000			03536nab a22004097a 4500
001			68593
003			MX-TxCIM
005			20251201104954.0
008			250129s2024 -uk|||p|op||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a0308-521X
022			_a1873-2267 (Online)
024	8		_ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104060
040			_aMX-TxCIM
100	1		_aWalsh, C. _938142
245	1	0	_aTranslating theory into practice : _ba flexible decision-making tool to support the design and implementation of climate-smart agriculture projects
260			_aUnited Kingdom : _bElsevier B.V., _c2024.
500			_aOpen access
520			_aContext: Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is a conceptual framework for responding climate-related risk in agriculture across the three pillars of Mitigation, Resilience, and Production. Existing tools have been developed which seek to operationalize the CSA concept to evaluate and benchmark progress; each of which have their own relative strengths and weaknesses. Objective: The translation of this concept into actionable projects/portfolios hence requires the careful evaluation of potential trade-offs and synergies between these three pillars. The hereby presented decision-making tool aims to offer a basis for a structured evaluation of such trade-offs and synergies. Methods: It does so by assessing five different outcome pathways on how they contribute to a project's performance across the three pillars of CSA. We aspire that the use of this tool will allow for more deliberate design and implementation of projects in agricultural development, increasing the resilience and productivity of farming systems whilst ensuring the sustainable use of the environmental resource-based agriculture depends on. Results and conclusions: This tool was applied in a workshop setting to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of two distinct projects; demonstrating the utility in visualizing the same performance in different ways. Of particular importance was ability to demonstrate how focusing on productivity and adaptation may trade-off mitigation activities. Significance: The results of the case study application demonstrated the challenge in meeting all the CSA requirements; particularly where the main objective of a project is to enhance and increase productivity. This reinforces how supporting all three pillars is challenging for a single project and therefore CSA is arguably more achievable when viewed in terms of a portfolio of activities which can collectively compensate for the limitations of a single project.
546			_aText in English
597			_aPoverty reduction, livelihoods & jobs _bSeed Equal _cGenetic Innovation _dSyngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture (SFSA) _uhttps://hdl.handle.net/10568/172573
650		7	_aAgricultural Practices _91531 _2AGROVOC
650		7	_aProjects _99313 _2AGROVOC
650		7	_aResilience _95030 _2AGROVOC
650		7	_aSupport measures _929174 _2AGROVOC
650		7	_aClimate-smart agriculture _92419 _2AGROVOC
650		7	_aFarming systems _2AGROVOC _91109
700	1		_aRenn, M. _938143
700	1		_aKlauser, D. _938144
700	1		_aPinto, A. de _911136
700	1		_aHaggar, J. _938145
700	0		_aRouf Abdur _938146
700	1		_aHopkins, R.J. _938147
700	0		_aFarhad Zamil _938150
773	0		_dUnited Kingdom : Elsevier B.V., 2024. _gv. 219, art. 104060 _tAgricultural Systems _wG444466 _x0308-521X
856	4		_yClick here to access online _uhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104060
942			_2ddc _cJA _n0
999			_c68593 _d68585