IMPROVING

CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE

FOR SMALLHOLDER COFFEE FARMERS

 Introduction
Long-term climate change and shorter-term
climate risks are increasingly posing challenges
to smallholder farmers producing coffee.
Improving smallholder farmers’ climate
resilience is a key priority for many NGOs and
coffee companies. Many agencies are trying to
learn how to strengthen the climate resilience
or adaptive capacity of farmers.

Twin has seven years experience in

implementing initiatives with producer
organisations to adapt to climate change. It
forms an integral part of Twin’s Theory of
Change approach to building robust producer
organisations.

Twin aims to develop integrated programmes to

achieve this. Alongside sustainable agriculture,
Twin’s programmes also include work on gender
dynamics, product quality, market access,
governance and price risk management. Twin
seeks to connect actors across the supply chain,
working with funding from institutions as well
as engaging buyers in investing in strengthening
their supply chains.

As implementers with an urgency to act now, our industry can have a tendency to
focus more on delivering projects than on capturing lessons learnt and collaborating
across the sector to improve project design and scale-up for greater effectiveness.
Projects may be locally adapted but lack awareness of similar work in other parts of
the world.

In early 2015, Twin teamed up with the National Resources Institute of the
University of Greenwich in London, UK, to develop a study to investigate two of
Twin’s most recent projects. The focus was on investigating the drivers and barriers
to farmers adopting new practices to make their landscapes more climate resilient;
as well as identifying areas where the methodology can be strengthened for future
project analysis.

The aim of this preliminary report is to enhance Twin’s internal learning on coffee
and climate projects and their efficiency; and to use as a ‘taster’ report to share
across the coffee industry. We are seeking partners and donors to collaborate on
broadening the study to analyse projects in other regions.

The longer-term vision of the study is to improve the effectiveness of climate

adaptation projects supported by the coffee sector by understanding how
interventions may improved at all stages of the project cycle.

With the support of :

-1-
Methodology
Across projects we focus on:
1) Project design: process of project design, Theory of
Change, main components, Monitoring and Evaluation
and Learning design framework.
2) Implementation: activities, methods, tools.
3) Evaluation of M&E outcomes: how change is measured
e.g. Impact: in terms of farmers’ knowledge, attitude and
behaviour towards innovation, or new knowledge
acquired (and whether or not is was promoted by the
project) .
Assessing project design (1) and implementation (2):
Key informants are interviewed, including the technical
staff and the project manager/coordinator. We compare
their views on the problem, the solution and approach and
outcomes of the project. The priority are the technical
staff who directly facilitated activities with the farmers,
with a focus on the approach and methodology of
interaction with the farmers: what methods did they use
to engage with the farmers and what is their evaluation of
how well it worked?
Assessing the outcomes and farmers knowledge, attitude and
behaviour (3):
A review of the available MEL data is conducted and
farmers are interviewed with an initial focus on two
categories: participants and non-participants to
investigate the spill-over effect and potential landscape
impact.
Survey tools
1) Semi-structured interviews with key informants
2) Focus group discussions with farmers – 1 per village,
max. 3 villages. The focus group allows us to select and/or
identify farmers in each aforementioned category.
Participants only.
3) Direct interviews (questionnaire) with
selected/identified individual farmers (participants and
non-participants).
Testing the methodology
From January-June 2015 Twin tested the approach
and tools in two of its projects and subsequently
wishes to expand to projects or experiences of other
organisations. This preliminary study shows the
results from two of Twin’s projects in East Africa
(Uganda) and Central America (Nicaragua).
Analysis
Available documents on project design
(consultations, proposal, and logical framework)
were reviewed. Interviews with project manager and
staff were recorded as transcripts, as were farmer
focus group discussions. Individual farmer interview
responses were recorded and then transferred into
tables in Excel. Farmers were divided into
participants and non-participants. Responses to
some questions were categorized e.g. Yes/No but
most are qualitative informational responses.
The two case studies were conducted by Twin
Sustainable Agriculture Project Manager supported
by Twin M&E Officer in Uganda and an external
Agronomist Consultant in Nicaragua. In both cases,
the field team was briefed and the questionnaires
reviewed before field work. The interviews were
conducted in the local language in Uganda
(Lukhonzo) and translated by an independent
translator. All interviews were conducted in Spanish
in Nicaragua. Methodology, design and analysis of
the responses was provided by the Natural
Resources Institute of University of Greenwich.
 Case studies
The two case studies are analysed by project
design, implementation and evaluation of
outcomes (M&E) in order to asses the positive and
negative aspects of each project and the lessons
learnt will be discussed at the end.

Name: Coffee Under Threat – Double Espresso

Country: Nicaragua
Duration: 2012 – 2015 (3 years)
Project Managers: Twin – CAFENICA
Name: Climate Change Project
Funding: UK Big Lottery Fund - £186,950
Country: Uganda (Western), Rwenzori Mountains
Duration: 2012 – on-going
Project Managers: Twin – Bukonzo Joint Cooperative Union
(BJCU)
Funding: Comic Relief, Belgian Development Agency (BTC), the
Charles Hayward Foundation, the Fairtrade Foundation UK–
cumulated funding of £90,000

Observations of a Ugandan coffee farmer:

“We are familiar with the conditions that we have
sunshine in January and in February we have some
rain. But it has continued to be sunny in February
when we expected some rains, we kept having
sunshine. So we are not harvesting as required.“

BJCU is a second level cooperative representing 3,237 farmers of which

80% are women. The climate is bi-modal governed by the ICTZ (Inter
Tropical Convergence Zone). Altitude varies from 1,400 to 2,200 meters
above sea level.

Observations of a Nicaraguan coffee farmer :

The seasons have changed, the summer is prolonged
and similarly the rains come late and don't allow us to
sow on time. The rains outside the rainy season impact
the production and the normal development of the
coffee. Temperature increase also affects the
flowering. Before it was more a mountainous
environment and the weather was more stable
throughout the year.”

CAFENICA is the Nicaraguan Smallholder Coffee Cooperatives Association.

This project involved 5 cooperatives in the region of Boaco, Jinotega and
Matagalpa and Madriz. The climate is tropical and bi-modal. Altitude varies
from around 500 to 2,200 meters above sea level.
-3-
 Project Design
Uganda
The project was devised following a Climate Risk
Assessment organised by Twin in 2011. It was based on
a Community Based Adaptation (CBA) process first
piloted in the GiZ funded AdapCC project (2007-2010)
later on formalised by the Coffee and Climate initiative
(Figure 1).
The cooperative and farmers identify their risks and
opportunities for change. This method starts with a
climate and environment desk-based research to
identify climate risks in the area. The following step is a
participatory workshop and then an environmental
field assessment. BJCU then developed a 3 year
Climate and Environment Strategy.
BJCU identified four key themes for their C&E
strategy: i) erosion control and soil fertility; ii)
reforestation and shade tree planting; iii) advocacy
and iv) solar energy.
Paineto Baluku (General Manager of BJCU) noted “...people
said the soil was running away, even if they planted beans
they are not germinating so the question was: how do we put
the soil back? So they came up with solutions. There were
many so we picked one; let’s conserve the soil and plant the
trees that have been lost, and then we will see what happens
in the next 5-10 years”.
To address BJCU’s priorities a project was designed
which aimed to train members (150 in Year 1, 300 in
Year 2) in sustainable agricultural techniques to support
them to control erosion and improve soil fertility;
thereby increasing yields and so leading to higher
incomes and resilience to climate variability.
Outcome 1: Increase in coffee yields and income at farm
level
Outcome 2: Increase in coffee volumes exported by
Bukonzo Joint
Outputs: Adoption rate of new farming practices
Nicaragua
In 2011, Twin visited CAFENICA various times to
present a concept note on coffee and climate change.
The proposal was reviewed mainly by managers but a
consultation process also involved the technical staff,
promoters and some producers.
The project started shortly after the coffee leaf rust
epidemic had a substantial impact on producers, and
controlling rust and rehabilitating the plantations
affected became the urgent agronomic focus.
Figure 1: Coffee and Climate approach to climate change adaptation.
Source: http://www.coffeeandclimate.org/communication.html
Outcome 1: Smallholder coffee farmers have
acquired the technical skills, expertise and changed
their approach to establish climate resilient
production systems.
Outcome 2: Smallholder producer organisations
have developed the capabilities to manage price risk
and differentiate their coffee more effectively.
Outcome 3: Key stakeholders in the smallholder
coffee value chain in Nicaragua have recognised the
threat posed by climate change and have initiated
concrete, joined-up action to support and finance
smallholder adaptation on a sustainable basis.
Outputs: Many and varied, focussed on measuring a
wide range of activities which addressed the
outcomes (e.g. attendance and number of farmer
during field schools and price risk management
workshops).
Analysis of Project Design
The Ugandan project came about from a Community
Based Adaptation (CBA) approach and a
participatory project design, whereas the Nicaraguan
project was on a much bigger scale, involving five
regions, large cooperative unions, was led by the
facilitating organisation and in line with donor
requirements for a specific grant.
The logical framework was based on 3 components in
Nicaragua (Farming, Market, Industry engagement)
and mainly on Farming in Uganda. The M&E
framework is results based oriented and focused on
adoption of practices (for the Farming component).
In both cases the timeframe of the project is 3 years,
with the Ugandan project funded year on year as
part of broader organisational strategy. This is on
the longer end of the scale for project timeframes,
but it still does not leave enough time to work with
slow variables such as soil ecology or capacity
strengthening. -4-
Project Implementation
Uganda
 Capacity strengthening of field staff through bi-
annual residential training at Agro Eco U. Ltd
(Kahangi Estate – private tea and coffee estate with
a sustainable agriculture training centre) on
innovative farming systems and sustainable
agriculture (emphasis on soil conservation, organic
agriculture, agroforestry, climate change).
 Selection and training of lead farmers and setting
up demonstration plots (one per participating
village, 3 in Year 1, 6 in Year 2)
 Purchasing and distribution of tools, seeds, and
inputs
 Setting up trials: innovations such as trash lines,
minimum and zero cultivation (no-till), ‘stacking’
(agroforestry), cover crops (pigeon peas, Tithonia,
pumpkin in some cases).
 Training of farmers by BJCU’s field staff using a
Farmer Field School (FFS) approach (group of 50
farmers divided into 10 solidarity groups) and annual
exchange visits between groups, as well as visits to
Kahangi training centre.
 Installation of two weather stations (low and high
altitude) and training on data collection and analysis.
 Development and distribution of training materials
in Lukhonzo by the field staff team.
 Short radio programmes on sustainable agriculture
and climate change.
The stated approach to training farmers was through a
Farmer Field School (FFS) approach i.e. through
experiential learning and farming experimentation. This
method is not new and has been adapted to many
countries and projects. At the heart of it in this project is
the demonstration plot where farmers can gather, see,
experiment, discuss and form their own ideas of what
they want to try in their coffee garden, on their plot on
the mountain.
“People don’t accept anyhow, they need to see something
happening.” (Paineto Baluku). Although the idea of new techniques
or innovation seem synonymous to slow adoption process, Paineto
Baluku and Alan Tulip (Kahangi Estate Training Centre) suggested
these practices (e.g. mulching) are not actually new: “Some born
yesterday [the new generation] will tell you it is new, but those
who were here before know.”
Alan continues, “When you come up with a new idea with farmers,
everybody pushes back – “We cannot do that we have always done
like this etc.” – It has been hard here, but it has been hard
everywhere. What matters is the initial momentum.”
Feedback from the Focus Groups Discussions (FGDs)
and individual interviews suggest that many of the
practices being promoted have been tried by farmers,
with mixed results. This reflects an actual process of
experimentation which is taking place in each
individual farmer’s field as they assess whether a
particular practice is a viable option for them.
Given the nature of the crop, the problems being
addressed and the management practices being tried,
it will inevitably take time to make an assessment.
As commented by Alan Tulip, one of the key informant: “One
of the problems on this is that 95% of the farmers on the
mountains have lost top soil. Ok, so you can start practising it,
but it will take 3-4 years at least”.
Self-organisation of the FFS farmers (group of 50
farmers) into smaller ‘solidarity groups’ of 10 people
who meet on a weekly basis to share labour and
knowledge has been a success.
“They learned from the demo plots, they come back and
practise then it is the lead farmer who does the monitoring and
evaluation to see what they are doing” (Robert Baluku, Field
Supervisor at BJCU).
The FFS are using pictorials and hand-drawing to
translate the presentation materials from Kahangi
Training Centre. Later on, a manual was developed
using the local language (Lukhonzo), local farms as
examples, photos and drawings. The process of BJCU
creating their own training manual was empowering
and useful for the staff and the lead farmers.
The weather stations were installed in 2012 and BJCU
staff have learned to collect and analyse early data.
For now the data is used as a learning tool and
sometimes compared with other weather stations
data (Fort Portal) but monitoring their own weather
system has the potential to contribute to climate
resilience, particularly if BJCU has the capacity to
make use of this information and communicate it to its
members.
-5-

Nicaragua
Here, the implementation activities focus on component
1) of the project design ‘Supporting coffee farmers and
communities to implement practices to adapt to climate
change’:
• Capacity building of the field staff and promoters
through specialised workshops on crop nutrition, soil
conservation, compost making and innovations such
as chromatography analysis. This was supported by
Mas Humus (Francisco Meza).
• Farmer Field Schools (Escuela de Campo or ECAs –
methodology supported by CATIE), a series of
workshops with practicals in the field to disseminate
knowledge and skills, gained by field staff and
promoters , to farmers.
• Demonstration plots on rehabilitation (shade
management, fertility management), or renovation
(new coffee plants in association with legume trees
and diversification) or variety trials (5-8 new coffee
varieties).
• Community workshops to raise awareness of climate
change and engage with local authorities.
• Adaptation Fund to facilitate access to credit to
implement promoted practices.
• Set up a research group on coffee and climate change.
The approach to Farmer Field Schools was different
from that of Uganda. In Nicaragua, the dissemination of
information after the training of the technical team
(tecnicos) and promoters was through a series of annual
workshop in different regions across the country. Topics
covered included organic compost making and shade
management.
Specialised workshops on mineralised compost,
chromatography, plant nutrition were also given..
“The specialised workshops worked really well in fact. Because it was
new information from specialists that filled gaps in our knowledge
about coffee management, and organic agriculture. Because here in
Nicaragua we do not have a Coffee Institute. So this worked well, the
capacity building element, the generation of knowledge. From a
capacity building standpoint for the technical staff and promoters, I
think that the project was good. I know it because I attend nearly all
workshops and I know the initial and final level of the people.” (Henry
Mendoza, head agronomist at CAFENICA).
The 3-4 day community workshops gathered together
groups of farmers from targeted cooperatives
“The community workshops were a good thing because we gathered
the opinion of the farmers, developed a plan, but then… that was it. It
was a moment of reflection, of analysis. At the start of the project,
climate change wasn't a well understood issue although they were
affected. Now there is more awareness.” , reflects Henry Mendoza.
However, the climate change adaptation strategies
developed during those workshops failed to gain
resonance as a priority with local authorities, who it
was hoped, would support and fund the plans.
The initiation of a research group didn’t happen due
to the arrival of la roya (coffee leaf rust) and the split
of the existing National Alliance on Climate Change.
However, a relationship was built with CIAT
(International Center for Tropical Agriculture) and
CAFENICA decided to participate in the Early
Warning System (EWS) initiative by setting up five
weather stations.
The Adaptation Fund was an initiative to facilitate
access to credit for farmers willing to implement
recommended practices.
“This fund for adaptation was $50,000 and this was distributed
equally between the 5 cooperatives which represents 300
members. But this fund was so small that in the end, each
producer received between $200-300 on average” , comments
Henry Mendoza.
Analysis of Implementation
Farmer field schools are a good means to generate
understanding; but do not generate adaptive
capacity alone . Access to external knowledge and
strong relation with institutions are key to ensure
that new ideas, technologies or methods are
acquired by the producer organisation.
Greater support and follow-up is needed to ensure
that both extension staff and their managers
understand and have the capacity to be facilitators
of innovation. This requires a special focus on
capacity strengthening of extension service officers
and a way to measure their progress.
Adoption of new practices often requires the
capacity to invest in capital. This can be done
through adaptation funds: rotating loaning schemes
integrated with an extension programme to
accompany farmers. The fund needs to be of
adequate size and relevant to the needs of the
farmers.
Weather stations owned and managed by the
producer organisation are a way for the technical
team and the farmers to be more aware of the
annual fluctuations and challenge preconceived
ideas about the local climate changes (e.g. a dry year
perceived sometimes by farmers can actually be a
normal year but with a different rain distribution). It
is also a way to be connected to other
meteorological network (national or regional) that
can be linked to early warning system.
-6-
Monitoring & Evaluation

Uganda
The yields and income were calculated from the cherry
delivery to the micro washing stations. It is difficult after
2.5 years of the project to measure a significant increase in
yields but some farmers seem to already perceive change:
A third of the farmers considered the practices that
they had used ‘worked’, while 50% considered they
had worked partially. The main aim or perceived
advantage of using these practices was to improve
soil and water management.

“When I look at the yields in comparison with previous I see the
methods are working. It has helped with increasing production and
income. Working as a group, you share, you experience together, you
are able to get good market” (Asasio Biira, Bwimanero, 31)
Regina Mbayi, Kasithu 55: “I used to dig with a hoe but recently
after learning from farmer field school I have started slashing. I
decided to start because my coffee was withering So I wanted to
try the new methods. If they see my farm and see that my coffee is
doing well it could motivate other farmers to also try. I have
enjoyed working in the group because we have shared
experiences and we own our work and love what we do.”

M&E facts – Uganda

Grace Thembo,Bwimanero, 27: “It is cheaper than using a hand
hoe. It reduces soil erosion as the grass decay it adds manure to
the ground”

Asasio Biira, Bwimanero 31: “Some have tried zero cultivation,

though few. It is a new thing some are waiting to see the yields of
those who have practised.

Dereda Muhindo:“Sometimes we have witnessed people

14 field staff 300 farmers 6 farmer field planting with a stick (him), it is good because the soil is not
extensively have received schools around exposed
trained on training demonstration
climate change plots Pulikeria Mumbahya, 49, female, Kasithu: “Regardless of the fact
adaptation and that the drought has affected our production, I think it would
innovative have been worse if we had not learnt these farming methods.”
farming

Felizia Bwambale, Bwimanero, 52:“You always learn, until death. I

don’t mind people laughing at me as long as I know what I am
aiming at.”

Joy Biira, Kasithu, 45: “I think it [yield] will go up if we put more

emphasis on what we are taught to do on our farms then
80% adopted 4 2 weather Local radio production will increase. My production has increased and my
suggested stations set up broadcast coffee farm is still green and yet other people's farms look grim. I
methods or and weather based on a think the drought can help us to convince the farmers to be more
more during data collected recorded play active because they have seen the effects of the drought. And if
the course of 2
they compare the difference between my garden and their gardens
years
then maybe it will motivate them to also try some of these farming
methods”.

A farmer in Butale focus group reported: “My coffee plants

were yellow now they are green, the soil was taken by water but
now we are controlling it by trash line, planting grass. Soil was
good before but is has been destroyed by erosion and poor
method of farming.

Key results from farm level surveys 2013 and 2014

indicated that tree planting and application of compost had
increased very significantly. New erosion control methods
were being used and more intercrops planted, as well as
less clean wedding, which saved many man hours. Farmers
considered the practices that they had used ‘worked’ or
had worked partially. The main aim or perceived advantage
of using these practices was to improve soil and water
management. Other reasons included that it was a cheap
method, labour saving or increased production.

Credits for icons: made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com -7-

Nicaragua

Half the participant farmers considered that the M&E facts – Nicaragua
agronomic practices implemented had worked well. A
quarter considered it too early to know or didn’t
respond. However, the other 25% considered that at
least one of the practices had failed, either the new
varieties had been attacked by rust or the foliar
products had not worked in controlling rust.

Evaluation of institutional relationship advances was 42 promoters and 508 producers 27

limited to recording participation in events. 25 technical staff received training demonstration
were trained and and can identify plots (inc. 16 on
Nevertheless, three organizations did commit funds to have acquired new at least one varietal trials)
the climate adaptation fund, which was a good start for knowledge on adaptation
this initiative. climate change method
adaptation
Participants implemented more of the practices than
the non-participants. The most popular techniques were
applications of organic-based products (foliar) and
organic fertilizer production, aiming primarily to control
coffee rust, but also increasing production, reducing
costs and combating climate change.

The majority of farmers considered that high costs or 872 farmers who 2 weather $15,800 from
have stations set up Zensho to
lack of materials for organic fertilizer were the main implemented at and weather data Prodecoop ,
limitations to introducing new practices. Most of the least 2 out of 5 collected $160,000 from
non-participants did not have a problem with coffee promoted Lutheran World
rust and considered they had good productivity due to methods of Relief for
adaptation adaptation
being conventional producers. Non-participants
measures
indicated they received new technical information
either directly from extension agents or through their
neighbours.
In this project, the innovation process was triggered by an
“Before I made compost from the coffee pulp, but now I make external consultant (e.g. mineralised compost or
mineralised compost (bocashe) and the plants look more vigorous. chromatography) but also by the CAFENICA technical
With chemicals I could get twice the production but then the soil
dies. The live and dead barriers allow the plants roots to grow and supervisor.
protect the soil; the regulation of shade is important to reduce the
diseases” (participating farmer from Jinotega focus group). “Basically, I have designed a research and validation system using the
learning process that the project brought. What worked really well
were the legume trees where you can plant new coffee at the same
Many farmers would like to implement more new
time as the legumes and they germinate and grow very well. Even we
practices, especially diversification, but the majority were surprised to see these results. We were not expecting this”
are limited by lack of finance. (Tecnico, UCPCO)

Jose Antonio Talavera : “I have learned to introduce resistant

varieties because I saw how they grow in other farmers’ fields. I
can only put in practise what I have learnt to better manage shade
and introduce new varieties. The new technologies, we can try
them, but only if the organisations give us access to inputs and
materials and facilitate the process.”
Other ICT tools used included the use of the mobile
application Whatsapp (part of a project funded by
Lutheran World Relief):
“We have a network of extension officers and promoters on
Whatsapp. We can share information and photos. For example,
during visits of demonstration plots or individual farmers. This
works really well and we can use this platform to send reminders
like ‘this is a good time to prune tree and decrease shade before
this dates’. The promoters transmit this information to the
producers because they don’t have mobile phone with access to
internet. But this way, we can easily reach 50 farmers. The
exchange visit are also a good thing, when producers see change
with their own eyes. That can be more convincing than us talking
about something to farmers.” (Extension office of UCPCO,
member of CAFENICA)
The relationship between coffee rust and climate was less
definite and different regions have been affected more
severely than others. However, trials of new varieties
could contribute to management of rust and in the longer
term allow farmers and technical staff to select varieties
resistant and adaptable to local pests and conditions.
When asked what is most important for producers to
improve their coffee fields a field staff member from
UCPCO responded: “It is to validate experimental data on
your farm”. This shows the level of understanding and
facilitation of innovation that is happening on the ground,
and is a great indicator of the ability of the extension
service to foster innovation and adaptation to ecological
variability in their member base.
Jesus Perez Cruz: “We have changed our mentality through this
experience and training. I feel more prepared to face a new crisis. I
have diversified my field to be prepared in case I have problems
with my coffee so that I will have additional income sources.”

-8-
Analysis of Monitoring & Evaluation

There is a need for short-term projects (2-3 year) with

outcomes focussed on knowledge acquired, rather than
farmer income. There is also a need to have longer-term
monitoring if we want to determine impacts on
production, income, livelihoods or coffee quality. This
requires an initial investment in baseline surveys, but is
then not worth repeating until about 5 years later.

The process of innovation and adoption of new

techniques is happening not just at the farm level but
also at the producer organisation level, amongst the
technical team and management. This adaptive capacity
should be better measured and SMART indicators
developed for this level.

As may be appreciated from the findings of this study
project based adaptation processes that only last
typically 3 years are insufficient to fully develop
capacity to adapt to climate change; indeed adaptation
by its nature will be a constant process.
The strength of engaging producers and their
organizations with coffee traders and roasters is that
these actors intend to be constant commercial partners
and thus hopefully working together can sustain a
process of adaptation that may be effective in
generating the impacts desired.
Monitoring and evaluation of outputs and especially
outcomes is an expensive undertaking and can only
realistically be undertaken by large projects . Also the
timeframe for evaluating outcomes in terms of farmer
production or income would require a longer timeframe
than that of this project or as part of larger programmes
or initiatives.
To ensure that both producer organizations and buyers
know whether these adaptation processes are being
effective still requires some level of M&E to track
whether the development of knowledge outcomes does
indeed lead to impacts on production and income (or
other measures depending on the project). At the same
time it is important for coffee traders, roasters and
retailers to understand that they are part of the
adaptation process; i.e. the whole value chain needs to
adapt to the influences of climate change not just the
producers who feel the immediate impacts.
Climate change adaptation (CCA) is a dynamic, complex
process that cuts across scales and extends long past a
project cycle. It is also inherently uncertain. Monitoring
and evaluating adaptation to climate change - i.e.
defining measuring, and assessing the achievements of
an adaptation programme – is consequently very
challenging.

-9-
Lesson Learned Nicaragua

The process of project design appeared to be less

participative as the first case study. The large
Uganda
investment in M&E for the project is questionable given
the three year timeframe which is too short to generate
The project was primarily designed to address soil
significant measurable impact.
erosion and positive outcomes were not expected by key
informants for a number of years. This may not be
Implementation requires larger sums of financing and
compatible with donor expectations. Soil ecology and re-
for more farmers to have the knowledge and resources
formation is a (very) slow variable.
to put in practise. Better technical knowledge and
scientific validation of new varieties and practices which
Using a Farmer Field School approach has important
will come with time.
implications in terms of the capacity of the trainers.
Although sometimes considered costly investments in
The monitoring of demonstration plots was carried out
strengthening capacity of trainers in experiential learning
by farmers and promoters which proved to be a very
methods, as well as technical knowledge training can
effective and sustainable way to do monitoring and
make a major contribution towards strengthening
learning from experiments.
adaptive capacity and resilience.
Engaging local authorities might require a different
The M&E process has been more focus on a practice
approach e.g. concentration and collaboration with
promotion process, rather than a FFS process which is
other NGO to have more bargaining power.
more focussed on increasing farmers’ knowledge.
SMART indicators would help to inform the learning
Climate change in the region seems to be affecting the
process and highlight the need to strengthen capacity to
flowering and phenology of the coffee, however it was
improve climate resilience alongside measuring adoption
not clear that any of the promoted practices respond to
of agriculture practices.
this change in phenology – or what practical problems
the change in phenology is creating.
The quantitative analysis of data reveals that adoption of
practices is not really a problem. It is a slow process but it
Overall the agronomic training appears to be focussed
is influenced by the capacity of the field staff to access
on promoting a suite of practices that in general would
new information, share knowledge and experiment with
contribute to improved sustainability of production, but
farmers. The proximity and exposure to innovative
without being specifically oriented towards climate
farming systems is primordial (in this case Kahangi
adaptation.
training centre) and facilitate new knowledge acquisition
and behavioural change needed at the technical staff
As indicated by the technical lead from CAFENICA there
level.
is a lack of research and technical support to small-scale
farmers.
In 2014, BJC rolled out this project with their own funds
to develop a network of 28 demo plots reaching out to all
The establishment of the climate adaptation fund is a
members through the approach of demonstration and
positive initiative. However, there needs to be clearer
experimentation. A sign that encouraging results have
guidelines on what the funds should be used for and how
started to make an impact on management staff.
these would contribute to climate resilience. - 10 -
Going forward
In 2012, Twin and the IIED published a paper on ‘Small-
scale farmers and climate change – How can farmer
organisations and Fairtrade build the adaptive capacity of
smallholders?’ In this paper is presented the Local Adaptive
Capacity Framework (LACf) which features 5
characteristics (Figure 2). This has shaped Twin’s approach
to resilience and has been embedded in our Theory of
Change and our 6 pillars approach since then. However,
we do acknowledge that it is hard to design and get
funding for projects that integrate all aspects of adaptive
capacity.

In order to ground an intervention within a larger and

flexible analysis, many CCA experts are now
recommending the use of a theory of change (ToC)
approach to programme design, monitoring, and
evaluation. ToC and other theory-based evaluations map
out an anticipated ‘causal pathway of change’ towards a
long-term outcome or goal, and define how an intervention
contributes to or enables this pathway. Indicators are
identified for each step (usually called ‘outcomes’ or
‘preconditions’) along the pathway, together with
thresholds that would signify that an overall objective has
been met. These thresholds differ from Results Based
Management (RBM) targets, which specify what the
agency intends to achieve within the programme cycle.
ToC thresholds, by contrast, define what needs to occur in
order to move on to the next step along the causal
pathway, and does not necessarily measure an
intervention’s performance.
(UK CIP and Sea Change, 2014)
Figure 2: Five characteristics of the LACf: Asset Base, Institutions and
Entitlements, Knowledge and Information, Innovation and flexible
forward-looking decision making and governance.
Other guidelines and frameworks are becoming
available to better understand and measure resilience
such as the Oversea Development Institute (ODI) 3 As
(Adaptive Capacity, Anticipatory Capacity, and
Absorptive Capacity) (Aditya V. Bahadur et al 2015)
and Twin will in the final report draw from this new
research some useful guidelines for the coffee industry
in implementing future coffee and climate project.

Investigating other approach to M&E in resilience

As mentioned above, Twin intends to investigate and synthesise more how resilience framework
developed by institutions and research organisations can be applied in a practical way to coffee and
climate projects.

Investigating other projects and engaging with coffee industry partners

The next steps for Twin is to seek partners who are willing to share with us project information
and/or investigate the project itself following this methodology, in order to build up on the industry
knowledge of coffee and climate change projects.

If we are to truly build the resilience of coffee organisations and their producers now and in the
future, we should look back and around at what other practitioners, NGOs, business are doing to
have a positive impact and try to draw the lessons from our experiences.

We are aiming to add at least 2 or 3 case studies to this study. The final document will be an a
working paper aimed at practitioners and business with guidelines and recommendations to be
published in summer 2016.

- 11 -
Twin & Twin Trading
1 Curtain Road
London
EC2A 3LT

XavierHamon@twin.org.uk
T: +44 (0)207 422 0798
www.twin.org.uk
@twinfairtrade