Socio-Economic and Environmental Drivers of

Adoption of Fertilizer Trees and Implications for Food Security in

Malawi

Jeanne Coulibaly, Godfrey Kundhlande, Tebila Nakelse and Brian Chiputwa

Beating Famine Southern Africa Conference, 14-17 April 2015

Malawi, a country with severe livelihood challenges

Soil degradation

Low use of inputs

Population pressure

Poor agricultural

practices

Climate change

Food insecurity

2015 Flood in BlantyrePicture credit: Andrew Kruczkiewicz

Agroforestry, very effective as a climate smart technology

Fertilizer trees intercropped with maize results in significant

improvement of maize yield (50%-500%)

Improved source of income

Research Design• Research question: What

is the potential for Fertilizer trees to contribute to food security and adaptation to climate change?

• Quasi-experimental design: experiments and controls

• Stratified sampling design

• 340 households selected

Main species adopted: Faidherbia, Gliricidia, Tephrosia

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

KARONGA KASUNGU MULANJE MZIMBA SALIMA THYOLO

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f h

ou

seh

old

s

Albiza Lebbeck

Acaciapolycantha

Khayn spp

Tephrosia spp

Cajanus cajan

Sesbaniasesban

Gliricidiasepium

Senna spp

FaiderbiaAlbida

Lucaenea spp

Eucalyptus

60.4139.59

Non-adoptersAdopters

Planting trees, sustainable adaptation strategy

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f h

ou

seh

old

s

Two groups different in many socio-economic characteristics

Variables Adopters Non-adopters

Food productivity 563.6** 466.1

Age 47 48

Farm size 4.08 3.90

Secondary Education 0.46** 0.33

Gender of household head 0.69 0.70

Farm asset index 0.36*** 0.25

Fully engaged in farm work 2.78 2.68

Training on agroforestry practices 0.65 0.48

Perception change in rainfall 0.97 0.95

Perception change in temperature 0.87 0.87

Distance to government extension services 8.76 8.24

Land degradation 0.77** 0.65

Socio-economic factors influencing adoption of fertilizer trees

Variable Adoption decision

Age square -0.000606*

Aged development ratio 0.0687**

Sex of household head 0.296

Number of livestock 0.00337

Farmers' occupation -0.619***

Farm asset 0.178***

Agroforestry training 0.454***

Perception of change in rainfall 0.156

Perception of change in temperature -0.191

Maize NPK 0.000496

Land degradation 0.433**

Cooking fuel from forest 0.349

Distance extension agents 0.0168***

Impact of fertilizer trees on food security

Decision stage ImpactTreatment Effect

Percentage treatmentEffect

Sub-sample To adopt Not to adopt

Farm household that adopted fertilizer trees

(a) 448.23 (c)235.86 212.37*** 90%

Farm household that did not adopt fertilizer trees

(d) 333.26 (b) 348.03 -14.77*** - 4%

Results confirmed by perception

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Constructionmaterial

Better soilfertility

Food foranimals

Source offuelwood

Source offood

Source ofincome

Vegetativecover

Helpshydrological

cycle

Per

cen

tage

of

ho

use

ho

lds

Perceived benefit

Main Highlights

• Farm and knowledge capital important for adoption of fertilizer trees

• Positive and significant impact on adopters

• Evidence that adoption of fertilizer trees has the potential to double productivity and therefore provide adaptation benefits and food security

• Promotion of fertilizer trees should be part of an inclusive approach to improve farm productivity and livelihood

Thank you!

Picture credit: Olu Ajayi