Jeanne Coulibaly, Godfrey Kundhlande, Tebila Nakelse and Brian Chiputwa

1. Socio-Economic and
Environmental Drivers of
Adoption of Fertilizer Trees and
Implications for Food Security in
Malawi
Jeanne Coulibaly, Godfrey Kundhlande,
Tebila Nakelse and Brian Chiputwa
Beating Famine Southern Africa Conference, 14-17 April 2015

2. Malawi, a country with severe
livelihood challenges
Soil degradation
Low use of
inputs
Population
pressure
Poor
agricultural
practices
Climate
change
Food
insecurity
2015 Flood in Blantyre
Picture credit: Andrew Kruczkiewicz

3. Agroforestry, very effective as a climate
smart technology
Fertilizer trees intercropped with
maize results in significant
improvement of maize yield
(50%-500%)
Improved source of income

4. Research Design
• Research question: What
is the potential for
Fertilizer trees to
contribute to food
security and adaptation
to climate change?
• Quasi-experimental
design: experiments and
controls
• Stratified sampling
design
• 340 households selected

5. Main species adopted: Faidherbia,
Gliricidia, Tephrosia
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
KARONGA KASUNGU MULANJE MZIMBA SALIMA THYOLO
Percentageofhouseholds
Albiza Lebbeck
Acacia
polycantha
Khayn spp
Tephrosia spp
Cajanus cajan
Sesbania
sesban
Gliricidia
sepium
Senna spp
Faiderbia
Albida
Lucaenea spp
Eucalyptus
60.4139.59
Non-adopters
Adopters

6. Planting trees, sustainable adaptation
strategy
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Percentageofhouseholds

7. Two groups different in many socio-
economic characteristics
Variables Adopters Non-adopters
Food productivity 563.6** 466.1
Age 47 48
Farm size 4.08 3.90
Secondary Education 0.46** 0.33
Gender of household head 0.69 0.70
Farm asset index 0.36*** 0.25
Fully engaged in farm work 2.78 2.68
Training on agroforestry practices 0.65 0.48
Perception change in rainfall 0.97 0.95
Perception change in temperature 0.87 0.87
Distance to government extension services 8.76 8.24
Land degradation 0.77** 0.65

8. Socio-economic factors influencing
adoption of fertilizer trees
Variable Adoption decision
Age square -0.000606*
Aged development ratio 0.0687**
Sex of household head 0.296
Number of livestock 0.00337
Farmers' occupation -0.619***
Farm asset 0.178***
Agroforestry training 0.454***
Perception of change in rainfall 0.156
Perception of change in temperature -0.191
Maize NPK 0.000496
Land degradation 0.433**
Cooking fuel from forest 0.349
Distance extension agents 0.0168***

9. Impact of fertilizer trees on food
security
Decision stage Impact
Treatment
Effect
Percentage
treatment
Effect
Sub-sample To adopt Not to
adopt
Farm household that
adopted fertilizer
trees
(a) 448.23 (c)235.86 212.37*** 90%
Farm household that
did not adopt
fertilizer trees
(d) 333.26 (b) 348.03 -14.77*** - 4%

10. Results confirmed by perception
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Construction
material
Better soil
fertility
Food for
animals
Source of
fuelwood
Source of
food
Source of
income
Vegetative
cover
Helps
hydrological
cycle
Percentageofhouseholds
Perceived benefit

11. Main Highlights
• Farm and knowledge capital important for
adoption of fertilizer trees
• Positive and significant impact on adopters
• Evidence that adoption of fertilizer trees has the
potential to double productivity and therefore
provide adaptation benefits and food security
• Promotion of fertilizer trees should be part of an
inclusive approach to improve farm productivity
and livelihood

12. Thank you!
Picture credit: Olu Ajayi