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 practicesLivelihood systemsmarket opportunitiessocial capital policy

The challenge in taking trees to scale

The Trees for food security project

Flash flooding in Rushubi,Nyakiliba

Rwanda Ethiopia

Scaling outBurundi 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 slopesSoil 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.

Rwanda Ethiopia Water scarcity Protecting and promoting appropriate trees

Water scarcity Water conservation structures, define trees niches

Soil erosion and floodingTerraces contour farming, water harvesting

Free communal grazing Institutional arrangements and good political will

Land fragmentation Land consolidation

No specific AF extension Development of extension packages

Deforestation Reforestation programs, relocation programs

Deforestation and weak culture of tree planting; Plant/protect trees

Limited species and products: Coping by diversifying tree species

Declining soil fertility: Coping mechanisms: use of mulch and manure

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 Utility Niche Eucalyptus E Timber, firewood, Woodlot, boundaryAlnus 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

Avocado E Fruit, income, Homestead, scattered

3. Common species utilities and niches- Rwanda

4. Markets and ExtensionEthiopia1. Participatory extension system with main focus on crops.2. Preferences are for fruit trees and cash crops3. Farmers' preferences positively correlated with market 4. Extension is supply driven

Rwanda1. 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 investors2. 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