Climate change adaptation options to inform planning of agriculture and food systems in The Gambia: A systematic approach for stocktaking

Introduction

Adaptation is increasingly recognized as a crucial component of the global response to climate change, particularly following the Paris Agreement, which articulates a global adaptation goal and a mandate for all parties to undertake and assess adaptation progress (Berrang-Ford et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2022). Undertaking and documenting adaptation progress is crucial to inform adaptation and mitigation planning and future commitments in National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) (Berrang-Ford et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2022). In developing and least developed countries (LDCs), where compounded or cascading climate risks could interact with and limit achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adaptation is urgent (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2019; Roy et al., 2022; Simpson et al., 2022). Adaptation is even more imperative in the most vulnerable countries, such as The Gambia (Camara et al., 2021), where climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture, play a crucial role in economic development (Tinta, 2017; MECCNAR, 2021).

Because climate change risks magnify development challenges for LDCs, the 2010 Cancun Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established the NAP process as a way to facilitate effective adaptation planning in LDCs and other developing countries (LEG., 2012). NAPs aim to identify medium- and long-term adaptation needs and enable countries to develop and implement strategies to reduce vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, to facilitate the integration of climate change adaptation, in a coherent manner, in the broader context of sustainable development planning (LEG., 2012). Furthermore, NAPs are intended to coordinate national adaptation efforts by providing guidance to government agencies, communities, the private sector, and other relevant stakeholders (LEG., 2012; Woodruff and Regan, 2018).

One of the recommended steps for the formulation of the NAP, by the Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG), is the stocktaking, which is intended to identify available information on climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation, and review and appraise adaptation options (LEG., 2012). Furthermore, this national stocktake can also help LDCs to meet the Paris Agreement's requirement of identifying, assessing and reporting on adaptation progress by all parties to the UNFCCC. While the LEG has provided guidance and recommendations on each step of the NAP process, based on the guiding principles (LEG., 2012), a practical approach or method to systematically take stock of existing knowledge and information on climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation, and review and appraise adaptation options is still lacking. Thus, each LDC follows its own path for synthesizing existing knowledge to inform NAP formulation and adaptation planning, which does not allow a cross-country assessment of quality planning (Woodruff and Regan, 2018).

In addition, with the Paris agreement requiring all parties to assess adaptation progress, including reviewing the effectiveness of adaptation to inform climate action planning and commitments (Berrang-Ford et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2022), how to assess adaptation effectiveness became crucial (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2022). In a recent analysis, Singh et al. (2022) illustrated how different normative views on adaptation outcomes, arising from different epistemological and disciplinary entry points, can lead to very different interpretations of adaptation effectiveness. Furthermore, innovative methods for synthesizing the evidence on diverse and rapidly expanding adaptation knowledge are still needed (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021).

Using the case of The Gambia, one of the most ambitious LDC, with track record of national and international leadership on climate action (Camara et al., 2021; MECCNAR, 2021), this study presents a systematic approach for stocktaking and appraisal of adaptation options in agriculture and food systems to provide evidence base that would enable informed decision-making and effective adaptation planning. The proposed approach is composed of two parts: i) identification of adaptation options, using a three-step systematic mapping of adaptation options, and ii) evidence-based assessment of the effectiveness of the identified adaptation options following an outcome-based framing of adaptation effectiveness. The operationalization the Gambian's ambitious climate action commitments in agriculture and food systems could build on prior knowledge of adaptation technologies and practices that could be effective and relevant to the context of Gambian agriculture and food systems. This knowledge can also inform adaptation planning and The Gambia's commitments in NDC (currently being revised) and NAP (currently in the preparatory phase). Beyond The Gambia, the approach can also be useful for and replicated in other countries in the West African region, that are currently in the preparing their NAP process. It can also enable LDCs reporting of adaptation progress under UNFCCC.

Using a systematic approach, we identified and synthesized climate change adaptation options relevant for The Gambian agriculture and food systems. Specifically, we mapped any adaptation option that has been reported or implemented in The Gambia agriculture and food systems following a three-step review process (Figure 1). We then analyzed how the identified options contribute to the pillars of Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA). CSA is an approach for transforming and reorienting agricultural systems to support food security under the new realities of climate change (Lipper et al., 2014; Totin et al., 2018). It is defined by three main objectives: (i) increasing agricultural productivity to support increased incomes and food security (productivity pillar); (ii) adapting and building resilience to climate change across scales (from farm to nation; adaptation pillar); and (iii) reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing carbon sinks (mitigation pillar; Lipper et al., 2014; Totin et al., 2018).

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Steps for identification of adaptation options.

Materials and methods

Identification of adaptation options

We adopted a mixed methods approach, combining several steps, to identify the adaptation options that could be relevant for The Gambian agriculture and food systems (Figure 1). By “relevant”, we mean adaptation options that can be appropriate in the contexts or circumstances of agriculture and food systems in The Gambia; these include any adaptation options that has been implemented or reported as implemented in The Gambia in the documents identified following the different steps described in the section (Figure 1).

First, we reviewed and included the adaptation options analyzed in the Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) Profile of The Gambia (FAO et al., 2018). The CSA profile gives an overview of the agricultural challenges in the country, and how CSA can help adapt to and mitigate climate change in agriculture and food systems (FAO et al., 2018). It also provides a snapshot of baseline information to initiate discussion about entry points for investing in CSA at scale. In addition, adaptation options analyzed in The Gambia CSA profile have been completed and extended with adaptation options from the Evidence for Resilient Agriculture (ERA) database¹ ERA provides a comprehensive synthesis of the effects of CSA technologies and practices on key indicators of productivity, resilience and mitigation (Nowak and Rosenstock, 2020).

Second, we reviewed and selected adaptation options tested through the Climate-Smart Village (CSV) approach (Aggarwal et al., 2018). The CSV approach has been developed and implemented by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) across Asia, Africa, and Latin America to generate evidence on the effectiveness of CSA technologies (Aggarwal et al., 2018). The CSV approach is a mean of conducting agricultural research for development that robustly tests institutional and technological innovations for dealing with climatic risks and challenges for agriculture using participatory methods (Aggarwal et al., 2018). As The Gambia shares many socio-ecological and cultural features with Senegal, we considered adaptation options tested in the CSV sites in Senegal (Sanogo et al., 2017).

Third, we identified additional adaptation options from gray and peer reviewed literature on climate change adaptation in The Gambia. Gray literatures were identified through Google search using search terms related to climate change adaptation and The Gambia and included reports from institutions such as FAO, ActionAid NGO, The Gambian NDC, Governments reports and documents. We also conducted a systematic review to identify relevant peer reviewed publications in two databases: Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). We searched in Title, Abstract and Keywords of publications for combined the search terms related to climate change (“global warming” OR “climat^* change” OR “climat^* variability” OR “climat^* warming”), adaptation (“adapt^*” OR “risk reduc^*” OR “risk manag^*” OR “resilien^*” OR solution^* OR respons^*) and “The Gambia”. Publications in sectors other than agriculture and food systems (e.g., ecology, conservation, tourism, parks and wildlife management) or in which no data were not collected in The Gambia were excluded. Publications on mitigation with no mention of adaptation and outside agriculture and food systems were also excluded. The full texts of relevant papers were reviewed, and adaptation options were extracted. The list of the gray literature reviewed and the relevant publications are presented in Supplementary materials 1 and 2 respectively.

Assessing effectiveness of the identified adaptation options

We followed an outcome-based or goal-oriented framing of effective adaptation (Singh et al., 2022), with the contributions to three CSA pillars as the outcome or goal to achieve with the implementation of adaptation options in agriculture and food systems (Thornton et al., 2018). To assess the climate-smartness of the identified adaptation options, we explored how the options contribute, positively or negatively, to the three CSA pillars: (1) increasing agricultural productivity and incomes; (2) adapting and building resilience to climate change; (3) and reducing and/or removing GHG emissions. We reviewed peer review literature to assess whether there was an association documented in the peer reviewed literature between the CSA pillars and each of the adaptation options. We used indicators of each CSA pillar: productivity (yield and income), adaptation (soil, water and risk management), and mitigation (energy, carbon and other GHGs emissions). For each of the adaptation options we recorded whether the effects on each of the CSA pillars documented in the peer reviewed literature were predominantly positive, predominantly negative, or mixed. As climate-smartness is context specific and not an innate property (Sova et al., 2018; Thornton et al., 2018), we provided the overall direction of the effect (positive, negative or mixed) across the literature and not the magnitude of effects. Following Kuyah et al. (2021), we also complemented the analysis with an expert knowledge-based assessment of the importance of identified practices for CSA pillars. The same approach² was used in developing the CSA profile of The Gambia (FAO et al., 2018) and prioritizing CSA options for investments in Mali (Andrieu et al., 2017). It is also one of the suggested approaches for setting priorities in CSA research (Thornton et al., 2018). A similar approach was also used to assess the contributions of selected agronomic practices to sustainable intensification of agricultural production systems in sub-Saharan Africa (Kuyah et al., 2021). To identify relevant peer review literatures which provide evidence for assessing the contributions of each of the identified options to the CSA pillars, we conducted a series of systematic search in Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). In each database, we searched in Title, Abstract and Keywords of publications for combined the search terms related to each identified adaptation options (see Supplementary material 3 for search terms used for each option) and “The Gambia”. Publications outside agriculture and food systems and/or with no data on the indicators of the three CSA pillars were excluded. The full texts of relevant papers were reviewed to assess how each of each option contribute to the CSA pillars. Supplementary material 3 presented the list of relevant papers reporting empirical study from The Gambia. As there was not enough literature from The Gambia to provide evidence base for assessing the contribution of some of the adaptation options to the CSA pillars (see Supplementary material 3), we used evidence from literature outside The Gambia. We used evidence from the ERA database and additional peer reviewed literature, reporting findings from West Africa or sub-Saharan Africa, to analyze the potential of these practices and technologies to deliver on one or more of the three CSA pillars. Although the selection of those additional peer review literature supporting the effects of some of the options on CSA pillars was not systematic, an assessment of the design of the studies served as indirect proxy of the strength of the evidence. Supplementary material 4 presents the list of the adaptation options and the literature from West Africa or sub-Saharan Africa supporting the contribution of each option to the three CSA pillars.

Results and discussion

Screening and identification of adaptation options

A total of 11 documents from the gray literature (including reports from institutions such as FAO, ActionAid NGO, The Gambian NDC, Governments reports and documents) were identified and reviewed to extract adaptation options. The scoping search of peer reviewed literature resulted in 53 articles from Scopus and WoS. Nine (09) additional publications were identified from the ERA database and added to the list. After removing duplicates and screening for eligibility for the study based on the title and abstract, 54 articles remained. After full article screening, a total of 21 articles met our inclusion and exclusion criteria (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. PRISMA diagram of literature screening.

Following the three-step review process (Figure 1), a total of 24 adaptation practices and technologies were identified for agriculture and food system adaptation in The Gambia (Table 1). The adaptation options were grouped into seven adaptation categories (Table 1), following Wiederkehr et al. (2018), and included crop diversity use and management practices, soil and nutrient management, soil and water conservation, agroforestry options, livestock-based practices, agro-climatic information and services, and livelihood diversification options. A short description of each option is presented in Supplementary material 4. Table 2 summarizes how each adaptation option delivers on one or more of the three CSA pillars. A short description of the climate-smartness of each option and supporting references are also presented in Supplementary material 4. Detailed descriptions are published elsewhere (Segnon et al., 2021b).

TABLE 1

Table 1. Technologies and practices relevant for agriculture and food systems adaptation in The Gambia.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Climate-smartness of the identified adaptation options.

Climate-smartness of the identified adaptation options

Crop diversity use and management

In sub-Saharan Africa, many farmers take advantage of the differential effects that climate conditions might have on different crops and varieties to adapt to climate variability (Fisher et al., 2015; Segnon et al., 2015). Although the use of climate-resilient crops or crop varieties, crop diversification, changing planning date and IPM are common reported adaptation practices in The Gambia (Sanneh et al., 2014; Amuzu et al., 2018; FAO et al., 2018; Bagagnan et al., 2019; Sonko et al., 2020, 2022), empirical assessment of the outcomes of these adaptation options in The Gambia context is, however, very limited. From the systematic searches, only five studies assessing the outcomes of the use of climate-resilient crops or crop varieties were identified (Dibba et al., 2012, 2017; Diagne et al., 2013; Van Der Geest and Warner, 2014; Sonko et al., 2022). Four studies assessed the outcomes of IPM strategies (Carson, 1988a,b, 1989; Cockfield, 1992), and only one study assessed the impacts of crop diversification (Aubee and Hussein, 2002). No relevant studies were identified to provide evidence on the outcomes of changing planting dates to manage climate risks (Supplementary Table 4).

Empirical studies showed that the adoption of improved drought-resistant rice varieties such as NERICA significantly improved productivity-related indicators such as rice yields and income (Dibba et al., 2012; Diagne et al., 2013) and household food security in The Gambia (Dibba et al., 2017). Beyond the Gambia, empirical evidence from 16 sub-Saharan African countries also revealed that the adoption of improved rice varieties improved farmer income and food security, and reduced poverty (Arouna et al., 2017). Adoption of the drought tolerant maize varieties (DTMVs) disseminated across 13 African countries increased maize yields and reduced yield variability and exposure to risk of crop failure among adopters (Wossen et al., 2017). Productivity increase and risk reduction resulting from adoption of DTMVs led to a reduction in the incidence of poverty and in the probability of food scarcity (Wossen et al., 2017). A recent assessment of adoption of improved groundnut varieties (a key crop in The Gambia) in semi-arid West Africa also found an increased household income and food security indicators, and poverty reduction as a result of adopting improved groundnut varieties (Lokossou et al., 2022).

Simulated adoption of drought tolerant maize seeds could increase yields by up to 25% under climate change conditions in Africa by 2050 compared with expected yields with current varieties (Islam et al., 2016). By decreasing the vulnerability of farm households to climate risks though increasing production and reducing exposure to risk, resilient crop and crop varieties also reduce the need for harmful post-failure coping strategies (Fisher et al., 2015; Wossen et al., 2017). This highlights that adoption of climate-resilient crop varieties and crops contributes to not only improve productivity but also resilience of cropping and farm systems to climate risks.

As rainfall patterns in The Gambia have become more erratic, crop and cropping systems diversification will be particularly important in the future. Currently, on-farm diversification of crop and crop varieties help farmers to spread the risk of crop failure and reduce losses in The Gambia (Van Der Geest and Warner, 2014; Anderson, 2017). An increase in food security and effective adaptation to climate change were also reported as results of implementation of on-farm crop diversification (Anderson, 2017). Households that has planted drought-resistant crop varieties were more successful in avoiding loss and damage from the 2011 drought in The Gambia (Van Der Geest and Warner, 2014). In The Gambia, Fonio is a climate-smart and early-maturing cereal crop, with high nutritive value and ability to withstand dry spells Sonko et al. (2022), a crucial trait for managing climatic risks. Sesame was another climate-smart crop, which played in a key role in building household resilience following the drought of the 1980s in The Gambia (Aubee and Hussein, 2002). Beyond The Gambia, adoption of multiple climate-resilient crops has been shown to significantly improve household income, which resulted in household asset accumulation (Ogada et al., 2020). The effects of crop diversification toward reducing crop failure and increasing production become stronger on degraded and less fertile land and when rainfall level is lower (Di Falco et al., 2010). In addition, diversification of field plots can take advantage of spatial variability in rainfall in drought-prone rainfed systems (Fisher et al., 2015; Segnon et al., 2015).

Although improved and resilient crop varieties have been shown to be climate-smart, there are concerns on increased GHGs emissions associated with the use of fertilizers and also the high input and supply costs which often reduces the adoption potential of smallholder farmers (Zougmoré et al., 2018). However, no empirical evidence currently exists on the effects of adoption of climate-resilient crops and crop varieties on the mitigation pillar in the Gambian context.

In The Gambia, limited availability of high quality seeds and limited number of seed companies represent key barriers to widespread adoption of improved climate-resilient crop varieties (FAO et al., 2018). Indeed, lack of access to seeds was a key barrier limiting adoption of drought-tolerant NERICA varieties in The Gambia (Dibba et al., 2015). However, the economic benefits of adapting seed systems to current and future climate shocks are substantial. Based on nationally representative data from Malawi and Tanzania, Cacho et al. (2020) estimated the benefits from adopting climate-resilient varieties to range between 984 million and 2.1 billion USD over 2020–2050. This estimate illustrates the benefits of establishing and maintaining a flexible national seed sector and providing incentives to smallholder farmers to adopt climate-resilient crop varieties (Cacho et al., 2020).

Changing planting date to adjust to the erratic rainfall pattern helps Gambian farmers to reduce risks of crop failure (Sonko et al., 2020). No relevant studies were identified to provide evidence on the outcomes of changing planting dates to manage climate risks in The Gambia. Optimum planting dates improve crop yield and reduce yield variability (Nyagumbo et al., 2017). Adoption of row planting also results in increase maize yield (Martey et al., 2020), household income and food security (Fentie and Beyene, 2019).

Climate change is altering the distribution, incidence and intensity of animal and plant pests and diseases as well as invasive and alien species (FAO et al., 2018). Climate-smart pest management practices common in The Gambia include traditional and physical approaches (FAO et al., 2018). The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach is also widespread following its introduction by the Pest Management Unit of the Ministry of Agriculture (FAO et al., 2018). Millet-groundnut rotation was reported as an example of efficient cultural control approach for managing Striga populations in farmer fields (Carson, 1988a). Intercropping of sorghum and groundnuts was also effective in reducing density of Striga in sorghum field in The Gambia (Carson, 1989). The use of groundnut oil in combination with bruchid-resistant variety was reported to be effective as chemical pesticides for protection stored cowpea grain in The Gambia (Cockfield, 1992). Evidence from a meta-analysis indicated that IPM practices can effectively reduce pest pressure and increase crop yields in African farming systems (Himmelstein et al., 2017). Promoting IPM in The Gambia as well as in other African countries should go in hand with regulating and policy enforcement of pesticides import and uses, as fraudulent pesticides are widespread, compromising human and environmental health and safety (Haggblade et al., 2022).

Soil and nutrient management practices

Several nutrient management practices were identified through the three-step inventory (Figure 1) as adaptation options in The Gambia. These include the use of compost, manure, mulching, inorganic fertilizers and conservation agriculture practices (Amuzu et al., 2018; FAO et al., 2018; Bagagnan et al., 2019; Sonko et al., 2020, 2022). The use of chemical fertilizers was reported as a preferred adaptation option by farmers, even though inorganic fertilizer is very expensive (Bagagnan et al., 2019). Following the systematic search of the evidence sources supporting the contribution of the options to the CSA pillars, we found three (03) studies assessing the outcomes of inorganic fertilizer use (Eldon et al., 2020; Raes et al., 2021; Sonko et al., 2022), two (02) studies on mulching (Ashrif and Thornton, 1965; Eldon et al., 2020), and one study for each of use of compost, manure (Eldon et al., 2020). No study assessing the outcome of intercropping, crop rotation, and conservation agriculture (CA) as a system was available (Supplementary Table 4).

Composting and compost use have been reported to strengthen cropping systems' resilience to drought in The Gambia (Anderson, 2017). A simulation analysis indicated that composting could reduce solid waste in the Gambia by 64% in the next 25 years, contributing to GHGs emissions from inappropriate disposal and management of municipal solid waste (Jassey et al., 2021).

On-farm research trials across The Gambia and Senegal testing effects of inorganic fertilizer, manure, mulching showed that all the treatments have positive effects on yields of sorghum, millet, groundnut, rice, maize and cowpea (Eldon et al., 2020). Compared to mineral fertilizer, manure application increased yield, with effects more pronounced in warm and/or humid climates (Du et al., 2020). Application of chemical fertilizer significantly improved Fonio yield in The Gambia (Sonko et al., 2022). Similar trends were reported by a crop modeling study, in which improved soil fertility management is crucial to reduce climate change-induced yield gaps (Raes et al., 2021). However, no studies assessing the contribution of fertilizer use to mitigation pillar in the Gambian context were available.

Conservation agriculture (CA) is practiced in semi-arid areas of West Africa, including in The Gambia, to enhance the productivity of the inherently poor fertility soils and combating soil degradation (Bayala et al., 2012; Partey et al., 2018; Thiombiano et al., 2022). CA is based on concomitant application of three principles: (a) minimum soil disturbance (through minimum or no tillage); (b) maintenance of a permanent soil cover (through cover cropping or mulching); and (c) diversified profitable crop rotation (Giller et al., 2015). No studies were available to enable the assessment the contribution of CA to CSA pillars in the Gambian context. In West Africa, empirical evidence shows that CA contributes to the productivity and adaptation pillars of CSA by improving soil structure and water retention, soil organic matter, soil fertility replenishment and reducing soil erosion (Bayala et al., 2012; Partey et al., 2018). In addition, CA-based systems can significantly improve soil health (Araya et al., 2021). The positive impacts on soil quality and fertility, and soil water conservation could result in increased farm productivity and income (Bayala et al., 2012; Araya et al., 2021). Legume intercropping significantly increases crop yield and income, even though the magnitude of the benefits depends significantly on socio-ecological contexts; it reduces the probability of low yields even under critical weather stress during the growing season (Himmelstein et al., 2017; Nyagumbo et al., 2020; Abdul Rahman et al., 2021; Mupangwa et al., 2021). A synthesis of 7-years on-farm experiments across five countries in Eastern and Southern Africa showed that maize-legume intercropping and rotation under CA had the highest maize yield advantages as well as the most stable maize yields compared to the conventional practices (Mupangwa et al., 2021). In addition, maize–legume intercropping can significantly reduce the risk of crop yield and financial losses, and represents a viable risk management option for smallholder farmers in sub-humid and semi-arid areas of West Africa (Abdul Rahman et al., 2021).

The first continent-wide meta-analysis of CA experiments in sub-Saharan Africa confirmed the positive effects of CA practices on soil and water conservation (Corbeels et al., 2020). However, effects on crop yields are too small to significantly improve food security of smallholders (Corbeels et al., 2020). Compared with conventional practices, CA slightly increased yields, with yield benefits stronger under the combined application of all three CA principles, in drier conditions and when herbicides were applied (Corbeels et al., 2020). A recent meta-analysis which evaluates the impacts of selected CSA practices widely implemented in Africa—green manure, conservation tillage, and crop residue retention— showed, however, that the practices significantly increase yield and soil organic carbon, although no significant change was evident in soil total nitrogen (Kichamu-Wachira et al., 2021). The main conditions for CA performance relative to conventional tillage involve use of rotations, low rainfall conditions, medium textured loam and well drained soils (Nyagumbo et al., 2020). Nevertheless, CA remains effective in mitigating the negative impacts of heat stress and rainfall variability, and provides climate resilience benefits to cropping systems (Komarek et al., 2021). Indeed, mulching enhances the stability and resilience of cropping systems with either no-tillage or conventional tillage under both high and low rainfall conditions (Mhlanga et al., 2021), thus, contributing to cropping system resilience. By improving soil physical properties and plant nutrient uptake, mulching was shown to increase groundnut yield in various locations in The Gambia (Ashrif and Thornton, 1965). Mulch application has positive effects on soil and water conservation, with soil and water loss decreasing with increasing mulch application rate (Li et al., 2021). In addition to improving soil carbon stocks and organic matter content (Bai et al., 2019; Kichamu-Wachira et al., 2021), CA has potentials in reducing GHG emissions attributed to plowing (FAO et al., 2018; Partey et al., 2018). Recent global as well as Africa-focused meta-analyses showed that cover crops and conservation tillage are effective at increasing soil organic carbon content, with the effects more pronounced in areas with relatively warmer climates or lower nitrogen fertilizer inputs (Bai et al., 2019; Kichamu-Wachira et al., 2021).

In Eastern and Southern Africa, where CA promotion has been strong and sustained, adoption rate was low and dis-adoption rate was high, because of physical, human, informational, and financial resource constrains (Giller et al., 2015; Lee and Gambiza, 2022). These generic smallholder farmers' constraints are also prevalent in West Africa as well as in The Gambia and could limit the upscaling of CA (Thiombiano et al., 2022).

Soil and water conservation practices

Several practices and techniques are commonly used by smallholder farmers in semi-arid areas of West Africa to prevent and reverse land degradation, improve infertility and increase land productivity, while increasing water retention in the soil (Zougmore et al., 2014). These include contour bunds or farming, Zaï and half-moon techniques (Zougmore et al., 2014; Partey et al., 2018). Although Zaï was mentioned as an adaptation option after the first stage (Figure 1), the scoping search was unable to find any publications on Zaï from The Gambia (Supplementary material 4). Two studies provided the evidence base to assess the contribution of contour bunds or farming to the CSA pillars (Wright et al., 1991; Doumbia et al., 2009). The water management options identified included the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) (Ceesay et al., 2006; Ceesay, 2011) and irrigation (Webb, 1991; Ceesay et al., 2006; Raes et al., 2021; Redicker et al., 2022), with empirical evidence from The Gambia.

Stone bund and contour/tie ridges have become popular among West African farmers for reducing erosion, conserving run-off water and improving water use efficiency on farmlands (Partey et al., 2018). In terms of productivity and adaptation, construction of contour bunds has been reported to prevent soil erosion, enable water to stay longer in farm areas and reduce loss of soil nutrients in The Gambia (Anderson, 2017). Under erratic rainfall distribution conditions, tied ridge cultivation significantly increased soil water reserves on modest slopes and is a viable tillage alternative for maize-based systems in semi-arid areas of The Gambia (Wright et al., 1991). By reducing soil erosion and runoff, and improving rainwater capture and conservation in soil, tied ridge cultivation significantly increased maize yields and soil organic carbon in The Gambia (Doumbia et al., 2009). In semi-arid areas of Mali, application of contour bounds increases maize and millet grain production, retains soil water and reduces erosion rate, resulting in farm productivity improvement (Birhanu et al., 2020). As a micro-catchment system, tie/contour ridges can serve as climate-smart rain water harvesting techniques during water limiting conditions (Partey et al., 2018). Combining contour ridging with integrated soil fertility management approaches synergistically increases crop productivity (Partey et al., 2018; Birhanu et al., 2020).

The use of stone bunds built along fields' contour lines, micro water-harvesting, and soil restoration not only increased yield in years of good rainfall but also reduced yield variability during droughts (Zougmore et al., 2014; Partey et al., 2018). Under water-limiting conditions, stone bunds are efficient techniques in improving soil water content through run-off control (Zougmore et al., 2014). By slowing down run-off, stone bunds also induce sedimentation of fine waterborne particles of soil and manure, resulting in a build-up of a layer of sediments rich in nutrients (Zougmore et al., 2014). Under erratic rainfall conditions, stone bunds contribute to conserving more soil moisture thereby helping to alleviate water stress during dry spells (Zougmore et al., 2014). By reducing the impacts of flood and drought extremes on farmers' fields, stone bunds enhance the adaptation of cropping systems to climate change and variability and as such represent a climate-smart approach (Partey et al., 2018). The effectiveness of the stone bunds is reinforced by combining with organic fertilizers (Zougmoré et al., 2011; Zougmore et al., 2014). In semi-arid areas of Burkina Faso, combining manure or compost with soil and water conservation techniques significantly increased sorghum grain yield compared to mineral fertilizer application (Zougmoré et al., 2011). Integrating soil and water conservation techniques with application of compost resulted in increased financial gains under adequate rainfall conditions (Zougmoré et al., 2011).

Zaï and half-moons are traditional integrated soil and water management practices developed from indigenous knowledge systems to combat land degradation and improve soil productivity of previously abandoned bared soils through biophysical and biological processes (Lahmar et al., 2012; Zougmore et al., 2014). It is a soil rehabilitation system that concentrates run-off water and organic matter in small pits (Zougmore et al., 2014). By contributing effectively to rehabilitate previously abandoned and degraded bare lands and substantially increasing crop productivity, zaï and half-moon practices improve smallholder farmers resilience to climate variability (Zougmore et al., 2014; Partey et al., 2018). In northern Ghana, adoption of Zai technology leads to significant gains in consumption expenditure, consumption expenditure per capita, and household income (Ehiakpor et al., 2019).

However, the expansion of Zaï and stone bunds can be constrained by their physically demanding and intensive labor requirements (Schuler et al., 2016; Etongo et al., 2018). In subsistence-oriented farming context in the semi-arid areas of West Africa, where no other alternatives are available, Zaï can be an option to reverse severe land degradation and improve households' livelihood and food security (Ndah et al., 2014; Schuler et al., 2016).

There is substantial evidence, including in The Gambia, that the System of Rice Intensification (SRI), an agroecological crop management system consisting of altering crop, soil, water, and nutrient management practices contributes to the CSA pillars (Ceesay et al., 2006; Thakur et al., 2016; Thakur and Uphoff, 2017; Graf and Oya, 2021). SRI increases crop productivity with lesser inputs and enhances cropping resilience to biotic and abiotic stresses (Ceesay et al., 2006; Ceesay, 2011; Thakur et al., 2016; Thakur and Uphoff, 2017; Graf and Oya, 2021). When locally adapted, SRI increases yield and profitability in West African rice farming, including in both poor and resource-endowed farmers farms (Graf and Oya, 2021). Indeed, compared to conventional practices for irrigated rice production, SRI enhances water productivity and reduces substantially water use (Thakur et al., 2016; Thakur and Uphoff, 2017). In addition, SRI practices create both larger, healthier root systems that make rice plants more resistant to abiotic and biotic stresses and more conducive environments for beneficial soil biota (Ceesay et al., 2006; Ceesay, 2011; Thakur et al., 2016; Thakur and Uphoff, 2017). SRI field experiments conducted in The Gambia showed a significant crop yield increase without higher application of inorganic fertilizer and with less requirement for water (Ceesay et al., 2006; Ceesay, 2011). Water productivity also increased greatly (Ceesay, 2011). In addition, production cost analysis showed that SRI production was economically cost-effective, with more than 95% increase in net return per ha compared to farmers' practices (Ceesay, 2011). There are also evidence that SRI practices enhanced nutrient uptake due to greater root growth and activity, and improved the nutritional content and quality of produced grain (Thakur et al., 2020). In addition to enabling farmers to increase crop productivity with less inputs and reducing exposure to both abiotic and biotic stresses, SRI also reduces net emissions of greenhouse gases, especially methane emissions from rice fields (Thakur and Uphoff, 2017; Hasanah et al., 2019). Rice fields managed with SRI practices can serve as a sink rather than a source for CH4 (Hasanah et al., 2019).

In a changing climatic and economic context, the development of irrigation is considered necessary to stabilize and increase yields and reap higher returns from farm inputs and technological investments (Manka, 2014; Fisher et al., 2015). In addition, the development of irrigation enables farmers flexibility in planting dates, choice of crop types and varieties, and number of growing seasons (Fisher et al., 2015). While only 6% of total cultivated area in Sub-Saharan Africa is currently irrigated, introduction of irrigation into rainfed cropping systems will be critical to future agricultural production (Fisher et al., 2015; Partey et al., 2018). Improved water harvesting and retention and irrigation systems are fundamental for increasing production and addressing the increasing irregularity of rainfall patterns (FAO et al., 2018; Partey et al., 2018).

Investments in developments of drip irrigation to improve water availability on farmlands can be seen as a climate-smart option, especially for high value vegetable crops in The Gambia (Manka, 2014; Partey et al., 2018). Promoted by international development assistance, historical investments in irrigation schemes in The Gambia had increased farm productivity, household income, food consumption, expenditure and investment in farm, and improved household food security income (Webb, 1991; Redicker et al., 2022). Irrigated agriculture created avenues for asset and capital accumulation at both household and national scales (Webb, 1991; Carney, 1998). There is evidence that drip irrigation systems are cost-effective options to increase crop yield and household income, thus contributing to poverty reduction and food security in the Sudano-Sahel zones of West Africa (Woltering et al., 2011; Wanvoeke et al., 2016; Partey et al., 2018).

However, most of the Gambia irrigation schemes failed to sustain their impacts on the long-term because of technical and institutional barriers (Webb, 1991; Carney, 2008; Mutambara et al., 2016; Redicker et al., 2022). For most irrigation schemes, there was insufficient maintenance, coupled with the poorly designed canal structures and drainage systems (Webb, 1991; Mutambara et al., 2016). The lack of long-term perspectives and institutional support led to a total failure of many of the irrigation schemes in The Gambia (Carney, 2008; Redicker et al., 2022). High initial cost and labor are key barriers to adoption of tidal irrigation systems while high cost of installation and maintenance is a key barrier limiting widespread adoption of drip irrigation systems in rice-based production systems (FAO et al., 2018). In addition to wetlands degradation (Carney, 2008), another maladaptive outcome of Gambia irrigation projects was land dispossession. In The Gambia irrigation schemes, land dispossession reproduced women's lack of independent land rights or reduced them, with deleterious consequences for their control over household income (Levien, 2017).

Agroforestry practices

The scoping search of evidence revealed one paper on the outcomes of farmer managed natural regeneration (FMNR) (Stoate and Jarju, 2008) and two on alley farming (Danso and Morgan, 1993a,b). In West Africa, agroforestry technologies are achieving tremendous impacts for adaptation, mitigation and improved food security (Bayala et al., 2014; Mbow et al., 2014; Partey et al., 2018). Adoption of farmer managed natural regeneration (FMNR) is particularly widespread in the arid and semi-arid areas of West Africa and considered as an important step to improving agricultural productivity, buffering climate risks and contributing to climate change mitigation (Bayala et al., 2014; Mbow et al., 2014; Partey et al., 2018).

By improving soil fertility through increased of soil organic matter, nutrient cycling and biological nitrogen fixation by leguminous trees, agroforestry technologies contribute to crop productivity improvement (Bayala et al., 2014; Mbow et al., 2014; Kuyah et al., 2019; Muchane et al., 2020). Alley farming trials in The Gambia showed that the application of cassia prunings plus recommended inorganic fertilizer significantly improved maize yield and grain quality in semi-arid areas of The Gambia (Danso and Morgan, 1993a). Beneficial effects of prunings may become more evident with repeated application. Incorporating prunings into the soil before crops are planted might reduce nutrient losses to volatilization as P, K and organic matter content declined less where prunings were applied to the maize crops (Danso and Morgan, 1993a). However, rice grain yield and quality did not increase when rice was alley cropped with cassia in semi-arid areas in The Gambia: there was no benefit in terms of rice grain yield and grain quality from addition of prunings or prunings and inorganic fertilizer (Danso and Morgan, 1993b).

A multi-country assessment study across the West African drylands indicated that keeping, protecting and managing trees on farmlands has significant positive impacts on the livelihoods of the rural poor (Binam et al., 2015; Weston et al., 2015). For instance, continuous practice of FMNR by a community of 1,000 households could increase income by US$ 72,000 per year (Binam et al., 2015). There is also evidence of a significant increase in household dietary diversity a result of FMNR (Binam et al., 2015). FMNR can act as an important safety-net by providing cash income, caloric intake, and crops supplements (Weston et al., 2015; Binam et al., 2017). In West African drylands, FMNR has been shown to improve rural livelihoods beyond agricultural and income benefits (Binam et al., 2015, 2017; Weston et al., 2015).

Agroforestry technologies contribute to adaptation through improving soil structure and water infiltration, providing soil cover that reduces erosion and buffers the impacts of climate change (Bayala et al., 2014; Mbow et al., 2014; Kuyah et al., 2019; Muchane et al., 2020). By reducing runoff and soil loss, improving water infiltration rates and soil moisture content, increasing proportion of soil macroaggregates, and enhancing stability of soil structure, agroforestry systems can reduce soil erosion rates by 50% compared to crop monocultures (Kuyah et al., 2019; Muchane et al., 2020). Microclimatic improvement through agroforestry has positive effects on crop performance as trees can buffer against climatic extremes (Bayala et al., 2014; Mbow et al., 2014). Because agroforestry systems have more biomass than treeless cropping systems, they represent an important carbon sink apart from forests and long-term fallows in Africa (Bayala et al., 2014; Mbow et al., 2014). This illustrates the strong potential of agroforestry systems in Africa for providing multiple ecosystem services, including sequestering carbon and reducing other agriculture related GHG emissions while maintaining crop productivity (Mbow et al., 2014; Kuyah et al., 2019; Muchane et al., 2020).

Adaptation practices for livestock systems

Following the three-step inventory approach (Figure 1), three adaptation options were identified for livestock systems in The Gambia, which included switching to drought-tolerant animal species or breeds, feed supplementation, and stock/herd size reduction (Asaolu et al., 2010; Olaniyan, 2017). Five studies provide the evidence base for assessing the contributions of feed supplementation to the CSA pillars in The Gambia (Little et al., 1991a,b; Akinbamijo et al., 2003; Faye et al., 2003; Asaolu et al., 2010). There were no studies assessing the outcomes of other options.

In pastoral communities, empirical evidence suggests that economic benefits from adoption of improved livestock breeds are likely invested in the form of livestock rather than household assets, suggesting that livestock, as a form of savings, represent a better resilience measure (Ogada et al., 2020). In The Gambia, the most important objectives of keeping livestock across wealth status is savings and insurance (Bennison et al., 1997; Ejlertsen et al., 2012). Other important livestock production objectives included ceremonial/dowry purposes, income generation, manure, draft and transport (Bennison et al., 1997; Ejlertsen et al., 2012). Livestock portfolios play a significant role as an income and consumption buffering strategy during severe droughts (Acosta et al., 2021). Reducing stock or herd sizes as an adaptation measure can be effective in reducing mortality due to feed insecurity during drought periods (Gaughan et al., 2019).

Modification of feeding practices by introducing feed supplementation as an adaptation practice can improve production efficiency by promoting higher intake or compensating low feed consumption, decreasing heat stress, reducing feed insecurity during dry periods and reducing animal malnutrition and mortality (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017). Experimental evidence in The Gambia showed that feed supplementation significantly increased weight gain of goats during pregnancy and lactation, as well as milk production (Faye et al., 2003). Under village husbandry conditions in The Gambia, supplementation of N'Dama cows with groundnut cake during the dry season significantly increased quantities of milk offtake for human consumption and rates of growth of the suckling calves, and significantly decreased losses of maternal live weight (Little et al., 1991a). Cost-benefit analysis indicated that groundnut cake supplementation was economically attractive for adaptation to drought impacts in the Sudano-Sahelian zone of The Gambia (Little et al., 1991a). Combination of groundnut hay and moringa leaves in same ration significantly improved nitrogen intake and retention, as well as total digestible nutrients of West African Dwarf goats, resulting in improved performance (Asaolu et al., 2010). In addition, sesame cake and cottonseed supplementation significantly increased growth rate of young N'Dama bulls (Little et al., 1991b). Moreover, horticultural residues can represent a high quality feed resource in terms of feed conversion to animal products if harnessed judiciously especially for the peri-urban dairy sub sector in The Gambia (Akinbamijo et al., 2003).

Beyond The Gambia, feed supplementation with maize or legume silages can reduce methane emissions from livestock production systems (Gerber et al., 2013; Hristov et al., 2013). Addition of concentrate feeds to poor quality forages can decrease methane emissions and emission intensity in small ruminants (Gerber et al., 2013; Hristov et al., 2013).

Agro-climatic information and services

While climate information services in planning and managing climate risks (Anderson, 2017; Amuzu et al., 2018), there were no studies assessing the outcomes of climate information uses in The Gambia. In addition to CSV sites in Senegal, climate information use has been reported in all the regions of Senegal bordering The Gambia (Ouedraogo et al., 2018; Diouf et al., 2020). In CSV sites in Senegal, farmers estimated that their production has doubled with the use of climate information services (Diouf et al., 2020). In fact, the use of climate information has significantly improved the main crop (rice, maize, sorghum, millet, and groundnut) yields and farmers' agricultural income in southern Senegal (Diouf et al., 2020). In addition, the use of weather and climate information increases crop income by between 10 and 25% in Senegal (Chiputwa et al., 2022). In Northern Ghana, the use of climate information improved farmers' technical efficiency and crop yield (Djido et al., 2021a). The productivity increase enables famers to cover their food needs year-round, and also generate income to cover other needs and expenses of their households (Dayamba et al., 2018). The use of climate information helps farmers to decide on the types of crop and varieties to cultivate, to choose the appropriate management techniques, and to identify the appropriate timing for each farming practice (Ouedraogo et al., 2018). Climate information use can also increase the adoption of other CSA practices such as water conservation measures and cropping system diversification practices (Djido et al., 2021b). This helps farmers to reduce the risks of crop failure and improve crop productivity. Combining agro-advisory services with climate information services offers an additional benefit in term of improved climate risk management as it helps farmers to plan for their production and other livelihood activities well before the season starts (Dayamba et al., 2018). This is achieved through a better understanding, by farmers, of their local climate features, a joint analysis of their resources and their individual circumstances and early planning of their production activities (Dayamba et al., 2018). This combined approach has successfully been implemented in Senegal and Mali to manage climate risks and enable farmers to make strategic plans long before the season, based on their improved knowledge of local climate features (Dayamba et al., 2018). Indeed, about 97% of farmers involved in Senegal found the approach “very useful” in helping them reducing exposure to climate risks and increasing yield (Dayamba et al., 2018).

Microfinance and weather index-based insurance

Currently, no empirical studies have been conducted in The Gambia to assess the outcomes of microfinance and weather index-based insurance in relation to household resilience and adaptive capacity. Literature from West Africa region suggested that individual or group savings can provide a buffer for short-term needs, increasing a household's ability to cope with shocks (Greatrex et al., 2015). Group savings can represent a self-insurance mechanism for the community or targeted groups (Greatrex et al., 2015). A randomized field experiment in Senegal and Burkina Faso showed that female farmers were more likely to invest in savings and less likely to purchase agricultural insurance than male farmers (Delavallade et al., 2015). Insurance was more effective than savings, with higher average yields and better ability to manage food insecurity and shocks for insurance subscribers (Delavallade et al., 2015).

Micro-insurance, particularly weather index-based insurance, can strengthen smallholder farmers adaptive capacity by reducing financial risks from climatic events, but has not been widely implemented in Sub-Saharan Africa (Fisher et al., 2015; Greatrex et al., 2015; Di Marcantonio and Kayitakire, 2017).

Benefits of weather index-based insurance include farm productivity increase, informed production decision making, efficient use of farm inputs, protection of farmer assets while offering disaster relief, increase in income and savings, and investment or adoption of more profitable production technologies (Delavallade et al., 2015; Greatrex et al., 2015; Bertram-Huemmer and Kraehnert, 2018; Gebrekidan et al., 2019; Haile et al., 2020). In Senegal and Burkina Faso, index-based agricultural insurance had positive impacts on farmers' productivity, resilience, and welfare (Delavallade et al., 2015). Weather index-based insurance can be effective at increasing input spending and use, crop yields, and capacity to manage food insecurity and shocks (Delavallade et al., 2015; Haile et al., 2020). Index-Based Livestock Insurance (IBLI) can reduce livestock mortality risk by 25–40 in Northern Kenya (Chantarat et al., 2013). In addition, It reduces exposure to large shocks and mitigates significantly downside risks for many households (Jensen et al., 2016). In southern Ethiopia, IBLI coverage helped to increase household income and milk production during drought years (Matsuda et al., 2019). It also helps pastoral households to reduce herd offtake, thereby sustaining the household's economic growth (Gebrekidan et al., 2019). Weather index-based insurance can facilitate recovery from shock (Bertram-Huemmer and Kraehnert, 2018). IBLI indemnity payments have positive and economically large effects on herd size, have relieved households from credit constraints, and help herders avoid distress sales and slaughtering animals, thus smoothing their productive asset base (Bertram-Huemmer and Kraehnert, 2018). In pastoral communities in Northern Kenya, IBLI payment and the induced investment and risk-management decisions help reduce the probability of distress sales of livestock and the slaughter of livestock, helping poor households escape poverty traps (Noritomo and Takahashi, 2020).

Livelihood diversification

Diversification of livelihoods options can help spread risk, generate new sources of income, and can therefore be a key climate change adaptation strategy (Anderson, 2017; Rao et al., 2020). In The Gambia, the most widely adopted adaptation strategy was to seek alternative income generating activities when crops failed (Yaffa, 2013). Households that have diversified their livelihoods with non-farm activities were more successful in avoiding loss and damage from the 2011 drought in The Gambia (Van Der Geest and Warner, 2014). The new techniques learnt by women through ActionAid's agroecology projects in The Gambia provide alternative livelihood options and the opportunity for women to feed their families even in the face of crop failure (Anderson, 2017).

In The Gambia, migration or aspirations to migrate is culturally grounded and practiced by both vulnerable and non-vulnerable households (van der Geest and Warner, 2015; Conrad Suso, 2020). Migration depletes the farms of its labor, but contributes to food security through remittances sent back enabling food purchase by household members left behind (Sonko et al., 2020).

Indeed, migration is an important livelihood diversification and risk management strategy for households, including climatic risks (Maharjan et al., 2020; Rao et al., 2020). Remittances sent back by migrants contribute to diversify household income with income sources less sensitive to climate impacts, spread risks, and insure against external stressors (Maharjan et al., 2020; Rao et al., 2020). A cross-country analysis involving 32 sub-Saharan African countries showed that receiving international remittances is positively associated with more household food security (Sulemana et al., 2019). However, the frequency of receiving remittances is more important, with households receiving remittances frequently less likely to be food insecure (Sulemana et al., 2019). In a post-2011 drought survey in the North Bank Region of The Gambia, Yaffa (2013) found that temporary migration of household members to gain access to food or money to buy food was important for one out of four households. In this case, migration reflected a failure to avoid loss and damage induced by the 2011 drought (Yaffa, 2013; Van Der Geest and Warner, 2014). Migration contributes to improve household adaptive capacity, though depending on the contexts and circumstances (Maharjan et al., 2020; Vinke et al., 2020). While migration can be an effective adaptation option for some groups under certain circumstances, it can increase vulnerability and reduce their adaptive capacity for others (Vinke et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2022). Men's out-migration increases women's work-burden and increases food insecurity in terms of self-production, which is however compensated by increased access to marketed food through remittance received (Pandey, 2019). Rural out-migrants to urban areas can be associated with being food insecure (Atiglo et al., 2020). While remittances generally have a positive impact on food security and household welfare (Adams, 2011; Ajaero et al., 2018; Sulemana et al., 2019), remittances can have negative effects on labor supply, education and economic growth (Adams, 2011; Sonko et al., 2020).

A recent feasibility assessment of migration across economic, social, institutional and technological dimensions showed that implementing migration as effective adaptation in Africa has low feasibility (Williams et al., 2021). With the increasingly formal and informal agreements and cooperation on forced return with migrant-receiving states, following the transition to democracy in The Gambia (Cham and Adam, 2021; Schapendonk, 2021), it is unlikely that migration would be considered as a viable and sustainable adaptation option.

Conclusions and recommendations

Identifying, mapping and assessing adaptation options provides the evidence base that would enable informed decision-making and effective adaptation planning. In this paper, the systematic approach for stocktaking developed and illustrated with the case of The Gambia, responded to the call for innovative methods for synthesizing the diverse and rapidly expanding adaptation literature (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021). The approach has enabled the identification of a number of adaptation options that could inform adaptation planning in agriculture and food systems in The Gambia. The approach has also enabled the synthesis of the evidence on the outcomes of the use of the options in The Gambia. The findings highlighted how the identified options can potentially contribute to improving productivity and building resilience to climate change impacts while reducing GHG emissions in agriculture and food systems. Beyond The Gambia, the approach can also be relevant for and replicated in other least developed countries that are involved in the NAP process.

The paucity of evidence from The Gambia and the highly contextual and differential impacts of the identified adaptation options underscore the importance of careful consideration of barriers and enablers when developing policy and interventions in order to sustainably increase productivity and income while building resilience to climate risks and reducing GHGs emissions (Thomas et al., 2021). Also, this paucity highlights key knowledge gaps that require further investigation. While many of the identified adaptation options were implemented in The Gambia, very few papers assessed their outcomes on CSA pillars or on other SDGs such as gender equity (Roy et al., 2022). In addition, the very limited research assessing adaptation outcomes are very old references, which might not reflect the current biophysical and socioeconomic circumstances of the country. The understanding of the synergies and trade-offs among the identified adaptation practices in relation to their contributions to the CSA pillars is unclear, limiting the ability to provide actionable recommendations. This lack of sufficient research on adaptation outcomes in The Gambia is consistent with the global adaptation research. A recent systematic global stocktake of adaptation responses across sectors and regions revealed an overall paucity of evidence, with a negligible evidence of risk reduction outcomes (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021; Scheelbeek et al., 2021).

Although there is a paucity of evidence of their contributions to CSA pillars, the identified adaptation options represent a strategic portfolio of options, from which specific options can be tested through participatory research action to generate evidence of their effectiveness in the Gambian context. In this line, the Climate-Smart Village (CSV) approach can be a particularly useful participatory research action approach to consider, as it has proven to be effective in generating evidence on the effectiveness of CSA technologies across Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Aggarwal et al., 2018). As smallholder farmers often rely on a diversity adaptation practices, smart combinations of the identified options to enhance synergies and minimize trade-offs to strengthen farmer resilience can also be tested through the CSV. Furthermore, not all adaptation technologies will work for all farm types, as farm households are heterogenous in terms of their vulnerability to climatic and non-climatic stressors, and their differential capacity to engage in climate risk management and livelihood transformation (Hellin and Fisher, 2019; Segnon et al., 2021a). Failing to account for this heterogeneity in adaptation interventions could potentially lead to maladaptive outcomes (Hellin and Fisher, 2019; Segnon et al., 2021a). Farm and livelihoods typology, as part of the CSV approach, can enable the appropriate targeting and testing of adaptation options and ensure that adaptation interventions match with adaptation needs. This participatory process in generating evidence is also crucial to the NAP process, as it is one of the recommended steps.

In addition, engaging with key stakeholders is also key to identify the priority adaptation options to test and scale up given local context information, preferences and alignment with national and sectoral policies. Key stakeholders to be engaged will include technical experts, policy makers, researchers (university and national agricultural research systems), NGOs, farmer-based organizations, and agribusiness actors.

Author contributions

ACS and RBZ conceived and designed the study with inputs from ZA, RG, SM, and PFDS. ACS and RBZ developed the methodology with inputs from PH. ACS performed the literature searches and wrote the first draft with inputs from RBZ. ACS, RBZ, RG, ZA, TC, PH, SM, and PFDS interpreted the findings and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Funding

This paper was developed as part of the Food system Adaptation in Changing Environments in Africa (FACE-Africa) project, a Welcome Trust funded project (grant no. 216021/Z/19/Z) under the Welcome Climate Change and Health Award Scheme. This work was also supported through the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), which is carried out with support from the CGIAR Fund Donors and through several bilateral funding agreements (the CGIAR Fund Council, Australia-ACIAR, European Union, International Fund for Agricultural Development-IFAD, Ireland, New Zealand, Netherlands, Switzerland, USAID, UK, and Thailand). ACS and RBZ are also financially supported by the Accelerating Impacts of CGIAR Climate Research for Africa (AICCRA) project, funded by the International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for the constructive comments and suggestions on the precedent versions of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2022.834867/full#supplementary-material

Footnotes

1. ^https://era.ccafs.cgiar.org/

2. ^Additional details on CCAFS CSA Prioritization Framework is available on: https://csa.guide/csa/targeting-and-prioritization.

References

Abdul Rahman, N., Larbi, A., Kotu, B., Asante, M. O., Akakpo, D. B., Mellon-Bedi, S., et al. (2021). Maize–legume strip cropping effect on productivity, income, and income risk of farmers in Northern Ghana. Agron. J. 113, 1574–1585. doi: 10.1002/agj2.20536

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Acosta, A., Nicolli, F., and Karfakis, P. (2021). Coping with climate shocks: the complex role of livestock portfolios. World Develop. 146, 105546. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105546

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adams, R. H. (2011). Evaluating the economic impact of international remittances on developing countries using household surveys: a literature review. J. Develop. Stud. 47, 809–828. doi: 10.1080/00220388.2011.563299

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aggarwal, P. K., Jarvis, A., Campbell, B. M., Zougmoré, R. B., Khatri-Chhetri, A., Vermeulen, S. J., et al. (2018). The climate-smart village approach: framework of an integrative strategy for scaling up adaptation options in agriculture. Ecol. Soc. 23, 230114. doi: 10.5751/ES-09844-230114

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ajaero, C. K., Nzeadibe, C. T., Obisie-Nmehielle, N., and Ike, C. C. (2018). The linkages between international migration, remittances and household welfare in Nigeria. Migrat. Develop. 7, 40–54. doi: 10.1080/21632324.2017.1322171

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Akinbamijo, O. O., Nouala, S., Sanyang, F. B., and Smith, O. B. (2003). Utilisation of horticultural residues by N'Dama cattle and their crosses in The Gambia. Livestock Prod. Sci. 80, 221–228. doi: 10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00175-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Amuzu, J., Jallow, B. P., Kabo-Bah, A. T., and Yaffa, S. (2018). The climate change vulnerability and risk management matrix for the coastal zone of The Gambia. Hydrology 5, 14. doi: 10.3390/hydrology5010014

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson, T. (2017). Agroecology, Empowerment and Resilience: Lessons from ActionAid's Agroecology and Resilience Project. Johannesburg: ActionAid.

Google Scholar

Andrieu, N., Sogoba, B., Zougmore, R., Howland, F., Samake, O., Bonilla-Findji, O., et al. (2017). Prioritizing investments for climate-smart agriculture: lessons learned from Mali. Agric. Syst. 154, 13–24. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.02.008

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Araya, T., Gebremedhin, A., Baudron, F., Hailemariam, M., Birhane, E., Nyssen, J., et al. (2021). Influence of 9 years of permanent raised beds and contour furrowing on soil health in conservation agriculture based systems in Tigray region, Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Develop. 32, 1525–1539. doi: 10.1002/ldr.3816

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arouna, A., Lokossou, J. C., Wopereis, M. C. S., Bruce-Oliver, S., and Roy-Macauley, H. (2017). Contribution of improved rice varieties to poverty reduction and food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Global Food Sec. 14, 54–60. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2017.03.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Asaolu, V. O., Odeyinka, S. M., Akinbamijo, O. O., and Sodeinde, F. G. (2010). Effects of moringa and bamboo leaves on groundnut hay utilization by West African Dwarf goats. Livestock Res. Rural Develop. 22, 12. Retrieved from: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/1/asao22012.htm

Google Scholar

Ashrif, M. I., and Thornton, I. (1965). Effects of grass mulch on groundnuts in the Gambia. Exp. Agric. 1, 145–152. doi: 10.1017/S001447970001872X

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Atiglo, D. Y., Christian, A. K., Okyere, M. A., and Codjoe, S. N. A. (2020). Rural out-migration from Ghana's development zones and household food security. Migrat. Develop. 11, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/21632324.2020.1797453

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aubee, E., and Hussein, K. (2002). Emergency relief, crop diversification and institution building: the case of sesame in The Gambia. Disasters 26, 368–379. doi: 10.1111/1467-7717.00213

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bado, B. V., Whitbread, A., and Sanoussi Manzo, M. L. (2021). Improving agricultural productivity using agroforestry systems: Performance of millet, cowpea, and ziziphus-based cropping systems in West Africa Sahel. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 305, 107175. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2020.107175

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bagagnan, A. R., Ouedraogo, I., and Fonta, W. M. (2019). Perceived climate variability and farm level adaptation in the central river region of The Gambia. Atmosphere 10, 423. doi: 10.3390/atmos10070423

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bai, X., Huang, Y., Ren, W., Coyne, M., Jacinthe, P.-A., Tao, B., et al. (2019). Responses of soil carbon sequestration to climate-smart agriculture practices: a meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 2591–2606. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14658

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Banerjee, S., Black, R., Mishra, A., and Kniveton, D. (2018). Assessing vulnerability of remittance-recipient and nonrecipient households in rural communities affected by extreme weather events: Case studies from South-West China and North-East India. Popul. Space Place e2157. doi: 10.1002/psp.2157

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bayala, J., Sanou, J., Teklehaimanot, Z., Kalinganire, A., and Ouédraogo, S. J. (2014). Parklands for buffering climate risk and sustaining agricultural production in the Sahel of West Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 6, 28–34. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bayala, J., Sileshi, G. W., Coe, R., Kalinganire, A., Tchoundjeu, Z., Sinclair, F., et al. (2012). Cereal yield response to conservation agriculture practices in drylands of West Africa: a quantitative synthesis. J. Arid Environ. 78, 13–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.10.011

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bennison, J. J., Barton, D., and Jaitner, J. (1997). The production objectives and feeding strategies of ruminant livestock owners in the Gambia: implications for policy makers. Agric. Syst. 55, 425–444. doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(97)00002-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Berrang-Ford, L., Biesbroek, R., Ford, J. D., Lesnikowski, A., Tanabe, A., Wang, F. M., et al. (2019). Tracking global climate change adaptation among governments. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 440–449. doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0490-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Berrang-Ford, L., Siders, A. R., Lesnikowski, A., Fischer, A. P., Callaghan, M. W., Haddaway, N. R., et al. (2021). A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 989–1000. doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01170-y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bertram-Huemmer, V., and Kraehnert, K. (2018). Does index insurance help households recover from disaster? Evidence from IBLI Mongolia. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 100, 145–171. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aax069

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Binam, J. N., Place, F., Djalal, A. A., and Kalinganire, A. (2017). Effects of local institutions on the adoption of agroforestry innovations: evidence of farmer managed natural regeneration and its implications for rural livelihoods in the Sahel. Agric. Food Econ. 5, 2. doi: 10.1186/s40100-017-0072-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Binam, J. N., Place, F., Kalinganire, A., Hamade, S., Boureima, M., Tougiani, A., et al. (2015). Effects of farmer managed natural regeneration on livelihoods in semi-arid West Africa. Environ. Econ. Policy Stud. 17, 543–575. doi: 10.1007/s10018-015-0107-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Birhanu, B. Z., Traoré, K., Sanogo, K., Tabo, R., Fischer, G., and Whitbread, A. M. (2020). Contour bunding technology-evidence and experience in the semiarid region of southern Mali. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2020, 1–9. doi: 10.1017/S1742170519000450

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cacho, O. J., Moss, J., Thornton, P. K., Herrero, M., Henderson, B., Bodirsky, B. L., et al. (2020). The value of climate-resilient seeds for smallholder adaptation in sub-Saharan Africa. Clim. Change 162, 1213–1229. doi: 10.1007/s10584-020-02817-z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Camara, I., Jallow, A., Jallow, B., and Swaby, G. (2021). Towards a Low-Carbon Climate-Resilient Future. Developing The Gambia's 2050 Climate Vision. London: IIED.

Google Scholar

Carney, J. A. (1998). Women‘s land rights in Gambian irrigated rice schemes: constraints and opportunities. Agric. Hum. Values 15, 325–336. doi: 10.1023/A:1007580801416

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carney, J. A. (2008). The bitter harvest of gambian rice policies. Globalizations 5, 129–142. doi: 10.1080/14747730802057456

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carson, A. G. (1988a). Detailed survey of the parasitic weed Striga hermonthica in The Gambia. Trop. Pest Manag. 34, 162–164. doi: 10.1080/09670878809371234

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carson, A. G. (1988b). Development and testing of a control package for Striga hermonthica on small-scale holdings in the Gambia. Trop. Pest Manag. 34, 97–101. doi: 10.1080/09670878809371218

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carson, A. G. (1989). Effect of intercropping sorghum and groundnuts on density of Striga hermonthica in The Gambia. Trop. Pest Manag. 35, 130–132. doi: 10.1080/09670878909371340

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ceesay, M. (2011). An opportunity for increasing factor productivity for rice cultivation in The Gambia through SRI. Paddy Water Environ. 9, 129–135. doi: 10.1007/s10333-010-0235-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ceesay, M., Reid, W. S., Fernandes, E. C. M., and Uphoff, N. T. (2006). The effects of repeated soil wetting and drying on lowland rice yield with system of rice intensification (SRI) methods. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 4, 5–14. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2006.9686007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cham, O. N., and Adam, I. (2021). The politicization and framing of migration in West Africa: transition to democracy as a game changer? Territ. Polit. Govern. 2021, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/21622671.2021.1990790

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chantarat, S., Mude, A. G., Barrett, C. B., and Carter, M. R. (2013). Designing index-based livestock insurance for managing asset risk in Northern Kenya. J. Risk Insur. 80, 205–237. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6975.2012.01463.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chiputwa, B., Blundo-Canto, G., Steward, P., Andrieu, N., and Ndiaye, O. (2022). Co-production, uptake of weather and climate services, and welfare impacts on farmers in Senegal: a panel data approach. Agric. Syst. 195, 103309. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103309

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cockfield, S. D. (1992). Groundnut oil application and varietal resistance for control of Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) in cowpea grain in The Gambia. Trop. Pest Manag. 38, 268–270. doi: 10.1080/09670879209371707

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Conrad Suso, C. T. (2020). Involuntary immobility and the unfulfilled rite of passage: implications for migration management in the Gambia, West Africa. Int. Migrat. 58, 184–194. doi: 10.1111/imig.12675

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Corbeels, M., Naudin, K., Whitbread, A. M., Kühne, R., and Letourmy, P. (2020). Limits of conservation agriculture to overcome low crop yields in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat. Food 1, 447–454. doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-0114-x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Danso, A. A., and Morgan, P. (1993a). Alley cropping maize (Zea mays var.Jeka) with cassia (Cassia siamea) in The Gambia: crop production and soil fertility. Agrofor. Syst. 21, 133–146. doi: 10.1007/BF00705225

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Danso, A. A., and Morgan, P. (1993b). Alley cropping rice (Oryza sativa var.Barafita) with cassia (Cassia siamea): soil fertility and crop production. Agrofor. Syst. 21, 147–158. doi: 10.1007/BF00705226

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dayamba, D. S., Ky-Dembele, C., Bayala, J., Dorward, P., Clarkson, G., Sanogo, D., et al. (2018). Assessment of the use of participatory integrated climate services for agriculture (PICSA) approach by farmers to manage climate risk in Mali and Senegal. Clim. Serv. 12, 27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.cliser.2018.07.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Delavallade, C., Dizon, F., Hill, R. V., and Petraud, J. P. (2015). Managing Risk with Insurance and Savings: Experimental Evidence for Male and Female Farm Managers in West Africa. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2583847

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Di Falco, S., Bezabih, M., and Yesuf, M. (2010). Seeds for livelihood: Crop biodiversity and food production in Ethiopia. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1695–1702. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.024

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Di Marcantonio, F., and Kayitakire, F. (2017). “Review of Pilot Projects on Index-Based Insurance in Africa: Insights and Lessons Learned,” in Renewing Local Planning to Face Climate Change in the Tropics, eds M. Tiepolo, A. Pezzoli, and V. Tarchiani (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 323–341. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-59096-7_16

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Diagne, A., Midingoyi, S.-K. G., and Kinkingninhoun-Medagbe, F. M. (2013). “Impact of NERICA adoption on rice yield: evidence from West Africa,” in An African Green Revolution: Finding Ways to Boost Productivity on Small Farms, eds K. Otsuka, and D. F. Larson (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 143–163. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5760-8_7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dibba, L., Fialor, S. C., Diagne, A., and Nimoh, F. (2012). The impact of NERICA adoption on productivity and poverty of the small-scale rice farmers in the Gambia. Food Sec. 4, 253–265. doi: 10.1007/s12571-012-0180-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dibba, L., Zeller, M., and Diagne, A. (2017). The impact of new rice for Africa (NERICA) adoption on household food security and health in the Gambia. Food Sec. 9, 929–944. doi: 10.1007/s12571-017-0715-x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dibba, L., Zeller, M., Diagne, A., and Nielsen, T. (2015). How accessibility to seeds affects the potential adoption of an improved rice variety: the case of the new rice for Africa (NERICA) in The Gambia. Quart. J. Int. Agric. 54, 33–58. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.206295

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Diouf, N. S., Ouedraogo, M., Ouedraogo, I., Ablouka, G., and Zougmoré, R. (2020). Using seasonal forecast as an adaptation strategy: gender differential impact on yield and income in Senegal. Atmosphere 11, 1127. doi: 10.3390/atmos11101127

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Djido, A., Houessionon, P., Nikoi, G. K., Ouedraogo, I., Ouedraogo, M., Segnon, A. C., et al. (2021a). The Impacts of Weather and Climate Information Services on Technical Efficiency and Farm Productivity Among Smallholder Farmers in the Upper West Region of Ghana. Wageningen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

Google Scholar

Djido, A., Zougmoré, R. B., Houessionon, P., Ouédraogo, M., Ouédraogo, I., and Seynabou Diouf, N. (2021b). To what extent do weather and climate information services drive the adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices in Ghana? Clim. Risk Manag. 32, 100309. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2021.100309

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Doumbia, M., Jarju, A., Sène, M., Traoré, K., Yost, R., Kablan, R., et al. (2009). Sequestration of organic carbon in West African soils by Aménagement en Courbes de Niveau. Agron. Sustain. Develop. 29, 267–275. doi: 10.1051/agro/2008041

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Du, Y., Cui, B., zhang, Q., Wang, Z., Sun, J., and Niu, W. (2020). Effects of manure fertilizer on crop yield and soil properties in China: a meta-analysis. CATENA 193, 104617. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2020.104617

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ehiakpor, D. S., Danso-Abbeam, G., Dagunga, G., and Ayambila, S. N. (2019). Impact of Zai technology on farmers' welfare: evidence from northern Ghana. Technol. Soc. 59, 101189. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101189

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ejlertsen, M., Poole, J., and Marshall, K. (2012). Traditional breeding objectives and practices of goat, sheep and cattle smallholders in The Gambia and implications in relation to the design of breeding interventions. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 45, 219–229. doi: 10.1007/s11250-012-0194-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Eldon, J., Baird, G., Sidibeh, S., Dobasin, D., Rapaport, P., Cheng, W., et al. (2020). On-farm trials identify adaptive management options for rainfed agriculture in West Africa. Agric. Syst. 182, 102819. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102819

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Etongo, D., Epule, T. E., Djenontin, I. N. S., and Kanninen, M. (2018). Land management in rural Burkina Faso: the role of socio-cultural and institutional factors. Nat. Resour. Forum 42, 201–213. doi: 10.1111/1477-8947.12153

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

FAO ICRISAT, and CIAT. (2018). “Climate-smart agriculture in the Gambia”, in CSA Country Profiles for Africa Series [Rome: International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT); International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT); Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)].

Google Scholar

Faye, D., Leak, S., Nouala, S., Fall, A., Losson, B., and Geerts, S. (2003). Effects of gastrointestinal helminth infections and plane of nutrition on the health and productivity of F1 (West African Dwarf × Sahelian) goat crosses in The Gambia. Small Ruminant Res. 50, 153–161. doi: 10.1016/S0921-4488(03)00108-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fentie, A., and Beyene, A. D. (2019). Climate-smart agricultural practices and welfare of rural smallholders in Ethiopia: does planting method matter? Land Use Policy 85, 387–396. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.020

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fisher, M., Abate, T., Lunduka, R. W., Asnake, W., Alemayehu, Y., and Madulu, R. B. (2015). Drought tolerant maize for farmer adaptation to drought in sub-Saharan Africa: determinants of adoption in eastern and southern Africa. Clim. Change 133, 283–299. doi: 10.1007/s10584-015-1459-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Garrity, D. P., Akinnifesi, F. K., Ajayi, O. C., Weldesemayat, S. G., Mowo, J. G., Kalinganire, A., et al. (2010). Evergreen Agriculture: a robust approach to sustainable food security in Africa. Food Secur. 2, 197–214. doi: 10.1007/s12571-010-0070-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gaughan, J. B., Sejian, V., Mader, T. L., and Dunshea, F. R. (2019). Adaptation strategies: ruminants. Anim. Front. 9, 47–53. doi: 10.1093/af/vfy029

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gebrekidan, T., Guo, Y., Bi, S., Wang, J., Zhang, C., Wang, J., et al. (2019). Effect of index-based livestock insurance on herd offtake: evidence from the Borena zone of southern Ethiopia. Clim. Risk Manag. 23, 67–77. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2018.10.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gerber, P. J., Hristov, A. N., Henderson, B., Makkar, H., Oh, J., Lee, C., et al. (2013). Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: a review. Animal 7, 220–234. doi: 10.1017/S1751731113000876

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Giller, K. E., Andersson, J. A., Corbeels, M., Kirkegaard, J., Mortensen, D., Erenstein, O., et al. (2015). Beyond conservation agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 6, 870. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00870

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Graf, S. L., and Oya, C. (2021). Is the system of rice intensification (SRI) pro poor? Labour, class and technological change in West Africa. Agric. Syst. 193, 103229. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103229

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Greatrex, H., Hansen, J., Garvin, S., Diro, R., Blakeley, S., Le Guen, M., et al. (2015). Scaling Up Index Insurance for Smallholder Farmers: Recent Evidence and Insights. Copenhagen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

Google Scholar

Grossi, G., Goglio, P., Vitali, A., and Williams, A. G. (2019). Livestock and climate change: impact of livestock on climate and mitigation strategies. Anim. Front. 9, 69–76. doi: 10.1093/af/vfy034

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Haggblade, S., Diarra, A., and Traoré, A. (2022). Regulating agricultural intensification: Lessons from West Africa's rapidly growing pesticide markets. Develop. Policy Rev. 40, e12545. doi: 10.1111/dpr.12545

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Haile, K. K., Nillesen, E., and Tirivayi, N. (2020). Impact of formal climate risk transfer mechanisms on risk-aversion: Empirical evidence from rural Ethiopia. World Develop. 130, 104930. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104930

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hasanah, N. A. I., Setiawan, B. I., Arif, C., Widodo, S., and Uphoff, N. (2019). Optimizing rice paddies' lower greenhouse gas emissions and higher yield with SRI management under varying water table levels. Paddy Water Environ. 17, 485–495. doi: 10.1007/s10333-019-00744-z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hellin, J., and Fisher, E. (2019). Climate-smart agriculture and non-agricultural livelihood transformation. Climate 7, 48. doi: 10.3390/cli7040048

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Herrero, M., Henderson, B., Havlík, P., Thornton, P. K., Conant, R. T., Smith, P., et al. (2016). Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 452–461. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2925

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Himmelstein, J., Ares, A., Gallagher, D., and Myers, J. (2017). A meta-analysis of intercropping in Africa: impacts on crop yield, farmer income, and integrated pest management effects. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 15, 1–10. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2016.1242332

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Jacob, D., Taylor, M., Guillén Bolaños, T., Bindi, M., Brown, S., et al. (2019). The human imperative of stabilizing global climate change at 1.5°C. Science 365, eaaw6974. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw6974

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hristov, A. N., Oh, J., Firkins, J. L., Dijkstra, J., Kebreab, E., Waghorn, G., et al. (2013). SPECIAL TOPICS: mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options1. J. Anim. Sci. 91, 5045–5069. doi: 10.2527/jas.2013-6583

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Islam, S., Cenacchi, N., Sulser, T. B., Gbegbelegbe, S., Hareau, G., Kleinwechter, U., et al. (2016). Structural approaches to modeling the impact of climate change -and adaptation technologies on crop yields and food security. Glob. Food Sec. 10, 63–70. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2016.08.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jassey, B., Zaman, B., and Syafrudin (2021). Dynamic model of municipal solid waste management from households in Sukuta Nema, The Gambia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 896, 012071. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/896/1/012071

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jensen, N. D., Barrett, C. B., and Mude, A. G. (2016). Index insurance quality and basis risk: evidence from Northern Kenya. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 98, 1450–1469. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aaw046

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kichamu-Wachira, E., Xu, Z., Reardon-Smith, K., Biggs, D., Wachira, G., and Omidvar, N. (2021). Effects of climate-smart agricultural practices on crop yields, soil carbon, and nitrogen pools in Africa: a meta-analysis. J. Soils Sedim. 21, 1587–1597. doi: 10.1007/s11368-021-02885-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Komarek, A. M., Thierfelder, C., and Steward, P. R. (2021). Conservation agriculture improves adaptive capacity of cropping systems to climate stress in Malawi. Agric. Syst. 190, 103117. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103117

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kuyah, S., Sileshi, G. W., Nkurunziza, L., Chirinda, N., Ndayisaba, P. C., Dimobe, K., et al. (2021). Innovative agronomic practices for sustainable intensification in sub-Saharan Africa. A review. Agron. Sustain. Develop. 41, 16. doi: 10.1007/s13593-021-00673-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kuyah, S., Whitney, C. W., Jonsson, M., Sileshi, G. W., Öborn, I., Muthuri, C.W., et al. (2019). Agroforestry delivers a win-win solution for ecosystem services in sub-Saharan Africa. A meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain. Develop. 39, 47. doi: 10.1007/s13593-019-0589-8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lahmar, R., Bationo, B. A., Dan Lamso, N., Guéro, Y., and Tittonell, P. (2012). Tailoring conservation agriculture technologies to West Africa semi-arid zones: building on traditional local practices for soil restoration. Field Crops Res. 132, 158–167. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2011.09.013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, M., and Gambiza, J. (2022). The adoption of conservation agriculture by smallholder farmers in southern Africa: a scoping review of barriers and enablers. J. Rural Stud. 92, 214–225. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.03.031

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

LEG. (2012). National Adaptation Plans: Technical Guidelines for The National Adaptation Plan Process. Bonn: UNFCCC secretariat.

Google Scholar

Levien, M. (2017). Gender and land dispossession: a comparative analysis. J. Peasant Stud. 44, 1111–1134. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2017.1367291

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, R., Li, Q., and Pan, L. (2021). Review of organic mulching effects on soil and water loss. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 67, 136–151. doi: 10.1080/03650340.2020.1718111

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lipper, L., Thornton, P., Campbell, B. M., Baedeker, T., Braimoh, A., Bwalya, M., et al. (2014). Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 1068–1072. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2437

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Little, D. A., Riley, J. A., Agyemang, K., Jeannin, P., Grieve, A. S., Badji, B., et al. (1991a). Effect of groundnut cake supplementation during the dry season on productivity characteristics of N'Dama cows under village husbandry conditions in The Gambia. Trop. Agric. 68, 259–262.

Google Scholar

Little, D. A., van der Grinten, P., Dwinger, R. H., Agyemang, K., and Kora, S. (1991b). Comparison of sesame cake and cottonseed as supplementary sources of protein to weaned N'Dama bull calves in The Gambia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 23, 126–132. doi: 10.1007/BF02361198

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lokossou, J. C., Affognon, H. D., Singbo, A., Vabi, M. B., Ogunbayo, A., Tanzubil, P., et al. (2022). Welfare impacts of improved groundnut varieties adoption and food security implications in the semi-arid areas of West Africa. Food Sec. 14, 709–728. doi: 10.1007/s12571-022-01255-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Maharjan, A., de Campos, R. S., Singh, C., Das, S., Srinivas, A., Bhuiyan, M. R. A., et al. (2020). Migration and household adaptation in climate-sensitive hotspots in South Asia. Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 6, 1–16. doi: 10.1007/s40641-020-00153-z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Manka, K. S. (2014). “Irrigation and agricultural water management systems in Gambia”, in Irrigation in West Africa: Current Status and a View to the Future. Proceedings of the Workshop held in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, December 1–2, 2010, eds R. E. Namara, and H. Sally (Colombo: International Water Management Institute (IWMI)).

Google Scholar

Martey, E., Etwire, P. M., and Abdoulaye, T. (2020). Welfare impacts of climate-smart agriculture in Ghana: does row planting and drought-tolerant maize varieties matter? Land Use Policy 95, 104622. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104622

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Matsuda, A., Takahashi, K., and Ikegami, M. (2019). Direct and indirect impact of index-based livestock insurance in Southern Ethiopia. Geneva Papers Risk Insur. Issues Pract. 44, 481–502. doi: 10.1057/s41288-019-00132-y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mbow, C., Smith, P., Skole, D., Duguma, L., and Bustamante, M. (2014). Achieving mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry practices in Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 6, 8–14. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.09.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

MECCNAR. (2021). The Gambia 2050 Climate Vision. Banjul: Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Natural Resources (MECCNAR), Government of The Gambia.

Google Scholar

Mhlanga, B., Ercoli, L., Pellegrino, E., Onofri, A., and Thierfelder, C. (2021). The crucial role of mulch to enhance the stability and resilience of cropping systems in southern Africa. Agron. Sustain. Develop. 41, 29. doi: 10.1007/s13593-021-00687-y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Michler, J. D., Baylis, K., Arends-Kuenning, M., and Mazvimavi, K. (2019). Conservation agriculture and climate resilience. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 93, 148–169. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2018.11.008

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Muchane, M. N., Sileshi, G. W., Gripenberg, S., Jonsson, M., Pumariño, L., and Barrios, E. (2020). Agroforestry boosts soil health in the humid and sub-humid tropics: a meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 295, 106899. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2020.106899

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Muluneh, A., Stroosnijder, L., Keesstra, S., and Biazin, B. (2017). Adapting to climate change for food security in the Rift Valley dry lands of Ethiopia: supplemental irrigation, plant density and sowing date. J. Agric. Sci. 155, 703–724. doi: 10.1017/S0021859616000897

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mupangwa, W., Nyagumbo, I., Liben, F., Chipindu, L., Craufurd, P., and Mkuhlani, S. (2021). Maize yields from rotation and intercropping systems with different legumes under conservation agriculture in contrasting agro-ecologies. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 306, 107170. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2020.107170

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Murrell, E. G. (2017). Can agricultural practices that mitigate or improve crop resilience to climate change also manage crop pests? Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 23, 81–88. doi: 10.1016/j.cois.2017.07.008

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mutambara, S., Darkoh, M. B. K., and Atlhopheng, J. R. (2016). A comparative review of water management sustainability challenges in smallholder irrigation schemes in Africa and Asia. Agric. Water Manag. 171, 63–72. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.03.010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ndah, H. T., Schuler, J., Uthes, S., Zander, P., Traore, K., Gama, M.-S., et al. (2014). Adoption potential of conservation agriculture practices in sub-Saharan Africa: results from five case studies. Environ. Manag. 53, 620–635. doi: 10.1007/s00267-013-0215-5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Noritomo, Y., and Takahashi, K. (2020). Can insurance payouts prevent a poverty trap? Evidence from randomised experiments in Northern Kenya. J. Develop. Stud. 56, 2079–2096. doi: 10.1080/00220388.2020.1736281

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nowak, A., and Rosenstock, T. (2020). Evidence for Resilient Agriculture (ERA): What is it?). West Africa: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

Google Scholar

Nyagumbo, I., Mkuhlani, S., Mupangwa, W., and Rodriguez, D. (2017). Planting date and yield benefits from conservation agriculture practices across Southern Africa. Agric. Syst. 150, 21–33. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.016

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nyagumbo, I., Mupangwa, W., Chipindu, L., Rusinamhodzi, L., and Craufurd, P. (2020). A regional synthesis of 7-years maize yield responses to conservation agriculture technologies in Eastern and Southern Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 295, 106898. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2020.106898

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ogada, M. J., Rao, E. J. O., Radeny, M., Recha, J. W., and Solomon, D. (2020). Climate-smart agriculture, household income and asset accumulation among smallholder farmers in the Nyando basin of Kenya. World Develop. Perspect. 18, 100203. doi: 10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100203

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Olaniyan, O. F. (2017). Adapting Gambian women livestock farmers' roles in food production to climate change. Fut. Food J. Food Agric. Soc. 5, 56–66. Retrieved from: https://www.thefutureoffoodjournal.com/index.php/FOFJ/article/view/57

Google Scholar

Ouedraogo, I., Diouf, N. S., Ouédraogo, M., Ndiaye, O., and Zougmoré, B. R. (2018). Closing the gap between climate information producers and users: assessment of needs and Uptake in Senegal. Climate 6, 13. doi: 10.3390/cli6010013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pandey, R. (2019). Male out-migration from the Himalaya: implications in gender roles and household food (in)security in the Kaligandaki Basin, Nepal. Migrat. Develop. 10, 1–29. doi: 10.1080/21632324.2019.1634313

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Partey, S. T., Zougmoré, R. B., Ouédraogo, M., and Campbell, B. M. (2018). Developing climate-smart agriculture to face climate variability in West Africa: challenges and lessons learnt. J. Clean. Prod. 187, 285–295. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.199

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Raes, D., Waongo, M., Vanuytrecht, E., and Mejias Moreno, P. (2021). Improved management may alleviate some but not all of the adverse effects of climate change on crop yields in smallholder farms in West Africa. Agric. For. Meteorol. 308–309, 108563. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108563

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rao, N., Singh, C., Solomon, D., Camfield, L., Sidiki, R., Angula, M., et al. (2020). Managing risk, changing aspirations and household dynamics: implications for wellbeing and adaptation in semi-arid Africa and India. World Develop. 125, 104667. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104667

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Redicker, S., Dimova, R., and Foster, T. (2022). Synthesising evidence on irrigation scheme performance in West Africa. J. Hydrol. 610, 127919. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127919

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rojas-Downing, M. M., Nejadhashemi, A. P., Harrigan, T., and Woznicki, S. A. (2017). Climate change and livestock: impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Clim. Risk Manag. 16, 145–163. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Roy, J., Prakash, A., Some, S., Singh, C., Bezner Kerr, R., Caretta, M. A., et al. (2022). Synergies and trade-offs between climate change adaptation options and gender equality: a review of the global literature. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9, 251. doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01266-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sanneh, E. S., Hu, A. H., Hsu, C. W., and Njie, M. (2014). Prioritization of climate change adaptation approaches in the Gambia. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 19, 1163–1178. doi: 10.1007/s11027-013-9465-z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sanogo, D., Ndour, B. Y., Sall, M., Toure, K., Diop, M., Camara, B. A., et al. (2017). Participatory diagnosis and development of climate change adaptive capacity in the groundnut basin of Senegal: building a climate-smart village model. Agric. Food Sec. 6, 13. doi: 10.1186/s40066-017-0091-y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schapendonk, J. (2021). “Development against migration: investments, partnerships and counter-tactics in the West African-European migration industry,” in Handbook of Translocal Development and Global Mobilities, eds A. Zoomers, M. Leung, K. Otsuki, and G. Van Westen (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing), 42–56. doi: 10.4337/9781788117425.00011

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Scheelbeek, P. F. D., Dangour, A. D., Jarmul, S., Turner, G., Sietsma, A. J., Minx, J. C., et al. (2021). The effects on public health of climate change adaptation responses: a systematic review of evidence from low- and middle-income countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 073001. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac092c

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schuler, J., Voss, A. K., Ndah, H. T., Traore, K., and de Graaff, J. (2016). A socioeconomic analysis of the zaï farming practice in northern Burkina Faso. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 40, 988–1007. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2016.1221018

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Segnon, A. C., Achigan-Dako, E., Gaoue, O., and Ahanchédé, A. (2015). Farmer's knowledge and perception of diversified farming systems in sub-humid and semi-arid areas in Benin. Sustainability 7, 6573–6592. doi: 10.3390/su7066573

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Segnon, A. C., Totin, E., Zougmoré, R. B., Lokossou, J. C., Thompson-Hall, M., Ofori, B. O., et al. (2021a). Differential household vulnerability to climatic and non-climatic stressors in semi-arid areas of Mali, West Africa. Clim. Develop. 13, 697–712. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2020.1855097

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Segnon, A. C., Zougmoré, B. R., and Houessionon, P. (2021b). “Technologies and practices for agriculture and food system adaptation to climate change in The Gambia”, in CCAFS Working Paper no. 344 (Wageningen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)).

Google Scholar

Simpson, N., Williams, P. A., Mach, K. J., Berrang-Ford, L., Biesbroek, G. R., Haasnoot, M., et al. (2022). Adaptation to compound climate risks: a systematic global stocktake. SSRN Elect. J. 2022, 44. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4205750

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh, C., Iyer, S., New, M. G., Few, R., Kuchimanchi, B., Segnon, A. C., et al. (2022). Interrogating “effectiveness” in climate change adaptation: 11 guiding principles for adaptation research and practice. Clim. Develop. 14, 650–664. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2021.1964937

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sonko, E., Florkowski, W. J., Agodzo, S., and Antwi-Agyei, P. (2020). Subsistence farmer knowledge of strategies alleviating food insecurity in the context of climate change in the lower river region of the Gambia. Food Sec. 12, 607–624. doi: 10.1007/s12571-020-01024-z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sonko, L. B., Dibba, L., Camara, J., Trawally, D. N. A., Faye, M. N., Jallow, D. B., et al. (2022). Gain yield response of Fonio (Digitaria exilis) varieties to fertilizer and cost-effectiveness under two different production systems in The Gambia. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutrit. Develop. 22, 19062–19074. doi: 10.18697/ajfand.106.20015

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sova, C. A., Grosjean, G., Baedeker, T., Nguyen, T. N., Wallner, M., Jarvis, A., et al. (2018). Bringing the Concept of Climate-Smart Agriculture to Life: Insights from CSA Country Profiles across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Washington, DC: World Bank, and the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture. doi: 10.1596/31064

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Stoate, C., and Jarju, A. K. (2008). A participatory investigation into multifunctional benefits of indigenous trees in West African savanna farmland. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 6, 122–132. doi: 10.3763/ijas.2008.0299

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sulemana, I., Bugri Anarfo, E., and Quartey, P. (2019). International remittances and household food security in Sub-Saharan Africa. Migrat. Develop. 8, 264–280. doi: 10.1080/21632324.2018.1560926

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tesfaye, W., and Tirivayi, N. (2020). Crop diversity, household welfare and consumption smoothing under risk: Evidence from rural Uganda. World Develop. 125, 104686. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104686

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thakur, A. K., Mandal, K. G., and Raychaudhuri, S. (2020). Impact of crop and nutrient management on crop growth and yield, nutrient uptake and content in rice. Paddy Water Environ. 18, 139–151. doi: 10.1007/s10333-019-00770-x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thakur, A. K., and Uphoff, N. T. (2017). How the system of rice intensification can contribute to climate-smart agriculture. Agron. J. 109, 1163–1182. doi: 10.2134/agronj2016.03.0162

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thakur, A. K., Uphoff, N. T., and Stoop, W. A. (2016). Scientific underpinnings of the system of rice intensification (SRI): what is known so far? Adv. Agron. 135, 147–179. doi: 10.1016/bs.agron.2015.09.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thiombiano, L., Coulibaly, K., Mkomwa, S., Boa, K., Zougmoré, B. R., Balarabe, O., et al. (2022). “Conservation agriculture in west and central Africa,” in Advances in Conservation Agriculture Volume 3: Adoption and Spread, ed A. Kassam (Cambridge: Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing). doi: 10.19103/AS.2021.0088.07

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thomas, A., Theokritoff, E., Lesnikowski, A., Reckien, D., Jagannathan, K., Cremades, R., et al. (2021). Global evidence of constraints and limits to human adaptation. Reg. Environ. Change 21, 85. doi: 10.1007/s10113-021-01808-9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thornton, P. K., Whitbread, A., Baedeker, T., Cairns, J., Claessens, L., Baethgen, W., et al. (2018). A framework for priority-setting in climate smart agriculture research. Agric. Syst. 167, 161–175. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.09.009

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tinta, A. A. (2017). The effect of a positive policy integration on agriculture and climate change adaptation in ECOWAS. Agric. Food Sec. 6, 1–12. doi: 10.1186/s40066-017-0133-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Totin, E., Segnon, A. C., Schut, M., Affognon, H., Zougmoré, R., Rosenstock, T., et al. (2018). Institutional perspectives of climate-smart agriculture: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 10, 1990. doi: 10.3390/su10061990

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Traore, B., Descheemaeker, K., van Wijk, M. T., Corbeels, M., Supit, I., and Giller, K. E. (2017). Modelling cereal crops to assess future climate risk for family food self-sufficiency in southern Mali. Field Crops Res. 201, 133–145. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.11.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Traore, B., van Wijk, M. T., Descheemaeker, K., Corbeels, M., Rufino, M. C., and Giller, K. E. (2014). Evaluation of climate adaptation options for Sudano-Sahelian cropping systems. Field Crops Res. 156, 63–75. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2013.10.014

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Der Geest, K., and Warner, K. (2014). “Loss and damage from droughts and floods in rural Africa,” in Digging Deeper: Inside Africa's Agricultural, Food and Nutrition Dynamics, eds A. Akinyoade, W. Klaver, S. Soeters, and D. Foeken. (Leiden: Brill), 276–293. doi: 10.1163/9789004282698_014

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

van der Geest, K., and Warner, K. (2015). Vulnerability, coping and loss and damage from climate events. Hazards Risks Disast. Soc. 2015, 121–144. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-396451-9.00008-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vinke, K., Bergmann, J., Blocher, J., Upadhyay, H., and Hoffmann, R. (2020). Migration as adaptation? Migrat. Stud. 8, 626–634. doi: 10.1093/migration/mnaa029

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wanvoeke, J., Venot, J.-P., De Fraiture, C., and Zwarteveen, M. (2016). Smallholder drip irrigation in burkina faso: the role of development brokers. J. Develop. Stud. 52, 1019–1033. doi: 10.1080/00220388.2015.1107048

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Webb, P. (1991). When projects collapse: irrigation failure in the Gambia from a household perspective. J. Int. Develop. 3, 339–353. doi: 10.1002/jid.4010030310

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Weston, P., Hong, R., Kaboré, C., and Kull, C. A. (2015). Farmer-managed natural regeneration enhances rural livelihoods in dryland West Africa. Environ. Manag. 55, 1402–1417. doi: 10.1007/s00267-015-0469-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wiederkehr, C., Beckmann, M., and Hermans, K. (2018). Environmental change, adaptation strategies and the relevance of migration in Sub-Saharan drylands. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 113003. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aae6de

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Williams, P. A., Simpson, N. P., Totin, E., North, M. A., and Trisos, C. H. (2021). Feasibility assessment of climate change adaptation options across Africa: an evidence-based review. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 073004. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac092d

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Woltering, L., Pasternak, D., and Ndjeunga, J. (2011). The African market garden: the development of a low-pressure drip irrigation system for smallholders in the sudano sahel. Irrigat. Drain. 60, 613–621. doi: 10.1002/ird.610

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Woodruff, S. C., and Regan, P. (2018). Quality of national adaptation plans and opportunities for improvement. Mitigat. Adapt. Strat. Global Change. 24, 53–71. doi: 10.1007/s11027-018-9794-z

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wossen, T., Abdoulaye, T., Alene, A., Feleke, S., Menkir, A., and Manyong, V. (2017). Measuring the impacts of adaptation strategies to drought stress: the case of drought tolerant maize varieties. J. Environ. Manag. 203, 106–113. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.058

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wright, J. P., Posner, J. L., and Doll, J. D. (1991). The effect of tied ridge cultivation on the yield of maize and a maize/cowpea relay in the Gambia. Exp. Agric. 27, 269–279. doi: 10.1017/S0014479700018998

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yaffa, S. (2013). Coping measures not enough to avoid loss and damage from drought in the North Bank Region of the Gambia. Int. J. Global Warm. 5, 467–482. doi: 10.1504/IJGW.2013.057286

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zougmore, R., Jalloh, A., and Tioro, A. (2014). Climate-smart soil water and nutrient management options in semiarid West Africa: a review of evidence and analysis of stone bunds and zai techniques. Agric. Food Sec. 3, 16. doi: 10.1186/2048-7010-3-16

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zougmoré, R., Mando, A., and Stroosnijder, L. (2011). “Benefits of integrated soil fertility and water management in semi-arid west africa: an example study in burkina faso,” in Innovations as Key to the Green Revolution in Africa, eds A. Bationo, B. Waswa, J. M. Okeyo, F. Maina, and J. M. Kihara (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 215–225. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-2543-2_20

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zougmoré, R. B., Partey, S. T., Ouédraogo, M., Torquebiau, E., and Campbell, B. M. (2018). Facing climate variability in sub-Saharan Africa: analysis of climate-smart agriculture opportunities to manage climate-related risks. Cahiers Agric. 27, 34001. doi: 10.1051/cagri/2018019

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar