• Energy Research
• FR close
• IR close
• CGIAR close

This document contains a review of global digital resources relevant to climate-informed agroecological transitions. The purpose of the review was to catalog relevant digital resources and assess their role in inclusive knowledge development, with special attention to farmers’ co-creation of knowledge for on-the-ground practices. To this end, we identified existing digital tools relevant to technical advisory and performance assessment and reviewed their functions (i.e., the purpose of using a tool) against indicators for exemplary features (i.e., the channels in which a user can engage with the tool) that could support socially inclusive, climate-informed agroecological transitions.<br><br> Metodology:To evaluate exemplary features of agricultural digital tools – defined here as an app, online resource (not platforms), or other software available on a digital device (e.g., phone, smartphone, computer, etc.), including those that are language, audio, and visually based – we developed 87 indicators (see Indicators Explained) relating to seven categories: (i) performance assessment, (ii) technological specifications, (iii) social inclusion and co-creation, (iv) scaling, (v) climate change adaptation, mitigation and whether the tool calculates greenhouse gas emissions, and (vi) agroecological principles Exemplariness was defined in this review as best fitting the requirements of the target users and best addressing agroecological and climate change mitigation and/or adaption outcomes. All indicators for categories i-v were developed and validated via several rounds of internal reviews and expert consultations. The 12 agroecological indicators (i.e., principles) were adopted and refined from the FAO 10 Elements of Agroecology (FAO, 2018), HLPE (HLPE, 2019) and TAPE (FAO, 2019) reports. Sixty (60) tools were selected for a full review against the 87 indicators based on their applicability to provide technical advisory and/or performance assessment on climate-informed agroecological transitions. Tools were classified as technical advisory resources if they delivered any recommendations regarding farming practices and as performance assessment resources if they included review of farm status or operations. Tools were mostly identified via Google searches, expert interviews, and platforms such as the CGIAR Evidence Clearing House and Digital Agri Hub. Each tool was reviewed by one analyst by accessing the tool, when available, or by reviewing materials online. A second analyst validated individual indicator responses when subjectivity in responses was an issue. Indicators were marked as ‘unknown’ when subjectivity in responses persisted or when information was not available.

The Global Yield Gap Atlas project (GYGA - http://yieldgap.org ) has undertaken a yield gap assessment following the protocol recommended by van Ittersum et. al. (van Ittersum et. al., 2013). This datafile holds the results for rainfed soybean.

<p align="justify"> This dataset contains the files produced in the implementation of the “Integrated Monitoring Framework for Climate-Smart Agriculture” in the Hoima Climate Smart Village (Uganda) in October 2021. </br> <br> This monitoring framework developed by CCAFS is meant to be deployed annually across the global network of Climate-Smart Villages to gather field-based evidence by tracking the progress on: </br> <ul> <li> adoption of CSA practices and technologies, as well as access to climate information services and </li> <li> their related impacts at household level and farm level </li> </ul> The CSA framework allows to address three key research questions: </br> <ol> <li value="1"> Who within each CSV community adopts which CSA technologies and practices and which are their motivations, enabling factors? To which extent farmers access and use climate information services? </li value="1"> </br> <li value="2"> Which is the gender-disaggregated perceived effects of CSA options on farmers’ livelihood, agricultural, food security and adaptive capacity, and on key gender dimensions (participation in decision making, participation in CSA implementation and dis-adoption, control and access over resources and labour). </li value="2"> </br> <li value="3"> Which are the CSA performance, synergies and trade-offs found at farm level? </li value="3"> <br> The CSA framework proposes a small set of standard Core Indicators linked to the research questions, and Extended indicators covering aspects related to the enabling environment. At household level (17 Core indicators): </br> <br> <ul> <li type="circle"> 7 Core Uptake indicators (they track CSA Implementation and adoption drivers; CSA dis-adoption and drivers; Access to climate information services and agro-advisories, Capacity to use them and constraining factors). </li type="circle"> <li type="circle"> 10 Core Outcome indicators (they track farmers perceptions on the effects of CSA practices on their Livelihoods, Food Security and Adaptive Capacity and on Gender dimensions). </li type="circle"> </br> </ul> Those include namely: CSA effect on yield/production, on Income, on Improved Food Access and Food Diversity, on Vulnerability to weather related shocks and on Changes in agricultural activities induced by access to climate information. Four are Gender related Outcome indicators (Decision-making on CSA implementation or dis-adoption, Participation in CSA implementation, CSA effect on labour, Decision making and control on CSA generated income). </ul> </br> <br> <ul> <li type="circle"> An additional set of complementary Extended indicators allows to determine and track changes in enabling conditions and farmers characteristics such as: Livelihood security, Financial enablers, Food security, Frequency of climate events, Coping strategies, Risk Mitigation Actions, Access to financial services and Training, CSA Knowledge and Learning. </li type="circle"> </ul> </br> <br> At farm level, 7 CORE indicators </br> <br> <ul> <li type="circle"> 7 Core indicators are used to determine the CSA performance of the farms as well as synergies and trade-offs among the three pillars (productivity, adaptation and mitigation, via farm model analysis). </li type="circle"> </ul> </br> </ol> This integrated framework (Bonilla-Findji et al 2021).is associated with a cost-effective data collection App (Geofarmer) that allowed capturing information in almost real time </br> <br> The survey questionnaire is structured around different thematic modules (M1A Demographic, M1B Farming system, M1C Financial services, M2 Climate events, M3, Climate Information Services, M4 Food Security, M5 CSA practices; Farm Calculator, Crop calculator and Animal Calculator) whose questions allow assessing standard CSA metrics and the specific. /<br>

The Global Yield Gap Atlas project (GYGA - http://yieldgap.org ) has undertaken a yield gap assessment following the protocol recommended by van Ittersum et. al. (van Ittersum et. al., 2013). This datafile holds the results for rainfed sorghum.

The date sets compiled and analyzed the gender and social aspects of development and related policies in Vietnam’s Mekong River Delta.

This chapter focuses on the evaluation of adaptive capacities of community-level human systems related to agriculture and food security. It highlights findings regarding approaches and domains to monitor and evaluate behavioral changes from CGIAR’s research program on climate change, agriculture and food security (CCAFS). This program, implemented in five West African countries, is intended to enhance adaptive capacities in agriculture management of natural resources and food systems. In support of participatory action research on climate-smart agriculture, a monitoring and evaluation plan was designed with the participation of all stakeholders to track changes in behavior of the participating community members. Individuals’ and groups’ stories of changes were collected using most significant change tools. The collected stories of changes were substantiated through field visits and triangulation techniques. Frequencies of the occurrence of characteristics of behavioral changes in the stories were estimated. The results show that smallholder farmers in the intervention areas adopted various characteristics of behavior change grouped into five domains: knowledge, practices, access to assets, partnership and organization. These characteristics can help efforts to construct quantitative indicators of climate change adaptation at local level. Further, the results suggest that application of behavioral change theories can facilitate the development of climate change adaptation indicators that are complementary to indicators of development outcomes. We conclude that collecting stories on behavioral changes can contribute to biophysical adaptation monitoring and evaluation.

SLOs are the CGIAR's highest level goals, aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). To access CGIAR's Strategy and Results Framework

Short reports describing the contribution of CGIAR research to development outcomes and impact

Field evaluation of breeding lines developed for drought tolerance for adaptation, yield, response to field diseases and agronomic quality