Presentation during IITA R4D week 2015 (23 - 27 Nov. 2015). By: Piet van Asten, Mateete Bekunda, Lotte Klapwijk, Asamoah Larbi, Nester Mashingaidze, Flemming Nielsen and Godfrey Taulya .

1. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.orgwww.iita.orgA member of CGIAR consortium
Matching ISFM options with livelihood
resources and objectives
Piet van Asten, Mateete Bekunda, Lotte Klapwijk, Asamoah
Larbi, Nester Mashingaidze, Flemming Nielsen and
Godfrey Taulya
24th November 2015
(R4D Week 2015)

2. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.org
Matching ISFM options
with livelihood
resources and
objectives
lessons from CIALCA, PASIC CCAFS, and Africa-
RISING
Piet van Asten
Mateete Bekunda
Lotte Klapwijk
Asamoah Larbi
Nester Mashingaidze
Flemming Nielsen
Godfrey Taulya

3. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.orgNote: Potential is not the problem
Closing the yield gap
requires understanding households

4. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.org
1. ISFM focuses primarily at
interventions at plot level
2. Adoption of ISFM is a
decision often taken at
household level
3. Impact is only achieved if
many households adopt –
this requires enabling factors
at community and national
level
Targeting and scaling ISFM
With thanks to Anna Sole for picture design

5. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.org
Targeting ISFM options
the ABC of achieving impact at scale
1. Agro-ecological challenges and opportunities
a. Understand yield loss factors
b. Quantify potential impact of ISFM options
2. HH resources available / challenges / objectives
a. HH livelihood capitals (N, P, F, H, S)
b. Typologies – FS and FSS concepts
3. Identify the best-fit technologies / entry-points
a. Learn from the ‘positive deviants’
b. Understand diversity in response
4. Understand farmers attitudes
a. Aspirations
b. Gender preferences
c. Perceptions and knowledge
5. Enabling factors at community level
a. Community-level farmer groups
b. Input-output market actors (incl. knowledge)
2. Household surveys
 human environment
3. Match ISFM options
biophysical x socio-economic
4. Farmers attitudes
aspiration, gender, perception
5. Enabling factors at
community level
1. Agronomic surveys /
models  natural environment

6. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.org
Household survey from Arua district, Uganda
With thanks to Mark van Wijk and Monica Kansiime
Fertilizer
Manure
Soil and water
conservation?

7. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.org
With thanks to Just van der Wolf
Household resource availability
‘Rich’ and ‘Poor’ farmers invest in different enterprises
Paddy rice
wetlands
Potato
altitude
Livestock
grazing land
Coffee
bimodal rainfall
Maize
Maize

8. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.org
The role of off-farm income
With thanks to Just van der Wolf
More wealthy -> enterprises that require:
• Land: access / tenure
• Time: longer-cycle enterprises
• Risk: more risky enterprises

9. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.org
Value cost ratios of fertilizer investment
confirm the behavior of the ‘rich’

10. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.org
Adoption of CSA practices in West Africa

11. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.org
Less market orientation = Less intensification

12. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.org
Resource-demanding ISFM options
are more adopted by the ‘rich’
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Lowest Lower Middle Higher Highest
% farmers using synthetic fertilizer on coffee in West Kenya
Asset groups
With thanks to Lydia Wairegi and Mica Bennett

13. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.org
Intensification often in the middle group!
Evidence from :
• Rwanda
• Burundi
• Congo
• Kenya (banana)
• Ghana (cocoa)

14. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.org
Resource mapping
understanding HH capitals
Livelihood capitals
Example from UG cofee farmers
• Only 20% of farmers have coffee
as their primary business
• Livestock is not important –
manure is not really an option
Ghislaine Bongers et al.

15. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.org
Tools for targeting
How do you
We can target!
• Value chain -> 80% produce by
20% of farmers. Focus on rich.
• Forget ISFM for those trapped in
poverty
• Quick tools/approaches to ‘classify’
farmers and identify options
– FGD – communities can classify themselves
– HH questionnaire
– Key informants
– Participatory modeling

16. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.org
THANK YOU!
Landcruiser versus bicycle
Adapt your choice to environment and resource availability
Luhihi highway
petrol station