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

1,370 views

Published on

Potentials of agroforestry to meet food security & environmental quality: Moral persuasion, wielding the stick or dangling carrot?

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,370
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

  1. 1. <ul><li>Potentials of agroforestry to meet food security & environmental quality: </li></ul><ul><li>Moral persuasion, wielding the stick or dangling carrot? </li></ul><ul><li>Ajayi OC, Akinnifesi FK, Sileshi G, Chakeredza S, Mn’gomba S , Nyoka B </li></ul><ul><li>Email: [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) </li></ul><ul><li>Presented at the 2 nd World Congress on Agroforestry </li></ul><ul><li>Nairobi, Kenya </li></ul><ul><li>23- 29 August, 2009 </li></ul>
  2. 2. <ul><li>Challenges of food security & environmental quality in SSA </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunities from agroforestry-based land use practices to meet the twin challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Scaling-up approaches and outcome </li></ul><ul><li>Additional policy option: Conditional reward mechanisms </li></ul><ul><li>Key “take home” messages </li></ul>Outline
  3. 3. Introduction <ul><li>Challenges in Southern Africa </li></ul><ul><ul><li>decreasing per capital food: current food deficit vs future environmental debt ? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mono-modal rainfall and short growing season </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>tradeoff between livelihood and environment is high in food-deficit countries is high </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What are the appropriate technological and policy options that are affordable , enhance food security , promote environmental quality (given emerging global phenomenon of climate change)? </li></ul>
  4. 4. Agroforestry field Farmers’ de facto practice
  5. 5. Expanded options: natural fertilizer tree system Sesbania Gliricidia
  6. 6. <ul><li>Food security benefit: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Up to 200% maize yield increase over de facto farmers’ practice </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ecosystem benefits: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Carbon sequestration (trees & soils) (Makumba et al 2006, Kaonga et al, 2009) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduce d deforestation e.g. stakes for curing tobacco </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduced soil erosion through better soil water conservation (Phiri et al, Chirwa et al, 2003) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enhanced biodiversity (sileshi et al, 2005, 2006) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimize effects of drought during maize season </li></ul></ul>Multiple benefits of AF-based land use practices
  7. 8. 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
  8. 9. Water-stressed maize after 21 days of dry spell in Zambia January, 2003 Maize in conventional field Maize in AF field
  9. 10. Net profit ($/ha) of land use practices in Zambia ( Maize yield only )
  10. 11. Value-Cost Ratio ($/$) of land use practices in Zambia
  11. 12. <ul><li>How to maximize both food security & environmental benefits of agroforestry practices? </li></ul><ul><li>Upscaling of agri-environmental land use based on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Moral persuasion - sensitization, farmer training, demonstration, etc </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wielding the stick - regulations, enforcements, instructions (olden days) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Outcome?: success stories…but low actual vs potential adoption </li></ul><ul><li>Offering carrot (through conditional reward for ecosystem services) as an additional policy option to enhance field uptake -> increase food security & environmental quality </li></ul>Scaling up approaches
  12. 13. 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
  13. 15. “ 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
  14. 16. <ul><li>Time lag between adoption and realization of benefits create an adoption threshold- implication for low income farmers </li></ul><ul><li>Examples of “carrot” initiatives (Carbon payments) Malawi & Zambia </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Govt of Malawi Tree planting (for carbon) initiative </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ICRAF/Harvard University collaboration on tree planting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clinton-Hunther Foundation carbon initiative </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>COMESA Carbon Poverty Reduction initiative </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Malawi Environment Endowment Trust (MEET) eco-support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>COMPASS/MEET/LEAD Carbon Fund </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>GEF/GoM Green Water Credit Scheme (proposed) </li></ul></ul>Cases of “carrots initiatives” in Southern Africa
  15. 17. <ul><li>AF and related land use practices offer smallholder farmers opportunities to meet both livelihood and improve the ecosystems. </li></ul><ul><li>“ Waiting period” (first 2-3 years) are critical to smallholders’ investment and adoption of such win-win land use practices </li></ul><ul><li>In in food deficit regions , view environ quality from livelihood (food security) lens </li></ul><ul><li>Beyond “technical fixes”, there is need for ‘ market & institutional fixes ’ and ‘ policy fixes ’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Policy bias against agriculture (increased cost of inputs vs price of outputs) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Property rights </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conditional incentives to help land users tap into $$$$ billions carbon funds </li></ul></ul><ul><li>PES or offering carrot: A policy fix to align the individual smallholder food production goals to global environmental quality objectives </li></ul>“ Take home” message
  16. 18. <ul><li>Thank you </li></ul>

×