Potentials of agroforestry to meet food security & environmental quality:

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

2. Outline • 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

3. 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)?

4. Farmers’ de facto practice Agroforestry field

5. Multiple benefits of AF-based land use practices • 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

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

8. Maize in AFfield Water-stressed maize after 21 days of dry spell in Zambia January, 2003 Maize in conventional field

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

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

11. Scaling up approaches • 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

12. Adoptability of agri-environland use practices under different reward regimes Public benefit (maize yield + ecosystem services) Cost & benefit of investment Cost On-farm benefit (maize yield only) A B O Local optimum: Food only Public optimum: Food +ecoservices* Investment & adoption of land use practices

14. “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 Honourable MPs in Zambia

15. Cases of “carrots initiatives” in Southern Africa • 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)

16. “Take home” message • 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

17. Thank you