from

table options

1=3, 2=7,

3+=10

8.5 Practices

for resource

recycling

In your farming system,

do you use techniques

and practices for water

conservation?

# of practices used # from table options 0=0, 1=2, 2=7,

3+=10

8.6 Pesticides

use

Have you used synthetic

pesticides over the last

cropping

season?

+ Did you look for

pests/diseases

on your crops before

spraying?

Whether different

types of

pesticides are

used, and

whether the farmer

looks

for pests/diseases

before

spraying

Yes/ No

Yes/ No for different

types

of pesticide (insecticide,

herbicide, fungicide)

Use pesticide:

Yes + do you

look for pest:

No= 0;

Use of

pesticide: yes+

do you look

for pest: Yes=

5;

Use of

pesticide: No=

10

What do you do with

the containers after you

have used the products?

Pesticide disposal Options from list

Taken empty

to a hazardous

waste

collection

centre= 10,

Thrown in

trash= 6,

Reused,

thrown in

river, thrown

on ground= 0

8.7 Planted

trees

Have you planted any

trees on your land? Yes/No Yes/No Yes=10, No=0

8.8 Animal

disease control

practices

What types of animal

disease control do you

use?

# of

environmentally

friendly disease

control measures

used

Count # use of: natural

remedies, integrated

animal health

management

0= 0,

1= 5,

2= 7

3+= 10

9. Reflective and

shared learning Extension and

advisory services

for farmers;

collaboration

between

universities,

research centres,

and farmers;

cooperation and

knowledge

9.1

Participation in

AP/FFS and

other groups

Are you a member of

any groups,

organizations or

associations?

+ for each provide the

name and

degree of participation

(Leader,

Very Active, quite

Active, Not

active)

# of agricultural

related groups

which have at least

‘quite active’

participation level

Options considered:

Seed bank

AP/FFS

Listening clubs

Traders’ association/

business group

Farmers’/ fisherfolk

group

Cooperatives/

producers’

organizations

Water/waste group

Credit/finance group

0= 0,

1= 7,

2+= 10

32

sharing between

farmers; record

keeping; baseline

knowledge about

the state of the

agro-ecosystem

Women’s group

For those count #

excluding those with

‘not active’ was

selected

Degree of participation

(in groups)

Degree of

participation

% of groups in which

you participate where

you are : leader, very

active or quite active

0= 0, 100%=

10

9.2 Trends/

changes in

climate

Have you modified your

habits in response to

these disturbances?

Learning based on

climatic change Yes/ No

Yes= 10, No=

0

Over the last 10 years,

have you observed any

change relating to the

weather?

Awareness of

changes Yes/ No

Yes= 10, No=

0

9.3 Extension

services

Do you have access to

information on

cropping/ livestock

practices?

+

If yes, how do you get

this information?

Level of access to

information on

cropping/livestock

practices

Options: Extension

agent/ FFS/APFS, other

# of sources

0= 0,

1= 4,

2= 8,

3+= 10.

9.4 Record

keeping

Do you keep records for

any of the following:

Knowledge and

use of record

keeping

# of yes responses

across options given for

record keeping

0= 0, 1= 7,

2+= 10

9.5 Knowledge

of

environment/

agriculture

Do you have access to

information on cropping

practices? If yes, how

do you get this

information?

Level of access to

information on

cropping/livestock

practices?

Yes/ No (first part of

question) + Different

options for access to

information

# of sources

0= 0,

1= 4,

2= 8,

3+= 10.

10. Globally

autonomous and

locally

interdependent

Less reliance on

commodity

markets and

reduced external

inputs; more sales

to local markets,

reliance on local

resources;

existence of

farmer co-ops,

close

relationships

between producer

and consumer,

and shared

resources such as

equipment

10.1 Direct

selling /trading

to consumers

Do you sell/trade some

of those products

directly with

consumers?

Whether items are

directly sold

to/traded with

producers?

Yes/ No Yes= 10, No=

0

10.2 Direct

buying /trading

with producers

Do you buy/trade

directly with producers?

Whether items are

directly bought

from/traded with

producers

Yes/ No Yes= 10, No=

0

10.3 Local

farm inputs

Are you at a walking

distance from the

location of your source

of inputs?

Average ease of

access for inputs

Yes, easily;

Yes, with some

difficulty;

No;

Not applicable (for a

given input)

10 for each

yes, 5 for each

yes with

difficulty, 0 for

each no and

then average

across

applicable

categories

10.4 Previous

collective

action

When there were

common

issues in your village or

neighbourhood that

needed

attention during the last

year,

how often did you join

together

with others to address

them?

Frequency of

collective action

Never/ Rarely/

Sometimes/ Frequently

Never= 0,

Rarely= 4,

Sometimes= 7,

Frequently= 10

10.5 Ability to

breed animals

at local level

Have you tried breeding

your animals to obtain

improved varieties

Knowledge on

breeding animals Yes/ No

Yes= 10, No=

0

33

10.6 Reliance

on local species

Do you use newly

introduced

(varieties/species which

have

been used in the

community

for less than 15 years)

nonindigenous

varieties or species,

such as modern

cultivars, imported

cultivars, High Yield

Varieties,

private sector seeds,

etc.?

Use of newly

introduced non-

local varieties

(both animals and

plants)

Average response

across two questions (if

replied to both)

If yes to crop and yes to

animal= 0+0/2= 0

If yes to animal, no to

crop=(0+10)/2= 5

Yes= 0, No=

10

10.7 Access to

local market

Do you have access to

local farmers’ market?

Quality/frequency

of access

No access,

Intermittent,

Sustained access

No access=0

Intermittent=5

Sustained

access =10

10.8 Reliance

on local energy

sources

Which energy sources

are used in your farm

system?

How many

environmentally

friendly energy

sources are used?

Local energy sources

include: Solar, fuel

wood, charcoal,

domestic waste,

agricultural residues,

wood residues, manure

0= 0

Solar= 4

Domestic

waste= 4

Agricultural

residues= 4

Wood

residues= 4

Manure= 4

Other options=

3

2+= 10

(maximum of

10)

10.8 Animal

disease control

What types of animal

disease control do you

use?

# of disease

control types used # of options from list

0= 0

1= 5

2= 7

3+= 0

10.9 Pesticide

use

Did you use synthetic

pesticides?

Use of synthetic

pesticide

Yes/ No for three

different options

If answer Yes

(to any type of

pesticide)= 0

If answers

No= 10

Did you use natural

fertilizers this season?

Use of natural

fertilizers Yes/ No

Yes synthetic

+ Yes

organic= 5

Yes synthetic

+ No organic=

2.5

No synthetic +

No organic= 0

No synthetic +

Yes organic=

10

11. Honours

legacy

Maintenance of

heirloom seeds

and engagement

of elders,

incorporation of

traditional

cultivation

techniques with

modern

knowledge

11.1 Elder

participation

Describe the role that

elders play within the

community. e.g. caring

for smaller children,

assisting household or

community decisions.

Whether elders

play a role in the

community

Yes/No Yes= 10, No=

0

11.2

Agricultural

learning

Do you have access to

information on

cropping/livestock

practices?

Access to and

sources of

information on

cropping/

livestock practices

Yes/ No plus selection

from list

# of sources 0= 0, 1= 4, 2=

8, 3+= 10

11.3

Traditional

activities

Traditional activity

(selected from list)

Number of

traditional

activities practiced

# from list of activities 0= 0

1= 7

2+= 10

34

11.4

Preservation of

traditional

knowledge

Do you know of any

stories, tales or legends

about past climate

changes?

Whether

traditional

knowledge related

to climate change

exists

Yes/ No Yes= 10, No=

0

11.5 Tree

products

What do you use

products

from these spontaneous/

natural

trees for?

Use of natural

products from tree

# of uses of tree

products for: Natural

remedies

(animals);Natural

remedies (people);

Products for the

protection of crops (e.g.

Neem)

0= 0,

1= 7,

2+= 10

12. Builds

human capital

Investment in

infrastructure and

institutions for the

education of

children and

adults, support for

social events in

farming

communities,

programs for

preservation of

local knowledge

12.1 Household

health

Who is unable to work

due to health reasons?

% of the

household unable

to work

#(people unable to

work) across

categories/# (total

number of people in

household)*100

0%= 10, 0-

10%= 7, 11-

20%= 5,

21-30%= 3,

30%+= 0

Over the past season,

how often do you use

protective gear?

Frequency of use

of protective

clothes when

applying pesticide

Set of options: never,

sometimes, always

Never= 0,

sometimes= 5,

always= 10

Have you encountered

any of the following

water quality problems?

Whether water

quality

problem which can

affect

the household’s

health

were encountered

Presence/absence of

water pollution or

organic dumping

problems (or other

problems reported to

affect health)

No= 10, one of

those 2

problems= 5,

2+= 0

Did anyone in the

household eat the food

in question over the last

day and night?

Household Dietary

Diversity Score

(HDDS)

Yes/ No for each food

category in list.

There are 12 categories

of foods, so HDDS goes

from 0 to 12

If HHDS=

1,score= 0; if

HHDS= 2,

score= 1;

HHDS= 3,

score= 2

[...]

if

HHDS=11+,

score= 10.

12.2

Knowledge of

practices to

improve the

land

Which land

management practices

do you use?

# of land

improving

practices used

Number from provided

list

0= 0, 1= 2, 2=

4, 3= 6, 4= 8,

5+= 10

do you have any

leguminous plant

growing on your

farmland? + If yes, did

you plant it?

Presence and use

of leguminous

plants

Yes/ No answers to the

two questions

None of it= 1

Some + No= 2

Some + Yes=

5

Most + No= 4

Most + Yes= 6

All + No= 7.5

All + Yes= 10

Is your land bordered

by wild/

unmanaged land?

If so, have you observed

many

plants and insects on

that land?

Existence of buffer

zones

All of it, Most of it,

Some

of it, None of it

All of it= 10

Most of it= 7

Some of it= 4

None of it= 0

Do you use natural

fertilisers?

Whether natural

fertilizers are used Yes/ No

Yes synthetic

+ Yes

organic= 5

Yes synthetic

+ No organic=

2.5

No synthetic +

No organic= 0

No synthetic +

Yes organic=

35

10

12.3

Infrastructure

Do you have any of the

following buildings in

your community?/ Do

you have access to any

of the following

buildings in your

community?

# of buildings with

access to

Yes/ No for following

buildings: Church,

community centre,

school, health centre

0= 0, 1= 5,

2+= 10

12.4 Group

participation

Select the groups of

which you are a

member

# of groups to

which you

participate

Number of groups in

which at least “quite

active” level of

participation

0= 0, 1= 4, 2=

8, 3+= 10

Degree of participation

in groups

Degree of group

participation

Percentage of groups in

which participation is at

least “quite active”

0= 0, <25=

2.5, <50= 5,

<75= 7.5,

<100= 10

12.5 Household

equality

(gender, most

vulnerable

members)

(power and

agency)

For each category

indicate the number of

people in the household

involved.

Distribution of

tasks across

members of the

family

Take as reference,

number of tasks

performed by man= n

If man

performs n

tasks, women

perform

between n and

90% of n,

children

perform

[80%of n]=

10;

If women do

n+10% of n

(i.e. 10% than

man) OR

children do

90% of n (i.e.

only 10% less

than man)= 6

If women do

n+20% OR

children do

100% of n,= 3,

If both of the

above occur

(women do

n+20% and

children do n),

or any more

unequal

distribution

=03

Who has completed

primary education?

% of household

members who

completed primary

education

# (people who

completed primary

education) across

categories/# (total

number of people in

household)*100

0-9%= 0

10-24%= 2.5

25-50%= 5

50-74%= 7.5

>75%= 10

Who has completed

primary education?

(gender)

Ratio of girls (0-

15) who complete

primary education

over boys value

# of girls/# of boys

Score=

Ratio*10

If ≥1= 10

3 Example: men in household do 10 tasks (n = 10), score would be 10; if woman does 10 too and children do 8,

score would be 6; if women perform 11 tasks and children 9, score would be 3; if women do 12 tasks and

children do 10 too; it would be zero if both of the above apply (women and children overwork) or are worse

(women do 20 things and children 15)

36

Who in your family

usually has the final say

on the following

decisions:

Level of mutual

decision making

For each question asked

options include: You,

your partner, you and

your partner jointly,

someone else

You= 10

Your partner=

5

You and your

partner

jointly= 10

Someone else=

0

Final score=

average of

score for

each

applicable

question

12.6

Investment in

human capital

Which have been your

largest expenditures in

the last year?

Rank given to

‘education’

expenditure item

1,2,3,4,5, none

If rank=1,= 10

rank 2,= 8

ranked 3= 6

ranked 4= 4

ranked 5= 2

If not

mentioned= 0

13. Reasonably

profitable

Farmers and farm

workers earn a

liveable wage;

agriculture sector

does not rely on

distortionary

subsidies

13.1 Financial

support

Have you needed

financial support over

the past 5 years?’

Financial support Yes/ No Yes= 0

No= 10

13.2 Non-farm

income

generating

activities

(IGAs)

Do you have any non-

farm Income

Generating Activities?

Non-farm IGAs

Yes, all year,

Yes, seasonally, Yes,

occasionally No

Yes, all year=

10,

Yes,

seasonally= 7,

yes,

occasionally=

3

No= 0

13.3 Market

prices/ costs

Describe the most

important products you

sell

Whether selling

prices are too high,

too low, stable or

unpredictable

Price options for each

product sold, # of

products sold

Options considered:

Too high, Fluctuating,

Too low and Stable

(others do not count)

If

Too low= 0

Fluctuating= 2

If too high= 5

If stable=10

Average across

the products

sold

Often= 10

Sometimes= 5

Very

rarely/never =

0

Which have been your

largest expenditures last

year?

What are the

major costs to the

household

Categorize into capacity

expenditures and less

worthwhile costs

0= 0, 1= 5, 2=

7, 3+= 10

13.4 Insurance

Are your crops and

livestock ensured

against loss?

Whether livestock

and crops are

protected by

insurance

Yes/ No (for both

livestock and crops)

Yes= 10, No=

0 (average of

the

two if they

have both

crops and

livestock)

13.5 Savings

Do you have more

saving than 5 years

ago?

Whether savings

have increased Yes/ No

Yes= 10, No=

0

Do you have savings?

Whether the

household has

financial savings?

Yes/ No Yes= 10, No=

0

37

Rank by importance the

major productive assets

that you own

Existence of

accumulated non-

financial savings

Land

Livestock

Seeds

Buildings

Equipment

Others

1= 4

2= 7

3+= 10