Analyze the evidence

• Many of the participatory tools mentioned previously for data gathering can also be used in the analysis stage, in methods such as conversation mapping, rivers of life, ranking, H diagram, force fields and, if time allows, narrative approaches such as participatory photos or learning histories. These are described at the end of this section.
• A learning workshop is also helpful for identifying exercises that enable participants to move from a broad understanding (e.g. brainstorming) to a focus on key issues. This will allow them to draw out key lessons and transferrable messages and to identify the short-, medium- and longer-term steps for building resilience to climate change.

Exercises that might help in carrying out specific aspects of the analysis include:

For each of the activities implemented in your adaptation process, assess how well they met the criteria of being efficient, affordable, appropriate and timely. This may require prior discussion about what the words mean in relation to the aims of the adaptation process, i.e. the people involved in implementing the project should identify a locally defined range for each word in relation to their specific coffee production.

Use a table such as the one below to record these definitions (Table 43).

Resilience to climate change requires a connection between different people involved in coffee production and their wider networks, e.g. between the community, government or businesses. It also requires flexible processes and opportunities to learn from experience and to make sure that learning is used to inform future plans. At the end of an adaptation process, it is important to assess how well farmers and other stakeholders were able to participate in the design, implementation and analysis.

The following table provides some suggestions for collecting evidence that can answer questions about the level of stakeholder inclusion in design and decision-making, or stakeholder investment in participatory approaches . Feel free to adapt or add to this list to suit your needs. These questions can be answered through focus groups, one-onone interviews or in a workshop setting. There will inevitably be an element of subjectivity in assessing the quality and level of participation. However, through these conversations, it should start to become clear what meaningful participation means for farmers and whether they (as well as other stakeholders) felt that opportunities to participate were appropriate and sufficient and, if not, how the approach might be improved next time.

It is helpful to use a ranking exercise that assesses how different participants viewed each activity in the adaptation process. There are many ways to conduct ranking exercises. A simple approach is to give participants four stones (or a different small object, such as a piece of candy) and ask them to place them on a table marked out on a large piece of paper. For example, if you were comparing three activities, Table 45 could be used.

If a participant thought the activity was extremely efficient, reasonably affordable, and suitable for the farmers, but that the timing was terrible, their stones might look like Table 45 below.

If you asked another five participants to place their stones, you might get something that looks more like Table 46.

From this exercise, facilitators can start to pick up patterns and discuss them with the group. For example, the facilitator could ask, “There seems to be some agreement about the poor timing of this activity. Is this how you see it and if so, could someone tell me more about why this is?” Or, “There seems to be a spread of views about the efficiency of the activity. Could someone who considered it to be ‘very efficient’ tell me why they placed their stone there? Could someone who placed their stone on ‘very inefficient’ explain why they put their stone there?” It is normally during these discussions that the most interesting lessons can be learned.

There are many participatory tools and exercises that can be helpful in one-on-one discussions with farmers, focus groups or as part of a learning workshop in order to gather data and examine it in more depth. These tools and exercises can help participants map out and understand complex relationships, interactions and influences. They are listed in Table 47 and are described in more detail at the end of this section.

In addition to evaluating the adaptation process at the farm level, it might also be interesting to consider how the broader aspects of the coffee production system can also be addressed. Extension workers, trainers or others using the c&c approach can use Table 48 as a checklist to reflect to reflect on how resilience to climate change can be built for coffee production on a larger scale. Good practice at the farm level needs to be supported by good practice in other parts of the coffee production system if it is to adapt to climate change to the best possible extent.

The checklist will allow you to identify strengths and weaknesses and to consider where resources should be invested to build long-term capacity for resilience in your local coffee production system.

For example, the ability to understand new information about climate change and to assess new risks is an important skill to incorporate into decision-making processes when adapting to climate change. An extension worker should consider, for example, how well farmers are able to access and understand new data on climate change. They should consider how they can support the farmers in this and how much of a priority developing this capacity should be. They may decide that this is not a priority in relation to other more pressing activities, such as introducing new irrigation systems.