Experiences with implementation of the Sustainable Intensification Assessment
Framework [SIAF] : an example analysis from Ethiopia
Lulseged Tamene1, Wuletawu Abera1, Kindu Mekonnen2, Melkamu Derseh2, Kifle Woldearegay3, Simret Yasabu2
1International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT); 2International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), 3Mekelle University
This poster is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence.
January 2019
We thank farmers and local partners in Africa RISING sites for their contributions to this work. We also acknowledge the
support of all donors which globally support the work of the CGIAR centers and their partners through their
contributions to the CGIAR system
Conclusion
• Need to assess impacts of interventions considering
major SAIF indicators to gain appropriate picture of their
roles.
Figure 1. Comparison of the SLM interventions on productivity and environmental factors in
treated and control sites.
Introduction
Land degradation is a serious problem in Ethiopia with an annual cost of $4.3 billion. The Government is engaged in various
land restoration efforts investing more than $1.2 billion a year over the past ten years. The country has also pledged to restore
over 22 M ha of land as part of AFR100 commitment. Despite the widespread restoration efforts, adequate quantitative
information related to the performances of land restoration efforts is lacking.
Objective
Evaluate the impacts of land management interventions using
the SAIF framework.
Approaches: (a) assess impacts of restoration efforts
based on meta-data analysis of peer-reviewed publications,
and (b) implement the SAIF framework to assess tradeoffs
and synergies associated with the role of land management
practices.
Plate 1. Land degradation, its consequences and remedial measures
Results
• Our review collated103 peer-reviewed papers covering 176
sites.
• The combination of bunds with biological options and CA
increased mean crop yield by 170% and 18%, respectively.
• Bunds combined with biological options and exclosures
enhanced SOC by about 140% and 90%, respectively.
• Single interventions such as bunds, biological measures or
Fanya juu implemented alone showed negative effect on
crop yield.
• Treated sites showed improvement in SOC and runoff
compared to controls while there was no major change
related to erosion (Fig.1a).
• Biological options have shown significant contribution to
enhancing SOC and reducing runoff (Fig. 1b).
• CA has contributed to reduce soil erosion and increase crop
yield (Fig. 1b).
• CA had win-win impact on SOC and yield in sub-moist AEC
while it showed tradeoff in the sub-humid zone (Fig. 2).
Partners
Figure 2. Synergy and tradeoff map of interventions on different products and services.
• CA had positive impact on crop yield but minimum
contribution to build SOC (Fig. 3)
• Integration of income generating options can reduce
tradeoffs and enhance synergy (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. Situations and/or actions to minimize tradeoffs and enhance synergies.