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.

Developing livelihood trajectory models for screening and scaling agroforestry options

6 views

Published on

Developing livelihood trajectory models for screening and scaling agroforestry options

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Developing livelihood trajectory models for screening and scaling agroforestry options

  1. 1. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees Developing livelihood trajectory models for screening and scaling agroforestry options Mary Crossland, PhD student Bangor University afp43d@bangor.ac.uk 4th World Congress on Agroforestry | Montpellier, France | 21st May 2019 L8 -Scaling up of agroforestry innovations Fergus Sinclair1,2 , Tim Pagella2 , Jasper Taylor3 , Lalisa Duguma1 , Leigh Winowieck1 1World Agroforestry (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya; 2Bangor University, Bangor, UK; 3Simulistics Ltd., Edinburgh, UK
  2. 2. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees Need to match agroforestry options to local circumstances but lack suitable tools for screening potential options Farmers make adoption decisions on the basis of their whole livelihood system and may be trying to optimise for multiple objectives. Narrow evaluations may underplay the less direct benefits of adopting a new technology Fine-scale variation in livelihoods - what are the specific benefits a household can expect to receive? Why model livelihoods?
  3. 3. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees Simile is a dynamic system modelling software by Simulistics Ltd. www.simulistics.com Allows you to evaluate trade-offs between different options before undertaking them Particularly useful in regards to agroforestry, which often involves long-time scales and high investment costs. The Simile modelling environment: Modular, visual and rapid development Simulation modelling
  4. 4. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees IFAD-EC funded project: “Restoration of degraded land for food security and poverty reduction in East Africa and the Sahel: taking successes in land restoration to scale” Taking a Research ‘in’ development and options by context approach through working in collaboration with development partners to systematically testing promising options across a range of contexts (Sinclair & Coe, 2019). Over 2000 farmers in eastern Kenya and 200 farmers in Ethiopia conducting on-farm trials to test various land restoration options, including on-farm tree planting. Scaling dryland restoration
  5. 5. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees Photo: Leigh Winoweicki On-farm tree planting for fuelwood in Ethiopia How many trees would a specific household need to plant to be self-sufficient in fuelwood? How much dung could then be applied to cropland instead of burnt as fuel? What other livelihood benefits could on-farm trees for fuelwood provide? How do the benefits and trade-offs vary for households with different resource profiles?
  6. 6. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees Photo: Leigh Winoweicki Farm size (ha) Household size Number of cattle On-farm tree planting for fuelwood in Ethiopia
  7. 7. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees 2 cows No trees 5 people 0.5 ha 3 cows 21 trees 6 people 1 ha 4 cows 383 trees 7 people 2 ha DestaLichi Getu First version of the model The first version of the model simulated the establishment of Acacia decurrens woodlots on three participating farms with different resource profiles.
  8. 8. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees Changes in mean annual values compared to a baseline scenario of no farm trees. Most positive changes in green followed by yellow and then orange. Initial model results Results from this first iteration of modelling showed meeting fuel demand requires a lot more trees than currently found on farms and a large change in land use for those with smaller farms (e.g., Lichi) 675 trees Lichi 850 trees Desta 950 trees Getu Firewood from forest (kg) -2197 -2402 -2661 Dung to croplands (kg) +716 1052+ +1445 Days spent collecting firewood -19.2 -17.8 -16.6 % of farm under trees 54% 32% 19%
  9. 9. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees Improving the model and exploring alternatives The second round of model development involved exploring alternative configurations, species and management regimes. Fieldwork conducted in Samre, Tigray to ground truth model assumptions and collect data on tree management, fuel use and labour.
  10. 10. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees Acacia decurrens Eucalyptus globulus Faidherbia albida Fuel security Days with firewood from farm trees +136 +174 +66 Firewood sourced from forest (kg) -830 -1050 -305 Food security Manure applied to cropland (kg farm) +249 +332 +161 Manure effect of wheat yield (kg farm) +30 +40 +20 Tree effect on wheat yield (kg farm) -175 -91 +122 Days with sufficient wheat for family -70 -24 +68 Days with sufficient tree fodder for livestock +108 0 +35 Income Surplus wheat (kg) -120 -49 +140 Surplus firewood (kg) 0 0 0 Surplus tree fodder (kg) 0 0 0 Income per capita (ETB) -191 -78 +224 Time & labour Days spent collecting wood & harvesting trees -2.0 -2.2 +0.5 Lichi Faidherbia performs well cross most performance indicators…
  11. 11. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees Lichi Acacia decurrens Eucalyptus globulus Faidherbia albida Fuel security Days with firewood from farm trees +136 +174 +66 Firewood sourced from forest (kg) -830 -1050 -305 Food security Manure applied to cropland (kg farm) +249 +332 +161 Manure effect of wheat yield (kg farm) +30 +40 +20 Tree effect on wheat yield (kg farm) -175 -91 +122 Days with sufficient wheat for family -70 -24 +68 Days with sufficient tree fodder for livestock +108 0 +35 Income Surplus wheat (kg) -120 -49 +140 Surplus firewood (kg) 0 0 0 Surplus tree fodder (kg) 0 0 0 Income per capita (ETB) -191 -78 +224 Time & labour Days spent collecting wood & harvesting trees -2.0 -2.2 +0.5 …But Eucalyptus performs best in terms of firewood production, manure application and time saved …
  12. 12. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees Desta Acacia decurrens Eucalyptus globulus Faidherbia albida Fuel security Days with firewood from farm trees +226 +207 +100 Firewood sourced from forest (kg) -1464 -1327 -691 Food security Manure applied to cropland (kg farm) +695 +634 +241 Manure effect of wheat yield (kg farm) +85 +77 +29 Tree effect on wheat yield (kg farm) -352 -128 +245 Days with sufficient wheat for family -107 -20 +110 Days with sufficient tree fodder for livestock +145 0 +47 Income Surplus wheat (kg) -268 -51 +271 Surplus firewood (kg) 0 0 0 Surplus tree fodder (kg) 0 0 0 Income per capita (ETB) -357 -68 +361 Time & labour Days spent collecting wood & harvesting trees +0.8 +0.8 -1.1 ... As farm size increases Acacia woodlots become more feasible…
  13. 13. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees Getu Acacia decurrens Eucalyptus globulus Faidherbia albida Fuel security Days with firewood from farm trees +365 +249 +175 Firewood sourced from forest (kg) -2661 -1744 -1064 Food security Manure applied to cropland (kg farm) +1447 +1027 +803 Manure effect of wheat yield (kg farm) +176 +125 +98 Tree effect on wheat yield (kg farm) -763 -198 +473 Days with sufficient wheat for family -202 -25 +196 Days with sufficient tree fodder for livestock +217 0 +71 Income Surplus wheat (kg) -588 -73 +569 Surplus firewood (kg) +214 0 0 Surplus tree fodder (kg) 0 0 0 Income per capita (ETB) -549 -84 +651 Time & labour Days spent collecting wood & harvesting trees +8.0 +4.2 +5.5 … and Acacia even meets over 100% of fuelwood demand for some farmers
  14. 14. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees What about the share of benefits within households? Lichi Acacia Eucalyptus Faidherbia Total days spent collecting wood + harvesting trees -2.0 -2.2 +0.5 Days spent collecting wood (female labour) -7.5 -9.3 -1.9 Days harvesting farm trees (male labour) +5.5 +7.1 +2.4 On-farm trees for fuelwood could save time but who’s time? When we take a more disaggregated view of the results we see the benefits of on-farm tree planting may not be equally distributed within the household. Primarily women & children who collect firewood and men who manage on-farm trees. Desta Acacia Eucalyptus Faidherbia Total days spent collecting wood + harvesting trees +0.8 +0.8 -1.1 Days spent collecting wood (female labour) -10.3 -9.3 -5.9 Days harvesting farm trees (male labour) +11.1 +10.0 +4.8 Getu Acacia Eucalyptus Faidherbia Total days spent collecting wood + harvesting trees +8.0 +4.2 +5.5 Days spent collecting wood (female labour) -14.1 -10.0 -4.1 Days harvesting farm trees (male labour) +22.1 +14.2 +9.5
  15. 15. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees Summary of model findings The relative performance of options varied with farm size and individual livelihood objectives (fuel security, food security, time savings etc.) More integrated agroforestry options were unable to cover household fuel demand but offer a more feasible option than woodlots on smaller farms. Faidherbia albida was the only option to provide a net income gain but this assumes a mature system with trees over 30 years old. Under all options, income from the sale of surplus tree fodder and firewood was limited. Given gender roles, benefits of options may not be equally distributed with the household.
  16. 16. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees Where next? Assessing the impacts of combining different interventions and tree planting options (e.g., fuel saving stoves, wood stores, market development) Incorporating the potential share of benefits within the household Continued data collection to improve model parameterisation Development of the biophysical aspects and better simulation of tree-crop interactions Developing a modular toolkit and custom display tools
  17. 17. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees Conclusions Integrating trees on farms can provide indirect, but potentially far-reaching livelihood benefits, but may need to be be combined and coupled with other interventions. Option performance is likely to vary with household context and individual livelihood objectives, highlighting the need to match options to farmers current livelihood strategies, priorities and the trade-off they may be willing to make. Model construction can reveal key knowledge gaps and data deficiencies in relation to understanding key livelihood-options interactions, helping to focus ongoing research. Modelling can help assess what level of adoption and suite of agroforestry options may be required, helping us move away from blanket recommendations and to tailor agroforestry innovations to local circumstances.
  18. 18. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees World Agroforestry (ICRAF), United Nations Avenue, Gigiri, P.O Box 30677-00100, Nairobi, Kenya Phone: +254 20 722 4000 Fax: +254 20 722 4001 Email: icraf@cgiar.org Website: www.worldagroforestry.org Thank you! Mary Crossland afp43d@bangor.ac.uk
  19. 19. Transforming Lives and Landscapes with Trees Sinclair, F., & Coe, R. (2019) The options by context approach: a paradigm shift in agronomy. Exp. Agric., 3. 55: 1–13 Harris, D. and Orr, A. (2014). Is rainfed agriculture really a pathway from poverty? Agric. Syst., 123: 84-96. References

×