This document discusses conservation agriculture and agroforestry in East Africa. It finds that conventional agriculture has failed to meet global food needs due to soil degradation and high environmental impacts. Crop yields in Africa are significantly lower than global averages. The challenges of climate change exacerbate these issues. Conservation agriculture and agroforestry can help address these problems through practices like minimum tillage, soil cover, and strategic crop rotations. Pilot projects in East Africa show potential for yield increases of 30-200% through these approaches. Key factors that influence adoption include access to training, farm size, and climate change mitigation. Policies and institutions also need to support these practices through extension services, research, incentives, and enabling markets.

1. Jonathan Muriuki and the evergreen team
ICRAF, Nairobi and partners
CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE IN
EAST AFRICA

2. Synopsis
The context
Some project
results
Thoughts on
what needs to
be done

3. This is not disputable
Conventional agriculture has failed to reach the world due to :-
- Destruction of the biological and ecological integrity of soil
- High environmental footprint
Smallholder agriculture in Africa though system-based serves
subsistence but cant produce surplus for the urban population

4. 2003 Crop Yields (MT/ha) – Africa, and Global
Crop AFRICA GLO
BAL
Maize 1.61 4.47
Rice 1.87 3.84
Sorghum 0.88 1.30
Millet 0.70 0.82
Sweet Potatoes 4.32 13.49
Cassava 8.83 10.76
Beans 0.62 0.70
Groundnuts 0.86 1.35
Bananas 6.59 15.25
4
(Source: Tittonell, 2013)

5. The challenge of climate change
 Temperatures have risen by 0.2 – 2.0oC
 Rainfall variability increases from year to year
 more intense rainfalls occur more frequently – floods and
extreme weather events are more frequent!!
 Agricultural production to fall in most developing countries by
upto 30% - food prices to rise
Hence
 Arid and Semi arid lands
increasing
 Loss of biodiversity
 More water scarcity etc
 Droughts, famines etc

6. Conservation agriculture
 Minimum tillage
 Adequate soil cover
 Adopting strategic crop
rotations / associations
Benefits
 Reduce erosion
 Increase length growing
period
• Improve soil conditions leading
to improved yields (30-200%)
 Sequester carbon
 Reduce labour costs
Agroforestry
Agroforestry incorporating
trees/shrubs
on farms and rangelands
 Maintaining vegetative soil cover,
 Nutrient cycling and NO2 fixation ,
 Weed suppression,
 Enhancing soil structure and water
infiltration and penetration,
 Food, fuel, fiber and income from
tree products,
 carbon storage, and biodiversity
conservation
Conservation agriculture and Agroforestry – Potential
remedy
Combining the two has the potential to
enhance scaling up of both

7. 1. Minimum soil disturbance. The roots of tree/shrub
species and the soil fauna take over the tillage function, soil
nutrient mobilization and balancing
2. Adequate soil cover. The
trees add biomass, which
protects the soil and feeds
the soil biota (i.e.
biological plough). This also
ensures better carbon storage
than CA alone
3. Trees in the rotation/ intercrop reduce weeds, insect
pests and diseases; Thus increasing savings from inputs
such as fertilizer and herbicides
When integrated with CA, trees ensure

8. Some pilot ICRAF initiatives in E Africa
 Baseline analysis of adoption rates, policy and institutional
influence on adoption of CAWT in Africa – Ke, Tz, Gh, Za
 Pilot testing of initiatives towards wider adoption of evergreen
agriculture – Ke, Tz, Rw, Le
 Enhancing total farm productivity in smallholder farms in EA –
Ke, Et
 Trees for food security in eastern Africa – Et, Rw, Ug, Bu
 Scaling up farmer managed natural regeneration in EA – WV
led – Ke, Ug, Tz, Rw
 The evergreen agriculture partnership network (global)

10. Factors affecting adoption of CA in Kenya and
Tanzania
Variable Influence on adoption
Kenya Tanzania
Β S.E. Sig. Exp
(B)
Β S.E. Sig. Exp
(B)
Age of household head -0.04 0.01 0.00* 0.96 -0.01 0.02 0.67 0.99
Household size 0.49 0.14 0.00* 1.63 0.07 0.15 0.63 1.08
Access training resources - - - - 3.07 1.27 0.02* 21.45
Access to credit 0.05 0.70 0.95 0.78 0.63 0.83 0.45 1.87
Farm size 0.12 0.10 0.25 1.12 0.05 0.04 0.19 1.05
Mitigate climate change 1.23 0.59 0.04* 0.29 0.94 1.50 0.53 2.55
Use of FFS approaches 1.30 0.37 0.00* 3.68 0.82 1.29 0.53 2.27
Contact farmer approach 0.82 0.34 0.02* 2.28 2.29 1.19 0.06* 9.85
Agro ecological conditions - - - - -2.49 1.26 0.05* 0.08

11. Factors affecting adoption of AF in Kenya, Tanzania and Ghana
Variable Β S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Kenya
Livestock keeping -0.07 0.59 0.01 1 0.91 0.94
Access to training resources 0.96 0.32 8.71 1 0.00* 2.60
Farm size -0.16 0.09 3.20 1 0.07* 1.18
Climate change mitigation 0.93 0.47 3.97 1 0.05* 0.40
Tanzania
Livestock keeping 0.52 0.31 2.77 1 0.10 1.68
Farm size -0.03 0.01 5.30 1 0.02* 0.97
Climate change mitigation 0.71 0.27 6.64 1 0.01* 2.03
Agro ecological conditions -1.71 0.29 33.95 1 0.00* 0.18
Ghana
Livestock keeping 2.70 0.91 8.71 1 0.00*** 14.81

12. Most frequent tree species by agro-ecological
zones in Machakos, Bugesera and Mbarali
Zone Machakos Bugesera Mbarali
Low
altitude
1 Mangifera indica Senna spectabilis Faidherbia albida
2 Senna siamea Eucalyptus spp Mbadaga
3 Grevillea robusta Grewia similis Acacia tortilis
4 Terminalia brownii Grevillea robusta Delonix regia
5 Citrus sinensis Persea americana Mangifera indica
Mid
altitude
1 Eucalyptus
camaldulensis
Grevillea robusta Faidherbia albida
2 Grevillea robusta Senna spectabilis Mangifera Indica
3 Persea americana Persea americana Acacia tortilis
4 Mangifera indica Mangifera indica Senna spectabilis
5 Croton megalocarpus Eucalyptus spp Delonix regia
High
altitude
1 Grevillea robusta Grevillea robusta
2 Mangifera indica Mangifera indica
3 Persea americana Persea americana
4 Eucalyptus
camaldulensis
Eucalyptus spp
5 Croton megalocarpus Citrus limon

13. Species accumulation curves 90 farms
surveyed in Machakos County
There are more indigenous species in
the community but far exceed by the
exotic species in numbers

14. Farmers views on various species in their farms
Market value
categories
Botanical name common niches
Leaf mulch/ fertility
value
Crop conditions under the
canopy
High value/
commonly
sold
Mangifera indica Field (terraces) slow decomposer unhealthy appearance and
reduction in yield
Persea americana field (terraces) not known unhealthy appearance and
reduction in yield
Eucalyptus
camaldulensis
field boundaries harmful to the soil unhealthy appearance and
reduction in yield
Medium
value
Grevillea robusta field boundaries/
home compound
mulch value (high
moisture content)
healthy appearance no reduction
in yield
Terminalia brownii field boundaries conflicting opinions reduction in yield - can be
improved with pruning
Carica papaya field (terraces) fast decomposer healthy appearance no reduction
in yield
Citrus limon field (terraces) slow decomposer reduction in yield
Citrus sinensis field (terraces) slow decomposer reduction in yield for maize,
legumes have no reduction in
yield
Can be sold
Psidium guajava field (terraces) slow decomposer unhealthy appearance and
reduction in yield
Syzygium
guineense
field boundaries/
home compound
reduction in yield - can be
improved with pruning
Acacia nilotica field boundaries/
grazing field
fast decomposer healthy appearance no reduction
in yield
Balanites
aegyptiaca
field boundaries/
grazing field
fast decomposer healthy appearance no reduction
in yield
Acacia
xanthophloea
field boundaries/
grazing field
fast decomposer healthy appearance no reduction
in yield

15. Policy framework
44%
60%
80%
90%
Land issues Riverbank
farming
Soil erosion Trees on farm
Farmers' awareness of policy activities in
Kenya
Good and enabling policies exist but
implementation is weak in many countries

16. Institutional Framework Issues
 Low Awareness on CA and CAWT among many players
 Poor Coordination in Sustainable Land Management Systems
 Inadequate extension services – few personnel and little refresher training
 Lack of Training on CA and CAWT
 Limited Research and Development – still at pilot level
 Inadequate Financing in Agricultural Technologies
 Lack of Incentive Packages e.g. Subsidies, PES
 Trade offs: Soil cover vs Livestock feeds – commodity orientation
 In availability of cover crop and tree seeds
 Lack of Markets, MIS or access infrastructure – pull factor
 Lack of Investment Opportunities and Value Addition
 Limited Private Sector Support – especially in research

17. What can be done?
Tree management
spacing, niches,
CA, tree crop
interactions, etc
Right species,
Seeds, and
seedling systems
Favorable policies,
Farmer advisory
services, capacity
building at all levels ,
linking markets
Germplasm Practices
Enabling environment
Knowledge to Action with
further research
(Rural resource centers)
Characterizati
on of
typologies
Support for
national scaling
up programmes

18. Learning from indigenous knowledge - Machakos
seasonal hired
labour / pesticides
Full time
hired
labour
KITCHEN
GARDEN

19. Learning from indigenous knowledge - Mbarali
Chemical fertilizers /
pesticides / power
tiller / hired labour

20. Integrated farmer learning and service
centers

21. Working together and co-learning
Farmers, scientists, farmer
advisors, private sector etc –
innovation platforms (we all
need to un-learn, learn, re-
learn) taking into account
system particularities
- Better networking for synergies
- Cohost demonstration plots
- Use networks and data of
development NGOs (longer and
credible programmes)
- Take cognizance of farm
heterogeneity in planning (Source: Tittonell, 2013)

22. Building farmers capacity (competence,
confidence and commitment)
Tree species diversity
(abundance and
evenness) as proxy for
more stable system:
Farmers engaged
through the landcare
model had more diversity

23. AHSANTE
Twalumba