Potentials of agroforestry to meet food security & Potentials of agroforestry to meet food security & environmental quality: environmental quality:

Moral persuasion, wielding the stick or dangling carrot?Moral persuasion, wielding the stick or dangling carrot?

Ajayi OC, Akinnifesi FK, Sileshi G, Chakeredza S, Mn’gomba S, Nyoka B

Email: o.c.ajayi@cgiar.org

World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF)

Presented at the 2nd World Congress on Agroforestry

Nairobi, Kenya

23- 29 August, 2009

• Challenges of food security & environmental quality in SSA

• Opportunities from agroforestry-based land use practices to meet the twin challenges

• Scaling-up approaches and outcome

• Additional policy option: Conditional reward mechanisms

• Key “take home” messages

Outline

Introduction• Challenges in Southern Africa

– decreasing per capital food: current food deficit vs future environmental debt?

– Mono-modal rainfall and short growing season

– tradeoff between livelihood and environment is high in food-deficit countries is high

• What are the appropriate technological and policy options that are affordable, enhance food security, promote environmental quality (given emerging global phenomenon of climate change)?

Agroforestry field

Farmers’ de facto practice

• Food security benefit: Up to 200% maize yield increase over de facto farmers’

practice

• Ecosystem benefits: Carbon sequestration (trees & soils) (Makumba et al 2006, Kaonga

et al, 2009)

Reduce d deforestation e.g. stakes for curing tobacco

Reduced soil erosion through better soil water conservation (Phiri et al, Chirwa et al, 2003)

Enhanced biodiversity (sileshi et al, 2005, 2006)

Minimize effects of drought during maize season

Multiple benefits of AF-based land use practices

Maize yield (ton/ha) obtained from different land use practices across nine seasons in Zambia, 1995-2003

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Mai

ze g

rain

yie

ld (

t h

a-1)

,

Gliricidia Leucaena M+F M-F Sesbania Natural fallow

= SED

Table: Effect of land-use system on soil physical properties after 8 years of continuous maize production in Zambia

Land use systeminfiltration 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

Water-stressed maize after 21 days of dry spell in Zambia January, 2003

Maize in AF field

Maize in conventional field

Net profit ($/ha) of land use practices in Zambia (Maize yield only)

Value-Cost Ratio ($/$) of land use practices in Zambia

• How to maximize both food security & environmental benefits of agroforestry practices?

• Upscaling of agri-environmental land use based on:

– Moral persuasion- sensitization, farmer training, demonstration, etc

– Wielding the stick- regulations, enforcements, instructions (olden days)

• Outcome?: success stories…but low actual vs potential adoption

• Offering carrot (through conditional reward for ecosystem services) as an additional policy option to enhance field uptake → increase food security & environmental quality

Scaling up approaches

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

“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 1st World Congress on Agroforestry

June 2004.

Field tour for Field tour for Honourable Honourable

MPs in ZambiaMPs in Zambia

• Time lag between adoption and realization of benefits create an adoption threshold- implication for low income farmers

• Examples of “carrot” initiatives (Carbon payments) Malawi & Zambia

Govt of Malawi Tree planting (for carbon) initiative

ICRAF/Harvard University collaboration on tree planting

Clinton-Hunther Foundation carbon initiative

COMESA Carbon Poverty Reduction initiative

Malawi Environment Endowment Trust (MEET) eco-support

COMPASS/MEET/LEAD Carbon Fund

GEF/GoM Green Water Credit Scheme (proposed)

Cases of “carrots initiatives” in Southern Africa

• AF and related land use practices offer smallholder farmers opportunities to meet both livelihood and improve the ecosystems.

• “Waiting period” (first 2-3 years) are critical to smallholders’ investment and adoption of such win-win land use practices

• In in food deficit regions , view environ quality from livelihood (food security) lens

• Beyond “technical fixes”, there is need for ‘market & institutional fixes’ and ‘policy fixes’

– Policy bias against agriculture (increased cost of inputs vs price of outputs)– Property rights– Conditional incentives to help land users tap into $$$$ billions carbon funds

• PES or offering carrot: A policy fix to align the individual smallholder food production goals to global environmental quality objectives

“Take home” message

Thank you