A majority of people in developing countries use biomass energy for cooking and heating due to its affordability, accessibility and convenience. However, unsustainable biomass use leads to forest degradation and climate change. Therefore, this study was carried out in Kwale County, Kenya, on the use of a biochar-producing gasifier cook stove and implications of its uptake on livelihoods and the environment. Fifty households were trained and issued with a gasifier for free. After 2–3 months of gasifier use, a survey was conducted to investigate the implications of its uptake. The direct impacts included reduced fuel consumption by 38%, reduced time spent in firewood collection, reduced expenditure on cooking fuel, diversification of cooking fuels, improved kitchen conditions and reduced time spent on cooking. The potential benefits included income generation, increased food production, reduced impacts on environment and climate change and reduced health problems. Improved biomass cook stoves can alleviate problems with current cooking methods, which include inefficient fuel use, health issues caused by smoke, and environmental problems. These benefits could contribute to development through alleviating poverty and hunger, promoting gender equality, enhancing good health and sustainable ecosystems and mitigating climate change. The study recommends the promotion of cleaner cooking stoves, particularly gasifiers, among households in rural areas while paying attention to user needs and preferences.
Tag: agriculture
Learning pathway: Course flows & blueprint
This course is a pivotal contribution to FAO’s vision of fostering a Better Environment, particularly focusing on Biodiversity for food and agriculture. Aligned with FAO’s strategic initiatives, the course is fortified by the approval of the FAO Strategy on Mainstreaming Biodiversity Across Agricultural Sectors and the 2021-23 Action Plan, emphasizing the importance of targeted policies and practices for sustainable use, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems.
Developing sustainable farmer-to-farmer extension: experiences from the volunteer farmer–trainer approach in Kenya
The reform of agricultural extension institutions in developing countries has in the past decade seen the implementation of many donor-supported farmer-to-farmer extension (F2FE) programs that are participatory and client-oriented. Their effectiveness in disseminating agricultural information is widely documented. However, most of these F2FE approaches only survive as long as funding support continues. Scant information exists on what can make externally initiated F2FE approaches sustainable. Drawing on lessons from a F2FE program known as the volunteer farmer–trainer (VFT) approach in an externally funded project in Kenya, this paper examines what makes such programs sustainable. The findings are based on the experiences of four dairy producer organizations (POs) that, three years after the end of project support, still had strong VFT programs. The paper highlights the importance of four drivers of sustainability: local institutional support, social capital, technical backstopping and motivation of farmer trainers to work voluntarily. Strong POs and farmer groups, coupled with the existence of an informal, multi-institutional network that supported the creation of knowledge and learning processes were key components contributing to the sustainability of the VFT program.
To control or not to control: how do we learn more about how agronomic innovations perform on farms?
Our paper ‘Loading the dice in favour of the farmer: reducing the risk of adopting agronomic innovations’ revealed mean increases but also large variation in the impact of four agroforestry practises on maize yield, as experienced by farmers in Malawi. This prompted a response from Sileshi and Akinnifesi that was critical of the data and methods used. Their main concern was that farmers did not necessarily manage crops identically in plots with and those without trees, so the yield differences that we measured may be partly caused by these differences in crop management. We argue here that it is valid and useful to look at the actual effect on crop yield of farmers having trees intercropped with maize, rather than controlling for how the crop is managed, because this is what happens in the real world. Farmers respond to having trees in their field by treating their crop differently, so this is part of the system response to having trees in fields. Attempts to eliminate this will result in measuring an artefact rather than the real impact of trees on crop yield. By doing this, we revealed important variation in the impact of trees on crop yield amongst farmers, and we argue that it is important to explore, assess and communicate to farmers and development actors the extent and implications of this variation. Understanding the contextual factors that determine who is likely to benefit most from an innovation and for whom it is less suitable can then be incorporated in scaling up, so that targeting of innovations and the appropriateness of messages given to farmers are continuously refined.
Making the most of imperfect data: A critical evaluation of standard information collected in farm household surveys
Household surveys are one of the most commonly used tools for generating insight into rural communities. Despite their prevalence, few studies comprehensively evaluate the quality of data derived from farm household surveys. We critically evaluated a series of standard reported values and indicators that are captured in multiple farm household surveys, and then quantified their credibility, consistency and, thus, their reliability. Surprisingly, even variables which might be considered ‘easy to estimate’ had instances of non-credible observations. In addition, measurements of maize yields and land owned were found to be less reliable than other stationary variables. This lack of reliability has implications for monitoring food security status, poverty status and the land productivity of households. Despite this rather bleak picture, our analysis also shows that if the same farm households are followed over time, the sample sizes needed to detect substantial changes are in the order of hundreds of surveys, and not in the thousands. Our research highlights the value of targeted and systematised household surveys and the importance of ongoing efforts to improve data quality. Improvements must be based on the foundations of robust survey design, transparency of experimental design and effective training. The quality and usability of such data can be further enhanced by improving coordination between agencies, incorporating mixed modes of data collection and continuing systematic validation programmes.
Loading the dice in favour of the farmer: reducing the risk of adopting agronomic innovations
Agricultural development projects frequently promote new crop production technologies for adoption at scale on the basis of research and pilot studies in a limited number of contexts. The performance of these production technologies is often variable and dependent on context. Using an example from the Agroforestry for Food Security Project in Malawi, that promoted agroforestry technologies for soil fertility enhancement, we explore the nature and implications of variation in performance across farmers. Mean effects of these technologies, measured by differences in maize yield between agroforestry and sole maize plots, were modest but positive. However, there was large variation in those differences, some explained by altitude, plot management and fertilizer use but with much unexplained. This represents risk to farmers. Those communicating with farmers need to be honest and clear about this risk. It can be reduced by explanation in terms of contextual factors. This should be an aim of research that can often be embedded in scaling up the promotion of agronomic innovations.
Intensification benefit index: How much can rural households benefit from agricultural intensification?
Sustainable intensification (SI) of agriculture is the predominant objective for agricultural research and extension worldwide. Researchers and policymakers consider SI to be essential to avoid global hunger, improve human nutrition and reduce rural poverty while avoiding all manner of environmental disasters. To achieve these global public goods requires a large number of rural households – ‘small farmers’ – in less developed countries to improve their agriculture. Household size and farm size from 11,789 households in 15 countries from sub-Saharan Africa were used to calculate an intensification benefit index (IBI) that reflects how much a household will benefit if intensification occurs. IBI is defined as the increase in personal daily income (cents/person/day) as returns to land (dollars/hectare/year) increase. Actual net farm income from 160 rural households in each of three countries was compared with their IBI values to explore the gap between potential intensification and current smallholder farm performance. Fifty percent of all households had IBI values less than 0.075 cents/dollar, 70% less than 0.125 cents/dollar and 90% less than 0.225 cents/dollar. Returns of $1000/ha/year would result in fewer than 15% of households crossing a $2/person/day poverty line; $2500/ha/year would be required to lift 50% of the sample above the line; and even with $4000/ha/year, more than 30% of households would remain below the line. Since mean net returns from three sub-sampled sites were only $78, $83 and $424/ha/year the gap between potential- and actual performance is large but, theoretically, amenable to closure through adoption of improved technologies. However, surveys have shown that the available technologies would struggle to bridge the gap completely for rural households with small farms. For many small farms, the gains from adopting improved technologies are unlikely by themselves to lift them out of poverty and so might not be as attractive as scientists would wish.
Assessing household food insecurity experience in the context of deforestation in Cameroon
In forest areas, reconciling strategies to halt deforestation and concerns to improve sustainable food supply and access is a great challenge to development planners and forest managers. This paper gathered evidence on the relationship between deforestation and food insecurity. The study was executed in Cameroon’s forest areas which constitute 10% of the Congo basin forest – an area characterized by increasing deforestation and high levels of poverty and food insecurity (FIS). The objective was to understand the characteristics, prevalence and severity of household FIS as deforestation increases. The HFIAS 9-item questionnaire for measuring experience-based FIS was used for data collection and analysis.
Learning pathway: Course flows & blueprint
This course is a pivotal contribution to FAO’s vision of fostering a Better Environment, particularly focusing on Biodiversity for food and agriculture. Aligned with FAO’s strategic initiatives, the course is fortified by the approval of the FAO Strategy on Mainstreaming Biodiversity Across Agricultural Sectors and the 2021-23 Action Plan, emphasizing the importance of targeted policies and practices for sustainable use, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems.
Fertilizer response and nitrogen use efficiency in African smallholder maize farms
Improving fertilizer recommendations for farmers is essential to increase food security in smallholder landscapes. Currently, blanket recommendations are provided across agro-ecological zones, although fertilizer response and nutrient use efficiency by maize crop are spatially variable. We aimed to identify factors that could help to refine fertilizer recommendation by analyzing the variability in fertilizer response (FR) and the agronomic nitrogen use efficiency (N-AE). A literature search for on-farm studies across Kenya and Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA), excluding Kenya, yielded 71 publications. The variability in FR was studied using a meta-analysis whereas key factors that influence FR and N-AE were studied with linear regression models. On average, the FR was 2, but it varied considerably from 1 to 28.5 (excluding outliers). In SSA, 18% of the plots were non-responsive plots with an FR < 1. The main factors affecting N-AE for Kenya were P-Olsen, silt content, soil pH, clay and rainfall, whereas only soil pH, exchangeable K and texture were important for SSA. However, our study indicates that available data on soil, climate and management factors could explain only a small part (< 33%) of the variation in FR and N-AE. Soil pH, P-Olsen, silt content, and rainfall had significant but low levels of power in explaining variation in FR and N-AE. Our findings indicate that strategies to refine fertilizer recommendation should include information on soil types and soil properties.