Matching ISFM options with livelihood resources and objectives

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.org www.iita.org A 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)

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

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture – Institut international d’agriculture tropicale – www.iita.org Note: Potential is not the problem

Closing the yield gap

requires understanding households


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


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


Household survey from Arua district, Uganda

With thanks to Mark van Wijk and Monica Kansiime

Fertilizer

Manure

Soil and water

conservation?


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


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


Value cost ratios of fertilizer investment confirm the behavior of the ‘rich’


Adoption of CSA practices in West Africa


Less market orientation = Less intensification


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


Intensification often in the middle group!

Evidence from :

• Rwanda

• Burundi

• Congo

• Kenya (banana)

• Ghana (cocoa)


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.


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


THANK YOU!

Landcruiser versus bicycle Adapt your choice to environment and resource availability

Luhihi highway

petrol station

Matching ISFM options with livelihood resources and objectives

Science