sharp: integrating a traditional survey with participatory self-evaluation … · 2021. 2. 8. · 1...
TRANSCRIPT
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