Enhancing food security and livelihoods through agroforestry practices: Key lessons from the ‘tree for food security’ project in Ethiopia and Rwanda Catherine Muthuri, Amos Gyau, Miyuki Iiyama, Abayneh Derero, Evelyn Kiptot, Amini Mutanganda, Anja Gassner, Jeremias Mowo and Fergus Sinclair
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Enhancing food security and livelihoods through agroforestry practices: Key lessons from the ‘trees for food security’ project
soil (biota) climate (altitude)farming practicesLivelihood systemsmarket opportunitiessocial capital policy
The challenge in taking trees to scale
The Trees for food security project
Flash flooding in Rushubi,Nyakiliba
Rwanda Ethiopia
Scaling outBurundi Uganda
A four year four country project on food security
Scaling up in Ethiopia Rwanda
Challenges to food security in Rwanda study areas
Low tree density
Land fragmentation
Flash flooding
Cultivation of steep slopesSoil erosion
Need for trees in pasture
Tree management and design
Trees for fuelwood
Water scarcity and low tree density
Communal grazing vs. enclosure
Challenges to food security in Ethiopia study areas
Water scarcity
High demand of tree products
Low tree diversity
The Approach• Characterize variation in context across scaling domain
– acquire local knowledge
• Match options to the variation in context– identify strengths and weaknesses (knowledge gaps)
• Design scaling domains so that options are tested across sufficient range of variation with planned comparisons
• Work with farmers, through national partners, to embrace uncertainty and risk and progressively reduce them:
– leave to farmers what they do best but– learn collectively and systematically from experience
Characterise variation in drivers of adoption (context)
across scaling domain
Influence development projects so that best-fit
options are offered to farmers across a range of
variation in context
Initial matrices of agroforestry options and contextual factors that affect their suitability (soils, climate, farming system, planting niche, resource availability, institutions etc )
Participatory monitoring and evaluation system for the performance of options
Simple to use tools to match agroforestry options to sites and circumstances across the scaling domain
Interpretation of performance data to refine
matrices of agroforestry options and characterisation
refined characterization
refined options
Set of scaling domains
Refined matching of options
to sites and circumstances
Co-learning paradigm that embeds research in development
Coe, R., Sinclair, F.L. and Barrios, E. in press. Scaling up agroforestry requires research ‘in’ rather than ‘for’ development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability.
Rwanda Ethiopia Water scarcity Protecting and promoting appropriate trees
Water scarcity Water conservation structures, define trees niches
Soil erosion and floodingTerraces contour farming, water harvesting
Free communal grazing Institutional arrangements and good political will
Land fragmentation Land consolidation
No specific AF extension Development of extension packages
Deforestation and weak culture of tree planting; Plant/protect trees
Limited species and products: Coping by diversifying tree species
Declining soil fertility: Coping mechanisms: use of mulch and manure
Key lessons 1. Drivers and coping mechanisms
Higher Food Consumption Score (FCS)on farms with trees in Melkassa but not Bako
More livestock on farms
with trees in Bako but not
Melkassa.
Greater diversity of farm produce on farms with trees in both Melkassa and Bako
2. Trees on farms are associated with higher food security
Species E/N Utility Niche Eucalyptus E Timber, firewood, Woodlot, boundaryAlnus acuminata
E Timber, Mulch, sticks, erosion, firewood,
Along radical terraces, field and contours terraces,
Grevillea robusta
E Timber, firewood, erosion control,
Homestead, Boundary – scattered, contour lines
Erythrina abyssinica
N Hedge, erosion control, timber, firewood,
Live fence, boundary, along contours, bottom of fields
Vernonia amygdalina
N Fodder, fertilizer, fence, firewood, erosion
Homestead, Boundary - scattered
Markhamia lutea
N Firewood, timber, erosion control, fence
Homestead, Boundary - scattered
Avocado E Fruit, income, Homestead, scattered
3. Common species utilities and niches- Rwanda
4. Markets and ExtensionEthiopia1. Participatory extension system with main focus on crops.2. Preferences are for fruit trees and cash crops3. Farmers' preferences positively correlated with market 4. Extension is supply driven
Rwanda1. Qualified extension workers and infrastructure 2. Farmers‘ preferences are biased towards fruits trees 3. Many trained and progressive farmers in the country.4. Interventions must focus on planting materials training Note: Limited participation by women in extension
Experiences from Elsewhere in Africa The Impact Assessment office undertakes studies to learn whether and to what degree:1. We (ICRAF, CGIAR) are delivering the impacts expected by our investors2. Agroforestry is making a difference in people’s lives, including economic, social and environmental aspects
Economic impacts of trees and their diversity on households in the sahel
More than 1000 households in over 50 communities were surveyed,
Crop yields
15 – 30 % of cereal yields in the sites are attributed to the presence of useful trees for soil fertility
Presence of trees induce more investment of manure and fertilizer,
Harvested and marketed tree products e.g. baobab fruits & leaves, shea nuts & butter, and wood generate an average >$200 per household/ yr