ALM UNDP

In 2008 it was too early to derive any results and learning from project.

Key lessons learned:

1. Develop institutional capacities and policy frameworks at national and local levels: Development of institutional capacities and policy frameworks at national and local levels is necessary. Effective local and national government leadership and institutional and legal framework are needed to coordinate and guide adaptation. Observations from Chiredzi district show a lack of capacity and leadership in local government around climate change adaptation. As a result, stakeholders have high expectations on the project to address some of the skills, knowledge, awareness, coordination and general capacity gaps to sustainably address climate challenges in the country. Strong local institutions are a critical success factor for adaptation. Environmental change is dynamic, so new challenges will always be emerging. These challenges require well-resourced institutions. For example, the presence of Chiredzi Research Station is quite strategic in the development of new technologies relevant to the biophysical conditions of the district and beyond. But the institution needs resources and human capacity to carry out this role.
2. Use bottom-up and participatory processes in project design: Bottom-up project design and participatory processes are crucial for strong ownership and adaptation responses acceptable to the local and cultural context. Stakeholder participation in climate risk analysis and identification of response strategies was critical. Stakeholders generated a shared understanding of the climate risk context of project area. It also enhanced ownership of the solutions and acceptance of the project. The process involved using problem tree analysis to help communities identify why they were vulnerable to drought. The exercise was revealing and useful in guiding the selection of adaptation measures for the project areas. It was also possible at this stage to identify those solutions that are culturally not acceptable. The community participatory climate risk analysis made it possible to generate more information on the temporal and spatial dynamics of drought and its impacts in the project area than could be obtained from modelling per se.
3. Identify adaptation responses on the basis of assessments/analysis and evidence: Identification of adaptation response on basis of assessments/analysis and evidence is good practice. The adaptation response strategy was identified through a process of climate risk assessment. The climate risk and vulnerability assessments revealed the hazards profile, dominant livelihood strategies, dominant land use options and the sensitivity of the livelihood systems to past and future climate change scenarios. Drought was ranked as the most important hazard and, crop failure, livestock deaths and loss of income were dentified as the most important drought related risks in the project area. Future climate change scenarios for the project area showed rising temperatures and possible modification of the rainfall pattern, but not necessarily drier conditions. Downscaled climate change scenarios for the project area suggested that climate change could also bring some opportunities (heavy rainfall events) that need to be captured by project beneficiaries.
4. Learn from past interventions: Building on past interventions, the project has resisted the temptation to re-invent the wheel, and has sought to improve or resuscitate interventions that were known to work in the area such as Campfire. Additionally, crop trials have focused on extending the work of Chiredzi Research Station, SEDAP, the Challenge Programme and NGOs working in the area. Another illustration of lessons learned from past interventions being taken on board, is in eliminating irrigation development due to cost and technical feasibility considerations for the target area. Once the climate risks were understood, a decision was made that rain-fed crop and livestock production as a climate resilient technique would be more socially acceptable, cost-effective and technically feasible. As a result, and instead of investing in irrigation, water and soil conservation techniques are being piloted.
5. Farmer-managed demonstrations are an effective way of trying adaptation measures: There is merit in exposing farmers to as many options as possible. In the project, farmers have been exposed to a range of strategies within the crop sector, and also some outside crops. Farmer managed demonstrations are the best way to do this, since it will make it possible to answer important evaluation questions, on: what works, why and under what circumstances. Such information will be policy relevant for upscaling promising adaptation strategies. The crops pilot demonstration projects clearly showed the importance of farmer managed trials, since it was possible to screen technologies that will not be easily adopted by farmers because of the constraining farmers' circumstances. The project exposed farmers to many adaptation options to choose from. Some interventions such as "basins" for infield rainwater harvesting were jettisoned by the farmers themselves because they are labour intensive and not appropriate for households were labour is a constraint and draught power was available.
6. Make monitoring and evaluation a priority: Monitoring and evaluation is crucial but challenging. Evaluating project impact on protecting/improving livelihoods against the effect of drought requires taking the (dynamic) climate baseline into account. This can be done via monitoring of conditions in a control group.