Clifford Ajayi - Potentials of agroforestry to meet food security & environmental quality - Aug 2009

Potentials of agroforestry to meet food security & environmental quality:

Moral persuasion, wielding the stick or dangling carrot?

Ajayi OC, Akinnifesi FK, Sileshi G, Chakeredza S, Mn’gomba S , Nyoka B

Email: [email_address]

World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF)

Presented at the 2 nd World Congress on Agroforestry

Nairobi, Kenya

23- 29 August, 2009

Challenges of food security & environmental quality in SSA

Opportunities from agroforestry-based land use practices to meet the twin challenges

Scaling-up approaches and outcome

Additional policy option: Conditional reward mechanisms

Key “take home” messages

Outline

Introduction

Challenges in Southern Africa

decreasing per capital food: current food deficit vs future environmental debt ?

Mono-modal rainfall and short growing season

tradeoff between livelihood and environment is high in food-deficit countries is high

What are the appropriate technological and policy options that are affordable , enhance food security , promote environmental quality (given emerging global phenomenon of climate change)?

Agroforestry field Farmers’ de facto practice

Expanded options: natural fertilizer tree system Sesbania Gliricidia

Food security benefit:

Up to 200% maize yield increase over de facto farmers’ practice

Ecosystem benefits:

Carbon sequestration (trees & soils) (Makumba et al 2006, Kaonga et al, 2009)

Reduce d deforestation e.g. stakes for curing tobacco

Reduced soil erosion through better soil water conservation (Phiri et al, Chirwa et al, 2003)

Enhanced biodiversity (sileshi et al, 2005, 2006)

Minimize effects of drought during maize season

Multiple benefits of AF-based land use practices

Table: Effect of land-use system on soil physical properties after 8 years of continuous maize production in Zambia Land use system infiltration rate (mm min -1 ) % water stable aggregates >2.00mm AF- Cajanus cajan 5.2 80.8 AF- Sesbania sesban 4.4 83.3 Natural fallow 5.3 66.7 Maize with fertilizer 3.1 65.6 Maize without fertilizer 2.1 61.2 Mean S.E.D 4.0 0.5 71.5 3.1

Water-stressed maize after 21 days of dry spell in Zambia January, 2003 Maize in conventional field Maize in AF field

Net profit ($/ha) of land use practices in Zambia ( Maize yield only )

Value-Cost Ratio ($/$) of land use practices in Zambia

How to maximize both food security & environmental benefits of agroforestry practices?

Upscaling of agri-environmental land use based on:

Moral persuasion - sensitization, farmer training, demonstration, etc

Wielding the stick - regulations, enforcements, instructions (olden days)

Outcome?: success stories…but low actual vs potential adoption

Offering carrot (through conditional reward for ecosystem services) as an additional policy option to enhance field uptake -> increase food security & environmental quality

Scaling up approaches

Adoptability of agri-environ land use practices under different reward regimes Cost & benefit of investment Local optimum: Food only Public optimum: Food +ecoservices* Cost On-farm benefit (maize yield only) Public benefit (maize yield + ecosystem services) A B Investment & adoption of land use practices O

“ In the past decade, there has been a narrowing of the gap between scientists and farmers, but a widening gap between scientists and policy makers ( and policy shapers )” James Moseley, US Deputy Minster for Agriculture 1 st World Congress on Agroforestry June 2004. Field tour for Honourable MPs in Zambia