Enhancing food security and livelihoods through agroforestry practices: Key lessons from the ‘trees 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

Fine grained variation in:  soil (biota)  climate (altitude)  farming practices  Livelihood systems  market opportunities  social capital  policy The challenge in taking trees to scale

The Trees for food security project Flash flooding in Rushubi,Nyakiliba Rwanda Ethiopia Scaling out Burundi 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 slopes Soil 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.

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 UtilityNiche EucalyptusETimber, firewood,Woodlot, boundary Alnus 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 AvocadoEFruit, income,Homestead, scattered 3. Common species utilities and niches- Rwanda

4. Markets and Extension Ethiopia 1. Participatory extension system with main focus on crops. 2. Preferences are for fruit trees and cash crops 3. Farmers' preferences positively correlated with market 4. Extension is supply driven Rwanda 1.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 investors 2. 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