Bringing evidence to bear on negotiating ecosystem service and livelihood trade-offs in SAI in Tanzania, Ethiopia and Zambia
Leigh Ann Winowiecki, Christine Magaju, Constance Neely, Mieke Bourne, Faith Musili, Tor-Gunnar Vågen, Patricia Masikati, Kiros Hadgu, Hadia Seid, Anthony Kimaro, Emmanuel Temu and Fergus Sinclair World Agroforestry (ICRAF); Boniface Massawe and Abel Kaaya, SokoineUniversity of Agriculture (SUA); Aikande Shoo (MALF-EMU); Howard Tembo, Floyd Chipatela, Evans Mutonga, Stalin Sichinga (ZARI)
Disclaimer: Neither DFID, nor WYG nor the University of Greenwich- Natural Resources Institute are responsible for the content in this document.
Tradeoff analysis1. Participatory Tradeoff Activity conducted in Tanzania, Ethiopia, and ZambiaA participatory tradeoff activity was designed to facilitate a discussion around thevarious tradeoffs and synergies for the prioritized practices as well as identify keyinvestments needed to overcome constraints. This activity was modified from:Musumba, M., Grabowski, P., Palm, C., & Snapp, S. (2017). Guide for the SustainableIntensification Assessment Framework.
Figure 4. Poverty levels acrossfarm types, crop managementand climate scenarios. Farm type1, 2 and 3 represent farm sizes of2, 5 and 3 ha, respectively.CP_No CC = current farmerpractice without climate change(CC), CP_with CC = currentfarmer practice with CC, SAI_NoCC = SAI practice without CC,SAI_with CC = SAI with CC.
Development of the SAI Dashboards
Goal of the projectThe overarching goal of the project is to influence policy and practice that areexpected to culminate in the following impact: the widespread uptake ofcontextually appropriate SAI interventions, coupled with correspondingincreases in food and nutritional security and income among male, female,disadvantaged and young smallholder farmers as well as urban and ruralconsumers in Ethiopia, Tanzania and Zambia.
Agroforestry Improved seed
Main activities of the project• Baseline assessment with stakeholder on use of existing evidence on SAI• Engage stakeholder groups using the SHARED approach to reflect on SAI-
relevant policies & interventions• Multi-scale, socio-ecological trade-off analysis conducted on promising SAI
practices and communication of results with stakeholders using SHARED• Facilitate piloting of promising, innovative SAI interventions• Develop an interactive, open access platform—’SAI Dashboard’—to support
the engagement of decision makers to interact with evidence.
Specific objectives of theactivity were: 1) Gatherperceptions and facilitate adiscussion around the tradeoffsand synergies of SAI practiceswith various stakeholders; 2)Identify key investments neededto overcome constraints; 3)Identify key data need toconduct tradeoff analysis.
2. Tradeoff Analysis – Multidimensional toolFor analysis of the current and alternative mixed systems and to assess climatechange and adaptation strategies and their impacts on livelihoods, we used theTradeoff Analysis model for Multi-Dimensional impact assessment (TOA-MD) as‘regional’ economic model (Antle 2011a). The TOA-MD model is a parsimonious,generic model for analysis of technology adoption and impact assessment, ecosystemservices analysis, and climate change and adaptation impact assessment.
Results – Participatory activity and SAI trials in Tanzania
Figure 2. Results of the Participatory Tradeoff activity in Tanzania as appearing in the SAI Dashboard.
Figure 6. Land Health maps were generated using the Ecosystem HealthSurveillance Database at World Agroforestry (ICRAF) using the field data collectedwith the LDSF and Landsat imagery (2017) at 30 meter resolution.
Results – Tradeoff Analysis (TOA) - Zambia
Visit the SAI Dashboards Onlinehttp://landscapeportal.org/SairlaTanzania/http://landscapeportal.org/SairlaZambia/http://landscapeportal.org/SairlaEthiopia/
Objectives of the dashboards:• Store, access and share available SAI data • Visualise data in a way that is easy and
quick to understand• View data on multiple datasets
simultaneously to support decision making• To enhance capacity to interpret, discuss
and use dashboard data, including tosupport trade-off considerations whenplanning SAI interventions/policies.
Figure 3. Results of the upland maize trials with and without agroforestry in TZ.
Figure 5. Screenshot of the Tanzania Dashboard- can be viewed in English or KiSwahili
Figure 1. Screenshot of the five dimensions of SAI.
Land health module in SAI Dashboard
Results show that current production practices will not reduce poverty levels andthese levels will be exacerbated by climate change. If farmers adopt SAI practicessuch as low application of inorganic fertilizer, fertilizer tree biomass transfer androtations with residue retentions, poverty levels will reduce ~20% for farmers withaverage farm size (3.3 ha) and about 10% for those with smaller farm sizes (<2 ha).
