climate

Article
Adoption and Dissemination Pathways for
Climate-Smart Agriculture Technologies and
Practices for Climate-Resilient Livelihoods
in Lushoto, Northeast Tanzania
Mary Nyasimi 1, *, Philip Kimeli 1 , George Sayula 2 , Maren Radeny 1 , James Kinyangi 3
and Catherine Mungai 1
1 CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security, P.O. Box 30709-00100 Nairobi,
Kenya; p.kimeli@cgiar.org (P.K.); m.radeny@cgiar.org (M.R.); c.mungai@cgiar.org (C.M.)
2 Selian Agricultural Research Institute; P.O. Box 6024 Arusha, Tanzania; gsayula@hotmail.com
3 African Development Bank, Avenue Joseph Anoma, 01 BP 1387 Abidjan 01, Cote d’Ivoire;
j.kinyangi@afdb.org
* Correspondence: m.nyasimi@cgiar.org

Academic Editors: Bruce A. McCarl and Jianhong E. Mu

Received: 19 June 2017; Accepted: 26 July 2017; Published: 15 August 2017

Abstract: Smallholder farmers in East Africa need information and knowledge on appropriate
climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices, technologies, and institutional innovations in order to
effectively adapt to changing climatic conditions and cope with climate variability. This paper
assesses farmer adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices and innovation after being exposed
to Farms of the Future Approach (FotF). First; we explore and assess the various CSA technologies and
practices; including institutional innovations farmers are adopting. Second; we identify and document
farmer learning and dissemination pathways that can enhance adoption of CSA technologies and
practices. Third; we identify existing institutions that enhance adoption of CSA practices. We use
household survey data, complemented by qualitative information from focus group discussions and
key informant interviews. The results show farmers are adopting a variety of CSA technologies,
practices, and institutional innovations to after participating in the FotF approach with use of
improved crop varieties, agroforestry, and scientific weather forecast information cited as the main
practices. To minimize their risks and reduce vulnerabilities, farmers are diversifying and integrating
five to 10 CSA practices in one season. Matengo pits, SACCOs, and efficient energy stoves were
adopted by very few farmers due to their high initial investment costs and unsuitability to the area.
Ninety-eight percent of farmers reported that they receive agricultural information orally from a
variety of sources including government extension workers, seed companies, researchers, traditional
experts, neighbors, radio agricultural shows, religious groups, farmer groups, and family members.
Lastly, farmers reported that the FotF approach is a useful tool that enabled them to interact with
other farmers and learn new CSA practices and innovations. Suggested improvements to make on
the FotF included include longer trip duration, increased number of farmer participants, and gender
balance and age considerations to include youth.

Keywords: gender; adoption; dissemination pathways; analogue tools; Farms of the Future;
CSA; Tanzania

1. Introduction
Projected and observed impacts of climate change on agriculture, food security, and poverty are
raising global concerns. In East Africa, small-scale agricultural production is already under pressure.

Climate 2017, 5, 63; doi:10.3390/cli5030063 www.mdpi.com/journal/climate

Climate 2017, 5, 63 2 of 22

Small-scale farmers in the region face numerous challenges, including increasingly constrained access
to land, decreased land area, and a decline in soil fertility, leading to low crop yields and poor market
access [1–3]. A growing population places further demands on food, leading to increasing food
insecurity and poverty levels [4,5]. Rural communities in East Africa mainly depend on rain-fed
small-scale agriculture for their livelihood, although it is extremely vulnerable to changes in climate
and climate variability. Changes in rainfall patterns and temperatures are altering the functioning
of agricultural landscapes in overwhelming and often destructive ways. East African farmers are,
therefore, compelled to adapt their agricultural practices to those that can build their adaptive capacity
and enhance climate resilience. Adaptive capacity is defined as the capacity of a community to
reconfigure itself in the face of climate change without substantial decreases in function [6]. It is closely
associated with the ability to learn, innovate, and cooperate in order to maximize group learning and
shared benefits. Climate resilience is the ability for an environment and people to handle, recover
from, and thrive in the face of climatic disturbances or shocks. Climate resilience in the context
of rural agricultural-dependent communities is comprised of ecological resilience, social resilience,
and economic resilience [7].
The IPCC report [8,9] project, with high confidence, an increase in rainfall, with some seasons
experiencing intensive droughts. These changes in rainfall patterns, temperature, and other extreme
weather events are projected to increase crop failures, pest and disease outbreaks, and degradation of
land and water resources in East Africa [8,9]. These impacts are likely to hit rural communities hard
because of their high dependence on rain-fed agriculture, coupled with low adaptive capacity [10].
Increasing climate uncertainties are also likely to lead to risk-averse behavior among farmers, forcing
them to depend on low-input and low-risk agricultural technologies. Small-scale subsistence farmers
have been identified as the most vulnerable to climate change in East Africa. Their vulnerabilities make
the effects of climate change to be far-reaching with potential negative effects on future generations.
For these farmers to adapt to climate variability, while at the same time preparing for the future climatic
changes, they must improve their adaptive capacities in terms of knowledge and skills.
In order to adapt to changing climate conditions and other challenges, farmers in East Africa have
been making changes to their agricultural practices. The changes in agricultural practices are targeting
both crop and livestock production and include use of new crop varieties and animal breeds, soil and
land management practices, water conservation technologies, and improved fodder production [11].
These technologies and practices are expected to boost adaptive capacity, food security, and contribute
to climate change mitigation in resource-poor smallholder farming systems of East Africa, referred
to as climate-smart agriculture (CSA) technologies. FAO defines CSA as agriculture that sustainably
increases productivity, resilience (adaptation), reduces/removes GHGs (mitigation), and enhances
achievement of national food security and development goals [12]. CSA encompasses a set of practices
that are suitable to local climatic, socioeconomic, and cultural conditions.
In Lushoto, located in northern Tanzania, households are already adapting to changing climatic
conditions [13]. While the results from this research do not conclusively link adaptation strategies to
climate change, it was cited as a key driving factor. The magnitude of behavioral change, however,
appears to be limited to farming practices that are fairly easy to undertake without major disruptions
to the farming system or substantial changes to land, labor, or water allocation.
With the farming systems in East Africa already facing unparalleled pressures from different
factors, new learning processes, knowledge, and tools are desperately needed. In particular, increasing
climate variability coupled with dire predictions further reinforces the need for farmer training and
knowledge to enable them build their adaptive capacity.

1.1. Climate Analogues and Farms of the Future Approach

In order to prepare for changing climatic conditions and strengthen their adaptive capacity,
farmers need to understand what their future climate is likely to be. According to [14], 30 percent
of the world’s climates are expected to be completely novel under climate change, thus 70 percent
Climate 2017, 5, 63 3 of 22

of expected future climates already exist somewhere else on the globe. The spatial and temporal
variability in climate can be used of understanding what the future holds for a particular site. Farmers
can start preparing for their future climate by learning from what their future climate is likely to
be. The Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Research Program on
Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) has developed a climate-analogue tool that
can be used to connect sites with statistically similar climates (analogous) across space and/or time
(see [15] for a detailed description of the tool).
The Farms of the Future (FotF) approach uses the CCAFS climate-analogue tool to connect farmers
to their possible future climates through farmer-to-farmer exchanges between spatial analogue sites.
Spatial analogues refer to areas whose climate today appears to be similar to the future projected
climate of another location. Linking farmers to areas experiencing their plausible future climate can
facilitate knowledge sharing and learning, and provide opportunities for transferring technologies
and innovations that can improve farmers’ adaptive capacities.
Since smallholder farmers are already experiencing the impacts of climate change, it is expected
that adoption and diffusion of climate-resilient agricultural technologies will be brisk. However, several
studies have documented that adoption and subsequent diffusion (the process of communicating a
new technology through various dissemination ways) of agricultural technologies is complex due
to a number of reasons including uncertainty, cost and benefits of the technology, gender, social
capital, socio-cultural practices, high costs of labor, access to markets, and credit among others [16–18].
Other studies have shown that learning through farm visits, farmer-to farmer interactions, and informal
social networks greatly influence a farmers’ decision to adopt new agricultural technologies [19]. Thus,
the relationship between farmers will determine when and how information will be disseminated
and whether the technology will be adopted. For example, farmer-to-farmer information sharing
is more effective in persuading an individual to accept a new practice due to their close and daily
interactions, while mass media such as radio and television are an efficient way to create awareness of
agricultural technology [20,21]. The FotF approach is structured in such a way that it is supposed to
trigger farmers to learn, share, and adopt new climate-resilient agricultural practices and technologies.
This is because farmers who participate in the FotF learn new technologies from farmers who are
already experiencing their future climate. Additionally, farmers who participate in the FotF learning
experience are supposed to be instrumental in communicating and disseminating the CSA practices
that they have learned.
The first pilot of the FotF approach in East Africa was carried out in 2012 in Lushoto, Tanzania by
a team from the Natural Resources Institute—University of Greenwich, in collaboration with CCAFS,
Tanzania’s Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), and the African Highlands Initiative [22],
Lushoto is located in the Northern Tanzania highlands and is one of six CCAFS sites in East Africa
(Figure 1). The CCAFS climate-analogue tool was used to identify plausible alternative future climate
(spatial analogue) sites for Lushoto—sites with a current climate similar to the projected future climate
of Lushoto.
Fifteen farmers from two villages (Yamba and Mbuzii), including both men and women, and
five key agricultural innovation systems (AIS) stakeholders from Lushoto took part in a 10-day
learning journey to several sites including Morogoro, Mufindi, Njombe, and Mbinga in the Southern
Highlands (see Figure 2). AIS stakeholders are partners with a vested interest in addressing a common
problem and identifying solutions that are technically feasible, socio-culturally, and economically
acceptable [23–26]. The farmers were selected based on a criteria developed by the community
that included gender balance, different ages, farmers involved in CCAFS activities, and who had
been interviewed during the CCAFS baseline survey [27]. The AIS actors were drawn from different
economic sectors including tourism, agricultural input dealers, community development organizations,
and the agricultural and livestock sectors.
Climate 2017, 5, 63 4 of 22
Climate 2017, 5, 63 4 of 22

Figure 1. Location of study site.

Figure 1. Location of study site.

During the learning journey, farmers and the AIS stakeholders were exposed to various CSA
During the
technologies andlearning journey,
institutional farmers and
innovations for the AIS stakeholders
adaptation and risk were exposed with
management to various CSA
five major
technologies and institutional innovations for adaptation and risk management with
stops (Figure 2). The CSA technologies that farmers were exposed to included crop breeding, soil five major stops
(Figure 2). The
and water CSA technologies
management, tree andthat coffee
farmersnurseries,
were exposed
fish to included
rearing, crop breeding,
bee-keeping, andsoil and water
growing of
management, tree and coffee nurseries, fish rearing, bee-keeping, and growing of
avocado, banana and maize. The institutional innovations included markets, value chains, input avocado, banana and
maize.
supply The institutional
systems, savingsinnovations
and credit included
cooperativesmarkets, value chains,
(SACCOs), energy input supplyand
production systems, savings
conservation
and
(biogas, improved stoves, tree nursery), and community weather stations Some of the farmersstoves,
credit cooperatives (SACCOs), energy production and conservation (biogas, improved were
tree nursery),
trained and community
in amateur filming andweather stationsskills
photographic Someandof the farmers
were werewith
provided trained in amateur
handheld filming
flip cameras
and photographic
to document skills and
the learning weretoprovided
process with handheld
enable sharing flip cameras
of their learning to document
experiences the learning
with other farmers
process to enable sharing of their learning experiences with
within their communities who did not participate in the learning journey.other farmers within their communities
who did not participate in the learning journey.
Climate 2017, 5, 63 5 of 22
Climate 2017, 5, 63 5 of 22

Figure 2. Map of Tanzania showing the different places that the farmers visited during the exchange
Figure 2. Map of Tanzania showing the different places that the farmers visited during the
visit.
exchange visit.
1.2. Objectives
1.2. Objectives
Effective climate change adaptation requires appropriate technological and institutional
innovations,
Effective including
climate an enabling
change policy environment
adaptation that can reduce
requires appropriate the farmer’s vulnerability
technological to
and institutional
climate-related risks by creating economic opportunities that build livelihoods
innovations, including an enabling policy environment that can reduce the farmer’s vulnerability and increase
resilience [28]. An effective adaptation strategy needs to adequately address physical and biological
to climate-related risks by creating economic opportunities that build livelihoods and increase
impacts of climate change, as well as local people’s norms, values, and tolerance of conditions and
resilience [28]. An effective adaptation strategy needs to adequately address physical and biological
risk [29]. At the heart of climate change adaptation is farmers’ access to information about
impacts of climate
appropriate change, that
innovations as well as local
provide people’s
resilience in thenorms,
face of values, and tolerance
climate variability of conditions
and change. Indeed, and
risk [29]. At the heart of climate change adaptation is farmers’ access to information
creating an environment and opportunities where farmers can learn from other farmers who about appropriate
are
innovations
currentlythat provide resilience
experiencing in the
their plausible faceclimatic
future of climate variability
conditions and change.
can increase Indeed,
their future creating
adaptive
an environment
capacity. and opportunities where farmers can learn from other farmers who are currently
experiencingThe their
learning journeyfuture
plausible exposed farmersconditions
climatic and the AIScanstakeholders from Lushoto
increase their to their plausible
future adaptive capacity.
future climate and the potential technological and institutional ways of adapting
The learning journey exposed farmers and the AIS stakeholders from Lushoto to their plausible to these changes.
futureThis studyand
climate is a follow-up
the potentialof the FotF pilot in and
technological Tanzania and examines
institutional waystheof effectiveness
adapting toof the FotF
these changes.
approach as a mechanism for enhancing adaptation learning and identifies promising information
This study is a follow-up of the FotF pilot in Tanzania and examines the effectiveness of the FotF
dissemination pathways. First, we explore and assess the various CSA technologies and institutional
approach as a mechanism for enhancing adaptation learning and identifies promising information
innovations farmers have adopted after the learning journey. Second, we identify and document
dissemination pathways.
farmer learning First, we explore
and dissemination and assess
pathways that canthe various
enhance CSA technologies
adoption and institutional
of CSA technologies and
innovations
practices.farmers
Third, we have adopted
identify after
existing the learning
institutions journey.
that enhance Second,
adoption we identify
of CSA practices.and
The document
paper
farmer learning
addresses andspecific
three dissemination pathways that can enhance adoption of CSA technologies and
research questions:
practices. Third, we identify existing institutions that enhance adoption of CSA practices. The paper
• What CSA practices are farmers adopting after the learning journey?
addresses
• threefactors
What specific research
hinder questions:
farmers from adopting CSA technologies and practices?
• What dissemination pathways are farmers using to share information on CSA?
• What CSA practices are farmers adopting after the learning journey?
• What factors hinder farmers from adopting CSA technologies and practices?
• What dissemination pathways are farmers using to share information on CSA?
Climate 2017, 5, 63 6 of 22

Climate 2017, 5, 63 6 of 22
2. Methodology
2. Methodology
As discussed in Section 1.2, this study was conducted in last quarter of 2015 in Lushoto in Tanzania
(FigureAs1).discussed
Lushotoin is Section
one of the 1.2, six
thisCCAFS
study wassitesconducted
in East Africa
in lastwhere
quarterresearchers,
of 2015 in local partners,
Lushoto in
Tanzania (Figure 1). Lushoto is one of the six CCAFS sites in East Africa where
and farmers are working together to evaluate a portfolio of CSA interventions. The aim of these researchers, local
partners,
strategic and farmers is
partnerships are toworking
improvetogether
farmers’ toincome
evaluateand
a portfolio of CSA
resilience interventions.
to climatic risks andTheboost
aim of
their
theseto
ability strategic
adapt to partnerships is to improve farmers’ income and resilience to climatic risks and boost
climate change.
their ability to
Lushoto is adapt
part ofto the
climate change.Mountains and is a global hotspot for biodiversity. With its
Usambara
Lushoto is part of the Usambara
excellent climatic conditions, Lushoto attracts Mountains andfarming
not only is a global hotspot forbut
communities biodiversity. With
also tourists. its
Lushoto
excellent climatic conditions, Lushoto attracts not only farming communities
is characterized by two agro-climatic zones—humid warm and humid cold zones. The annual but also tourists.
Lushoto is characterized by two agro-climatic zones—humid warm and humid cold zones. The
rainfall pattern is bimodal, ranging from 1200 to 1300 mm per year. However, these amounts have
annual rainfall pattern is bimodal, ranging from 1200 to 1300 mm per year. However, these amounts
been decreasing over time, as indicated in Figure 3 [30,31]. The wet seasons are March–May and
have been decreasing over time, as indicated in Figure 3 [30,31]. The wet seasons are March–May
October–December each year. The mean annual temperature is 16 ◦ C, with a humidity of 70% [30,31].
and October–December each year. The mean annual temperature is 16 °C, with a humidity of 70%
Lushoto’s landscape is highly heterogeneous, with diverse micro eco-zones within a relatively small
[30,31]. Lushoto’s landscape is highly heterogeneous, with diverse micro eco-zones within a
area and characterized by very hilly slopes with wide valley bottoms.
relatively small area and characterized by very hilly slopes with wide valley bottoms.

Figure 3. Lushoto long-term annual rainfall trend (1922–2012).

Figure 3. Lushoto long-term annual rainfall trend (1922–2012).

Lushoto is among the most densely populated rural districts in Tanzania, with an average
Lushoto
property is among
size of aboutthetwo
most densely
acres populated rural
per household. districts in
The majority ofTanzania,
farmers in with an average
Lushoto dependproperty
on
size of about two acres per household. The majority of farmers in Lushoto depend
subsistence crop production for their livelihood, including fruits and vegetables. The higher on subsistence
crop production
elevation for characterized
areas are their livelihood, including
by mixed crop fruits and vegetables.
and livestock, The higher
and intensive farming elevation
systems,areas
whileare
the lower elevation
characterized by mixed areas
cropare
andcharacterized by intensive
livestock, and agro-pastoral farming
farming systems
systems, thatthe
while arelower
intensively
elevation
cropped
areas with a varietybyofagro-pastoral
are characterized vegetables throughout the year.that
farming systems Soilare
erosion is a huge
intensively challenge
cropped withmainly
a variety
due to the steep terrain, deforestation, and high population pressure.
of vegetables throughout the year. Soil erosion is a huge challenge mainly due to the steep terrain,
This paper
deforestation, anduses
highquantitative data from household surveys, complemented with qualitative
population pressure.
information from community-level
This paper uses quantitative data focus group
from discussions
household (FGDs)
surveys, from four villages
complemented with and key
qualitative
informant interviews. A mixed-methods approach (quantitative and
information from community-level focus group discussions (FGDs) from four villages andqualitative) addresses thekey
informant interviews. A mixed-methods approach (quantitative and qualitative) addressesinthe
complexity of understanding farmers’ perceptions and ensures the study was comprehensive
both breadth and depth [32–34]. The use of both qualitative and quantitative methods led to
complexity of understanding farmers’ perceptions and ensures the study was comprehensive in both
cross-checking multiple data sources to increase trust in the validity of the study conclusions [35]. Of
breadth and depth [32–34]. The use of both qualitative and quantitative methods led to cross-checking
the four villages, two were those where some of farmers participated in the FotF learning journey
multiple data sources to increase trust in the validity of the study conclusions [35]. Of the four
(Yamba and Mbuzii) while the other two, Gare and Kwang’wenda, are adjacent/neighboring to the
Climate 2017, 5, 63 7 of 22

villages, two were those where some of farmers participated in the FotF learning journey (Yamba and
Mbuzii) while the other two, Gare and Kwang’wenda, are adjacent/neighboring to the villages that
participated in the learning journey. We hypothesize that farmers who participated in the learning
journey were more likely to start sharing their learning experiences with farmers within their villages
and neighboring villages (i.e., people they are familiar with). The targeted sample size per village
was 20 households, totaling 80 households from the four target villages, including the 15 households
who participated in the learning journey from the two villages, and taking into account gender
balance. However, this was a voluntary study and households that did not participate in the FotF
could pull out at any point. Therefore, we increased the sample size to 22 households per village
and, as predicted, seven households pulled out mid-way, leaving the study with a total sample of
81 households. The household survey collected information on household characteristics, types of
CSA practices and their benefits, CSA practices that farmers learned on the FotF trip, who is using and
not using and why, and sources and types of information on CSA. All 15 farmers and AIS stakeholders
who participated in the FotF journey were interviewed using both closed and open-ended questions.
The open-ended questions enabled the farmers to express their views when they felt that they had not
satisfactorily responded in the closed ended questions, thus allowing the researcher to discover and
note new responses that farmers gave instinctively.
Information on farmers’ perception on the FotF as a learning tool was collected through FGDs.
Planning for the FGDs was done through the village elders who informed the selected participants
from the list of CCAFS baseline. Three FGDs were conducted with three different groups of farmers:
15 participants of mixed gender for the farmers who took part in the learning trip and separate
groups for men and women who did not participate in the learning trip. FGDs averaged 20 farmers.
Information collected from the FGDs included lessons learnt, challenges, what CSA practices and
institutional innovations the farmers have started implementing after the learning journey, how farmers
shared what they learnt with other farmers, and whether farmers adopted what was shared, including
modifications on the CSA practices. Questions used in the FGDs were tailored for the FotF and the
non-FotF farmers. This is because the FotF participants were to share what they experiences were
before, during and after the climate journey. The non-FotF farmers responded to questions on their
experiences from what they had learned from FotF farmers.
During FGDs, we incorporated cobweb network mapping to enable farmers to visualize the
different sources of information on CSA practices and technologies. In each FGD, farmers listed all
the sources of information and ranked them according to their importance. The ranking ranged from
one to five, with one being the least important source of information and five the most important
information source. The cobweb mapping exercise, which is easy to draw and visualize, enabled
farmers to discuss and agree amongst themselves on the value of a particular source of information
after which they adjusted accordingly.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characteristics of the Study Population

Over 80 percent of the households interviewed were male-headed, with an average household
size of 4.8 people (Table 1). The dependency ratio is about 0.4, suggesting that most of the population
in Lushoto falls within the working group. Most of the households had at least one member who
had attained primary education (i.e., at least seven years of schooling in Tanzania). Slightly more
than one-quarter of the households had members who had completed secondary school education,
with very few households having members who had completed tertiary education.
Climate 2017, 5, 63 8 of 22

Table 1. Household characteristics.

Demographic Characteristics Percent of Households (n = 81)

Sex of respondent (%)
Male 66.7
Female 33.3
Household type (%)
Male headed 82.7
Female headed 17.3
Highest level of formal education of any household member (%)
None 4.9
Primary (eight years of elementary education) 61.7
Secondary (our years of high school) 27.2
Tertiary (post-high school training) 6.2
Average household size
Number of persons in a household 4.8
Number of young dependents (<5 years) 0.59
Number of people of working age (5–60 years) 3.7
Number of old dependents (>60 years) 0.54
Dependency ratio 1 0.31
1 Dependency Ratio is a measure of the portion of a population which is composed of dependents (people who are
too young or too old to work)—expressed as Dependency Ratio = (<5 + >60)/(>5 + <60) × 100. The ratio is equal
to the number of individuals aged under 5 or above 60 divided by the number of individuals aged 5 to 60, can be
expressed as a percentage. This indicator gives insight into the number of people of non-working age compared to
the number of those of working age. A high ratio means those of working age—and the overall economy—face a
greater burden in supporting the aging population.

3.2. Uptake of CSA Technologies and Practices

The 15 farmers and AIS stakeholders who took part in the 10-day learning journey were exposed
to various CSA technologies, practices, and institutional innovations (Figure 2):

• Soil and water conservation practices: Use of Matengo pits (a traditional soil and water conservation
technique), irrigation and terracing, early planting, intercropping, and minimum tillage;
• Forestry innovations and environmental conservation strategies: Establishment and management of
a tree nursery, fruit trees, agroforestry trees, construction of terraces that are reinforced with
drought tolerant fodder grasses strips, coffee seedling nurseries and biodigesters;
• Cropping innovations and livelihood diversification: Intensive cropping of cloves, black pepper, potato
trials, avocado, and coffee varieties, a coffee nursery and bee-keeping;
• Improving access to finance through collective action: Establishment of a savings and credit (SACCOS)
group, a scheme that has enabled farmers to pool resources and bargain for better prices;
• Weather information services: A community managed weather station, where farmers collect climate
data, which is then shared with the Tanzania Meteorological Agency (TMA). This community
managed weather station raised the farmers’ consciousness of the changing climate and the
importance of integrating indigenous knowledge and scientific weather forecasts as well as
develop strategies to support TMA to gather climate data from the local level.

Consideration of the above practices is based on the three pillars of CSA that seeks to address
demand for increasing agricultural productivity and incomes, building social-ecological resilience of
livelihood systems to climate change, while minimizing agriculture’s contribution to greenhouse gas
emissions [36,37] (see Table 2 for the benefits of these practices).
Climate 2017, 5, 63 9 of 22

Table 2. Benefits that farmers observe after using various CSA technologies, practices, and institutional
innovations (for detailed description see [38]).

CSA Practice Benefits

Promotes an integrated soil, water and nutrient management by retaining water and the use of
Matengo pits crop residues to support the pits leads to improved and sustained soil fertility and crop
productivity, reduced soil erosion, and enhanced soil carbon sequestration.
Small-scale irrigation offer key opportunities for adaptation as water supplies dwindle and
Irrigation rainfall becomes more erratic. Through irrigation, farmers can diversify into high value vegetable
production thus reducing risks of crops loss and increasing incomes.
Promotes soil and water conservation, especially on steep slopes to reduce soil erosion and
Terracing increased water percolation. The terraces are reinforced with grass strips and agroforestry trees
(for timber and fruits), thus contributing to mitigation and increased incomes.
Traditional and scientific Reduces risks associated with failed seasons or variable rainfall and enable farmers to make better
weather forecasts farming decisions for improved productivity and risk management.
Establishment of deep root, drought tolerant leguminous trees that fix nitrogen and shade leaves
Agroforestry during the rainy season, providing organic residues and nutrients. Contributes to carbon
sequestration, reduced soil erosion and moisture stress, and tree products that are sold for income.
Reduces greenhouse gas emission by utilizing methane from cow dung to generate energy for
household consumption. Replaces purchase of kerosene and harvesting of trees, thus saving
Biogas and use of efficient
families income. Bioslurry is used as manure, hence increasing soil fertility. Efficient stoves are
stoves
combustion and fuel-efficient and reduce particulate air pollution, cooking time and time spent
acquiring firewood.
Composting of crop residues and organic domestic wastes is used for soil fertility and improve
Composting crop productivity. Also contributes to improved soil structure, moisture retention and reduced
emissions from application of raw animal manure.
A crop diversifying practice that is used to achieve crop diversity, reduce incidences of pest and
Crop rotation diseases of particular crop, improves soil structure and soil fertility through nitrogen fixing crops
and reduces soil erosion.
Adaptive crop varieties that are stress tolerance and disease resistance; early maturing to avoid
Drought and diseases
crop loss from shorter growing seasons or unreliable rains. This leads to improved productivity
tolerant crop varieties
and reduced risk of crop failure
Drought tolerant and Contributes towards food security and increased livestock productivity. Use of improved fodders
deeper rooted fodder leads to reduction of emissions from enteric fermentation of livestock through improved digestion.
grasses and/or legumes Increased milk production and heavier anima weight leads to more income.
Early planting and use of
Varieties that are more adapted to low and unreliable rains, and shortened growing seasons thus
early maturing crop
leading to reduced risk of crop failures.
varieties
Conserves soil moisture and control erosion through minimum soil disturbances. It improves crop
Minimal tillage
productivity and reduces soil compaction thus reducing emission
Intercrop of legume and non-legume crop and trees contributes to nitrogen fixation, improved
Intercropping water retention, reduced crop failures to drought, pest and diseases. Leaves of trees intercrop are
used as mulch and compost, thus contributing to above ground carbon sequestration.
Offers safety nets to give farmers through stronger marketing power. SACCO offers access to
SACCOs
credit to farmers to start CSA practices such as irrigation and purchase of food during droughts.
Trees nursery provide income. The planted trees increase soil fertility and can help control erosion,
Management of a tree
as well as provide fuel wood and timber, medicines and fruits. Trees can also store substantial
nursery and tree planting
amounts of carbon.
Diversification of crops, livestock (bee-keeping), trees and irrigation is potential response to
Livelihood diversification overcoming unreliable rainfall and drought. This will minimize weather-induced losses and
stabilize incomes.

Several factors influence farmers’ ability to adopt CSA practices. Among the key factors include
(a) availability and access to resources needed to use the practices such as land, labor, and financial
capital; (b) potential benefits to be accrued vis-à-vis other practices; (c) whether they have the required
skills and information to use it; (d) ability to cope with challenges that might arise during or after
using the practices; and (e) compatibility with local social and cultural practices [39,40]. For farmers
in Lushoto, the ability to adopt CSA practices is influenced by the above factors, albeit for different
technologies and practices. Table 3 summarizes the uptake of the CSA technologies and institutional
innovations by the farmers who took part in the learning journey (FotF farmers) and those who did not
participate (non-FotF farmers). Improved crop varieties, agroforestry, and scientific weather forecast
information were the main CSA practices farmers were using, with similar patterns of uptake for FotF
Climate 2017, 5, 63 10 of 22

and non-FotF farmers. Few farmers adopted the use of Matengo pits, SACCOs, efficient energy stoves,
with no significant differences between the FotF farmers and non-FotF farmers.

Table 3. Uptake of CSA practices and innovations farmers were exposed to during the learning journey.

Percent of FotF Farmers Percent of Non-FotF Overall % Using the

CSA Practices and Innovations
(n = 15) Farmers (n = 66) CSA (n = 81)
Improved crop varieties 100.0 93.9 95.1
Agroforestry 93.3 83.3 85.2
Scientific weather forecasting 73.3 66.7 67.9
Efficient stoves 26.7 27.3 27.2
Matengo pits 13.3 4.6 6.2
SACCOs 6.7 3.0 3.7
Biogas, biodigester 6.7 0.00 1.2

After learning about scientific weather forecasts during the learning journey, most farmers in
Lushoto now appreciate, and increasingly use, both indigenous knowledge and scientific weather
forecasts from TMA to plan their farming activities in a particular season, thus making better farming
decisions. Before the learning journey, most farmers mainly used indigenous knowledge weather
forecasting information provided by traditional forecasters [41]. The combination of scientific and
traditional knowledge ensures that farmers are informed on the likely date of onset of rain, the duration
and amount of rain to expect, the types and variety of crops to grow, and types of inorganic
and organic fertilizer to use and when to apply them. The weather information is packaged and
disseminated through flyers posted on community boards, shared through the church, and handed
out at community meetings.
According to one of the women farmers who participated in the learning journey:
Adapting to climate change is both a science and an art. It involves and requires engagement of
several practices, science, actions and magic . . . that is unique and probably unrepeatable elsewhere
. . . whatever I do to ensure that I have enough food for my family involve two things, that is,
farming and acquiring weather decisions such as when to prepare the land and sow seeds, what to
plant that are made and implemented by me . . . FotF participant, 2014.
The low rates of uptake for the biogas digester can be attributed to high initial capital investments.
Savings and credit cooperatives (SACCOs) are an institutional innovation that also had very low
uptake. In Tanzania, SACCOs have been known to improve the investment climate by providing
opportunities for rural people to secure returns on their savings and access to loans at affordable
interest rates [42,43] and can, therefore, contribute to risk management. SACCOs are also a form of
collective action that can help farmers, especially women, increase farm productivity and access to
credits and markets, share knowledge, information and productive assets, provide greater bargaining
power in sourcing for farm inputs, and better prices for their produce and empowerment [44]. This is
more so for women who in the absence of men, get opportunities to participate in decision-making
and take on leadership roles [44–46]. Despite its low rate of uptake in Lushoto, SACCOs can improve
the welfare of its members by providing an alternative way for farmers to save their earnings and
access loans at more affordable interest rates.
According to a female farmer:
Low crop yields due to unpredictable rains prior to the start of the growing season, diseases and
pests all affect the quantity and quality of produce we get. By joining a SACCO, at least, we will
pull our produce together and be able to market as a whole, thus reducing exploitation by middle
men/women. We also get to pool our resource together and we can get loans that can enable us
purchase seeds that can withstand less rainfall.
High membership fees (approximately Tanzania Shillings 10,000 or USD 6) and lack of
understanding of the importance of SACCOs among farmers were reported as the major limiting
Climate 2017, 5, 63 11 of 22

factors. Therefore, there is need for information and awareness among farmers on the importance of
collective action, including savings groups that can enable them to cope during seasons of low rainfall
that leads to low agricultural productivity.
One farmer (2014) noted that:
We need to start saving for the future of our children because our rainfall patterns are changing
and our children might not rely solely on farming to survive. We need to start building assets that
do not rely on rainfall. Investment in non-farming activities can provide our children with a soft
cushion to land on during lean periods. Through SACCOs, we can start saving little amounts each
week or month. But the membership fee is rather high especially for women households that do not
have husbands. Maybe such women can be supported by financial organizations and given loans to
start non-farming activities.
Other farmers concurred that through their SACCO, they have been able to improve their
price bargaining power especially for farmers who are growing vegetables on the valley bottoms.
The SACCO is enabling the members to have a collective voice and access ago-advisory information
especially during their meetings.
According to the chairperson of the SACCO that has 19 members:
Our SACCO is relatively new and we are muddling through the process to ensure that it is
functional. But we have greater incentive to make it work because all the members know each other,
their interests in agriculture, and we can adapt the SACCO to reflect our members changing needs
and circumstances. Our focus is to improve our member’s livelihoods as the climate is changing.
Other CSA practices farmers were exposed to, such as bee-keeping, fish farming in ponds, and
agricultural value addition enterprises that can generate income, have not been taken up by farmers in
Lushoto. For example, FotF participants learned about food processing, however, none of them have
started a food processing enterprise. Farmers cited lack of knowledge on value addition enterprises,
bee-keeping and fish farming, implying the need for follow-up training and support to farmers through
the extension systems.
According to a woman farmer:
I needed more information on some of the technologies that we learned during the journey to
facilitate me and other farmers to start it on our farms. We didn’t spend sufficient time on the
journey to learn in-depth about the technologies and hence most farmers are reluctant to take the
risk. For instance, I do not know where to get beehives and unfortunately I have not contacted the
District Agricultural officer.
Farmers who were not using scientific weather information cited unreliability and inaccessibility
of weather information as the main reason. Women particularly reported a lack of adequate weather
information to plan for their farming activities. Moreover, weather information is usually passed on to
the women through their husbands or village chiefs, and, in most cases, they do not know how to use
the information. While there are multiple initiatives in East Africa that are aimed at producing and
delivering climate information services for farmers [47,48], many challenges still remain in terms of
accurate and timely weather and climate forecasts to support farmers efforts to adapt to a changing
climate and increasing climate risks.
A young woman reported that:
“I have heard that we will have less rainfall this year. But what does that mean? What crops should I
plant when we have less rain? That is a difficult question to answer because the information provided
is not enough to assist me to plan what crops to grow, when, what fertilizer to use, what livestock
should I save since I might not have enough water for the animals”.
During FGDs interactions, farmers expressed the importance of integrating traditional and
scientific weather forecasting and packaging it in a user friendly way. To be effective for
Climate 2017, 5, 63 12 of 22

farmers, the weather forecast information (indigenous and scientific forecasts) should be timely
and complimented with agro-advisories such as crop suitability, cultivar selection, planting date,
planting density, weeding, water management, pests and diseases, and fertilizing [49].
After learning about Matengo pits, some farmers tried the technology on their farms and found it
unsuitable for their environment. Matengo pits are labor intensive to establish and not suitable for the
soil type and topography of Lushoto. The major soil types in Lushoto are Humic and Chromic Acrisols,
Luvisols and Lixisols for most of the mountainous hilly areas, while the valley bottoms have Fluvisols
and some pockets of Gleysols [50,51]. Bench terracing was also labor intensive and dangerous because
of the steep slopes in Lushoto. For the other CSA technologies, such as irrigation, fish farming, biogas
digester, and inorganic fertilizers, high initial investment costs were cited as the main reason for the
low adoption rates.
Some of the suggested specific actions that could improve farmers’ use of the practices included
timely availability of weather information in a language they can understand. As indicated in Table 1,
the majority of the farmers interviewed have no formal education or only attained primary education.
Other suggestions included cheaper and easier to establish water harvesting techniques and soil
conservation measures that are suitable to their soil type and the steep landscape of Lushoto, access
to initial financing to purchase inorganic fertilizers, irrigation and biogas generation equipment,
and training on the establishment of terraces on steep slopes. Motivation to act, articulation of demand
for support, and dependency were also important dimensions of adaptive capacity building that
emerged as an aspect of the FotF approach. Seeing and hearing positive explanations of the weather
stations helped create demand for the equipment amongst participants and training on how to collect
climate data.

3.3. Awareness and Use of CSA Technologies

Apart from the specific CSA technologies farmers were exposed to during the learning journey,
we also examined the overall level of awareness and use of other CSA technologies among farmers in
Lushoto. The farmers reported over 20 different CSA practices that they were aware of either used
on their own or in different combinations within the farm. Most of the CSA practices reported by the
farmers are consistent with the FAO definition of CSA (see Section 1) [52]. Table 4 summarizes the
various CSA practices used for crop and livestock production, soil and water conservation, energy
saving and other income generating technologies. The majority of the farmers interviewed were aware
of the different CSA practices. More than three-quarters of the households were aware of improved
or multiple stress tolerant crop varieties such as Lyamungo90 bean varieties, composting, inorganic
fertilizers, early planting, cut and carry livestock feeding, agroforestry, and local tolerant varieties.
More than half of the households were aware of intercropping, minimum tillage, mulching, crop
rotation, scientific and traditional weather forecasting, non-burning, terraces and contour planting,
and improved fodder. Fewer households (less that 45 percent) were aware of biogas, Matengo pits,
SACCOs, and strip cropping CSA practices, the four technologies and practices that farmers who
participated in the FotF were exposed to during the learning journey (see previous section).
The findings indicate that there was a high correlation between awareness and use of the
CSA technologies. Of the CSA technologies that farmers were aware of—improved crop varieties,
composting, cut and carry feeding, use of inorganic fertilizers, agroforestry, and early crop
planting—were the most commonly used by the farmers (Table 4). Biogas for efficient energy use and
improved cooking stoves reduces GHG emissions. Waste from animals used in biogas equipment for
anaerobic digestion can provide solutions to energy supply for cooking and lighting in Lushoto, and
the byproduct as agricultural fertilizer [53–55]. Despite biogas technology utilizing energy sources
without depleting natural resources and are as environmentally benign as possible, investment costs
for farmers in Lushoto are very high, thus limiting their adoption. Matengo pits for water conservation
and involvement in SACCOs were the other two practices least used by the farmers.
Climate 2017, 5, 63 13 of 22

Table 4. Awareness and use of CSA technologies and practices in Lushoto.

Percent of Households Percent of Households

CSA Technologies and Pearson Correlation
Aware of the CSA Aware and Using the CSA
Practices Coefficient
Technology and Practice Technology and Practice
Improved crop varieties 97.5 95.1 0.69 **
Composting 88.9 87.7 0.94 **
Cut and carry feeding 87.7 80.3 0.76 **
Chemical fertilizers 86.4 81.5 0.83 **
Agroforestry 85.2 85.2 1.00 **
Early planting 80.3 64.2 0.66 **
Local crop varieties 1 76.5 42.0 0.47 **
Intercropping 74.1 67.9 0.86 **
Minimal tillage 71.60 70.7 0.97 **
Mulching 69.1 66.7 0.94 **
Scientific weather forecasting 67.9 67.9 1.00 **
Crop rotation 66.7 65.4 0.97 **
Traditional weather forecasts 66.7 65.4 0.97 **
Non-burning 65.4 63.0 0.95 **
Terraces, contour planting 60.5 37.0 0.62 **
Improved fodder 58.0 53.1 0.91 **
Irrigation technologies 40.7 16.1 0.53 **
SACCOS 40.7 3.7 0.24 *
Efficient stoves 38.3 27.2 0.77 **
Organic pest control 38.3 35.8 0.95 **
Strip cropping 28.4 23.5 0.88 **
Biogas, biodigester 18.5 1.2 0.24 *
Matengo pits 16.1 6.2 0.59 **
1 These are locally available varieties that are preferred by farmers and least affected by extreme weather conditions
and pest and diseases; * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); ** Correlation is significant at the
0.01 level (two-tailed).

While most farmers are aware of many CSA practices and innovations, only a small number of the
farmers are adopting the practices. Figure 4 shows the CSA practices with the highest discrepancies
between awareness and use (i.e., practices farmers are aware of, yet very few use them on their
farms). Most farmers indicated their willingness to use CSA practices, but are constrained by
several factors including cultural practices, such as tenure and ownership rights, labor requirements,
high investment costs, and lack of skills and knowledge on how to use the practices. Irrigation and
SACCOs, for example, require high initial investments. Table 4 shows that these two practices had
the largest discrepancies between awareness and use. Studies have shown that belonging to a rural
social or marketing group enhances social and financial capital allowing trust, idea, and information
exchange [56,57]. Thus, membership to a group (e.g., a SACCO) can increase the uptake of a CSA
practice. However, SACCO membership will require subscription fee that most farmers in Lushoto
cannot afford, even if they would like to belong to the SACCO.
On-farm diversification through different farming enterprises such as different varieties of crops,
different types of livestock (including bee-keeping, poultry) and fish farming, are important risk
management strategies and can cushion farmers and their families during bad seasons or years.
In addition, farmers can engage in non-farming activities such as value addition enterprises. Livelihood
diversification, on-farm and off-farm, is a key risk management strategy and can also increase farmers
adaptive capacity [58–60].
Climate 2017, 5, 63 14 of 22
Climate 2017, 5, 63 14 of 22

100
%hhs Aware %hhs Using

80

60
% Households

40

20

0
Early planting Local varieties Terraces SACCOS Irrigation Biogas
technologies
CSA Technologies

Figure 4. CSA practices with the largest discrepancies between awareness and use of practice in
Figure 4. CSA practices with the largest discrepancies between awareness and use of practice
Lushoto.
in Lushoto.

3.4. Gender Differentiated Preferences and Use of CSA Technologies and Practices
3.4. Gender Differentiated Preferences and Use of CSA Technologies and Practices
In this section, we examine the most important CSA technologies and practices used in Lushoto,
In this section, we examine the most important CSA technologies and practices used in Lushoto,
and if they differ by gender. Households were asked to rank (of equal weighting) the CSA practices
and if they differ by gender. Households were asked to rank (of equal weighting) the CSA practices
based on the benefits and potential to enhance their capacity to adapt to climate change (Table 5).
based on the benefits and potential to enhance their capacity to adapt to climate change (Table 5).
The three most commonly cited CSA practices for women were intercropping, strip cropping, and
The three most commonly cited CSA practices for women were intercropping, strip cropping, and use
use of inorganic fertilizers. For men, the practices were minimal tillage, cut and carry feeding for
of inorganic fertilizers. For men, the practices were minimal tillage, cut and carry feeding for livestock,
livestock, and improved crop varieties. There were no significant gender differences in preference
and improved crop varieties. There were no significant gender differences in preference and use of
and use of CSA practices, except for intercropping, where 72 percent of women cited it as important
CSA practices, except for intercropping, where 72 percent of women cited it as important compared
compared to 28 percent of men, and use of strip cropping, in which 46 percent of women found it
to 28 percent of men, and use of strip cropping, in which 46 percent of women found it important
important compared to 54 percent of men (Table 5).
compared to 54 percent of men (Table 5).
Table 5. Gender differentiated CSA practices cited as the most important for adapting to climate
Table 5. Gender differentiated CSA practices cited as the most important for adapting to climate change
change by farmers.
by farmers.
Most Important CSA Practices Percent of Households
Most Important CSA Practices Total (n = 81)Percent of Households
Male Female
Improved crop varieties 51.9
Total (n = 81) 73.8
Male 26.2
Female
Composting
Improved crop varieties 44.451.9 72.2
73.8 26.227.8
Chemical fertilizers
Composting 37.044.4 56.7
72.2 27.843.3
Chemical
Agro fertilizers
forestry 28.437.0 56.7
73.9 43.326.1
Agro forestry 28.4 73.9 26.1
Intercropping 22.2 27.8 72.2
Intercropping 22.2 27.8 72.2
Cut and
Cut carry feeding
and carry feeding 21.021.0 76.5
76.5 23.523.5
StripStrip
cropping
cropping 13.613.6 54.6
54.6 45.545.5
Minimal
Minimal tillage
tillage 12.412.4 80.0
80.0 20.020.0
Early planting 9.9 62.5 37.5
Early planting 9.9 62.5 37.5

On-farm diversification through various CSA practices is crucial in climate-risk management,

amongst the
especially amongst the smallholder
smallholder farmers
farmers of
of Lushoto.
Lushoto. Already, Lushoto
Lushoto farmers
farmers are
are integrating
integrating
practices on their
several CSA practices their farms
farms to
to minimize
minimize crop
crop and
and livestock
livestock losses
losses during
during extreme
extreme weather
weather
events. On average, men- and women-headed households integrate 10 and five CSA practices
respectively. Even though this is consistent with findings from previous studies that report increasing
diversified smallholder farms in East Africa. It is important to point out that women-headed
Climate 2017, 5, 63 15 of 22

events. On average, men- and women-headed households integrate 10 and five CSA practices
respectively. Even though this is consistent with findings from previous studies that report increasing
diversified smallholder farms in East Africa. It is important to point out that women-headed
households have fewer CSA practices on farms than male-headed. Reasons for the difference included
(a) women have limited access to and use of assets such as land and hence unable to adopt long-term
practices such as agroforestry; (b) women pursue different livelihood portfolios and (c) men are more
risk takers in that they have access to assets including credit and extension services.
It is interesting that women did not mention efficient energy stoves as one of their top three
CSA practices. The energy stove practice that farmers learned during the climate journey leads to
reduction in the amount of fuelwood used, and it would significantly improve indoor air quality,
improving the health of women [61]. The traditional methods of cooking that women use, including
open air fire, causes deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia in children
under the age of five, lung cancer, and other non-communicable diseases such as heart disease, stroke,
and cataract [61,62]. Moreover, energy efficient biomass stoves have been shown to reduce fuel
consumption within households by up to 40 percent [63]. This provides a triple win strategy for
income, health, and mitigation and yet the women farmers in Lushoto do not mention it as important.
This calls for increased awareness in women on energy-efficient stoves.

4. CSA Information Sources and Dissemination Pathways

In this section we explore how farmers in Lushoto access information about CSA and other
services that support CSA, such as credit that can enable farmers to build resilience. We also look at
the CSA dissemination pathways. Households in Lushoto access weather and agricultural information
from various sources. The majority of the households rely heavily on radio, friends, and relatives,
as well as their own observations for information, particularly weather forecasting information,
both in the short and long run [64,65]. The government is a key source of information on pest and
disease outbreak projections, and traditional sources, or indigenous knowledge, are still relied upon
by some, particularly with respect to forecasts of extreme events and the onset of the rains [65].
Newspapers, local groups, NGO’s, village meetings, and televisions are not common sources of
weather or agricultural information in Lushoto.
Most of the farmers (over 98 percent) reported that they receive agricultural information orally.
This is applicable for crop and livestock production as well as tree planting activities. For crop
production, farmers need information at the time of planting, use of proper seed, proper seed spacing,
crop rotation, use of traditional and scientific weather information, and appropriate land preparation
practices, such as no-tillage. For livestock production, farmers would like information on proper
feeds and fodder production, management, vaccinations, deworming, reducing the number of herd,
and zero-grazing system. Government extension services are the main source of oral information
(75 percent). Other sources include a farmer’s own experience (26 percent), traditional knowledge
(11 percent) researchers (seven percent), neighbors (six percent), and agri-service providers and seed
companies. Farmers reported that the information they receive can enable them to start preparing for
the changing climate up to 20 years into the future. This was reported by more than 99 percent of the
respondents. Improving agricultural productivity was the major motivation for seeking and using
information and technologies on crop husbandry, new varieties and techniques, and improvement of
soil fertility.
More than half (55 percent) of the respondents indicated that the men make decisions on how
information is used within the household, while 23 percent said that it is the woman, Thirteen percent
indicated that both women and men are involved in the decision making process. In terms of use of
new technologies, 45 percent of respondents reported that both men and women are involved. It is,
therefore, critical to ensure that information is shared within the entire household, including both
women and men. The information also needs to be packaged to suit the different audiences.
Climate 2017, 5, 63 16 of 22

The farmers and the AIS who participated in the FotF learning journey were expected to widely
share what they had learnt with other farmers. During the journey, participating farmers used video
recording (flip cameras) to document the learning process. Upon return, the video clips were edited
and shared with other farmers in Yamba and Mbuzii who did not participate in the learning visit.
Farmers
Climate who
2017, 5, 63 participated in the learning journey shared information on tree planting, SACCOS, 16 of 22
land conservation, bee-keeping, and Matengo pits, mainly with family members (28 percent), members
members
of the same of village
the same (32 village
percent),(32members
percent),ofmembers of the neighboring
the neighboring village (30
village (30 percent), andpercent),
members andof
members of other
other far-away far-away
villages villages (10 percent).
(10 percent).
Farmers were wereasked
askedabout
aboutthethe practical
practical CSACSA information
information dissemination
dissemination pathways
pathways thatbe
that can can be
used
used
to reachto the
reach the majority
majority of farmers,ofespecially
farmers, women
especially
and women and other disadvantaged
other disadvantaged groups.
groups. Understanding
Understanding
dissemination pathwaysdissemination
involvespathways involves
considering considering
horizontal horizontal
(peer-to-peer (peer-to-peer
through face to facethrough face
interactions,
to face
word of interactions,
mouth, farmerword of mouth,
meetings) farmer(upwards
and vertical meetings) and and vertical (upwards
downwards and downwards
amongst farmers, extension
amongst farmers,
providers, researcher extension
to farmer,providers,
and use ofresearcher to farmer, pathways
radios or cellphones) and use of radios
[66]. or cellphones)
Decisions on which
pathways
dissemination [66]. pathway
Decisionstoonuse which
dependdissemination
on farmers’pathway to use and
skills, needs, depend on farmers’
resources skills,and
to receive needs,
use
and resources to[67,68].
the information receiveWeand use
used the information
FGDs [67,68]. We
and cobweb mapping used FGDs
exercises andfarmers
to enable cobwebtomapping
visually
exercises to enableCSA
map the different farmers to visuallypathways.
dissemination map the different
The FGDs CSA dissemination
generated a simple pathways.
checklistThe FGDs
of critical
generated
stakeholders a simple
that are checklist
considered of important
critical stakeholders that are considered
sources of information. important
Afterwards, cobwebsources
networks of
information.
diagrams were Afterwards,
drawn by FGDscobweb networks
to help diagramsthe
in visualizing were drawn
relative by FGDs to
importance of help in visualizing
sources of informationthe
relative
on CSA importance
practices (Figureof sources of information
5). A higher on CSAthe
point indicates practices (Figure 5).
most preferred as A higher
well point source
as trusted indicates of
the
CSAmost preferred as well as trusted source of CSA information.
information.

Figure 5. Cobweb diagram showing ranking on importance of sources of information for CSA
Figure 5. Cobweb diagram showing ranking on importance of sources of information for CSA practices
practices and technologies.
and technologies.

The cobweb mapping revealed that informal and formal institutions, such as village and
The cobweb
religious groups,mapping revealed
are the most that informal
common and formal
institutions institutions,
for accessing such as village
information. They and religious
provide less
groups, are the most common institutions for accessing information. They provide
formalized, but effective, methods of communicating information within Lushoto, as well as less formalized,
but effective,
spreading themethods of communicating
CSA practices information
to other neighboring within This
villages. Lushoto,
was as well in
noted as the
spreading the FotF
FGDs for CSA
practices to other neighboring villages. This was noted in the FGDs for FotF farmers
farmers and women only. School children, who are potential future farmers, preferred the latest and women only.
School children, who are potential future farmers, preferred the latest information
information and communication technologies, especially mobile phones and television. This is and communication
technologies,
important forespecially mobile
scaling up CSAphones and television.
practices among theThis youthis important
because foran scaling up dissemination
effective CSA practices
pathway depends not only on how successful the pathway influences farmers’ decision to adopt, but
the number of people receiving the information. Through mobile phones and television, scaling up
CSA practices can reach more farmers and future farmers as well.
Despite the increased interactions, dissemination and sharing of information about CSA
practices among farmers, access to new CSA practices will be hampered by persistent poor linkages
Climate 2017, 5, 63 17 of 22

among the youth because an effective dissemination pathway depends not only on how successful the
pathway influences farmers’ decision to adopt, but the number of people receiving the information.
Through mobile phones and television, scaling up CSA practices can reach more farmers and future
farmers as well.
Despite the increased interactions, dissemination and sharing of information about CSA practices
among farmers, access to new CSA practices will be hampered by persistent poor linkages between
farmers and agro-advisory service providers. Farmers discussions reveal the information flow and
linkages between extension officers and farmers is still weak and there is a need to improve access to
information for farmers, including exploring others ways that farmers can easily access information on
CSA practices and technologies. The combination of a changing climate and declining soil fertility is
making farmers not only demand weather and agro-advisory services, but the investment of time and
money to acquire the services.

5. Farmers’ Perceptions of the Learning Journey

Using FGDs, farmers (those who participated in the learning journey and those who did not) and
the AIS were asked their perceptions of the learning journey in order to help researchers improve,
modify, and make any other adjustments for similar visits in the future. This was done through the
FGDs and the surveys. Farmer’s perceptions of the FotF journey were similar to those reported from
the post visit analyses by [69]. For most of the farmers, the climate journey was a useful tool for
learning different CSA practices and interacting with other farmers and AIS stakeholders. The timing
of the FotF learning journey was excellent, as the farmers learned from other farmers, while crops were
growing. Including the AIS actors in the learning journey enhanced the farmers learning experiences,
as they provided explanations and opportunities for discussions about CSA technologies for which
the farmers had limited knowledge and understanding. Presence of AIS actors facilitated learning
between them and the farmers [69], as well as information sharing with other farmers who did not
participate in the learning journey.
Specific areas where improvements are needed included trip duration—where the farmers
observed that they did not get enough time to absorb all the knowledge that they were learning,
more representation from women and youth, and increasing the total number of farmers participating
to be proportional to the population of a given target area. While the selection criteria for participation
in the learning journey was based on gender balance, spread across different ages, 50 percent of farmers
surveyed in CCAFS survey, and farmers demonstrating capabilities in filming [69], only two out of
the 15 participants were women. Of the five AIS actors who participated, only one was a woman
(Community Development Officer). Low participation of women farmers is largely attributed to the
cultural practices and barriers within the communities, where men are uncomfortable with their wives
spending nights out of the home. Rural women, who are agrarian based and provide most of the labor
for agricultural production, will be highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and, therefore,
more women need to participate in learning initiatives [70,71].
The diversity of AIS actors from government and private agricultural entrepreneurs draw from a
range of sectors including agriculture, commerce/business, tourism, and social development shows
that the impacts of climate change is felt across all sectors of Tanzania’s economy. Indeed, the impacts
of climate change at the farm level can ripple through the business and entrepreneurial community
because if agriculture fails, farmers will not have income that can sustain business. For the AIS actors,
the learning journey increased their understanding of the impacts of climate change and how it affects
communities across Tanzania.
As a community development officer reported:

“Throughout the journey, I observed farmers soaking in agricultural information from other farmers
along the way. I too learned how a changing climate is affecting families and their livelihoods.
The experience from the journey has improved my understanding of climate change and the various
climate-smart practices that farmers can adopt both in Lushoto and other villages of Tanzania”.
Climate 2017, 5, 63 18 of 22

Other AIS actors shared similar sentiments. An agricultural input trader store commented that:

“I have to keep up to date with weather from radios and newspapers, especially the onset of rains
and how much rains we expect each season. This will enable me to stock the right crop seeds for
farmers. For example, maize seed that can grow in a short period of time is going to be appropriate
for farmers when we have less rain. I will need to also keep in contact with the extension officer who
can provide the latest information on climate-smart practices”.

Apart from the agricultural input trader, the rest of the AIS actors have not influenced adoption of
CSA practices amongst Lushoto farmers, including those who participated in the learning trip. Results
from FGDs show that there has been no interaction between the farmers and the other AIS actors after
the journey. The District Agricultural and Livestock Development Officer and the District Extension
Officer, both of whom are in direct contact with the farmers, have not shared what they learned with
the farmers. This shows that the information flow and linkages between extension officers and farmers
is still weak and there is need to improve access to information for farmers, including exploring others
ways that farmers can easily access information on CSA practices and technologies.

6. Conclusions
East African small-holder, subsistence farming is facing unprecedented stress when attempting to
increase productivity with the glaring realities of climate variability and change. Failure to be prepared
for the effects of climate change can results in hunger, malnutrition, a breakdown in social structures,
increased insecurity, and poverty among others. Therefore, farmers, especially the youth who are
expected to be future farmers, need to be prepared not only with CSA technologies, but climate risk
management strategies such as timely meteorological information, crop and livestock insurance, credit,
and institutions, such as farmers’ organizations. Furthermore, due to the nature of the landscape in
Lushoto Climate-Smart Village (CSV), the subsistence farmers must be anticipatory with long-term
adaptive strategies that are inclusive and proactive at households and landscape level [4].
Information and communication is needed by farmer on risks and risk management.
Organizations providing agro-advisory information should be involved in investigating and
disseminating information on risks from weather variability that can cause yield and price volatility.
Access to climate adaptation, mitigation, and risk management information is key to taking the
necessary risk reducing measures. For example, farmers can minimize their risks and increase yields
by adjusting planting dates and planting areas (hillside vs. valley bottom have differential soil
moisture content) in response to seasonal forecasts. Government, private sector, non-governmental
organizations and community based organizations that are agriculturally related and operating in
Lushoto village can facilitate good “start-up” conditions each season by providing a package of risk
management tools, including climate information and agronomic husbandry practices and training.
Giving farmers the appropriate information about their circumstances/environment will make them
well-placed to assess risks, identify vulnerabilities, and use appropriate CSA practices.
The use of the climate-analogue tool, combined with the FotF approach, is a useful adaptation tool
because it enables farmers to know what their future climate will be like so they can start preparing
for it. Adding a learning journey where the farmers are able to visit areas already experiencing their
future climate provided an opportunity to learn from other farmers and see first-hand their plausible
future climatic conditions, allowing farmers to strengthen their adaptive capabilities. The learning
journey also enables farmers to identify new sustainable and climate-resilient agricultural practices,
to be inspired and be motivated to change. The farmers are able understand their environment
better by comparing and contrasting it to other environments (farming practices, cultural, and social
norms). Finally, use of FotF approach to enhance farmer-to-farmer adaptation learning should be
supported by follow-up trainings, especially for those technologies and practices where farmers have
very limited knowledge. Continuous learning and sharing of CSA practices, climate, and agro-advisory
information should become an essential tool for farmers, financial institutions, and agro-advisory
Climate 2017, 5, 63 19 of 22

service providers. This will inevitably enhance farmer’s adaptive capacity while improving their
knowledge and changing their attitudes towards climate-smart farming.

Acknowledgments: We wish to express our sincere appreciation to Lushoto farmers, particularly from Mbuzii,
Yamba, Gare, and Kwang’wenda villages, for participating in the study. We also wish to acknowledge George
Sayula and Gladness Martin from Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Juma Wickama from Agricultural
Research Institute (ARI) Mlingano, Tumaini Gwatalile—Lushoto community development officer and the district
agricultural extension officer Elizabeth Musoka for supporting the fieldwork. This work was implemented as part
of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), which is carried
out with support from CGIAR Fund Donors and through bilateral funding agreements. For details please visit
https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors.
Author Contributions: Mary Nyasimi designed and carried out the research and led writing of the manuscript.
Philip Kimeli contributed to the design of the survey tools and led household sampling, field data collection,
data analysis and writing. George Sayula contributed to the design of study, coordinated and facilitated the field
data collection. Maren Radeny provided the overall technical guidance for the analysis of the data and writing,
contributing significantly to the overall structure and flow of the manuscript. James Kinyangi contributed to
the study design, reviewing the objectives and survey methods and reviewed the manuscript to improve the
coherence of the content. Catherine Mungai participated in developing the concept and write up.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. All authors read and approved the
final manuscript.

References
1. Jayne, T.S.; Chamberlin, J.; Headey, D.D. Land pressures, the evolution of farming systems, and development
strategies in Africa: A synthesis. Food Policy 2014, 48, 1–17. [CrossRef]
2. Addae-Korankye, A. Causes of Poverty in Africa: A Review of Literature. Am. Int. J. Soc. Sci. 2014, 3,
147–153.
3. Sanchez, P.A.; Swaminathan, M.S. Hunger in Africa: The link between unhealthy people and unhealthy soil.
Lancet 2005, 265, 442–444. [CrossRef]
4. Diale, N.R. Socio-economic indicators influencing the adoption of hybrid Sorghum: The Sekhukhune District
perspective. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext. 2011, 39, 75–85.
5. Okwi, P.O.; Ndeng’e, G.; Kristjanson, P.; Arunga, M.; Notenbaert, A.; Omolo, A.; Henninger, N.; Benson, T.;
Kariuki, P.; Owuor, J. Spatial determinants of poverty in rural Kenya. Proc. Acad. Natl. Sci. USA 2007, 104,
16769–16774. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Williamson, T.; Hesseln, H.; Johnston, M. Adaptive capacity deficits and adaptive capacity of economic
systems in climate change vulnerability assessment. For. Policy Econ. 2010. [CrossRef]
7. Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and
Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003.
8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Niang, I.; Ruppel, O.C.; Abdrabo, M.A.; Essel, A.;
Lennard, C.; Padgham, J.; Urquhart, P. Climate Change 2014; Working Group II AR5: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability: Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Barros, V.R., Field, C.B., Dokken, D.J., Mastrandrea, M.D.,
Mach, K.J., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 1199–1265.
9. Seneviratne, S.I.; Nicholls, N.; Easterling, D.; Goodess, C.M.; Kanae, S.; Kossin, J.; Luo, Y.; Marengo, J.;
McInnes, K.; Rahimi, M.; et al. Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical
environment. In Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.
A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field, C.B., Barros, V.,
Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Dokken, D.J., Ebi, K.L., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S.K., et al.,
Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 109–230.
10. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001.
11. Biggs, S.D. Agricultural Technology Generation and Diffusion: Lessons for Research Policy; Overseas Development
Institute: London, UK; ODI Agricultural Administration Unit: London, UK, 1986.
Climate 2017, 5, 63 20 of 22

12. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Food Security and Agricultural Mitigation in Developing Countries:
Option for Capturing Synergies; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2009.
13. Lyamchai, C.; Yanda, P.; Sayula, G.; Kristjanson, P. Summary of Baseline Household Survey Results: Lushoto,
Tanzania; CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS):
Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011. Available online: www.ccafs.cgiar.org (accessed on 20 August 2016).
14. Williams, J.W.; Jackson, S.T.; Kutzbach, J.E. Projected distributions of novel and disappearing climates by
2100 AD. Proc. Acad. Natl. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 5738–5742. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Ramírez-Villegas, J.; Lau, C.; Köhler, A.-K.; Signer, J.; Jarvis, A.; Arnell, N.; Osborne, T.; Hooker, J. Climate
Analogues: Finding Tomorrow’s Agriculture Today; Working Paper No. 12; CGIAR Research Program on
Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS): Cali, Colombia, 2011. Available online: http:
//www.ccafs.cgiar.org/resources/working-papers (accessed on 4 July 2013).
16. Nordin, S.M.; Noor, S.M.; Md Saad, M.S. Innovation Diffusion of New Technologies in the Malaysian Paddy
Fertilizer Industry. Pocedia Behav. Sci. 2014, 109, 768–778. [CrossRef]
17. Rao, E.J.O.; Qaim, M. Supermarkets, Farm Household Income, and Poverty: Insights from Kenya. World Dev.
2010, 39, 784–796. [CrossRef]
18. Phiri, D.; Franzel, S.; Mafongoya, P.; Jere, I.; Katanga, R.; Phiri, S. Who is using the new technology?
The association of wealth status and gender with the planting of improved tree fallows in Eastern Province,
Zambia. Agric. Syst. 2004, 79, 131–144. [CrossRef]
19. Bandiera, O.; Rasul, M. Social Networks and Technology Adoption in Northern Mozambique. Econ. J. 2006,
116, 862–902. [CrossRef]
20. Ariyo, O.C.; Ariyo, M.O.; Okelola, O.E.; Aasa, O.S.; Awotide, O.G.; Aaron, A.J.; Oni, O.B. Assessment of the
Role of Mass Media in the Dissemination of Agricultural Technologies among Farmers in Kaduna North
Local Government Area of Kaduna State, Nigeria. J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2013, 3, 19–28.
21. Irfan, M.; Muhammad, S.; Khan, G.A.; Muhammad, A. Role of Mass Media in the Dissemination of
Agricultural Technologies among Farmers. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2006, 8, 417–419.
22. Jarvis, A.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Nelson, V.; Lamboll, R.; Nathaniels, N.; Radeny, M.; Mungai, C.;
Bonilla-Findji, O.; Arango, D.; Peterson, C. Farms of the Future: An Innovative Approach for Strengthening
Adaptive Capacity; Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS): Cophengan, Denmark, 2012.
23. Faysse, N. Troubles on the way: An analysis of the challenges faced by multi-stakeholder platforms.
Nat. Resour. Forum 2006, 30, 219–229. [CrossRef]
24. Schut, M.; Klerkx, L.; Rodenburg, J.; Kayeke, J.; Hinnou, L.C.; Raboanarielina, C.M.; Adegbola, P.Y.;
van Ast, A.; Bastiaans, L. RAAIS: Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (Part I). A diagnostic
tool for integrated analysis of complex problems and innovation capacity. Agric. Syst. 2015, 132, 1–11.
[CrossRef]
25. Giller, K.E.; Tittonell, P.; Rufino, M.C.; van Wijk, M.T.; Zingore, S.; Mapfumo, P.; Adjei-Nsiah, S.; Herrero, M.;
Chikowo, R.; Corbeels, M.; et al. Communicating complexity: Integrated assessment of trade-offs concerning
soil fertility management within African farming systems to support innovation and development.
Agric. Syst. 2011, 104, 191–203. [CrossRef]
26. McNie, E.C. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An analysis of the problem
and review of the literature. Environ. Sci. Policy 2007, 10, 17–38. [CrossRef]
27. Nelson, V.; Lamboll, R.; Nathaniels, N. Farms of the Future, Tanzania; CCAFS Technical Report; CCAFS:
Copenhagen, Denmark, 2012.
28. Gifford, R.; Kormos, C.; McIntyre, A. Behavioral dimensions of climate change: Drivers, responses, barriers,
and interventions. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2011, 2, 801–827. [CrossRef]
29. Productivity Commission. Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation LB2 Collins Street East Melbourne
8003 Victoria; Insurance Australia Group: Sidney, Australia, 2011.
30. Tanzania Meteorological Agency (TMA). Rainfall and Temperature Data for Tabora Region for the Years 1972–2008;
TMA: Dar es salaam, Tanzania, 2009.
31. Tanzania Meteorological Agency (TMA). Rainfall and Temperature Data for Tumbi Station for the Years 1972–2008;
TMA: Tabora, Tanzania, 2009.
32. Sattar, R.A.; Wang, S.; Muqadas, M.; Ashraf, M.F.; Tahir, M.N. Qualitative and quantitative approaches to
study adoption of sustainable agricultural practices: A research-note on mixed method approach. Int. J.
Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. 2017, 5, 539–544.
Climate 2017, 5, 63 21 of 22

33. Johnson, R.B.; Onwuegbuzie, A.J. Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come.
Educ. Res. 2004, 33, 14–26. [CrossRef]
34. Creswell, J.W. Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed.; Sage:
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014.
35. O’Cathain, A. Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Towards a comprehensive framework.
In SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, 2nd ed.; Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., Eds.;
Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2010; pp. 531–558.
36. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). African youth in Agriculture, natural resources and rural
development. Nat. Faune 2013, 28, 1–98.
37. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD);
International Labour Organization (ILO). Agricultural Value Chain Development: Threat or Opportunity
for Women’s Employment? Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2008e/i2008e04.pdf
(accessed on 12 May 2017).
38. Peterson, C.A.; Nyasimi, M.; Kimeli, P. Local-Level Appraisal of Benefits and Barriers Affecting Adoption of
Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices: Lushoto, Tanzania; CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change,
Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS): Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014.
39. Sanga, C.; Kalungwizi, J.; Msuya, C.P. Building an agricultural extension services system supported by ICTs
in Tanzania: Progress made, Challenges remain. Int. J. Educ. Dev. Using Inf. Commun. Technol. 2013, 9, 80–99.
40. Waithaka, M.M.; Thornton, P.K.; Shepherd, K.D.; Ndiwa, N.N. Factors affecting the use of fertilizers and
manure by smallholders: The case of Vihiga, western Kenya. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2007, 78, 211–224.
[CrossRef]
41. Mahoo, H.; Mbungu, W.; Yonah, I.; Recha, J.; Radeny, M.; Kimeli, P.; Kinyangi, J. Integrating Indigenous
Knowledge with Scientific Seasonal Forecasts for Climate Risk Management in Lushoto District in Tanzania; CCAFS
Working Paper No. 103; CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
(CCAFS): Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015. Available online: www.ccafs.cgiar.org (accessed on 8 May 2014).
42. Wanyama, F.O.; Develtere, P.; Pollet, I. Encountering the Evidence: Cooperatives and Poverty Reduction in Africa;
Working Paper on Social and Cooperative Entrepreneurship WP-SCE-08-02; Social Science Research Network
(SSRN): New York, NY, USA, 2008.
43. World Bank. Aide Memoire, Tanzania: Second Financial Institutions Development Project and Rural and
Microfinancial Services Project; Thompson, A., Ouattara, K., Byakuma, J., Eds.; World Bank: Washington, DC,
USA, 2002.
44. Alpert, E.; Smale, M.; Hausrer, K. Investing in Small Farmers Pays: Rethinking How to Invest in Agriculture;
Oxfam International: Oxford, UK, 2009.
45. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The State of Food and Agriculture: Women in Agriculture, Closing the
Gender Gap for Development; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011.
46. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Gender Dimensions of Agricultural and Rural Employment:
Differentiated Pathways out of Poverty; Status, Trends and Gaps; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010.
47. Conway, D.; Lisa, E.; Schipper, F. Adaptation to climate change in Africa: Challenges and opportunities
identified from Ethiopia. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 21, 227–237. [CrossRef]
48. Lu, X. Applying Climate Information for Adaptation Decision-Making: A Guidance and Resource Document; National
Communications Support Programme (NCSP) UNDP-UNEP-GEF: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
49. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Improving Access, Understanding and Application of Climate
Data and Information; Africa Adaptation Programme: Capacity Building Experiences; Discussion Paper Series;
UNDP: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
50. Meliyo, J.; Kabushemera, J.W.; Tenge, A.J. Characterization and Mapping Soils of Kwalei Subcatchment, Lushoto
District; Agricultural Research Institute: Mlingano, Tanga, Tanzania, 2002.
51. Sijmons, K.; Kiplimo, J.; Förch, W.; Thornton, P.K.; Radeny, M.; Kinyangi, J. CCAFS Site Atlas—Makueni/Wote;
CCAFS Site Atlas Series: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013. Available online: http://issuu.com/cgiarclimate/
docs/tanzanialushoto/1?e=4405409/4912517 (accessed on 23 February 2015).
52. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Energy and Gender in Rural Sustainable Development; FAO: Rome,
Italy, 2006.
53. Chand, B.; Upadhyay, B.P.; Maskey, R. Biogas Option for Mitigating and Adaptation of Climate Change.
Rentech Symp. Compend. 2012, 1, 5–9.
Climate 2017, 5, 63 22 of 22

54. SEA & AMATHEMBA. Smart Living Handbook. City of Cape Town: Sustainable Energy
Africa and AMATHEMBA Environmental Management Consulting. 2007. Available online:
https://www.capetown.gov.za/en/EnvironmentalResourceManagement/Documents/Smart_Living_
Handbook_Eng_FULL%20VERSION_4thEd_2011-05.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2014).
55. Monnet, F. An Introduction Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Wastes. 2003. Available online: http://www.
biogasmax.co.uk/media/introanaerobicdigestion__073323000_1011_24042007.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2014).
56. Alene, A.; Manyong, V.; Omanya, G.; Mignouna, H.; Bokanga, M.; Odhiambo, G. Smallholder market
participation under transaction costs: Maize supply and fertilizer demand in Kenya. Food Policy 2008, 33,
318–328. [CrossRef]
57. Place, F.; Kariuki, G.; Wangila, J.; Kristjanson, P.; Makauki, A.; Ndubi, J. Assessing the factors underlying
differences in achievements of farmer groups: Methodological issues and empirical findings from the
highlands of Central Kenya. Agric. Syst. 2004, 82, 257–272. [CrossRef]
58. Canon, T. Rural livelihood diversification and adaptation to climate change. In Community-Based Adaptation
to Climate Change: Emerging Lessons; Ensor, J., Berger, R., Huq, S., Eds.; Practical Action Publishing:
Warwickshire, UK, 2014; p. 216.
59. Osbahr, H.; Twyman, C.; Adger, W.N.; Thomas, D.S.G. Evaluating successful livelihood adaptation to climate
variability and change in southern Africa. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 27. [CrossRef]
60. Hellmuth, M.E.; Moorhead, A.; Thomson, M.C.; Williams, J. Climate Risk Management in Africa: Learning from
Practice; International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI), Columbia University: New York, NY,
USA, 2007.
61. Wilkinson, P.; Smith, K.R.; Davies, M.; Adair, H.; Armstrong, B.; Barrett, M.; Bruce, N.; Haines, A.;
Hamilton, I.; Oreszcyn, T.; et al. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions:
Household energy. Lancet 2009, 374, 1917–1929. [CrossRef]
62. Rehfuess, E. Fuel for Life: Household Energy and Health; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
63. Smith, K.R.; Mehta, S.; Musezahl-Feuz, M. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks: Global and Regional Burden
of Disease Attribution to Selected Major Risk Factors; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.
64. Van den Broeck, K.; Dercon, S. Information flows and social externalities in a Tanzanian banana growing
village. J. Dev. Stud. 2011, 41, 231–252. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Chengula, F.; Nyambo, B. The significance of indigenous weather forecast knowledge and practices under
weather variability and climate change: A case study of smallholder farmers on the slopes of Mount
Kilimanjaro. Int. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2016, 2, 31–43.
66. Burke, A. Communication and Development: A Practical Guide; DFID: London, UK, 1999.
67. Csótó, M. Information flow in agriculture—Through new channels for improved effectiveness. J. Agric.
Inform. 2010, 1, 25–34. [CrossRef]
68. Lawrence, A. Mapping information flows. ILEIA Newsl. 1997, 13, 22–23.
69. Lamboll, V.; Nelson, V.; Nathaniels, N. Farms of the Future: Briefing 1: A Promising Approach for Building
Adaptive Capacity—Lessons from Tanzania; CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and
Food Security (CCAFS): Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013.
70. Gwivaha, F.A. Factors That Impact Agricultural Extension Training Programs for Smallholder Women Farmers in
Njombe District, Tanzania; Iowa State University: Ames, IA, USA, 2015.
71. UN Women. Facts & Figures on Gender & Climate Change. Global Gender and Climate Alliance; UN Women:
New York, NY, USA, 2011.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).