Adapting small-scale irrigation to climate change in West and Central Africa (AICCA)

Climate resilience assessment of smallholder farmers in the Gambia

Climate resilience assessment of

smallholder farmers in the Gambia

An assessment resilience to climate of small-scale agricultural systems in Pacharr-

Jahally and Salikenni irrigation sites

Patricia Mejias Moreno, Technical Officer, Land and Water Division, Strategic Programme

on Reduce Rural Poverty, FAO

María Hernández Lagana, Economist and Resilience Assessment Expert, Land and Water

Division, FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Rome, 2019

Required citation: Mejias Moreno, P. and Lagana, M.H. 2019. Climate resilience assessment of smallholder farmers in the Gambia. Rome, FAO. 48 pp. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

© FAO, 2019

Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode/legalcode).

Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.”

Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.

Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.

iii

vi

vii

Contents

Acknowledgements

Acronyms

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Methodology 1

1.2 Resilience assessment: SHARP background 2

2. Project sites 4

3. Analysis of the baseline data 6

3.1 Household characteristics 6

3.2 Livelihoods and socio-economic characteristics 7

3.2.1 Income sources and main expenditures 7

3.2.2 Access to local markets and financial resources 7

4. Environmental indicators, climate disturbances and sustainable

use of resources 9

4.1 Crops and varieties 9

4.2 Climate disturbances and effects 12

4.3 Access to information on weather and cropping practices 14

4.4 Sustainable use of resources: Land and water management practices 15

4.5 Irrigation infrastructure 17

4.6 Field irrigation practices 19

4.7 Agricultural equipment 21

5. Resilience analysis 23

5.1 Resilience by irrigation site 26

6. Conclusions 28

7. Annexes 30

Annex 1. Crop production 30

Annex 2. Disturbances 31

Annex 3. Sustainable use of resources 32

Annex 4. Water sources and irrigation systems 34

Annex 5. SHARP measurement of resilience 36

iv

Figures

Figure 1. Main crops (seasonal / temporary cultivars) 9

Figure 2. Seed sources for main crops by irrigation site 10

Figure 3. Proportion of people using new varieties in the last 15 years 11

Figure 4. Irrigated crops according to their importance in the household 11

Figure 5. Disturbances experienced in the last decade ranked by intensity

by irrigation site 12

Figure 6. Types of climate change events witnessed by irrigation site 13

Figure 7. Access to information by irrigation site and type of information 14

Figure 8. Land management practices used, by irrigation site 16

Figure 9. Water conservation practice, by irrigation site 17

Figure 10. Water source, intake, extraction and lifting by irrigation system 19

Figure 11. Irrigation technologies used, total 20

Figure 12. Changes in water availability for crops due to variations in

rainfall and/or temperature, by irrigation site.21

Figure 13. Agricultural equipment used by irrigation site 22

Figure 14. Average resilience levels across different modules 23

Figure 15. SHARP resilience components: objective and self-assessments 25

Figure 16. Resilience assessment by irrigation site 27

v

Tables

Table 1. Characteristics of the irrigation systems assessed 4

Table 2. Socio-economic characteristics of the sampled population 6

Table 3. Climate change impacts by irrigation site, percentage of households 14

Table 4. Sources of information on cropping practices, by irrigation site 15

Table 5. Irrigation technologies, by irrigation site 20

Table 6. Aspects of resilience, disaggregated by level and irrigation site 26

Table A1. Crop production (Number of producers) 30

Table A2. Crop production (Percentage of producers) 30

Table A3. Other crops produced 30

Table A4. Disturbances experienced by level of importance 31

Table A5. Access to land, by irrigation site 32

Table A6. Use of and improving practices, by irrigation site 32

Table A7. Use of water conservation practices, by irrigation site 33

Table A8. Irrigation infrastructure, total surveyed people 34

Table A9. Water source, intake and extraction 34

Table A10. SHARP measurement of resilience, total interviewed people 36

Table A11. SHARP measurement of resilience, by irrigation site 37

vi

Acknowledgements

This report was developed as part of the project "Adapting small-scale irrigation to climate

change in West and central Africa - AICCA", funded by the International Fund for Agricultural

Development (IFAD).

The report was prepared under the technical direction of Patricia Mejias Moreno, Technical

Officer in the Land and Water Division and the Strategic Programme for Rural Poverty

Reduction of FAO. The report was prepared by María Hernández Lagana, FAO consultant,

with the contribution of the national focal point, Mr. Abdou Rhamane Jobe, Head of Soil and

Water Management Services, Ministry of Agriculture, Gambia, and the national consultant,

Baba Galleh Jallow. Michèle Piraux, FAO communication expert, and Charlotte Alcouffe, FAO

intern, provided editorial support. The cover was made by James Morgan. This report was

also made possible thanks to the contributions of stakeholders from the Government of the

Gambia, at national and subnational levels, smallholders from the sites of Jahaly, Pachar

and Salinkenni and the FAO office in the Gambia.

vii

Acronyms

AICCA Adapting small-scale irrigation to climate change in West and Central Africa

AP/FFS Agro-pastoral/ farmer field school

CCA Climate change adaptation

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

ICT Information and communication technology

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IGA Income generating activities

SHARP Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience for farmers

and Pastoralists

TS Tidal scheme

WCA West and Central Africa

WR Water retention

1

1. Introduction

The objective of the project “Adapting small-scale irrigation to climate change in West and

Central Africa (WCA) - AICCA” is to improve sustainability and adaptation of small-scale

irrigation systems across key agro-ecological systems in the WCA region. In order to meet

this goal, the project is composed of two phases:

1. A regional analysis in eight countries representative of the region - Chad, the Gambia,

Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Sierra Leone -, which describes the climate

change implications on irrigated agriculture and highlights the irrigation technologies

and best practices adapted to climate shocks that are valuable to scale up.

2. An in-depth analysis carried out in four pilot countries - The Gambia, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali

and Niger - to assess the impact of climate change on irrigation systems, to propose

adaptation strategies and to estimate their costs.

In this framework, needs-assessment household surveys were planned in the four pilot

countries of the WCA region: Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Niger and the Gambia. Between June and

August, household surveys were conducted in three regions in the Gambia in order to

measure the level of resilience of two different irrigation types to climate resilience. Two

hundred and seventy-one households were interviewed with the Self-evaluation and Holistic

Assessment of climate Resilience for farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP) tool in tidal irrigation

and water retention sites.

The aim of the survey was to understand and document the prevailing socio-economic and

environmental conditions of rural households in the Gambia, as well as to identify the

practices to adapt to climate change currently used. Moreover, the data collection had the

purpose to establish a baseline assessment of current resilience status of smallholders to

develop guidelines and design potential project interventions and strategies related to

Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) for small irrigation systems.

1.1 Methodology

The survey was conducted in the Salikenni village of Central Badibu Districts in the North

Bank Region (beneficiaries of the Salikenni water retention scheme) and 21 villages within

the Lower Fuladu West District of Central River Region (beneficiaries of the Jahaly - 8

villages) and Pacharr (13 villages - tidal irrigation schemes) targeting the head of the 271

households1 with at least 30 percent of female respondents. The households sampled are

statistically representative2 for an estimated population in the different irrigation sites.

1 When the head of the household was not present, their spouses or husbands were interviewed instead. 2 Based on 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error.

2

The selection criteria for the chosen participants were:

Households managing either a tidal or a water retention irrigation system.

Located in different agro-ecological zones of the selected provinces.

Being rice producers.

In order to compile the data, the Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate

Resilience for farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP) tool developed by FAO was used. The SHARP

tool was selected to conduct the resilience assessment as it helps collecting objective

information of smallholders holistically, while it addresses the need to better understand

and incorporate the concerns and interests of farmers, pastoralists and agro-pastoralists3

related to climate resilience (http://www.fao.org/in-action/sharp/en/).

The tool also enabled the identification of self-stated needs of communities which could

serve as the basis to foster the implementation strategies and interventions addressing such

needs.

A training on the use of the SHARP tool took place in February 2017 in Bouaké, Côte d’Ivoire,

after the project inception workshop was conducted. The training was delivered to project

staff of FAO/IFAD Côte d’Ivoire, the Gambia, Mali and Niger, the national focal points and

enumerators. The training focused on the understanding of the methodology embedded in

SHARP, through in-class practice and hands-on training in the field where the application

was first piloted.

Project staff led the household selection and mobilization processes for the data collection.

In the Gambia, the data gathering took place between June and August 2017 and 271 surveys

were conducted across the different provinces. After their finalization, questionnaires were

uploaded to the FAO central server for their analysis. Data was processed using STATA and

interpreted following the SHARP methodology4 for the resilience analysis and the project

logical framework.

This report presents the main results of the survey in the Gambia, clustered per the different

categories of indicators and intervention areas. Baseline data can be further exploited and

analysed during the project implementation to study specific issues as needed.

1.2 Resilience assessment: SHARP background

Resilience is defined in SHARP as the capacity of social, economic, and environmental

systems to cope with a hazardous event, trend or disturbance, responding or reorganizing in

3 SHARP uses the term agro-pastoralist, which commonly defines a member of a people living in drylands by a

mixture of agriculture and livestock herding. Nonetheless, for this context it is referred as the presence of a

mixed system, i.e. crop and livestock in the same household/farm system. 4 SHARP background document: http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/a78ba721-9e03-4cfc-b04b-

c89d1a332e54/

3

ways that maintain their essential function, identity and structure, while also maintaining

the ability to adapt, learn and transform.

The SHARP app customized version for the AICCA project comprises 30 question modules

that cover socio-economic, productive and environmental aspects crucial for identifying the

resources and practices used by smallholders to maintain their livelihoods and to cope with

and adapt to unexpected weather events and climate trends. The irrigation tailored version

of SHARP includes two new themes: irrigation field practices and irrigation infrastructure

that aim at identifying the irrigation systems, practices and equipment used by smallholders

in the different WCA countries. Finally, the combination of the questions allows assessing

the level of resilience at household/farm level.

SHARP works through a survey questionnaire embedded in an Android-based application for

tablets; each survey question group is used to calculate the relative resilience of a specific

aspect of the farming system. Resilience in SHARP is measured using three scoring

components comprised in each question group:

a) Academic score: gives an objective indication of the resource level in the farm

system, e.g. the number and varieties of crops cultivated, climate disturbances

experienced (direct scale from 0 to 10).

b) Adequacy assessment: is a qualitative question that provides information on the

perception people have of the availability of a specific resource, i.e. to what extent

the resource is enough to meet the farm needs (direct scale from 0 to 10).

c) Importance assessment: is a subjective statement of the importance a resource may

have (or not) for the functioning of the system (inverse scale from 10 to 0).

It is important to mention that the assessments were initially conceived to be self-stated.

Nonetheless, due to the purpose of the use of SHARP as an assessment of needs in this

project, the adequacy and the importance questions were asked by enumerators and field

technicians, removing the “self-assessment” component.

The combination of the first two components provides a general score of resilience (from 0

to 20) in which the lowest score highlights the question of relative lowest resilience/higher

vulnerability. Generally speaking, low scores can be interpreted either by the absence of

the resource in question, or/and because people consider the amount of resources they have

is not sufficient for the well-functioning of their systems. In this report, low resilience levels

would be given for those questions scoring 10.0 points or less (below 7.0, resilience levels

would be considered as very low), while high resilience levels would be identified when the

question under analysis scores higher than 10 points (above 12, levels would be reported as

reasonably high).

On the other hand, the last component, the importance assessment, reflects people’s

priorities and is an inverse scale; namely low scores would reflect that [the presence of] a

given resource is very important/would be very important for the functioning of their

system. High priority will be given to those questions scoring from 0 to 5, and low importance

to those with 6 or more points.

4

2. Project sites

The data was collected from households in three different irrigation sites in two different

types of irrigation systems: tidal irrigation and water retention. The Table 1 in this section

provide an overview of the main characteristics for each site.

Table 1. Characteristics of the irrigation systems assessed

Irrigation site Tidal zones Water retention

Agro-ecological zone Lowland Lowland

Location Central River Region-South North Bank Region

Water sources River Gambia Surface runoff from the upland is

impounded to a certain level

before flowing downstream.

Method to drain water Drains. Same canal used for

irrigation and drainage

Drains. Spillway allows excess

water to flow downstream and to

river

Main crops Rice Rice (2 varieties)

Irrigation system Tidal irrigation scheme with

perimeter dike in order to prevent

unwanted inflow/outflow of water

Water retention. Spillways allow

for natural runoff water

Presence of rotation

system

A rotation system is not

implemented; irrigation and

drainage is determined by the

weekly alternating spring and

neap tides along the river;

secondly uniform cropping is yet

to be realised within the

blocks/scheme

There is no rotation system in

place. The distribution depends on

the land elevation and quantity of

rainfall/runoff

Water availability

(manager's

assessment)

Water availability is not sufficient

for crops

This varies from year to year

depending on the quantity and

distribution of rainfall

Access to

meteorological

information

(manager's

assessment)

Yes, information is available but

mostly generalised (not location

specific); timely preventive

information is normally not

available. It is considered very

important to manage the irrigation

scheme

Information is available but mostly

generalised (not location specific);

timely preventive information is

normally not available. It is

considered very important to

manage the irrigation scheme

Management Government established it and

handed it over to community with

an oversite on overall

management

Community

Maintenance costs

Users contribute labour for routine

maintenance and Government

execute major repairs; technically

the Rice Farmers Cooperative

Society (RFCS) is being revived to

Users contribute labour for routine

maintenance and Government

execute major repairs; Village

Development Committee (VDC)

and swamp development

committee is charged with the

5

Irrigation site Tidal zones Water retention

Maintenance costs

(continued)

take up the management of the

scheme

management of development

works within the community

Priorities in case of

water scarcity

Crop stress Relies on run-off; nothing can be

done without rain

Climate change trends

observed

Decreased rainfall, increased

rainfall variability, increased

temperature, flooding, shorter

rainy season

Decreased rainfall, increased

rainfall variability, increased

temperature, flooding, shorter

rainy season

Climate change

impacts

Poor harvest, crop tiled, crop

failure, less farm income

Poor harvest, crop failure, less

farm income

Coping strategies Farmers revert to using traditional

rice varieties during the rainy

season. Shift to rainfed upland

crops for rice-young producers

during the rainy season

Introduction of short duration rice

varieties

6

3. Analysis of the baseline data

3.1 Household characteristics

The baseline assessment covered a population of 271 households in the three different

project sites (Jahally, Pacharr and Salinkenni) in the Gambia (see Table 2). Almost

100 percent (268 respondents) identified themselves as agro-pastoralists, i.e. possessing a

mixed system of crops and animals; while only 1 percent relied only on the production of

crops. In either type of agricultural systems, the main purpose of production is for on-farm

consumption, and around 50 percent of the households produce for commercializing directly

in local markets and 44 percent directs their agricultural production to a more industrialized

model (agri-business).

Table 2. Socio-economic characteristics of the sampled population

# % # %

Participants 271 100%

Survey Location Jahaly, Pachar and Salinkenni, the Gambia

Respondent characteristics # % Household composition # %

Occupation Gender (household head)

Agro-pastoralists 268 99%

Men 211 78%

Farmers 3 1%

Women 60 22%

Gender (respondent) Household composition by age

Female 126 46%

Boys 0-15 1135 21%

Male 145 54%

Girls 0-15 1093 20%

Age

Men 16-45 1137 21%

16- 30 31 11%

Women 16-45 1185 22%

31 - 45 91 34%

Men 46+ 373 7%

46+ 149 55%

Women 46+ 437 8%

Purpose of production*

Total 5360 100%

Own consumption 262 97% Education completed

Market 125 46%

Primary 726 14%

Agribusiness 118 44% Migration**

Other 61 23% HH member migrated 184 68%

The question allows for multiple option responses

** At least one member of the family has migrated

Twenty-two percent of the households covered were headed by women and 78 percent by

men, which is less than the initially set quota (30%); nonetheless when observing the

respondents, 46 percent were females and 54 percent males. The households in the covered

districts are characterized by the presence of nuclear and extended family in the same

shelter, with an average number of 20 members and a median of nine, being mostly children

and young adults the largest share of the composition.

7

Regarding the educational levels, it can be noticed that completion rates of primary

schooling remain low; only 14 percent of the household members have completed the

primary level of education. Moreover, when observing at the migration rates, at least one

member of the 68 percent households sampled has migrated in the past ten years. The

combination of both variables clearly influences the level of human capital present in the

household.

3.2 Livelihoods and socio-economic characteristics

3.2.1 Income sources and main expenditures

Agriculture is the main livelihood of the assessed farmers and agro-pastoralists, being

agricultural production the main activity of 93 percent of them. About one third of farmers

produce food under irrigated land as the main source of revenue. However, the surveyed

smallholders have an average of three sources of income. Remittances (21% of the

respondents), labour/employment outside agriculture (9%) and trade (9%) constitute other

important sources of revenues of the rural population in the irrigation sites. The latter also

reveals that agricultural producers rely on non-farm agricultural activities for a living;

indeed 76 percent of the respondents declared to have one either permanently or

seasonally.

The largest share of the revenues either form agricultural production or non-farm related

activities is spent on food (98% of the respondents declared food & beverages to be the main

item), followed by farm equipment (35%), inputs (31%) and human capital (education 12%

and healthcare 9%).

3.2.2 Access to local markets and financial resources

Access to local markets

Gambian farmers have access to local markets, though it is intermittent most of the times

for 53 percent of the respondents. Vehicles (89%) and donkeys (87%) are the main means

people use to reach and transport their agricultural produce, less than a half go by foot

(38%) and half of them use bicycles.

Local farm inputs

Overall, smallholders in the irrigation sites declared to have access their productive inputs,

though they face difficulties to get them, particularly fertilizers and knowledge with almost

50 percent of respondents. Other areas of concern of about one third of interviewees were

capital (33%), equipment (34%) and irrigation (30%). Seeds are easily accessed by the

members of the irrigation sites in Jahaly, Pachar and Salinkenni.

8

Financial support

Almost 60 percent of the farmers needed financial support in the past five years to cover

unexpected expenses. Family (69%), remittances (42%) and friends (21%) constituted the

main sources of assistance, while micro-finance institutions (8%), bank (3%) and cooperatives

(3%) represented a minor share of this support.

Savings

Most of the respondents stated to have savings (72%) and these to have increased in the past

five years (69%). People usually save by keeping cash at home (59%) and purchasing livestock

(50%), and only less than 30 percent use financial institutions as banks and saving structures

(29 and 27% respectively).

These numbers suggest that people depend heavily on social networks to cope with

unexpected financial shocks. Moreover, there is scope to further develop the micro-financial

sector to lend and assist smallholders, not only during shocks but also for investing and saving

options.

9

4. Environmental indicators, climate disturbances and

sustainable use of resources

This section attempts to capture which are the main climate related threats and

disturbances people have been exposed to and how they have coped with them. The latter

in the case any strategy was put in place to overcome and adapt to such unexpected shocks

and long-lasting trends. Other environment-related aspects, such as land improving practices

and water conservation techniques, are also included.

4.1 Crops and varieties

Concerning agro-biodiversity, information was collected regarding crop species and

varieties. With the use of that information, an overview of the number and types of crops

and use of different varieties seeds is offered in this subsection.

Figure 1. Main crops (seasonal / temporary cultivars)

The main crops identified through the survey are rice, peanut, maize, millet and a variety

of other crops (see Figure 1). Unsurprisingly, rice is the main crop for 77 percent of the

respondents, while millet is the second most produced crop by 27 percent of the farmers.

Other crops as horticultures (e.g. tomato, onion, okra) and legumes (i.e. beans) are also

produced but in a very small scale – only about 8% of the population plant them (see

Annex 1). Perennial crops as fruit trees are barely produced by the surveyed producers.

Usually a single variety of every crop is used, although more than 85 percent of rice

producers declared to use up to three different varieties (53% use two rice varieties and 34%

use three). Crops are mainly grown for own consumption and for selling them in local

markets. It is important to mention that relying on monocrop systems with a unique variety

Rice Peanut Maize Millet Undefined

Crop 1 (Main) 77% 13% 5% 4% 1%

Crop 2 5% 27% 17% 30% 11%

Crop 3 9% 11% 17% 26% 24%

Crop 4 6% 10% 8% 5% 41%

Crop 5 3% 1% 1% 0% 67%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

% o

f p

rod

uce

rs p

er c

ult

ivat

ed c

rop

Crop 1 (Main) Crop 2 Crop 3 Crop 4 Crop 5

10

turns people more vulnerable if unexpected shocks are experienced. For instance, in the

case of diseases or pest, a small diversification of crops and a low rotation of them would

increase the probability and amount of harvest loss and thus, the availability of food and

income (in case of a cash crop), jeopardizing people’s livelihoods and food security.

Seed sources

When observing at the sources of seeds, 87 percent of smallholders produce their own seeds

for their cultivated crops, although the government also provides some inputs, especially to

local rice producers (see Figure 2). Low use is given to seed production groups and seed

banks which are strategies that can help enhancing production diversification and stocking

mechanisms at family and community levels, improving food security when times of seed

scarcity are faced.

Figure 2. Seed sources for main crops by irrigation site (% of households using a given source)

Although the number of crops and varieties utilized in the same system is low and limited,

the introduction of non-local crop varieties is common amongst participants. This action

could be perceived as a coping strategy to climate variability, as 80 percent of the ones

incorporating them declared that their local varieties became dis-adaptive due to changes

in climate (see Figure 3).

The clear majority of producers (83%) have incorporated non-native or new varieties into

their farming systems in the last 15 years, being the ones using tidal irrigation schemes the

ones that have used new varieties the most compared with producers using water retention

schemes (88% and 72% respectively).

Self-production

Government

StoreCooperativ

eNGO Friend

Seed-production

groupsOther

Tidal scheme 86% 8% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Water retention 91% 3% 3% 0% 0% 3% 1% 0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f pro

ducers

Tidal scheme Water retention

11

Figure 3. Proportion of people using new varieties in the last 15 years (percentage of

households)

Nonetheless, the heavy reliance on new varieties, displacing the local ones can threaten

people’s stability in case shocks are experienced as the new varieties might not be adapted

to local climate or environmental conditions either. Moreover, in the medium and long

terms, this may also lead to the loss of genetic resources, traditional crops and food systems.

Irrigation systems are in place to provide with water resources to the planted crops,

especially to the staples. As observed in Figure 4, the first crop is granted with water in

71 percent of the cases, while a drastic fall in the presence of irrigation is observed in the

subsequent crops, which only 23 percent or less do have access to a constant water supply.

Figure 4. Irrigated crops according to their importance in the household (percentage of households irrigating crops)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Tidal scheme Water retention

Uses Does not use Does not know

Crop 1 (Main) Crop 2 Crop 3 Crop 4 Crop 5

No 27% 79% 59% 36% 11%

Yes 71% 11% 15% 21% 23%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f H

H irr

igati

ng c

rops

Yes No

12

4.2 Climate disturbances and effects

Disturbances experienced

Changes in climate have brought some consequences in agriculture and rural livelihoods in

general. The total number of respondents interviewed in the Gambia have declared that two

or more unexpected climate-related shocks have affected their farming production systems

in the last ten years.

Error! Reference source not found. below summarizes weather and other non-climate-r

elated events that have affected small-scale producers the most over the past decade. The

gathered data shows that on average, food-producers have been negatively affected by four

different types of unexpected shocks in the last decade. The different events vary on the

irrigation site, disturbing producers and their farming systems differently.

Wrong timing of rains is the disturbance that has affected the water retention irrigation

systems the most, while the presence of floods has negatively impacted tidal-based

irrigation schemes (see Error! Reference source not found.). Around five times in the last 1

0 years, rains shifted their usual season and timing, affecting small-scale producers’ cropping

and harvesting times. The presence of plants and crops diseases was also often observed by

interviewees in both types of irrigations systems, though they have not declared it to be a

real threat to them.

Figure 5. Disturbances experienced in the last decade ranked by intensity by irrigation site

(self-assessed)

FloodsWrong

timing ofrains

Disease ConflictLivestockraiding

Locust Conflict

Water retention 1% 87% 3% 0% 5% 4% 0%

Tidal scheme 73% 11% 2% 1% 9% 5% 1%

Frequency (water ret) 2 6 6 0 5 3 0

Frequency (tidal) 4 5 5 0 8 3 0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Fre

quency

% d

istr

ubances

obse

rved

13

Although non-climate or weather-related, livestock raiding constitutes one of the most

recurrent events for producers, as they have been frequently experienced – five times or

more in the last decade5.

Climate change trends and impacts

When observing the climate change related events witnessed by the interviewed producers,

in more than 95 percent of the cases rain-associated events are the most frequently

observed. Late arrival of the rain and shorter rainy seasons are the patterns that have been

perceived by most farmers (96% and 94% respectively – see Figure 6). These changing trends

are similar in both irrigation systems, though tidal-based scheme producers have also

acknowledged the presence of more floods, whilst producers in water retention systems

noticed the rise in unusual pest infestations.

Overall, changing climate patterns have impacted smallholders and their households in

several ways, being the increased loss of crops and consequently their incomes the most

noticeable ones (see Table 3). The changes in climatic trends have also implied a rise in

expenditures on agricultural inputs, especially fertilizers. Water retention systems appear

to be more heavily affected by changes in climate than tidal scheme producers.

Figure 6. Types of climate change events witnessed by irrigation site

5 Other disturbances observed ranked by importance are available in Annex 2.

Laterain

Flooding

Increase

rainfall

Decrease

rainfall

Increase

rainfallvariabi

lity

Increase

temperatures

Decrease

temperatures

Lateonsetof rain

Shorterrainy

season

Unusual pestinfesta

tion

Other

Water retention 100% 53% 8% 69% 48% 53% 8% 95% 93% 64% 1%

Tidal scheme 92% 96% 41% 58% 51% 39% 4% 94% 95% 43% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Water retention Tidal scheme

14

Although climate change has had negative effects on smallholder’s production systems,

water availability and quality do not seem to have been especially jeopardized as declared

by the assessed interviewees.

Table 3. Climate change impacts by irrigation site, percentage of households

Irrigation site Water retention Tidal scheme

Increased crop yield 3% 3%

Crop failure 100% 97%

Less farm income 100% 97%

Increased expenses on agricultural inputs 60% 21%

Migration / off-farm work 23% 22%

Reduced fodder yields 60% 21%

Irrigation (water availability) 20% 2%

Irrigation (water quality) 17% 1%

Unreliable water stream 27% 2%

4.3 Access to information on weather and cropping practices

Access to the different types of information

The access to information on weather and climatic events, such as weather forecasts or

meteorological information is crucial to enhance producer’s capacity to timely respond to

disturbances and changes in climate.

Figure 7. Access to information by irrigation site and type of information

In the selected sample, more than 80 percent of small-scale producers declared to use

traditional means, such as observation of insects’ migration or/and suiting baobab leaves,

to predict events related to climate (see Error! Reference source not found.). It is also o

bserved that most producers do have access to services that allow them predicting weather

83%

17%

69%

31%

73%

27%

95%

5%

77%

23%

84%

16%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Access to cropping practices

Means to predict

Access to weather forecasts

Water retention Tidal scheme

15

events, being the ones located close to the seashore those with slightly higher access (77%

in tidal schemes vs 69% in water retention sites).

Access to information regarding cropping practices is granted to more than 70 percent of

the Gambian farmers interviewed. On average, and for the different types of information

here comprised, producers based on the tidal-scheme sites have a higher degree to

information access.

Sources of information

For what regards weather and climatic events, information is mostly retrieved through radio

and extension services, nonetheless smallholders declared information was of poor quality

and not always accurate; moreover, limited access to distant locations limits their capacity

to receive timely information on climate and weather.

Radio, extension agents and television – are the main channels to access information for

agricultural producers, being the latter relatively more important for farmers in the water

retention site (see Table 4).

Table 4. Sources of information on cropping practices, by irrigation site

Source of information on cropping practices Water retention Tidal scheme

Radio 71% 79%

Newspaper 3% 3%

TV 57% 15%

Internet 0% 1%

Extension agent 49% 52%

AP/FFS 7% 5%

Other farmers 25% 30%

Other 4% 2%

Through most of the assessed interviewees do have the possibility to retrieve climate or

cropping practices related information, the one lacking of access to it, knowledge is

constrained, mostly due to distant and limited availability of extension services, poor media

coverage and high illiteracy levels.

4.4 Sustainable use of resources: Land and water management

practices

Land management practices

Several sustainable practices and techniques are commonly used by smallholder farmers and

pastoralists to prevent and reverse land degradation and soil infertility, while increasing

land productivity. Most of the practices used also allow for water retention in the soil.

16

About 90 percent of the total surveyed population (85% in the tidal scheme site and 100% in

water irrigation site) uses at least one land improving practice, being the incorporation of

manure to the soil the most commonly used amongst the respondents6, followed by mulching

(76%) and crop rotation (71%).

Overall, producers in the water retention schemes seem to have incorporated a higher

diversity of practices to preserve soil quality when comparing with their counterparts in the

tidal zones. Zero tillage, crop rotation, agroforestry and gully control are comparatively

more practiced by the assessed households in the water retention sites, than in the tidal

scheme ones.

Figure 8. Land management practices used, by irrigation site

Water conservation practices

In the same line, on average, 77 percent of the small-scale producers are extensively using

practices to ensure the water quantity for agricultural activities is preserved. Watering crops

at specific times of the day (e.g. early morning and/or late night) is the strategy most used

by farmers in tidal irrigation sites (89% of respondents). The use of mulches is the most

widespread one by water retention practitioners to retain humidity in their agricultural land

(55% of respondents). Water retention ditches and other practices are also undertaken by

almost 30 percent (on average) of smallholders in this type of irrigation system (see Figure

9).

6 For more details, refer to Annex 3.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Liming

Fallowing

Zero tillage

Rotational grazing

Crop rotations

Wind break

Intercropping

Mulching

Manuring

Vegetative strips

Agroforestry

Gully control

Terracing

Other

Water Retention Tidal Scheme

17

Figure 9. Water conservation practice, by irrigation site

Although agricultural producers do incorporate practices to preserve soil quality and water

quantity, there would be scope for introducing and enhancing the adoption of more

technology-based water management practices, for instance water-harvesting tanks,

irrigation schemes for off-season agriculture (e.g. drip irrigation), and other water

conservation techniques.

4.5 Irrigation infrastructure

Ninety six percent of the surveyed producers declared to have an irrigation system in place,

though only 13 percent of them accounts with the necessary infrastructure to provide their

corps with a steady water supply7. For water retention irrigation systems, run-off water and

streams are the main source of water; while for tidal schemes, streams are where crop-

producers source the water from (see Error! Reference source not found. and Table A9 in

the annexes).

In the water retention system site, the intake of water is mostly performed without using

any type of infrastructure, this is true for the 67 percent of respondents. Traditional wells

(64%), deep boreholes (25%) and modern wells (19%) are the mechanisms employed by

farmers to extract groundwater; while solar pumps and other instrument, as the use of a

rope and a bucket, are the elements most used for water intake.

On the other hand, in the project site where the tidal irrigation schemes are being used,

canals constitute the main source for water intake for 70 percent of the interviewees,

followed by some presence of water diversion structure accessed by 19 percent of the

respondents. To obtain groundwater farmers in this site use traditional wells (40%), shallow

modern wells (29%) and deep boreholes (29%). In general, tidal scheme based irrigation

7 This is the share excluding tidal irrigation for not overestimating the presence of infrastructure in

other types of irrigation systems - 97% of the people with tidal irrigation have infrastructure.

Plantingpits

Waterretentionditches

Waterearly

morning orlate night

Waterharvesting

MulchingCovercrops

Other

Tidal Scheme 0% 4% 89% 48% 64% 1% 4%

Water Retention 1% 36% 45% 35% 55% 1% 19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Tidal Scheme Water Retention

18

systems have a broader diversity of water lifting techniques and equipment. Finally, solar

and manually operated pumps, together with traditional methods (e.g. rope and bucket) are

the appliances used by these small-scale producers to extract water. It is important to

mention that groundwater is generally used for domestic purpose and vegetable gardening

and not for irrigation of the tidal schemes. The tidal-based irrigation relies entirely on the

fluctuation of the tides that irrigate and drain through the canal network.

The set of graphs in Figure 10 below, provide detailed information on irrigation system

characteristics of equipped systems per irrigation site.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Stream Pond Run off Other

Water source

Water retention Tidal scheme

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Direct withoutinfrastructure

Water intakeinfrastructure /

diversion structure

Pumping station Canal Other

Water intake

Water retention Tidal scheme

19

Figure 10. Water source, intake, extraction and lifting by irrigation system, percentage of

producers

4.6 Field irrigation practices

The majority households assessed (88% respondents) use surface irrigation practices to

provide water to their crops, while one respondent declared to use localized irrigation

(sprinkler) and 12 percent do not use any system, suggesting the reliance on rainfall for

irrigation.

For the surface irrigation methods, cans and buckets were listed as the most widespread

mechanism for watering, reflecting the low level of technology adoption amongst 83 percent

of smallholders. A minority of respondents use basins (1%), Californian systems (2%) and

other methods (2%).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Traditional wells Shallow modernwells

Deep modernwells

Shallowboreholes

Deep boreholes Other

Growndwater extraction

Water retention Tidal scheme

0%

20%

40%

60%

Manually operatedpumps

Electric pumps Motor pumps Solar pumps Other

Water lifting

Water retention Tidal scheme

20

Figure 11. Irrigation technologies used, total

Table 5. Irrigation technologies, by irrigation site

Irrigation technology used Water retention Tidal scheme Total

Sprinkler 1% 0% 0%

Localized 0% 0% 0%

Surface 100% 100% 100%

Californian 0% 3% 2%

Watering cans/buckets 96% 79% 83%

Basin 0% 2% 1%

Other 0% 2% 1%

None 4% 15% 12%

Of the total interviewees, only about 5 percent declared to have a rotation system in place

for water supply, of whom 83 percent of respondents declared the rotation works well for

the purpose.

Water supply and availability

For 74 percent of smallholders, water supply is sufficient for the crops they grow as declared

by them. When looking at the different irrigation sites, only 41 percent in the water

retention feel satisfied with the amount of water available for their cropping systems, while

59 percent find the quantity is not adequate. Despite the low satisfaction rates, only two

respondents declared to have restricted access to such a resource. Conversely, in the water

retention site, 87 percent find the supply of water is enough for meeting their farming needs.

12% 2%

83%

1% 2%

None Californian Watering cans/buckets Basin Other

21

Figure 12. Changes in water availability for crops due to variations in rainfall and/or

temperature, by irrigation site. In grey, whether people have taken any action

When observing at the water availability, three quarters of the total population surveyed

stated that there have been changes on it as result of variation in rainfall and/or

temperature, being more worrisome for those in the water retention site (Figure 12). Sixty-

three percent of all affected farmers have declared having taken some action at the field

level in the past ten years to cope with this restricted water availability, water retention

practitioners being more involved in proportion than the ones in the tidal irrigation site (61%

vs 41% respectively). Some strategies adopted consist in the incorporation of drought-

resistant and early maturing crops, shift upland/lowland production and digging new wells.

About 20 percent of the producers pay for irrigation water and/or maintenance of the

system. Nonetheless, the ones located in the water retention site seem to incur in more of

these types of expenditures than the ones practicing tidal irrigation (41% in the water

retention pay, whilst 12% pay in the tidal scheme). Fees vary from 100 to 1 500 GMD per

season (approximately 2.17 to 32.63 USD in 2017).

4.7 Agricultural equipment

Almost all respondents (99%) have access to at least one type of equipment or machine for

agriculture. The most commonly used types of equipment across sites are: 4-wheel tractors

(77%), power-tiller machines (71%) and ploughing (59%). Though in a lesser extent, 2-wheel

tractors are used by 22 percent of respondent on average. In addition, 26 percent of

respondents reported using other equipment, among which the manual operated hoe/plough

(“daba”) was mentioned. While 2-wheel tractors and ploughing equipment seemed to be

widely used across sites (see Figure 13), the use of other types of equipment was more

localized. Power-tiller machines and 4-wheel tractors were mostly used in tidal zones, as

reported by 88 percent of households. In water retention sites, 2-wheel tractors and

ploughing equipment were used by 65 percent of respondents on average.

Water retention Tidal shceme

Has taken any action 61% 41%

Water availability has decreased 83% 70%

Water availability has notdecreased

17% 30%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

Water availability has not decreased Water availability has decreased Has taken any action

22

Figure 13. Agricultural equipment used by irrigation site

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

4-wheeltractor

2-wheeltractor

Ploughing Teshing Power tillermachine

Other

Water retention Tidal

23

5. Resilience analysis

Average resilience levels

Following the SHARP methodology for the measurement of resilience, the data collected

reflected that overall, the average level of climate resilience is moderate-high,

corresponding to 10.98 points (out of 20, see Figure 14 and tables in annex 5). These general

levels of resilience for the complete set of people interviewed suggest smallholder farmers

possess a certain capacity and knowledge to cope with unexpected shocks and climate

variability, but there is a need to further strengthen their ability to adapt to climate change.

Figure 14. Average resilience levels across different modules (academic plus adequacy

scores), total surveyed population

With the lowest scores obtained (below 7), the major vulnerabilities are observed in the

following question-modules: field irrigation practices, main expenditures and soil quality,

0

7

13

20Household

Production typesCrops

New varieties

Crop losses

Record keeping

Information access

Water access

Water conservation

Water quality

Irrigation infrastructure

Field irrigation practices

Land access

Soil qualityLand management…Farm equipment

Energy sources

Fertility management

Group membership

Disturbances

Trust and cooperation

Access to local markets

Local farm inputs

Financial support

ICTs

Main expenditures

Income sources

Non-farm IGASavings

Low resilience Moderate resilience High resilience Self-assessed importance

24

and land degradation. The relative low resilience levels in these variables can be explained

by several factors8:

Field irrigation practices (4.20 points/20): limited resilience is observed since the

mechanization of the irrigation systems and low adoption of technologies (as localized

irrigation) is rather poor amongst participants. Moreover, rotations systems for irrigation

are absent in more than 85 percent of the farm systems covered.

Soil quality and land degradation (6.99 points/20): All producers declared to have

observed at least two or more degradation processes in their soils, with a mean of seven

and a median of five. Also, 57 percent of the smallholders said their soil contains very

little organic matter. When observing at the adequacy score, farmers expressed they felt

their soil quality was only “somehow” enough for meeting their farming needs.

Energy sources (7.21 points/20): Low scores are attributed to the limited variety to

source energy from, the use of fuel-based energy limits and the little reliance on local

energy sources. The combination of these factors shows little incorporation of

sustainable and clean solutions to generate power for machinery and irrigation and the

dependence on external sources of energy for the agricultural system.

Contrariwise, the top-three modules where relative high levels of resilience can be noticed

are: farm equipment, and access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) and

water access as they score over 14 points9.

Farm equipment: 99 percent of the smallholders interviewed own farm equipment for

managing their land. In the water retention sites, ploughing gears followed by 2-wheel

tractors are equipment they commonly use. Power tiller machines and 4-wheel tractors

are the farming equipment used in the tidal irrigation sites. Over 80 percent of producers

consider the machinery and equipment they have access to adequate and enough.

Access to information and communication technologies (ICTs): 98 percent of the

population has access and ownership to at least one technology; being mobile phones

and radio the ones mostly purchased (94 and 80% respectively). Overall, access to

information through ICTs is considered good.

Water access: About 80 percent of the assessed producers have access to at least two

water sources for meeting their agricultural and household needs. Efficient and

diversified water sources within a walking distance allow people to timely access it when

needed.

8 Main expenditures (3.08 points/20) also rated low limiting resilience. Education is barely rated as a priority

when allocating the household income. Ninety percent of respondents declared their household’s main expenses

are on food and drinks. Oppositely, only 1% of the surveyed people has placed education on the top of the ranking

as the major expenses carried out in the household, suggesting that investment in human capital is a factor that

is being lagged. However, low level of expenditure on education could also be ascribed to the fact that primary

and Secondary School education is free in all Government Schools, the predominant centres of learning in the

rural areas. 9 Use of new varieties is excluded from this analysis as the “adequacy” scores were not recorded and could

produce a potential bias.

25

The Table A10 in annex 5 gives additional information on distribution of scores across

different aspects assessed.

Priorities: self-assessed importance

The priorities are identified by the aspects that people self-stated as important. This

component is purely subjective so smallholders have the opportunity to express what they

consider as important or priority for the well-functioning of their production system and

household dynamics. Figure 15 maps the different components embedded in SHARP for

assessing the level of resilience people have, considering objective (academic score) and

subjective components (self-assessed adequacy and importance).

Figure 15. SHARP resilience components: objective and self-assessments

Note: The assessed importance has an inverse scale, i.e. the higher the score, the lower the

importance, and vice versa. For easier reading, the graph uses an inverted scale so the peaks

represent the themes with the highest priorities.

As noticed in the graph above, priorities are set in a number of the productive and socio-

economic aspects of the farming system and households. With 0.21 points/10, having varied

sources of income (including off-farm activities) is considered the main priority for them to

be addressed and one of the weakest in terms of adequacy levels. Major and easier

0

3

5

8

100

3

5

8

10

House

hold

Pro

ducti

on t

ypes

Cro

ps

Uti

lizati

on o

f new

vari

eti

es

Cro

p loss

es

Record

keepin

g

Access

to info

rmati

on o

n…

Wate

r access

Wate

r conse

rvati

on t

echniq

ues…

Wate

r quality

Irri

gati

on infr

ast

ructu

re

Fie

ld irr

igati

on p

racti

ces

Land a

ccess

Soil q

uality

and land d

egra

dati

on

Land m

anagem

ent

pra

cti

ces

Farm

equip

ment

Energ

y s

ourc

es

Fert

iliz

ers

and f

ert

ilit

y…

Gro

up m

em

bers

hip

Dis

turb

ances

Tru

st a

nd c

oopera

tion

Access

to local m

ark

ets

Local fa

rm inputs

Fin

ancia

l su

pport

ICTs

Main

expendit

ure

s

Incom

e s

ourc

es

Non-f

arm

IG

A

Savin

gs

Self-a

ssesse

d im

porta

nceA

cadem

ic s

core

& s

elf

-ass

ess

ed a

dequacy

Academic Scoring Self-assessed adequacy Self-assessed importance

26

mechanisms to source the farm inputs locally is also considered as paramount. Although high

scores in the objective assessment, water access is prioritized aspects by the interviewees,

and thus need to be considered when formulating projects and intervention in the different

irrigation sites.

5.1 Resilience by irrigation site

Overall, tidal irrigation schemes possess relatively higher levels of resilience to climate

events than water retention-based irrigation systems, given that they scored 11.31 points

against 10.50 respectively. In general, discrepancies in the scores can be explained by

“major” gaps in five aspects: crops, access to local markets, income sources, land access

and use of sustainable land management practices (see Figure 16 and Table 6)10.

Table 6. Aspects of resilience, disaggregated by level and irrigation site

Question module

Water retention

Question module

Tidal scheme

Average

Resilience

Self-

assessed

importance

Average

Resilience

Self-

assessed

importance

Household 15.80 0.29 Farm equipment 15.83 0.21

Farm equipment 14.87 2.00 Income sources 15.69 0.15

ICTs 14.74 2.68 ICTs 15.60 1.38

Water access 14.56 0.63 Water access 15.15 0.25

Soil quality and

land degradation

7.09 1.63 Water conservation

practices

8.72 3.06

Non-farm IGA 6.90 2.61 Non-farm IGA 7.68 1.95

Savings 6.10 0.71 Energy sources 7.47 3.10

Energy sources 5.01 4.41 Soil quality and

land degradation

6.97 0.43

Energy sources 5.01 4.41 Field irrigation

practices

4.16 7.18

Averages (all

questions)

10.50 2.30 Averages (all

questions)

11.31 1.45

In general, the systems located in the seashore also present more crop diversification, a

deeper access to local markets for selling farm products, more varied sources of income and

are better able to save money. The combination of these factors makes these producers

relatively stronger to face unexpected weather events and to cope with their effects than

the counterparts in the water retention irrigation communities.

Nonetheless, the latter appear to be wealthier in terms of land ownership and access to

communal land. Producers located in the water retention site have a more widespread use

of practices to conserve the land quality and water quantity. These factors certainly reflect

10 The question module “use of new varieties” is excluded from the analysis as the adequacy assessment was not

recorded due to a technical issue and results were normalized.

27

they possess knowledge and abilities to sustainably manage the resources they own and have

access to, building on and preserving the local natural capital.

Figure 16. Resilience assessment by irrigation site

Regarding priorities, tidal scheme-based farmers give relative more importance to: access

to land, farm equipment, and access to local markets; water access and water quality are

also prioritized. For water retention practitioners, primacy is provided to household

dynamics, water access, water quality, fertilizers and fertility management and income

sources.

Potential project formulations and interventions should focus on ways that allow

smallholders to diversify their agricultural production systems, while incorporating new

techniques to sustainably manage them and the resources available. Projects can also aim

at building value chains to ensure increased knowledge on production practices, access to

markets to agricultural products that guarantee a steady source of income for farmers and

their families.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.000

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

House

hold

Pro

ducti

on t

ypes

Cro

ps

New

vari

eti

es

Cro

p loss

es

Record

keepin

g

Access

to info

rmati

on

Wate

r access

Wate

r conse

rvati

on

Wate

r quality

Irri

gati

on infr

ast

ructu

re

Fie

ld irr

igati

on p

racti

ces

Land a

ccess

Soil q

uality

Land m

anagem

ent

pra

cti

ces

Farm

equip

ment

Energ

y s

ourc

es

Fert

ilit

y m

anagem

ent

Gro

up m

em

bers

hip

Dis

turb

ances

Tru

st a

nd c

oopera

tion

Access

to local m

ark

ets

Local fa

rm inputs

Fin

ancia

l su

pport

ICTs

Main

expendit

ure

s

Incom

e s

ourc

es

Non-f

arm

IG

A

Savin

gs

Average Resilience (WR)

Average Resilience (TS)

28

6. Conclusions

The report summarizes the findings of the SHARP smallholder climate resilience assessment

carried out among users of three irrigation sites in the Gambia, in two different types of

irrigation systems: tidal irrigation and water retention schemes. In most households, the

main crops are irrigated.

Agricultural producers have been negatively affected by changes in climate: wrong timing

of rains is the disturbance that has affected the water retention irrigation systems the most,

while the presence of floods has negatively impacted tidal-based irrigation schemes. Overall,

changes in climate were mostly related to rainfall patterns, including delays in rains, shorter

and more irregular seasons. The changing trends have caused the increased crop failure and

thus reduction of incomes from agricultural activities. The changes in climatic trends have

also implied a rise in expenditures on agricultural inputs, especially fertilizers.

Water availability has been also a consequence of climate change, particularly for water

retention-based irrigation systems. Nonetheless it is important to note that about 77 percent

of the small-scale producers are extensively using practices to ensure the water quantity for

agricultural activities is preserved. Watering crops at specific times of the day (e.g. early

morning or late night) is the strategy most used by farmers in tidal irrigation site, while using

mulches is the most widespread one by water retention practitioners to retain humidity in

their agricultural land. In this regard and given the changing climate trends, there would be

scope for introducing and enhancing the adoption of more technology-based water

management practices, for instance water-harvesting tanks, irrigation schemes for off-

season agriculture (e.g. drip irrigation), and other water conservation techniques.

Overall climate resilience of smallholders in the irrigation sites assessed is moderate

(average resilience score of 10.98 out of 20). Resilience in terms of production practices and

environment emerges as priority domains for strengthening resilience in the sites. In

particular, the key areas identified for improving resilience across sites were: field irrigation

practices, soil quality, and energy sources. In terms of areas of strong resilience, irrigation

systems and access to ICT, farm equipment, and water access. Water quality and access,

diversification of income sources and locally sourced farm inputs appeared as key concerns

for improvement among respondents. Overall, tidal irrigation schemes possess relatively

higher levels of resilience to climate events than water retention-based irrigation systems,

though no substantial difference is observed. In general, discrepancies in the scores can be

explained by “major” gaps in five aspects: crops, access to local markets, income sources,

land access and use of sustainable land management practices

Based on the information collected, important improvements in resilience can be achieved

by focusing on changing practices in field irrigation, water conservation, and land and soil

management. Potential project formulations and interventions should focus on ways that

allow smallholders to diversify their agricultural production systems, while incorporating

new techniques to sustainably manage them and the resources available. Projects can also

aim at building value chains to ensure increased knowledge on production practices, access

to markets to agricultural products that guarantee a steady source of income for farmers

29

and their families. Additional barriers to use of such practices need to be explored through

qualitative research and community consultations. In addition, complementary site-specific

measures tackling social and economic aspects might be needed to enable a resilience

building environment.

30

7. Annexes

Annex 1. Crop production

Table A1. Crop production (Number of producers)

Seasonal Crop 1(Main) Crop 2 Crop 3 Crop 4 Cop 5

# Producers 271 266 259 251 246

rice 210 13 24 14 7

peanut 34 72 28 26 2

maize 13 46 44 21 3

millet 10 81 67 13

Other crops 2 26 34 75 69

Irrigated Crop 1 (Main) Crop 2 Crop 3 Crop 4 Cop 5

Yes 193 28 40 53 56

No 74 209 152 90 28

Table A2. Crop production (Percentage of producers)

Seasonal crops Crop 1 (Main) Crop 2 Crop 3 Crop 4 Crop 5

% of producers 100% 98% 96% 93% 91%

Rice 77% 5% 9% 6% 3%

Peanut 13% 27% 11% 10% 1%

Maize 5% 17% 17% 8% 1%

Millet 4% 30% 26% 5% 0%

Other crops 1% 10% 13% 30% 28%

Irrigated Crop 1 (Main) Crop 2 Crop 3 Crop 4 Crop 5

Yes 71% 11% 15% 21% 23%

No 27% 79% 59% 36% 11%

Table A3. Other crops produced

Other crops Crop

1

% Crop

2

% Crop

3

% Crop

4

% Crop

5

%

Beans 1 0.37% 3 1.13% 6 2.32% 10 3.98% 4 1.63%

Cabbage

1 0.38% 4 1.54% 2 0.80% 6 2.44%

Cashew

2 0.80% 1 0.41%

Cassava 1 0.37% 1 0.38% 5 1.93% 2 0.80% 2 0.81%

Chili

1 0.40%

Okra

5 1.88% 5 1.93% 10 3.98% 20 8.13%

Onion

5 1.88% 3 1.16% 18 7.17% 20 8.13%

Peppers

1 0.39% 3 1.20% 3 1.22%

Potato

1 0.39%

1 0.41%

Sorghum

5 1.88% 3 1.16% 7 2.79% 5 2.03%

Tomato

7 2.63% 2 0.77% 6 2.39% 3 1.22%

Watermelon

1 0.38% 2 0.77% 3 1.20% 1 0.41%

Wheat

1 0.40%

Other 3 1.13% 7 2.70% 8 3.19% 3 1.22%

31

Annex 2. Disturbances

Table A4. Disturbances experienced by level of importance

Disturbance type Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3

Conflict 0.37% 0.75%

Disease 1.86% 10.45% 20%

Fire

0.75% 0.38%

Floods 53.16% 13.81% 6.15%

Livestock raiding 8.18% 16.79% 35%

Locust 4.46% 27.24% 15%

Wrong timing of rains 31.97% 30.22% 23.46%

32

Annex 3. Sustainable use of resources

Table A5. Access to land, by irrigation site

Access to land

Tidal scheme Water retention

Obs. % Average

(Ha.) Obs. %

Average

(Ha.)

Total accessible

land

Private land 193 98% 5.90 74 99% 3.50

Community

land

13 7% 2.60 38 51% 3.32

Rented land 4 2% 2 4 5% 0.50

Rain fed

Private land 174 89% 5.10 52 69% 3.16

Community

land

10 5% 2.10 33 44% 3.28

Rented land 2 1% 2.50 0 0%

Irrigated

Private land 192 98% 1.52 72 96% 1.45

Community

land

4 2% 1.56 10 13% 0.40

Rented land 4 2% 0.75 0 0%

Table A6. Use of and improving practices, by irrigation site

Use of land improving practices The Gambia Tidal scheme Water retention

# % # % # %

Does not use 30 11% 30 15% 0 0%

Uses at least one 241 89% 166 85% 75 100%

Average used 4 4 5

Practices used # % # % # %

Liming 43 18% 7 4% 36 48%

Fallowing 57 24% 33 20% 24 32%

Zero tillage 122 51% 73 44% 49 65%

Rotational grazing 11 5% 7 4% 4 5%

Crop rotation 172 71% 124 75% 48 64%

Wind break 8 3% 2 1% 6 8%

Intercropping 37 15% 29 17% 8 11%

Mulching 182 76% 125 75% 57 76%

Manuring 214 89% 152 92% 62 83%

Vegetative strips 6 2% 0 0% 6 8%

Agroforestry 41 17% 12 7% 29 39%

Gully control 35 15% 13 8% 23 31%

Terracing 9 4% 2 1% 7 9%

Other 2 1% 2 1% 0 0%

33

Table A7. Use of water conservation practices, by irrigation site

Water management practices The

Gambia

(Total)

% Tidal

scheme

Water

retention

No conservation 61 23% 61 0

At least one practice 210 77% 135 75

Use of water conservation

practices

The Gambia Tidal

scheme

Water

retention

# % # % # %

Planting pits 1 0% 0 0% 1 1%

Water retention ditches 32 15% 5 4% 27 36%

Water early morning or late nigh 154 73% 120 89% 34 45%

Water harvesting 91 43% 65 48% 26 35%

Mulching 128 61% 87 64% 41 55%

Cover crops 2 1% 1 1% 1 1%

Other 19 9% 5 4% 14 19%

34

Annex 4. Water sources and irrigation systems

Table A8. Irrigation infrastructure, total surveyed people

Irrigation systems # %

Has an irrigation system 261 96%

Does not have an irrigation system 5 2%

No response 6 2%

Equipped 218 84%

Non-equipped 53 20%

Table A9. Water source, intake and extraction

Irrigation types Water

retention

(equipped

system)

Tidal scheme

(equipped

system)

Total

Inland valley bottom 31% 0% 8%

Horticultural garden 10% 36% 29%

Flood irrigation 0% 1% 0%

Tidal irrigation 0% 97% 71%

Flood recession 0% 3% 2%

Other 0% 1% 0%

Water source, intake and

extraction

Water source of irrigation (%) Water

retention

Tidal scheme Total

Stream 29% 43% 39%

Dam 0% 0% 0%

Pond 1% 0% 0%

Run off 67% 2% 19%

Drainage water 0% 0% 0%

Other 10% 3% 5%

Water intake (%) Water

retention

Tidal scheme Total

Direct without infrastructure 71% 1% 20%

Water intake infrastructure /

diversion structure

3% 20% 15%

Pumping station 3% 3% 3%

Canal 0% 72% 53%

Other 1% 0% 0%

Groundwater (%) Water

retention

Tidal scheme Total

Traditional wells 64% 41% 47%

Shallow modern wells 4% 30% 23%

Deep modern wells 20% 4% 8%

35

Irrigation types Water

retention

(equipped

system)

Tidal scheme

(equipped

system)

Total

Shallow boreholes 7% 3% 4%

Deep boreholes 27% 29% 29%

Other 0% 2% 2%

Water lifting (%) Water

retention

Tidal scheme Total

Manually operated pumps 0% 8% 6%

Electric pumps 0% 1% 1%

Motor pumps 0% 4% 3%

Solar pumps 47% 36% 39%

Other 44% 23% 29%

36

Annex 5. SHARP measurement of resilience

Table A10. SHARP measurement of resilience, total interviewed people Q. Variable Obs. Weight Acade

mic

Score

Self-

assessed

adequacy

Average

Resilience

Self-

assessed

importance

Agricultural production practices

2 Household 271 467 6.72 8.12 14.83 0.52

3 Production types 271 467 7.35 6.72 14.09 1.20

4 Crops 271 467 5.72 5.43 11.15 0.67

5 Utilization of new varieties 271 467 5.37

NR

6 Crop losses 258 448 6.44 4.49 10.91 0.96

7 Record keeping 271 467 3.87 5.17 9.04 0.94

8 Access to information on weather

and cropping practices

271 467 7.93 5.13 13.09 1.98

Average production practices section 6.20 5.84 12.19 1.05

Environment

9 Water access 271 467 7.96 6.97 14.93 0.34

10 Water conservation techniques and

practices

271 467 4.87 4.10 8.97 2.93

11 Water quality 271 467 8.18 8.42 NR 0.30

12 Irrigation infrastructure 271 467 5.27 5.80 11.07 1.93

13 Field irrigation practices 271 467 2.41 1.78 4.20 7.37

14 Land access 271 467 3.75 5.85 9.60 0.33

15 Soil quality and land degradation 271 467 2.60 4.39 6.99 0.61

16 Land management practices 271 467 6.06 4.19 10.25 2.31

17 Farm equipment 271 467 9.70 6.06 15.76 0.46

18 Energy sources 271 467 2.71 4.50 7.21 3.25

19 Fertilizers and fertility

management

271 467 4.99 4.14 9.14 0.48

Average environment section 5.32 5.11 9.81 1.85

Social

20 Group membership 271 467 5.45 4.78 10.23 4.48

21 Disturbances 270 466 7.34 3.75 11.09 1.71

22 Trust and cooperation 271 467 6.53 4.42 10.95 3.58

Average social section 6.44 4.32 10.76 3.26

Economic

23 Access to local markets 269 463 7.18 6.17 13.36 0.34

24 Local farm inputs 271 467 4.52 5.80 10.33 0.25

25 Financial support 271 467 6.66 3.36 9.55 1.74

26 ICTs 271 467 10 5.59 15.57 1.48

27* Main expenditures 271 467 3.08

NA

28 Income sources 255 442 8.98 6.42 15.44 0.21

29 Non-farm IGA 269 464 4.24 3.41 7.65 2.01

30 Savings 271 467 6.48 3.50 10.00 0.38

Average economic section 6.39 4.89 11.70 0.92

Averages

(Production+Environment+Social+Economic)

5.94 5.13 10.98 1.58

Notes: a) Average scores are calculated using analytic weights of the irrigation sites; b) Average

resilience scores were normalized to 20 for the variable "Utilization of new varieties" as the adequacy

component was not recorded; c) The "Main expenditures" question module does not contain adequacy

and importance questions by formulation. Average resilience levels were normalized to 20 to account

to this lack of information and avoid sub estimation of results.

37

Table A11. SHARP measurement of resilience, by irrigation site

Q. Variable Water retention Tidal scheme

Average

Resilience

(WR)

Self-assessed

importance

(WR)

Average

Resilience

(TS)

Self-assessed

importance

(TS)

Agricultural production practices

2 Household 15.80 0.29 14.65 0.55

3 Production types 13.18 2.16 14.09 0.90

4 Crops 10.19 1.87 11.25 0.43

5 Utilization of new varieties

6 Crop losses 9.58 1.92 11.18 0.85

7 Record keeping 8.24 1.20 9.08 0.97

8 Access to information on weather

and cropping practices

12.77 2.72 12.96 1.94

Average production practices section 11.63 1.69 12.20 0.94

Environment

9 Water access 14.56 0.63 15.15 0.25

10 Water conservation techniques and

practices

10.44 2.68 8.72 3.06

11 Water quality

0.66

0.25

12 Irrigation infrastructure 10.31 5.03 11.10 1.29

13 Field irrigation practices 4.47 8.00 4.16 7.18

14 Land access 12.46 1.13 9.11 0.17

15 Soil quality and land degradation 7.09 1.63 6.97 0.43

16 Land management practices 12.68 2.02 9.65 2.31

17 Farm equipment 14.87 2.00 15.83 0.21

18 Energy sources 5.01 4.41 7.47 3.10

19 Fertilizers and fertility management 7.91 0.84 9.60 0.40

Average environment section 9.98 2.64 9.77 1.70

Social

20 Group membership 8.31 6.00 10.54 4.36

21 Disturbances 12.03 2.66 11.02 1.47

22 Trust and cooperation 10.75 3.55 11.27 3.37

Average social section 10.36 4.07 10.94 3.07

Economic

23 Access to local markets 9.37 1.32 14.03 0.20

24 Local farm inputs 9.27 1.03 10.50 0.15

25 Financial support 9.79 1.70 10.16 1.63

26 ICTs 14.74 2.68 15.60 1.38

27 Main expenditures

28 Income sources 13.40 0.61 15.69 0.15

29 Non-farm IGA 6.90 2.61 7.68 1.95

30 Savings 6.10 0.71 10.74 0.32

Average economic section 9.94 1.52 12.06 0.83

Averages (Production +Environment

+Social+ Economic) 10.39 2.30 11.08 1.45

Notes: a) Average scores are calculated using analytic weights of the gender of the household head, as academic

scores contain averages in their original formulation; b) Average resilience scores were normalized to 20 for the

variable "Utilization of new varieties" as the adequacy component was not recorded; c) The "Main expenditures"

38

question module does not contain adequacy and importance questions by formulation. Average resilience levels

were normalized to 20 to account to this lack of information and avoid sub estimation of results.

Figure A 1. SHARP resilience components: objective and self-assessments by

irrigation site

0

3

5

8

100

3

5

8

10

House

hold

Pro

ducti

on t

ypes

Cro

ps

New

vari

eti

es

Cro

p loss

es

Record

keepin

g

Info

rmati

on a

ccess

Wate

r access

Wate

r conse

rvati

on

Wate

r quality

Irri

gati

on infr

ast

ructu

re

Fie

ld irr

igati

on p

racti

ces

Land a

ccess

Soil q

uality

Land m

anagem

ent…

Farm

equip

ment

Energ

y s

ourc

es

Fert

ilit

y m

anagem

ent

Gro

up m

em

bers

hip

Dis

turb

ances

Tru

st a

nd c

oopera

tion

Access

to local m

ark

ets

Local fa

rm inputs

Fin

ancia

l su

pport

ICTs

Main

expendit

ure

s

Incom

e s

ourc

es

Non-f

arm

IG

A

Savin

gs

Self-a

ssesse

d im

porta

nce

Academ

ic s

core

& s

elf

-ass

ess

ed a

dequacy

Water retention

Academic Scoring Self-assessed importance Self-assessed adequacy

0

3

5

8

100

3

5

8

10

House

hold

Pro

ducti

on t

ypes

Cro

ps

New

vari

eti

es

Cro

p loss

es

Record

keepin

g

Info

rmati

on a

ccess

Wate

r access

Wate

r conse

rvati

on

Wate

r quality

Irri

gati

on infr

ast

ructu

re

Fie

ld irr

igati

on…

Land a

ccess

Soil q

uality

Land m

anagem

ent…

Farm

equip

ment

Energ

y s

ourc

es

Fert

ilit

y m

anagem

ent

Gro

up m

em

bers

hip

Dis

turb

ances

Tru

st a

nd c

oopera

tion

Access

to local m

ark

ets

Local fa

rm inputs

Fin

ancia

l su

pport

ICTs

Main

expendit

ure

s

Incom

e s

ourc

es

Non-f

arm

IG

A

Savin

gs

Self-a

ssesse

d im

porta

nce

Academ

ic s

core

& s

elf

-ass

ess

ed a

dequacy

Tidal scheme

Academic Scoring Self-assessed importance Self-assessed adequacy

This publication was producedthanks to the financial support of

CA

4256

EN

/1/0

5.19