1.
Economic and Environmental
Benefits of Sustainable
Intensification Practices(SIPs)
Presentation at CASFESA
project closing workshop
23 February 2014
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
Menale Kassie, Moti Jaleta
and Paswel Marenya
CIMMYT

2.
Expected impact of climate change and
variability on crop yields
Cline W, (2007) Global Warming and Agriculture

3.
Long-term Average Soil Loss from Cultivated Lands (on-
site impacts)
131
87
1
48
22
32
170
212
4
80
25
36
0
50
100
150
200
250
Anjeni Andit Tid Dizi Gununo Hunde
Lafto
Maybar
Soilloss(t/ha)
SCRP Stations
Average Min Soil loss Average Max Soil loss
These stations are in the middle and
upper part of Abbay watershed
Source: SCRP, 2005
17 track load per ha/year

4.
Soil nutrient depletion-20-60kg/ha
AGRA (2014) Seeking Fertile Ground for a
Green Revolution in Africa

5.
SIPs impact on soil loss and nutrient
Treatments Soil loss (ton/ha)
Sole maize under farmers’ practice 5.21
Maize-haricot bean intercropping with conservation agriculture 1.80
Maize-haricot bean intercropping with farmers practice 2.71
Sole Maize + mulch + farmers practice 3.44
Degfa et al. (2013)
Source: Degfa (2013)

6.
SIPs impact on crop production
cost (N=2300 households)
SIPs reduce (or at least not increase) use of chemical inputs except when V is adopted
Outcome
Adoption status –Pesticides (lit/ha)
Adoption EffectsAdopting
(j= 2,. . .,8)
Non-Adopting
(j=1)
Improved maize
varieties(V)
1.50 (0.00002) 1.11 (0.002) 0.389 (0.002)***
Intercropping/rotations
(D)
1.01 (0.003) 1.11 (0.004) -0.096 (0.006)***
Minimum tillage 1.50 (0.0003) 1.16 (0.007) 0.345 (0.007)***
V+D 1.05 (0.002) 1.09 (0.004) -0.046 (0.004)***
V+T 1.74 (0.002) 1.10 (0.004) 0.635 (0.005)***
D+T 1.05 (0.006) 1.12 (0.008) -0.065 (0.009)***
V+D+T 1.08 (0.009) 1.09 (0.007) -0.011 (0.011)
Outcome
Adoption status –N fertilizer (kg/ha)
Adoption EffectsAdopting
(j= 2,. . .,8)
Non-Adopting
(j=1)
V 25.97 (0.42) 17.01 (0.30) 8.96 (0.51)***
D 7.03 (0.24) 14.99 (0.40) -7.96 (0.47)***
T 12.02 (0.72) 16.99 (0.26) -4.96 (0.77)***
V+D 22.86 (0.37) 17.60 (0.45) 5.26 (0.58)***
V+T 16.04 (0.59) 11.57 (0.32) 4.46 (0.68)***
D+T 20.76 (3.12) 30.76 (0.22) -9.99 (3.13)***
V+D+T 15.07 (0.67) 22.49 (0.45) -7.41 (0.80)***

7.
SIPs impacts on reducing crop failure and cost of risk
(Malawi)
Source: Kassie et al. (2015), Journal of agricultural Economics
• SIPs reduce cost of risk but higher reduction achieved when they are adopted jointly (Malawi)
• SIPs avoid the traditional high-risk, high-return (low-risk, low return) tradeoff

8.
• Income increases
as combination of
SIPs increases
• Net crop income
increases by
– 14-41% when
improved maze
varieties
combined with
minimum
tillage,
intercropping/ro
tations
Net crop income: net of fertilizer, seeds, pesticides and hired
labour and oxen
Source: Kassie et al. (2014)

9.
SIPs impact on household nutrition status
0
.2.4.6.8
1
CDF
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Calore consumption per adult equivalent (Kcal)
Calore consumption with V0D0
Calore consumption with V1D0
Calore consumption with V0D1
Calore consumption with V1D1
V-improved maize varieties, D-Legume-maize intercropping/rotations
0
.2.4.6.8
1
CDF
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
Consumption Diversity (Simpson Index)
Consumption diversity with V0D0
Consumption diversity with V1D0
Consumption diversity with V0D1
Consumption diversity with V1D1

10.
Thank you
m.kassie@cgiar.org
What the world eats