Re-imagining disruptive and reverse extension of fertilizer tree agroforestry in Malawi

Bruce Sosola, Isaac Nyoka and Aston Mulwafu(World Agroforestry Centre)

A discussion paper presented at the 2015 Malawi Forum on Agricultural Advisory Services, ICT Extension Week at the Malawi Institute of Malawi

1.0 Introduction

• Word Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) –Consultative Group in International

Agricultural Research (CGIAR) –research for development (R4D) in

agroforestry systems–Works with national research and

extension systems (NARES)

2.0 Key underlying NR based problems facing agriculture

• Inherent soil infertility• loss of soil nutrients from erosion

and leaching• Deforestation• Climate change (weather variability)

3.0 Product Description

• Fertiliser tree agroforestry (FTA) systems have the potential to address the challenges of declining soil fertility and improve food security.

• FTA enhances resilience of farming systems to climate and weather variability

4.0 Scaling up investment platform

• Agroforestry Food Security Programme (AFSP)–Financed by Ireland and Flanders–Markets tree based portfolios • Fertilizer, Fodder bank, Fruit, Fuelwood

–Adoption=efficiency of extension*farmer factor

5.0 The theory of change

• Going beyond on-farm demonstration and on-station trials.• Agricultural development is

incomplete without innovative extension.–Disruptive extension–Reverse extension

R4D diamond-chain model

Technical Extension Efficiency

FTA Chemical Fertilizer0

20

40

60

80

100

120

83

97

45

78

KnowUse

Technical Agronomic efficiency

Technical Agronomic efficiency

Biological Nitrogen Fixation Capacities

Fertilizer TreeAmount of N2-fixed (kg N/ha)

Cowpea 35Groundnut 33Cajanus cajan 50Tephrosia vogelii 157Gliricidia sepium 212Sesbania sesban 84

6.0 Low adoption challenges

• Long gestation periods to benefits (two-three years)

• Roaming livestock and harmful bushfires• Access to high quality planting materials• Lack of appreciation of the efficacy of FTA• Inadequate extension approaches– Low return on extension investment– social marketing approaches

7.0 Moving Forward

• Disruptive extension– Marketing based extension (cellphone analogy)– Product development (need based)

• Embedded FISP• ICT based

• Reverse extension– Urban-rural remittances– urban based extension– “Value for many’ versus ‘value for money”– By-law development (Council and community)

Some afterthoughts

• Girl child education– Reduced pressure on extension personnel– Enhanced nutrition transformation– Enhanced household resilience

• Increased ICT/extension budgeting in development programmes– More value for money

• “Celebrity” based extension– Pastors, traditional leaders, teachers, nurses– Ambassadors of change

8.0 Take home message

• Extension without adoption of the technology in question by the customers is both carelessness and misfortune. Research

Extension

Adoption