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 2 nd World Congress on Agroforestry Nairobi, Kenya 23- 29 August, 2009

2. 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 Outline

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. Agroforestry field Farmers’ de facto practice

5. Expanded options: natural fertilizer tree system Sesbani a Gliricidi a

6. 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 Multiple benefits of AF-based land use practices

8. Table: Effect of land-use system on soil physical properties after 8 years of continuous maize production in Zambia Land use system infiltration rate (mm min -1 ) % water stable aggregates >2.00mm AF- Cajanus cajan5.280.8 AF- Sesbania sesban4.483.3 Natural fallow5.366.7 Maize with fertilizer3.165.6 Maize without fertilizer2.161.2 Mean S.E.D 4.0 0.5 71.5 3.1

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

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

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

12. 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 Scaling up approaches

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

15. “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 1 st World Congress on Agroforestry June 2004. Field tour for Honourable MPs in Zambia

16. 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) Cases of “carrots initiatives” in Southern Africa

17. 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 “Take home” message

18. Thank you