Skip navigation
Share via:

Pitch

A system of land use in which harvestable trees or shrubs are grown among or around crops or on pastureland.


Description

Summary

Agroforestry or agro-sylviculture is a land use management system in which trees or shrubs are grown around or among crops or pastureland.

It combines shrubs and trees in agricultural and forestry technologies to create more diverse, productive, profitable, healthy, and sustainable land-use systems.


What actions do you propose?

The actions are:

Formation of agroforestry farmers group for tree planting

  • First, agroforestry awareness program in local level, regional level and national level.
  • Then, small landholder farmers offered an opportunity to join agroforestry group.
  • Formation of the agroforestry farmers groups, at least 25 person/group.
  • Trained these groups about the knowledge of agroforestry technology, land management system, crop, livestock farming and tree planting system.
  • Initially, farmers offered for tree-planting programme in own land.
  • Farmers to receive various levels of input subsidies and/or outcome-based incentives for tree survival, which rewarded farmers for keeping 70 percent of their trees alive for one season. Farmers receive inceptive after one year tree survival, per tree US$3.00/year. Afterwards upto 5 years incentive increases per tree US$1.00/year-
  • Take-up, tree planting and tree survival outcomes were used to measure adoption.

Encouraging the Adoption of Agroforestry: A Case Study in Eastern Province, Zambia

Many agricultural technologies, such as tree crops, agroforestry and conservation farming practices, yield long-run benefits but come with shortrun costs. Consequently, adoption rates by smallholder farmers can be low. Traditional efforts to increase adoption include training, information provision, subsidised inputs and cash incentives, but little clear evidence exists that breaks down the impacts and cost effectiveness of these approaches.

The programme being studied is an agroforestry adoption scheme with smallholder farmers in rural Zambia. Variations in the programme illuminate the effects of cost-sharing and incentives on the adoption of musangu trees. This allows us to better understand whether upfront liquidity constraints or the lack of short-run benefits are a more important deterrent to the adoption of a new technology. It also makes it possible to measure how much waste occurs when farmers accept the subsidies but fail to adopt the technology.

Faidherbia albida, known locally as musangu:

  • fixes nitrogen in its roots and leaves
  • loses its leaves during the planting season providing fertiliser and allowing crops to receive sunlight
  • is native to Zambia, and grows extensively in Southern Province, but has been slow to take hold in much of the rest of the country.

 

INNOVATION

An agroforestry adoption scheme that varied input cost-sharing and cash incentives to better understand agricultural technology adoption.

EVALUATION

1,300 farmers were offered an opportunity to join a tree-planting programme. Farmers were randomly assigned to receive various levels of input subsidies and/or outcome-based incentives for tree survival, which rewarded farmers for keeping 70 percent of their trees alive for one season. Take-up, tree planting and tree survival outcomes were used to measure adoption.

INNOVATIONS FOR POVERTY ACTION

In November 2011, around 1,300 farmers, all working with Dunavant in that season, received training on tree planting and care through the Trees on Farms programme, a partnership between Dunavant and Shared Value Africa. Farmers were then offered the opportunity to join the programme. 

To investigate barriers to the adoption of musangu, some programme features were systematically varied:

1) Cost-sharing between farmers and the implementer, from free provision to market value (ZMR 12) and varied at the farmer group level.

2) Cash incentive offered dependent on 70% tree survival after one year.

Participation in the programme 

When input costs were higher, fewer farmers decided to participate in the programme. A one USD increase in the input subsidy increased take-up by 13%. When a higher cash incentive was offered, more farmers decided to participate. A one USD increase in the incentive increased take-up by 0.4%.  

Tree survival

Once farmers have decided to participate, farmers who paid more for the seedlings are no more likely to care for them than farmers who received the seedlings for free. However, Figure 3 shows that when cash incentives are higher, farmers achieve higher tree survival outcomes. A one USD increase in the incentive increased tree survival by 2%, conditional on joining the programme.

RESULTS

 Overall, farmers showed high demand for the programme, with an average of 83% of the farmers across all variations in programme design choosing to take part, and these farmers made significant progress in terms of tree survival; after the first year, there was a total of 19,400 surviving trees, that were cared for by 700 of the 1090 participating farmers. A quarter of all participating farmers received the cash incentive by reaching at least 70% tree survival after one year. Among farmers with any surviving trees, the average number of surviving trees is 28.

  • Higher input costs lead to lower participation but do not affect tree planting and survival.
  • Higher cash incentives lead to increased participation, tree planting and tree survival.
  • Farmer group dynamics affect outcomes but incentives still matter.
  • Farmers respond positively to higher incentives within their farmer group.
  • Larger and wealthier households are more likely to join the programme but not more likely to earn tree survival payments.

 

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

  • Subsidising the price of inputs increases adoption without leading to wastage of inputs.
  • Short-run incentives are effective for generating sustained adoption, and may be cost effective if the fixed costs associated with adding additional farmers to a tree planting programme are high.
  • Financial incentives do not appear to attract the wrong “type” of farmer.
  • We find no evidence that poorer or more marginalised households are unable to benefit from the programme.


Who will take these actions?

My suggestion would be that Government of Nepal, Forest Department, Agriculture Department,District Agriculture Office, District Forestry Office, NGOs and Local Farmer group are responsible for implementing agroforestry tree plantation program.

 


Where will these actions be taken?

The action is proposed will be taken Nepal,Far western Development region of Kanchanpur district,Bhimdatta Municipality at the Buffer zone of the Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve where farmer’s main occupations were agriculture and livestock rearing. In this region purposed plantation mainly Populous jacquemontiana Dode(locally called popular) which is used for fodder for livestock and as well as firewood  purpose. It gives more oxygen and sequestered more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is a climate friendly plant.


How much will emissions be reduced or sequestered vs. business as usual levels?

Emission will be reduced depending upon the number of tree survival. A single mature tree absorbs around 13 pounds of carbon dioxide a year, while a younger, actively growing tree may absorb up to 26 pounds of CO2, per year—approximately five tons per acre of trees.


What are other key benefits?

The key benefits are:

By growing trees with crops, forage and livestock you can:

  • improve yields
  • reduce soil loss
  • conserve soil moisture
  • recycle nutrients
  • reduce the effects of agriculture


What are the proposal’s costs?

Proposal cost calculated in context of Nepal

  • Agroforestry awareness program in local level, regional level and national level - US$6500.00/-
  • Formation of the agroforestry farmers each group- US$100.00/-
  • Each group(25 person) 7days training cost = US$2670.00/-
  • Tree plant (needs of local people and adopt local climate) purchase = US$125.00/-
  • Farmers receive inceptive after one year tree survival, per tree $3.00/year. Afterwards upto 5 years incentive increases per tree US$1.00/year. Total cost = US$3125.00/-

Administration cost = US$5150.00/-

Net cost = US$15000.00/-

 


Time line

Within 1 year to 5 years.


Related proposals


References

http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/agricultural-practices/agroforestry/?id=1177431400694

http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-environment/plant-trees-save-environment-zmaz90mazshe.aspx

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=agroforestry.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agroforestry#Alley_cropping

https://www.poverty-action.org/.../in-dept