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 [email protected]. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: [email protected].
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