Understanding trade-offs in upscaling and integrating climate-smart agriculture and sustainable river basin management in Malawi

Abstract

13This paper presents an assessment of the potential trade-offs between social, economic and 14 environmental objectives when upscaling and integrating climate-smart agriculture (CSA) with 15 integrated catchment management (ICM) at landscape level, with a case study in Malawi. In a 16 workshop, government and NGO representatives and experts assessed trade-offs between the 17 goals of ICM and CSA under four different scenarios of climatic and economic changes. The 18 paper presents a novel combination of scenarios and a trade-off matrix exercise to critically 19 evaluate trade-offs between CSA and ICM and link these to policy challenges and interventions. 20 Our analysis shows that the compatibility of CSA and ICM policies depends on future climatic 21 and economic developments, with a higher prevalence of perceived trade-offs in futures with low 22 economic growth and high climate change. CSA was expected to have limited effect on reducing 23 inequalities and investment in literacy and skills development are critical to ensure that 24 marginalised groups benefit from CSA. 25 26 for valuable input. We are grateful to 34 all workshop participants and two anonymous reviewers. 35 36 37 78than across -the agricultural and water sectors respectively (FAO 2015b). Past implementation 79 of catchment management and agriculture policies has resulted in conflicts, for example, where 80 irrigated farming on river banks is preferred to increase farm revenues but negatively affects 81 siltation mitigation. These trade-offs relate to physical possibilities as well as preferences, norms 82

The Dynamics of Climate Change Adaptation in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review of Climate-Smart Agriculture among Small-Scale Farmers

“…The question arising is how can CSA be reachable to these farmers for climate change adaptation, and how can CSA be locally adapted to be applicable in their situation(s)? Other challenges identified with CSA implementation and adoption are the lack of technical expertise among small-scale farmers, as well as extension workers and development practitioners [101].…”

“…For about 30 years now, studies have been focused on developing and promoting low-cost technologies that are suitable for small-scale agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa [101]. However, in recent times, the focus has shifted to addressing challenges of decreasing productivity, poor soil fertility, degrading farmlands, food shortage, and increased level of risks from agricultural production aggravated by changes in climatic conditions.…”

Prey availability and intraguild competition regulate the spatiotemporal dynamics of a modified large carnivore guild

“…Widespread persecution and the depletion of large prey species have led to the localized loss of resident lion populations, with the species restricted to either infrequent dispersing males or small isolated populations in fenced reserves (Briers‐Louw et al., 2019; Davis et al., 2021; Mésochina et al., 2010). Malawi has one of the highest population densities in Africa (186 people/km 2 ; National Statistical Office, 2019), with 80% of the population dependent on natural resources (e.g., firewood) and agriculture for income, heating, and food security (Yaron et al., 2011; Schaafsma et al., 2018). Subsequently, Malawi has the highest deforestation rate in Africa (Mapulanga & Naito, 2019), while protected areas have been subject to widespread subsistence poaching (van Velden et al., 2020).…”

Towards Capturing Human Well-Being-Nature Relationships in Poverty Assessments in Rural Malawi and Rwanda

“…FGD participants were then asked to match their components to an a priori list of nine dimensions (table 2) developed through a review of existing well-being frameworks (Alkire & Santos, 2010;Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005;Nussbaum, 2011;Schleicher et al, 2018) as well as prior work in Rwanda (e.g., Gross-Camp et al, 2015;Martin et al, 2015) and Malawi (e.g., Schaafsma et al, 2018). If a free-listed well-being component did not fit into one of these predetermined areas, the creation of an additional dimension was allowed.…”