Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Economic and Environmental
Benefits of Sustainable
Intensification Practices(SIPs)
Presentation at CASFESA
project closing...
Expected impact of climate change and
variability on crop yields
Cline W, (2007) Global Warming and Agriculture
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...
Soil nutrient depletion-20-60kg/ha
AGRA (2014) Seeking Fertile Ground for a
Green Revolution in Africa
SIPs impact on soil loss and nutrient
Treatments Soil loss (ton/ha)
Sole maize under farmers’ practice 5.21
Maize-haricot ...
SIPs impact on crop production
cost (N=2300 households)
SIPs reduce (or at least not increase) use of chemical inputs exce...
SIPs impacts on reducing crop failure and cost of risk
(Malawi)
Source: Kassie et al. (2015), Journal of agricultural Econ...
• Income increases
as combination of
SIPs increases
• Net crop income
increases by
– 14-41% when
improved maze
varieties
c...
SIPs impact on household nutrition status
0
.2.4.6.8
1
CDF
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Calore consumption per adult equivalen...
Thank you
m.kassie@cgiar.org
What the world eats
CASFESA CLOSURE: Economic & Environmental Benefits of Sustainable Intensification Practices--M. Kassie et al
CASFESA CLOSURE: Economic & Environmental Benefits of Sustainable Intensification Practices--M. Kassie et al
CASFESA CLOSURE: Economic & Environmental Benefits of Sustainable Intensification Practices--M. Kassie et al
CASFESA CLOSURE: Economic & Environmental Benefits of Sustainable Intensification Practices--M. Kassie et al
CASFESA CLOSURE: Economic & Environmental Benefits of Sustainable Intensification Practices--M. Kassie et al
CASFESA CLOSURE: Economic & Environmental Benefits of Sustainable Intensification Practices--M. Kassie et al
CASFESA CLOSURE: Economic & Environmental Benefits of Sustainable Intensification Practices--M. Kassie et al
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

CASFESA CLOSURE: Economic & Environmental Benefits of Sustainable Intensification Practices--M. Kassie et al

725 views

Published on

Presentation at a one-day workshop on February 23, 2015, convened to take stock of the Conservation Agriculture and Smallholder Farmers in East and Southern Africa (CASFESA) pilot project. CASFESA scientists share experience after three years of implementation in South Achefer and Jebitehnan Districts of Amhara Region, Northern Ethiopia, from June 2012, ending in March 2015. Funded by the European Union through the International Fund for Agricultural Development, CASFESA aimed at increasing food security and incomes of poor smallholder farmers through sustainable intensification of mixed, cereal-based systems.

The project will leave a rich legacy, including:
• adaptation and demonstration of CA-based technologies on selected farmer plots;
• enhancing pro-poor and gender-sensitive targeting of CA-based interventions;
• improving the delivery of information, including on technologies and market opportunities to smallholders, as well as developing policy options and recommendations that favor these technologies; and,
• enhancing the capacity of research, and development interventions, for project stakeholders.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

CASFESA CLOSURE: Economic & Environmental Benefits of Sustainable Intensification Practices--M. Kassie et al

  1. 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. 2. Expected impact of climate change and variability on crop yields Cline W, (2007) Global Warming and Agriculture
  3. 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. 4. Soil nutrient depletion-20-60kg/ha AGRA (2014) Seeking Fertile Ground for a Green Revolution in Africa
  5. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 10. Thank you m.kassie@cgiar.org What the world eats

×