CASFESA CLOSURE: Economic & Environmental Benefits of Sustainable Intensification Practices--M. Kassie et al

Economic and Environmental

Benefits of Sustainable

Intensification Practices(SIPs)

Presentation at CASFESA

project closing workshop

23 February 2014

Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

Menale Kassie, Moti Jaleta

and Paswel Marenya

CIMMYT

Expected impact of climate change and variability on crop yields

Cline W, (2007) Global Warming and Agriculture

Long-term Average Soil Loss from Cultivated Lands (on-site impacts)

131

87

1

48

22 32

170

212

4

80

25 36

0

50

100

150

200

250

Anjeni Andit Tid Dizi Gununo Hunde

Lafto

Maybar

So

il l

oss

(t/

ha

)

SCRP Stations

Average Min Soil loss Average Max Soil loss

These stations are in the middle and upper part of Abbay watershed

Source: SCRP, 2005

17 track load per ha/year

Soil nutrient depletion-20-60kg/ha

AGRA (2014) Seeking Fertile Ground for a Green Revolution in Africa

SIPs impact on soil loss and nutrient

Treatments Soil loss (ton/ha)

Sole maize under farmers’ practice 5.21

Maize-haricot bean intercropping with conservation agriculture 1.80

Maize-haricot bean intercropping with farmers practice 2.71

Sole Maize + mulch + farmers practice 3.44

Degfa et al. (2013)

Source: Degfa (2013)

SIPs impact on crop production

cost (N=2300 households)

SIPs reduce (or at least not increase) use of chemical inputs except when V is adopted

Outcome

Adoption status –Pesticides (lit/ha)

Adoption Effects Adopting

(j= 2,. . .,8)

Non-Adopting

(j=1)

Improved maize

varieties(V) 1.50 (0.00002) 1.11 (0.002) 0.389 (0.002)***

Intercropping/rotations

(D) 1.01 (0.003) 1.11 (0.004) -0.096 (0.006)***

Minimum tillage 1.50 (0.0003) 1.16 (0.007) 0.345 (0.007)***

V+D 1.05 (0.002) 1.09 (0.004) -0.046 (0.004)***

V+T 1.74 (0.002) 1.10 (0.004) 0.635 (0.005)***

D+T 1.05 (0.006) 1.12 (0.008) -0.065 (0.009)***

V+D+T 1.08 (0.009) 1.09 (0.007) -0.011 (0.011)

Outcome

Adoption status –N fertilizer (kg/ha)

Adoption Effects Adopting

(j= 2,. . .,8)

Non-Adopting

(j=1)

V 25.97 (0.42) 17.01 (0.30) 8.96 (0.51)***

D 7.03 (0.24) 14.99 (0.40) -7.96 (0.47)***

T 12.02 (0.72) 16.99 (0.26) -4.96 (0.77)***

V+D 22.86 (0.37) 17.60 (0.45) 5.26 (0.58)***

V+T 16.04 (0.59) 11.57 (0.32) 4.46 (0.68)***

D+T 20.76 (3.12) 30.76 (0.22) -9.99 (3.13)***

V+D+T 15.07 (0.67) 22.49 (0.45) -7.41 (0.80)***

SIPs impacts on reducing crop failure and cost of risk

(Malawi)

Source: Kassie et al. (2015), Journal of agricultural Economics

• SIPs reduce cost of risk but higher reduction achieved when they are adopted jointly (Malawi)

• SIPs avoid the traditional high-risk, high-return (low-risk, low return) tradeoff

• Income increases

as combination of

SIPs increases

• Net crop income

increases by

– 14-41% when

improved maze

varieties

combined with

minimum

tillage,

intercropping/ro

tations

Net crop income: net of fertilizer, seeds, pesticides and hired

labour and oxen

Source: Kassie et al. (2014)

SIPs impact on household nutrition status

0

.2.4

.6.8

1

CD

F

2000 3000 4000 5000 6000Calore consumption per adult equivalent (Kcal)

Calore consumption with V0D0

Calore consumption with V1D0

Calore consumption with V0D1

Calore consumption with V1D1

V-improved maize varieties, D-Legume-maize intercropping/rotations

0.2

.4.6

.81

CD

F

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Consumption Diversity (Simpson Index)

Consumption diversity with V0D0

Consumption diversity with V1D0

Consumption diversity with V0D1

Consumption diversity with V1D1

Thank you

m.kassie@cgiar.org

What the world eats